...about the Education Group.

It's a great place to discuss 'inside baseball' education topics. But the problem educators face, IMHO, is that perceptions of teaching, teachers and public schools are very distorted in the general population (including DU). Because of that, I sometimes post many education topics in GD to expand the thinking here on education. (These posts generally drop like a rock, which serves to illustrate the problem we have. )

I am sure others do the same. But having the group is still important.

And it's actually OK with me, as education is everyone's business.

I would prefer an active ed forum welcoming diverse views and robust debate, but that's not happening.

...is.

It is completely staged...presenting one side of the debate. This is the third year of Education Nation. I...and MANY...teachers participated in online opportunities during the first Education Nation. They COMPLETELY shut us out. There were HUNDREDS of teacher posts in the discussions which were never recognized...let alone discussed.

NBC is promoting an education reform agenda. They do not want real inclusion or discussion. If they did they'd tell the truth...and I'd be there for the discussion. But they are not doing that.

And this is year three. What's that saying (that Bush mangled)...? "Fool me once..."

...as brightly as ever. It's even engulfed a small bit of Twitter...

It seems pretty obvious to me.

DU is not a free-speech board. When the party and party leaders turn to corporate privatizers for their solutions, real educators' responses don't fit on DU. A conversation about education that excludes or marginalizes educators is bound to be incomplete.

I remember that the current president told Fox News, when asked, that "he gets in trouble with teachers;" that he thinks education is one of the things Republicans get right. Based on his first term, he was telling the truth.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

because I got tired of repeating over and over that not all charter schools have a for profit component, a for profit management system, for profit real estate, etc. It seems like people here have preconceived ideas and aren't willing to let facts get in the way of that. I guess that's true for pretty much everyone, but it got disturbing to keep seeing it from teachers.

-- union rep at a charter school, though I've read here that charter schools don't have unions.

It's a fair question, seems to me.

We want inquiry. We want discussion. We want debate... if the question calls for that.

By contrast: I've seen Ravitch quote the figure 5%.... and then --- much more recently --- 10%.

It would be good to nail this down... as it would go a long way toward refuting the argument that the charter movement is simply an anti-union movement in drag if ....say... 75 % of the charters were unionized.

No?

I can tell you that we first looked into unionizing almost a decade ago. The teachers unions rejected us - I guess because the perception was that we were anti-union. I'm not sure how that made any sense to anyone, but it's possible that unions being anticharter has as much to do with the low numbers than charters not wanting to be in a union. At least that was our experience. We were actually talking with the UAW about joining them when it was clear that being in a teacher union wasn't an option.

Fortunately the unions have been more welcoming of new members in recent years, so I expect the numbers to rise. We're doing our part to make that happen.

http://www.aft.org/issues/schoolchoice/charters/

The AFT and Charter Schools Today
The AFT believes strongly in Shanker's vision and the vital connection between charter schools and unions. In fact, the AFT represents charter school teachers and support staff in a dozen states. Our largest affiliate, the United Federation of Teachers in New York City, operates two charter schools. And in fall 2008, the UFT partnered with innovative charter school operator Green Dot to open a high school in the Bronx. The Chicago Teachers Union and the Illinois Federation of Teachers have joined with other partners to open a new charter high school in Chicago's West Garfield Park neighborhood.

Many teachers and staff in unionized charter schools report high levels of job satisfaction, noting that they benefit from the protections and rights of a union, and the freedom and flexibility of a charter.

We've been incredibly happy with their support.

ditto

of ways that the alleged "non-profits" are profiting.

I try to imagine teachers debating points in their classroom the way they discuss things here, and I find it very discouraging.

So yeah, stick a fork in it works well for me, for this forum.

mirrors your own.

'some charters are good, nice, independent.'

yes, i know. but the charter movement as a whole is a trojan horse designed to destroy & privatize public education. that fact to me looms much larger than the fact that there are some nice little independent mom & pop charters who don't want to hurt anyone.

because when it really comes down to it, i always see them & their spokespeople aligning themselves with the forces seeking to destroy public education.

because I feel like I've explained a hundred times to people that not all charters are for profit. We're chartered and managed by the county public school system, all public employees, and all our assets, including the building, are public assets. Sometimes I explain that, a person seems to get it, then the next day they're right back claiming that charters are all run by for profit management companies. Admittedly, that happened more on old DU. Since there's not much traffic here, I'm not in the same facts-ignoring facts loop on a daily basis.

