SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the public-money-for-private-profit dept.
Common Dreams reports
The Seattle Times reports that
The ruling--believed to be one of the first of its kind in the country--overturns the law [I-1240] voters narrowly approved in 2012 allowing publicly funded, but privately operated, schools.
Teacher and author Mercedes Schneider offers more on the Act:
As is true of charter schools nationwide, the charters in Washington State (up to the current ruling) were eligible for public funding diverted from traditional public schools. Charter schools were approved via a November 2012 ballot initiative (I-1240, the Charter Schools Act) in which charters were declared to be "common schools" despite their not being subject to local control and local accountability. And also like America's charters in general, Washington's charters are not under the authority of elected school boards.
Thus, Washington voters had approved to give public money to private entities--a one-way street that provided no means for such funds to overseen by the public.
[...] The new ruling (pdf)[1] states that charters, "devoid of local control from their inception to their daily operation", cannot be classified as "common schools," nor have "access to restricted common school funding."
[...] "The Supreme Court has affirmed what we've said all along--charter schools steal money from our existing classrooms, and voters have no say in how these charter schools spend taxpayer funding," said Kim Mead, president of the [Washington Education Association], in a statement.
"Instead of diverting taxpayer dollars to unaccountable charter schools, it's time for the Legislature to fully fund K-12 public schools so that all of Washington's children get the quality education the Constitution guarantees them," Mead continued.
The Associated Press reports that the state had one charter school last year, and eight more have opened in the past few weeks.
I pity Ms. Schneider's students if she routinely starts sentences with conjunctions--especially consecutive, redundant conjunctions.
[1] I had trouble with the connection.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by frojack on Monday September 07 2015, @08:38AM
You seem to have missed a few years of your own education.
Charter Schools are not the same thing as private schools.
Charters are small, and they couldn't care less about unionization.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by aristarchus on Monday September 07 2015, @08:55AM
Camel's nose private schools, that is what they are. Charter Schools (which, after all, are businesses) probably couldn't care less (hey! got the idiom right!) about unionization, but that was not my point. Teachers, on the other hand, really do not see themselves as working class unionists, until they are faced with politicians and business persons intend on destroying education for the sake of profit. Then they reluctantly form unions for the sake of their students>. Charter school teachers would do the same in a second, they are, for the most part, professionals, except for the fear of termination that the quasi, or pseudo-private nature of charter schools makes inevitable.
Charter schools are not private schools. If they were, they would not be chartered, like corporations are chartered. Time to go back to public school, frojack! It will be good for you!
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday September 07 2015, @04:41PM
Good teachers help sell schools. Better pay will attract better teachers. If you chase out all the good teachers by driving down wages you put yourself out of business. Good pay and the ability to get rid of bad teachers (which most unions make exceptionally difficult to the point of near impossibility) will balance out. For these schools to work they need to be perceived as being better than public schools.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 13 2015, @03:26PM
I moved my son from the public school to a charter school.
The Public school:
Decent teachers
Union that didn't want teachers working over hours for free
An administration focused on keeping costs down
Administration that didn't teach
Focus on making sure certain hires didn't work the hours needed for benefits
Teachers taught how administration wanted
Doesn't allow the vo-tech to recruit at the schools because it reduces the school's funding.
The Charter school
Decent teachers
non union
got paid less then the public schools
Administration all taught classes too
Teachers had input into teaching
Parent involvement is required (we had to at least put our kids in the lottery)
Low emphasis on sports
I think the teachers are roughly the same. I think the administration is better in the charter and motivates teachers more.
The culture at the charter school is different; it seems like its all band or theater club type kids. The kids are self motivated learners. Kids participate in sports, but they'd be JV, not varsity.
I like that I have a choice. One size doesn't fit all. Otherwise there would never be special ed classes. For some students, I think the town's public schools are quite good. We recently built a new high school and I've liked what I see there.
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday September 08 2015, @05:26AM
BS.
Teachers form unions for the same reason everyone else forms unions.
1 - In the public sector, everyone does it...
2 - More pay & benefits
3 - Protect retirement
4 - Easier for everyone if a district has one negotiation instead of hundreds or thousands
5 - Shield against political dismissal
All of these are legitimate reasons for a union btw. But "the sake of their students" is maybe # 20 on the list and a stretch even there. Learn to recognize marketing when you see it.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 08 2015, @05:50AM
I infer from this that you do not know any teachers. These are people who pay for supplies out of their own salaries, and accept abysmal wages, and get disrespected by the vocal majority of Americans. Of course they are not like other unionists, they are professionals.
(Score: 2) by BK on Tuesday September 08 2015, @11:05AM
Right. But that isn't _why_ they formed unions.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 07 2015, @11:05AM
Think again.
Firing Day at a Charter School [wordpress.com]
-- gewg_
(Score: 3, Informative) by albert on Monday September 07 2015, @05:06PM
OK, I read it.
That sounds kind of typical for education. Schools seems to attract small-minded paper pushers. It's just like how police departments attract bullies who love having power over others. What else is new, hmmm?
Nobody is forced to work there. This isn't slavery. Evidently, some people find the employment at that school to be a better deal than the employment at other places (school and otherwise) that they could get. Some people change their minds, as the author did. This isn't France you know. Employment-at-will has an obvious downside to go with all the upsides, the big upside being that employers are less hesitant to hire.
All of her complaints are pretty normal for unionized public schools as well, except that really old teachers would be more secure than the newest teachers. This is without regard to teaching quality. Due to union rules, she herself would be virtually guaranteed to be laid off if she worked at a public school because it is normal to lay off all the new teachers at the end of the year. This is because the union requires that new teachers be laid off first and requires that notice be given early, but the school doesn't actually know the next year's budget yet. Thus a public school lays off all the new teachers each spring, then usually hires many of them back later.