There's a measure on the ballot in WA (http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.ph...ive_1240_(2012)) which would allow for the creation of up to 40 charter schools in the state.

I'm undecided but leaning toward voting yes.

I was completely undecided and posted the question on facebook and got a bunch of dumbass demagogue arguments for the 'No' side. Then I read this very well-reasoned pro analysis (http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publ...ols-washington)

As a general rule I think more school choice options are great, but where I grew up in OR the charter schools were terrible - basically places to house dropouts with very few success stories. I guess that's my main source of hesitation.

Just to head off a couple the main dumbass argument (not that I'll be successful)

"Charter schools take money away from public schools and head it to special interests" - charter schools are public schools and in WA they'll be tuition free, open to all, and not run by any for profit or religious institution.

So, charter schools, yes or no?

My girlfriend works for a charter school as a teacher. I'll just give you my honest opinion.

The charter school is public so they have to accept all the students from the district (high minority, urban Cleveland) but the school is great and gets an "excellent rating" from the state for two reasons: one, the parents that send their kids to the charter school actually care about education and two, there is a one strike policy, ie: any fighting or disrespecting gets your ass gets sent back to the public school district.

she likes what she does there. it's the only place she could find a full-time job because the public schools are cutting staff and she keeps getting the axe (senority of course). charter schools are hiring like crazy tho. she worked at two public schools (suburbs), once a half-year fill-in and once as a 1/2 time contract. she said she is treated better at the charter school.

the only negative is the payscale. which for the taxpayers it's good, but obviously not for us. she only makes $33K and it maxes at a much lower scale than the public school teachers which can max out in the ~$80ks. obviously if a public school opportunity opens up in the suburbs she will have to weigh the pros and cons of higher salary but risk of layoffs and ruder students vs the charter school. the charter schools pay low because they are private entities and they need to skim a profit for the owners and of course teacher salaries are the highest cost of running a school operation so they are the easiest thing to cut, especially since there is a huge teacher surplus.

good luck with your vote, but that's how it works here in Ohio.

This is basically how it works in NYC, except the teachers are paid even more than typical NYC public school teachers (already the highest paid in the country) in order to try and get the absolute best. I worked in some of these schools as a tutor and they are very impressive at what they do and the teachers are fantastic as well. The downside, of course, is that they are much more expensive than a regular school.

My ex gf is a teacher and our experience was similar to yours except for the results. Not only was her pay legit terrible comparatively speaking, she had to do a ton of extra work that public school teachers are not required to do. Testing results in recent years (for what those are worth) have indicated that the school she was at consistently underperformed their public school counterparts. I don't think it is like that in all areas, though, so ymmv obviously. She only taught their three years and jumped at the first chance she got to get a public school job for obvious reasons. The weak pay is what I believe are going to hold charter schools back.

We also have a glut of teachers in my area but I've read predictions that this won't be the case in 10 years as teaching becomes less and less attractive as a career field due mostly to policy changes at the state level. My current fiance is also a teacher and though she loves her kids, she has stated numerous times that if she had known going into her career what was coming she never would have done it. She knows many at her school who feel the same way (and this is at a school that gets an "A" rating every year). Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal though.

Also the bolded above is what's wrong with education in general but I guess that's a separate conversation altogether.

I don't get how anyone can be against charter schools, unless you are part of a teacher's union. All kids are being left behind in inner city schools right now. Some charter schools have been very successful and, more importantly, as more become successful they will provide a template for what works in education. They will give some kids a better shot at succeeding.

Competition makes everything better. Government monopolies, on the other hand, ensure that you are going to get a worse product and a higher price. There is a large supply glut of teachers and yet salaries continue to rise. That is a clear signal and should be reason in and of itself to allow charter schools.

The NYC charter schools are leagues ahead of most places in the country. I went to one part time in Texas for math/science and it was overall a good experience for me. Whether it was a good use of money taking into account opportunity costs is harder to say.... though given the choice I would vote to expand the program.

LOL.

2 shows nightly?

b

I'm reading that school funding is already 'low'. How are they going to pay for these 40 new schools/staffs?

Here's the article I was reading FWIW:

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2012...ing-a-new.html

the person who was quoted in the article (offering no numbers by the way) saying they were underfunded was a sixth grade teacher and local union leader. I would be shocked if at any point in the last 50 years they said anything other than "we are currently underfunded and need more money"

Probably true, but the state supreme court agrees with her.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/843627.opn.pdf

So WA has plenty of money to build 40 new schools/staffs while maintaining the current ones? Why not just build those into the current structure?

Also, what's the point of creating an entirely new oversight board specifically for these schools? Why can't they plug into the current boards?

ETA: I don't know anything about WA schools so I'm curious as to why they think these are needed. Is it a 'well 41 other states are doing it why aren't we!?' thing or is there an actual reason?

Now that's a compelling, well-reasoned rebuttal. Thank you so much for your glorious contribution to this thread.

We have a Charter school vote coming up in GA. I'm voting YES. I'm all for school choice.

My daughter attends a charter school and I like it. I am in New Orleans where the majority of children attend charter schools.

+1

And now for something completely different: a school without a lesson plan or teachers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awOAmTaZ4XI

And two alumni speaking here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5ACC72C2C7100240

OH JFC! who hit the Nielsio signal?

A WILD NIELS APPEARS!



nibbles' jimmes are: rustled

Just watched a documentary about the New Orleans charter school experiment. Charter schools haven't been "the answer to all our problems" but they've clearly had a positive impact in the city and have outperformed city run schools by a decent margin.

After seeing the evidence don't understand why a reasonable person wouldn't want to allow the more effective Charter schools into their city.