On a related note, some of my frustration comes with an unwillingness to acknowledge or address fundamental and institutional flaws in the public education structure. If those issues were addressed, I don't think you'd see the same desire on the part of parents to move their kids out of their neighborhood schools. Where I think we ought to focus energy as democrats/liberals is on the inequity in the funding between one district and the next, and the closed system that makes it illegal for someone in a poor neighborhood to attend a so-called public school in a rich neighborhood.

I'm going to be very blunt on that point, because in my area it's about race. We have police in the white rich suburbs whose job is to prevent poor black city kids from sneaking into the "good" schools. When I bring that up on DU, a typical response is to ignore the problem, and argue that it should be this way because if you let a few of them in, it's not fair to the others who can't afford transportation to the good schools and will be left behind. So, the logic goes, it's better to keep all the black kids in shitty schools rather than let a few escape.

I keep waiting for people to rise up against that, but instead they rise up against charters and I understand the reason why, but that's a symptom, not the problem. I want to know when they will put as much effort into fighting against the inequity and racism in the system they support. If you don't like charters, fine - but fight like hell then to fix the problems in the shitty schools instead of just fighting against the alternatives.

said all charters are for-profit, so why do you think you need to keep telling them what they already know?

Once again, the point is not that some charters are all local & funky & cool, the point is that the charter movement as a whole is about destroying public schooling, diverting local, state & federal tax monies to private pockets, busting unions, trading 'education' internationally as a commodity -- WITHOUT IMPROVING EDUCATION AT ALL FOR THE MAJORITY OF CHILDREN.

Who's going to 'address' those issues, do you think, when the top 20% (with the $ & power) don't want to address them? When you yourself won't even acknowlege the point?

Charters increase racial and economic segregation, they don't mitigate it. And that's why they're popular in some quarters. And, sorry to say, but Jeb Bush and Bobby Jindal have the line about "the civil rights issue of our time" down pat -- and it's blatant, disgusting hypocrisy.

Can't believe that anyone else might be right.

Because he/she is a charter teacher (cushy job), he/she believes that they are all wonderful and can't wrap a mind around the idea that he/she is a part of the destruction and privatization of the American school. I guess if I had a nice job without the hassle of having to deal with all children and with the president's man praising me 24/7, I might be able to close my mind to reality. (If I didn't care about the kids I worked with that couldn't get into the schools that syphoned money, attention, and talent from real schools.)

Yeah. I got a chip about Charters. I watched them take money from mainstream schools, kick out the kids who didn't conform to their idea of conformity and wooed some of my best teachers away from where they were needed. The district had a policy of putting the kids whose parents where attending board meetings and complaining into charters. Kept them quiet.

1. Is your charter an open one?
2. Can any child go there?
3. Is is neighborhood based?
4. Does it ever expel students?
5. For what reasons?
6. Does the school operate on the same per pupil expense of the others schools in the district?
7. Are teachers required to do all the same things and meet the same test standards as the other schools in the district?
8. Does the school maintain the same class-size as the other schools in the district.
9. Does the school receive funds from sources not available to the other schools in the district?
10. Are the teachers required to follow the same curriculum as the other schools in the district?

If you choose to reply, please don't cherry pick the questions that you want. Here are the answers to these questions for all of the charter schools in our area.

1. No
2. No
3. No
4. Yes
5. A variety of reasons that aren't used at regular schools for expulsion. Mostly for disruptive behavior and lack of academic progress.
6. No
7. No
8. No. Class size is from half to 2/3 of other schools in district.
9. Yes
10. No

1. Is your charter an open one? Yes
2. Can any child go there? Yes - except those expelled from another public school (in accordance with state law, they're kept out of all public schools for 1 year)
3. Is is neighborhood based? I'm not sure of the intent of the question - it's open enrollment and we have students from 4 counties who attend.
4. Does it ever expel students? Yes, when they do something that requires expulsion under state law. (We had a stabbing at a school dance, for instance, and that student was expelled, as they would have been from any public school.)
5. For what reasons? see above
6. Does the school operate on the same per pupil expense of the others schools in the district? No, we get less funding per pupil than other public schools in the county because we can't use local millages to raise extra funds
7. Are teachers required to do all the same things and meet the same test standards as the other schools in the district? Yes, we're subject to the same qualified/highly qualified/certification requirements as other public schools in our county, and our test scores and AYP stuff is right there with the other public schools in our county.
8. Does the school maintain the same class-size as the other schools in the district. I don't know what the average class size is in our county. I'm using county because we're our own separate "district" and we are chartered by the county intermediate school district.
9. Does the school receive funds from sources not available to the other schools in the district? No, see above - we receive less funds because we aren't eligible for all the funds that other schools in the county are eligible to receive.
10. Are the teachers required to follow the same curriculum as the other schools in the district? Yes - we follow the Michigan Merit Curriculum.

