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: 1) by Francis on Monday September 07 2015, @06:39PM
What makes me think that there's local control over that is that we have a freaking school board that's voted on by the voters of the city. They also have meetings whenever there's a round of closures planned and for things like that. Just watching the proposed closures change when they actual closures are announced makes it pretty clear that it's not just the school boards decision.
Since when do minorities run schools in minority neighborhoods? Even in non-minority majority neighborhoods the administrative staff may or may not live locally. The principals and administrators rarely live in the area the school serves. Same goes for the teachers. What the minority communities don't have is time and money to influence how the closures are handled.
Since you chose to emphasize that you're not a socialist/collectivist/liberal, I have to assume that you're an idiot. You're making assertions about the local situation that are outright untrue because the truth doesn't fit your agenda.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 07 2015, @07:11PM
Why does the administration live far away from the schools they are administering? Call me an idiot - why are peole hiring principals who have no stake in the school's success?
All of my principals and school administration people lived nearby when I was in school. In 5th & 6th grade, my principal lived exactly three blocks from me. I was buddies with his son for a few months, before I FINALLY realized that they shared the same last name. "Is Mr. Gibbons your dad?" "Well, yeah, everyone knows that." "I didn't, I'm the new kid in town, remember?" "Oh."
Put local people in charge - that's the only way you get "local" control.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Monday September 07 2015, @07:25PM
You must live in a tiny town if you don't see the problem with that.
The principals don't get to stay at one school for their entire career around here. They get to be there for as long as 8 years, but usually only a few years. And even if they did get to stay at the same school for the entire career, that's hardly an incentive to improve things. It just means that the school will tend to stagnate with the principal. The principal might have children there for a few years, but it's a pretty weak incentive if you're not already motivated to do your best.
I doubt that Seattle is the only city that's like that either.
Also, if the incentive is merely a matter of location based connection, how do you motivate principals to keep trying? Plus, what qualified principal is going to want to move into a neighborhood that has gang problems? Requiring that principals live near the school is just going to chase the qualified ones to better schools in better neighborhoods or out of the city completely. Seattle isn't too bad violence wise, but I can only imagine how bad it would be in cities where there is a violence problem.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday September 07 2015, @07:38PM
I disagree. People should have some attachment to their work. Their own kids and their neighbor's kids going to the school they work at is a far greater attachment than living miles away, in an unrelated district.
Most cities have residency requirements for elected officials, as well as employees. Schools should have similar requirements. I don't want three Okies, and four Texans motoring in every day to teach my kids here in Arkansas. Louisiana would be a bit of a stretch, since our school is almost 100 miles from that state line.
We have local teachers here, most of whom graduated from one school or another, right here in the county. The county encompasses four different school districts, and almost all of the county's teachers live within the disctrict they teach in. The exceptions are pretty close, and that can partly be blamed on redistricting over the years.
Locals. Local control. My position is that local people should control their schools, and they should be able to require that the staff are local people as well. Education should not be state controlled.