I'll also add that we are a title one school, I'm not sure that the traditional district we coexist with is title one - I believe their average income is higher than our student population, but I'm not sure how much higher. And although you didn't ask this, I'll also add that we have a higher special ed population than the surrounding non-charter public schools.


We have open enrollment for anywhere in our state. Ironically, my daughter was excluded from traditional public schooling for a time. I was a single mom, and got a temporary job 50 miles from my house. With the commute I had, I was not able to place her in a public school in my neighborhood because the latchkey program didn't open early enough for me to drop her off before my commute, and didn't remain open long enough for me to pick her up at the end of the day. She was forbidden to attend a school in the neighborhood where I worked, even though that was supposedly public.

I ended up having to pay for a private school (the Montessori one I referenced in another post in the forum today). It sucked, I was on a single income, no health insurance, in a low end job paying a ton for transportation. I couldn't risk moving expenses for a job that was temporary. If there had been charter schools back then, I would have had access to a free education for my kid. Or if so-called public schools gave children equal access instead of excluding ones from the "wrong" neighborhoods, we would have had access to free education - and I would have been thrilled for that option. Once we moved and she was allowed to attend a traditional public school, we placed her there up until high school.

In the current system, the working poor sometimes don't have legal access to any schools - forget good or bad, they just can't attend public school at all. That's where I found myself - a veteran, working full time for the army, and recalled into weekend reserve duty against my will, and I wasn't allowed to send my child to a public school.

Your answers do not match the answers for any other charter school our system has examined. We would like to audit this paragon where you work. So that we don't mess with privacy issues, please PM me the name and location of this amazing place, this one of a kind in the nation place. We would be happy to find such an anomaly.

We can also help you with what was obviously a totally illegal maneuver by you local district in forbidding your child to attend her local school. And you say they do this to poor children all the time - I believe you said that the working poor in your county don't have legal access to any school. Golly. We will have them on charges shortly. Just PM me the name of the district that wouldn't let your child enroll and that forbids poor children from attending. Counter to your assumption, they have every legal right to attend school. Your local school board and its administration will be brought up on charges thanks to your testimony.

You said your child was denied an education by a public school system. I offered to help.

You said that poor children where you lived were regularly forbidden from going to school. I offered to help.

I said you could avoid giving personal information by PM'ing me just the name of the district. You decided not to.

How is that a personal attack.

Now unless you were just making shit up and couldn't back up what you claimed, my post was nothing less than a lifeline out of the educational hell hole where you live.

If you are honestly reporting what went on, and you are afraid to seek my help, then it is your duty to bring the courts into this. How can you sit back and let the many poor children suffer when you claim that local or state agencies are using illegal methods to deny them an education. That would be horrible. It is your duty to do something. If you can't or won't, then let me and my agency help you with this.

Otherwise, we must consider your post bullshit. You can't claim that children are being abused and then duck it by saying someone who offered to help is attacking you personally. So either retract you claims and apologize for making shit up or get busy and do your duty.

And your refusal to name the charter that you said is actually helping rather than hurting only puts your answers to the questions into question. Don't you think that a charter that actually does better than regular schools with less money and that deals with all children would be something that should be put into the equation. Yours would be the first. If the school actually does as you say, it should be a source of pride not privacy.

As it stands, your posts seem questionable. But an anonymous forum is good for that kind of thing.

to aggressive and angry strangers on the internet. Sorry you find that unreasonable, or proof of dishonesty. I suspect most people have the same policy, and if they don't, perhaps they should.

Calling me angry when I offer to help. Avoiding any semblance of backing up what is a becoming more and more obviously a charade of a charter.

You really can't expect to come on a forum for educators and spout drivel with no backing and expect to get away with it.

We know better.

you have attempted to posit a persuasive narrative that is nothing but a testimonial. Your failure to submit even the most basic information to allow research of you claim renders you argument suspect, which is the politest comment that can be made about it.

What state is this supposedly taking place, where children aren't allowed to go to public schools, and weren't even when your child was in school?

Sorry, i call bullshit.

Let's just hope that it was a case of the poster being really, really confused and unaware. Hate to think that we'd be lied to.

I lived in one district. I had a long commute where I worked in another county.

Because my work plus commute time did not allow me to drop off/pickup my daughter when latchkey was open, she was not able to attend the free public school in the city where our residence was. So yes - she was allowed "in theory" to attend public school where I lived but the only way in real life that could have happened was if I quit my job so I was physically in that district when the building opened and closed.

My work schedule would have allowed us to drive to the city where I worked and put her in school there with some time in the afterschool latchkey. However, public schools in Michigan are not required to accept students from another county. They do not have open enrollment.

I'm not sure why people are having a hard time understanding that problem. I'm not the only person who ever commuted outside of their district to work. You can look up the policies here - districts in Michigan are not required to have open enrollment for students from other districts. http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/report.aspx?id=268

People here are acting like I'm making shit up, but look at the chart - most states have exactly the same policy I'm describing - no interdistrict open enrollment.

Where I work, incidentally, we have students that fall into the same catch-22 I had before. We had one family that lived an hour and a half away from our school but both parents worked in our general area. So they drove the kids in with them each morning - and unlike other "public" schools in our area, we allowed them to enroll. Then they commuted home with their parents each night.

If there's any part of that explanation that wasn't clear, please let me know where I lost you.

"In the current system, the working poor sometimes don't have legal access to the public schools they can get to."

That's because traditional public schools aren't mandated to allow open enrollment.

Again. You are saying that your magical charter has complete open enrollment - that any child from anywhere can attend, without regard to residence or without tuition?

Gee it would be nice to know about this magic place.

My options:

1. "legally" enroll my child in the district school, then illegally dump her, at age 5, in their parking lot an hour before school opened.

2. Illegally falsify residency information to enroll her in a school where I worked.

3. Quit my job.

You feel that you deserve to be considered above all else.

How about I send some people to your house to eat the food you bought. They don't know you. They don't pay you. They just want to eat your food for free. Then they want to use your car. The really think that they should have access to your car. Oh, and your ATM card. Please give them the pin number so they can use your money without reimbursing you.

Other options. Move to where you work. I did that. On more than one occasion, I quit one job and took another at lower pay to live in the district where I wanted my children to go to school. Your choice is to stamp your little foot and join the league of those looking to destroy American education - because it is easier for you.

The apology was not for your selfishness, but for making false statements in a DU post. You said that your child and many poor were denied access to public schools. Then you recanted and allowed as how you meant that it would just be inconvenient, but that they weren't denied access. You should apologize for making false statements.

a free and appropriate public education. You can argue the details and in some cases families do for amyriad of reasons BUT FAPE is a legal mandate public schools must provide.

Some districts now are open schools of choice, but if you looked at the chart I linked, it's not required for any school to take students from another district - with some exceptions if the student is coming from a "failing" school, which did not apply to our case.

Here's an article from this just this week:

"Newly tightened residency requirements for Grosse Pointe schools have rattled some people who say parents now have to jump through hoops simply to enroll their children.

But others favor the requirements and say the district should go a step further by requiring all parents and guardians to sign and get notarized an affidavit proving they live in the district.

...

In August, the school board approved a prorated tuition penalty of up to $13,038 per school year on parents or guardians of students found to be enrolled in the district illegally. "

http://www.freep.com/article/20120924/NEWS04/120924075/Residency-requirements-for-Grosse-Pointe-schools-hotly-debated-at-school-board-meeting

Just not with me. Good luck.

No you can't go to schools where you don't pay taxes. Gee. You make up shit and then when you finally have to admit you made it up, you duck all responsibility for your bombast and start claiming that everybody ought to get everything they want and let other people pay for it.

It is really simple. Schools get money by taxes. You don't pay taxes to a school, you don't have a right to got there. Geez. What is so hard to understand here. You want a free education for your child where you don't pay taxes. What if someone wants your car without paying for it? Is that okay with you.

Free and public education is offered to all American children. At least now. If the charter people get their way, eventually that won't be so. Once you and your friends have destroyed the unions and voted in all the reaganites, we won't have free schools anymore. They will be run by corporations. I guess you expect that Exxon and Dow will let you go to their schools for free.

That the rules for others shouldn't apply to you. Are you aware of how schools are funded? You can't really be so obtuse as to not understand why districts restrict attendance to those who actually pay the taxes that fund the schools. But then as a charter supporter, you don't have a problem with stealing money from local funds to pay for your personal desires. There are no schools in the country that allow non-tax paying parents to send kids to those schools. You pay taxes where you live. Those taxes support the schools in that district. People are accusing you of making things up because they gave you credit for understanding the simplest of situations. Let's try this. Try imagining how to fund schools if any child could attend any school anywhere without regard to who pays for the schools.

I moved three times in my career to have my children in districts where I wanted them to go. It cost me to do so, but I thought the kids were worth it. I didn't expect for people in a district to pay for my kids. That is my responsibility. Your responsibility is to understand the way the world works and not expect to be taken care of by other people's taxes.

Your child was not allowed "in theory" to attend public schools. She was allowed - period. You chose not to use that venue. You chose to not move to a place where you could provide your child with a public education. That is a far cry from being "denied" access. Sheesh. Such drama for a decision you made.

Just how does your charter work? You claim they get less money than local schools. Where do they get that money from? Every charter in our list receives funds from either private sources or from local districts. If the money comes from local districts, they do not accept children that do not pay taxes there. Again you seem to be attending a magical school, one that defies any connection to any other, that avoids the laws of economic reality, one that has never been audited by anybody anywhere, one that seems almost - I don't know - maybe imaginary.

who reside in other areas. There can be restrictions such as not providing transportation or choosing to reject an application b/c a student has had serious disciplinary problems.

The poster you are agreeing with says that is not so, that only her charter does so.

Please name me a school that will take any child from anywhere without restrictions.

I stated that traditional public schools are NOT required to take out of district students, and I provided a link to the reference for that. Some schools have allowed open enrollment to students outside their district, but they are not required to. And some (see this week's news article I linked) fine parents over $10,000 for enrolling a student in their district if they don't live there.

I did NOT state that "my charter" is the "only" school with open enrollment. You either read my post wrong or (more likely) deliberately lied about what I said. Here's what I quoted: "Charter schools are, by statute, free and open to all Michigan residents." If you can't make your point without lying, there's a problem with the point you are trying to make.

First you say that you got your child in the only place she could go. Then you backed up. Then you said all charters in your state are free and open to all state residents. They you admit that many are not part of the free system, but a part of the 80% that are private.

Do not call me a liar again. It is rude. It is the last refuge of one who has reached the end of their ethical rope.

I expect a retraction and an apology.

We didn't have a charter option back then. I put her in a private school, which was the only option for us. I've explained several times in detail why we couldn't enroll her in a public school.

I'm sorry I pointed out that you lied about my statements.

That is the second time you have called me a liar. I'm sorry you have no character and can't tell the truth from shit you make up.

None of what you say here is in your previous posts. It is no wonder that you support the educational programs of the neocon agenda. Your behavior is much like theirs.

It now appears that all you wrote was crap. You led people to believe that you were working for your child. Now you come out with another version of your story. Shame.

You seem to have reading comprehension issues, in addition to the truthiness ones.

You are vested in lies. You spew crap and defend it as truth, by calling others liar.

Nice neocon tactics. See my other post. I'm tired of trying to help you become a better Democrat. You don't want to look at yourself and your motives, so I can't help you. But thank you for supplying us with a new audit target.

But maybe you should try other sites. There are a number of pro neocon sites that will welcome your blather. Several have PMed me to tell me that trying to help you was a lost cause. Sigh. They were right.

There are certainly others in my position.

I moved three times in my career to have my children in districts where I wanted them to go. It cost me to do so, but I thought the kids were worth it. I didn't expect for people in a district to pay for my kids. That is my responsibility.

Yes, I think I've heard that "personal responsibility" lecture before. Maybe Ayn Rand. "If you loved your daughter more, you'd have worked harder and had more money so you could afford to move when you wanted. Poverty is the result of bad decision making, laziness, etc." Never mind that I had temporary employment status for a full year ("just til desert storm ends&quot . If I loved her more I probably would have had a better job.

Personal attacks on me aside though, I think your post gets to the heart of the structural problems in the public school system. If I can't physically get my daughter to a school in my district, even though I pay taxes, I'm perceived as "stealing" if I want her to be able to attend a public school in another district. And the reason is that those tax dollars are unique in a way other tax dollars aren't. We claim the tax dollars are for the public good, to ensure access to public education for all children.

But what we really mean, on some level, is that we want to ensure access to public education because it helps protect our property values. It's a little bit of an "ours ours ours" mentality. Imagine if other public services were like that. What if I wasn't allowed to drive on roads in other counties because those roads were paid for by those tax dollars. Or if I had an accident and the ambulance checked my residency and then announced they wouldn't transport me because the ambulance service was for their county residents only. Why is "protecting my county's dollars" more important than "making sure all children are able to attend a public school"?

The perception that the tax dollars are about protecting community resources is THE biggest structural problem in the public education system. It's what causes the gross inequalities among districts that allow one district in a rich area to have indoor swimming pools, state of the art technology centers, and so on, while leaving those in poor districts trying to function in buildings that don't even have electricity on all floors. When we talk about the cycle of poverty and how low class mobility is, it's in large part because of schools being funded based on local property values, and the rich areas being able to afford millages to raise sometimes obscene amounts of money for luxuries, while the schools dealing with a legacy of underfunded maintenance problems can't raise the funds to get to a decent level.

I do think the public education system needs an overhaul in that regard (unrelated to NCLB shit that I abhor). It needs an overhaul so that resources are equitable and public schools are open to the public, not to a public that is restricted to those who are able to afford to live by a good school (or in my case a school near where they work).

Anyway, I know you don't intent it as a compliment, but I do appreciate that you find the way we are operating to be outstanding enough to be called "magical." Coming from someone who hates the charter schools, it does mean something that you describe our school that way.

You don't want the rules of social behavior or economics to apply to you. You want what you don't pay for. You want it for free.

The ayn rand figure is the one who thinks the rules don't apply to them. They have needs and they must be met. Others can just somehow take care to see that that is done.

Yes, it might be good if schools were funded equally at the federal level. Then you could go where you want. (Of course that would remove any parental input about the child's education since it is now a national matter.) But until then, you want to take what is not yours. As I have pointed out above, I doubt you would be happy if others wanted to take for themselves the things you consider yours. Ambulances do work inside of regions of taxation. You can't be so clueless as to think that money for hospitals and emergency services just appears from the sky.

Trying to make your cause the cause of creating equal funding for schools is a game you play because you can't really defend you position. First you tried making up shit. Then you created mythical (what I meant by magical) schools that don't need money for teaching children. Then you jump on the bandwagon of making all schools equal. When what you really want is to just complain about the people who are trying to do the real work while you chip away at their funding and denigrate their efforts because you don't understand how things work. Overhauling schools won't be done by people taking money from public schools and giving it to private corporations. That is the end result of the cause you celebrate.

(You school is magical, because it doesn't exist in the way that you claim. You won't identify the school so that it can be audited by groups that are actually trying to do something about education for all children. If you know of a school that openly accepts all children from anywhere without restriction, operates on less money that local schools in the area, and meets the same guidelines as public schools, you need to be shouting its name to the rooftops. Unless, of course, a quick examination of the funding and guidelines of the school might just not jibe with your claims.)

It comes down to your celebrating a program that helps tear down better education for all. This so you can get what you want without paying for it.

Yes, I have a sense of "entitlement" that the public school system should be set up in a way that all kids have access to it. Not in theory, but in real life.

Kinda like how some people have that sense of entitlement to food, health care, social security, etc. Don't you hate when people want things that aren't theirs?

Nevermind that I paid taxes into the public education system. I still had no right to that entitlement program.

I get your point that sacrificing access to a public education is the cost children should have to pay if their parents are so irresponsible as to land a temporary job in a city they can't afford to move to.

(Do all teachers believe that?)

You did not pay taxes into the "public education system". There is no such taxing entity. You paid for taxes where you live. That entitles you to to to that system. Social Security is not an entitlement. You pay for it. Medicare is not an entitlement. You pay for it. The local Safeway won't give you food unless you pay for it.

You just can't justify your position. Just give it up and have a little happy dance that you seem to be getting something for free, that other people are footing the bill for your child's education.

Just where did I make the point that children should give us access to public education. What self-serving twist of logic lets you twist anything I said to that end. I could just as easily claim that you want public schools to fail if it means you can get what you want.

(Do all charter parents want that?)

Your snide little twist and snark at the end is letting your anti-teacher leanings show.

"other people are footing the bill for your child's education"

Even those who don't have kids pay for other children to get educated.

I paid school taxes, and in that way I helped pay for other people's children to go to public school, while I had to pay private tuition for my own child. It's frankly bizarre for you to describe that as a "happy dance" because I got something for free, or claim that other people were footing the bill for her education. I had to write personal checks to her school in order for her to attend school.

I don't know anyone struggling to make ends meet who would be doing a happy dance about that, and you're the only person I've ever met who tried to portray that as me being some kind of thief.

your position is untenable. You paid school taxes in your district. You did not pay taxes in another district. If you paid for a room at the Motel 6, you cannot go to Holiday Inn and get a free room. If you paid for a toll on the Jackson Toll Road and did not use the road, you would not be entitled to ride free on the Washington Toll Road. Is someone gave your neighbor $5000 for a car they didn't want, would you be okay with them taking yours?

These are not difficult concepts. But I can see where you would want to avoid them.

And what are you on about now. Why did you have to write personal checks in order for your daughter to attend a school that you said was free and open to all state residents? I just read over your threads and you indicated that your child was in a free public charter school. Now it seems that what you answered to the list of questions wasn't all correct? See what happens when you start working around the facts and using hints and dodges instead of straight answers.

All that said, I do feel for your situation. I can see why would do what you did. But to attack public schools and to attack public school teachers and to celebrate the systematic privatization of schools is not excused by dire circumstances. People have to do what they do to get their children raised. In my days in the classroom, I have turned an eye to kids I knew weren't in the district because I knew the parent's situation. I've provided extra lessons for kids who wouldn't make it otherwise. I've housed kids whose parents were dealing with legal or substance or abuse issues. But none of those parents took that an an opportunity to attack public schools or to rant about how they were being mistreated.

Be grateful you have an out. Instead of working for a system that would destroy public education, work to make a decent education available to all children, not just yours. Go the the board meetings in the district where you pay taxes. Advocate more funds for teachers and materials and buildings. Stand up against attacks on teachers and against programs that drain money from the public schools.

Last edited Thu Sep 27, 2012, 07:07 PM - Edit history (2)

Why did you have to write personal checks in order for your daughter to attend a school that you said was free and open to all state residents? I just read over your threads and you indicated that your child was in a free public charter school.

Ugh, this is like banging my head against a brick wall. I said that when I lived in one district and worked in another, I had to pay tuition to put her in a PRIVATE school. Not a public charter school. A private one. I said that multiple times.

"I ended up having to pay for a private school "

"We didn't have a charter option back then. I put her in a private school"

"I had to pay private tuition for my own child."

"If there had been charter schools back then, I would have had access to a free education for my kid."

I wrote personal checks to cover tuition at a private school because there were no public schools she could attend. Oh my god, I cannot state that any clearer than I already did.

FYI: I also posted "Once we moved and she was allowed to attend a traditional public school, we placed her there up until high school." Until high school. That's when she switched to a public charter. Maybe you missed that detail and had a hard time understanding that the private school was when I said it was, and the public charter was (obviously) at a different time?

That is your method.

You spent the whole thread praising charters and begging sympathy for your plight - only to find it doesn't exist. Much like your magical school.

Try reading what you have written. If you don't see your twisting, then the lies must have been deliberate.

I wash my hands of you. I never gave up on a child, but you are so determined to be a part of the destruction of public schools that it is too tiring. However, you will probably be hearing from my agency. I've shared this thread with others here and they are determined to do a nice full audit of the Michigan charter fraud again. It has already been shown to be the biggest tool of the school privatizers, but surely we can zero in on the small number of those claiming "full public" status.

So in a way, you have helped public schools. Thank you for bringing it to our attention.

I have it on good authority that at least one employee at your school is knowingly complicit in defrauding the district by turning a blind eye to kids they knew weren't allowed to enroll there.

Where do you teach?

"You claim they get less money than local schools. Where do they get that money from? Every charter in our list receives funds from either private sources or from local districts. If the money comes from local districts, they do not accept children that do not pay taxes there."

I'm not sure where you live, it sounds like you might be more familiar with your unique state laws, and might be assuming they apply to all charters. Here's how they work here:

"Can a charter school charge tuition?
Unlike traditional school districts, a charter school may not charge tuition.  Charter schools are,
by statute, free and open to all Michigan residents."


Our funding is the per pupil amount that each student in the state gets, which is based on state and federal taxes. What we don't receive is any supplements from local millages. So even if you live in city X, pay the millage, but send your student to a charter in city Y, your local public school in city X gets the millage dollars you paid.

Audits:

Charter schools are to submit an annual comprehensive financial report into the Financial Information Database (FID) maintained by the Center for Educational Performance and Information (CEPI) using the chart of accounts prescribed in the
Michigan School Accounting Manual. The report is submitted electronically, and is filed with MDE by November 15 of each year.  The penalty for noncompliance is the withholding of state school aid payments.  See Section 388.1618(3) and (5) of the State School Aid Act.  
• Charter schools are required to have an independent audit of their financial accounting records conducted at least annually by a certified public accountant.  The audit reports are filed with MDE no later than November 15 of each year.  Guidance for the audit is given in the Michigan School Auditing Manual.  The penalty for noncompliance is the withholding of state school aid payments.  See Section 388.1618(2) and (5) of the State School Aid Act.   
• All charter school financial audits are subject to Government Auditing Standards (GAS).  The book describing the standards is available online by visiting www.gao.gov.   


Does a charter school have to use certified teachers?
Certification requirements for charter school teachers are identical to those of local school district teachers.  Special exceptions are made for a charter school that is authorized by a state public university or community college that may wish to use adjunct professors to teach charter school students (refer to Section 380.505). Charter schools that accept Title I funds also are required to adhere to the “Highly Qualified Teacher” provisions of the federal ESEA. (My note here - since we aren't chartered by a college, that exemption does not apply to us, and since we are a title one school, we fall under the highly qualified teacher requirements.

I hope that clears up some misunderstandings. It's nothing magic, we're just following the laws.

Don't just fall for the propaganda. If you truly believe the tripe you just spouted, you are being deceived.

Read with an open mind. http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/09/29/80-of-michigan-charter-schools-are-for-profits/

You happen to be exchanging posts with an authority on charter schools. I was an integral part of the movement when it started. I watched it fall to shit and turn into what it is now. If you own selfish needs doesn't blind you, you can find out what the charter movement means for American education. If you won't learn, then you won't learn.

Some more, if you really care: http://www.cm-life.com/2012/04/26/study-focuses-on-michigan-charter-schools-finds-charter-schools-spend-twice-as-much-as-public-schools/

And more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/private-firms-eyeing-prof_n_1732856.html

We are not one of those, and we fall under the laws I posted.

Even your article admits that 20% of the charters in michgain are public nonprofit - and that 2/3 nationwide are nonprofit.

Yet you continue to claim my school must be "magical" - even though it fits the mold for the majority of charters in the US. What's up with that?

And read the article more closely. The few "non-profits" are only wedges for the corporate interests. But as long as you get what you want. . . just screw other children.

Working from your self-centered view of the world, you are a part of the problem, you are the tool the neo-cons use to turn the American school system into another revenue stream for corporations. You obviously choose the take the blue pill.

cases.

you have never acknowleged the point.

If it is not obvious by now, the poster you are dealing with is one of a few things:

- Unable to handle complexity.
- Deliberately ignorant.
- Trolling.

Possibly all three. Add that they are definitely not behaving as civilly as you have been.

I have read through your exchanges and only a moron could not recognize that your posts are thoughtful, comprehensible, and factual. Therefore the only reason I can think that anyone would be trying to demean you or your circumstances is one of the three above reasons.... if not all of them.

May I humbly suggest that you join me in putting this person on ignore so that neither of us wind up wasting time on someone who has absolutely no intention of learning or understanding anything you have to say.

I'm just glad to have seen this so I will personally be avoiding any interactions with this person in the future.

Just a suggestion.

I'm sticking with it I guess because I REALLY want people to grasp that whether or not you support or oppose charters, the current public education system needs a structural change to allow for ALL children to have real (not theoretical) access to public schooling.

It's like voter IDs. It's easy to say everyone can get one, but there are circumstances that make it not possible in the real world for a lot of people. And it's not good enough to say "you had a legal right to vote, if you couldn't get past all the obstacles because of your personal circumstances or decisions, FU."

Also I haven't been able to let go because I'm really struggling with the concept of someone who views themselves as a lefty progressive or democrat, and an advocate for public education, who puts more value on tax dollars staying within a district than providing for free education for all children. I am having cognitive dissonance.

district, let alone to pay privateers in another district.

There is already free education for all children. You want to send your kids to another district, move.

for a temporary job that might end in a day, or a week?

For that matter, do you think everyone lands a job in a district they can afford to live in?

This strikes me as being out of touch.

localities just to benefit the very small percentage of persons in the situation you describe: living in one district, working in another, & being unable to make any arrangements for their children's after school supervision.

So that instead of District A raising taxes that only fund District A schools, taxes all went to the state and the state paid each district in accordance with how many students they were educating? A set amount per student.

That would mean that District A taxes might be diverted to District B if District A had a higher average income/higher property values, but District B had more students.

How would you feel about that?

is to claim magical schools and then accuse people who take you at your word of being angry and of attacking.

Give me some examples of debating from teachers that you find discouraging. Show me the debating style that you find better.

Do not simply make up things without verification or citation. That is crappy debating.

So, I'm with you.

For me, the continued rant and rally against all charter schools is a nuisance, embarrassing, and constitutes misinformation even if it's not deliberate.

Conditions are difference in ever state.

I go to gardening sometimes and occasionally to other groups, but I don't like dividing the board up like that.

Otherwise, if DUers see "just another ed post" ( as someone else in this thread noted already) they won't touch it.

It's not their problem and teachers have "powerful" unions so whatyacomplainin' about.


Most people here ( in this Group) seem to agree on the fundamentals of what's wrong so there's not much point in trying to persuade anyone.

But I wouldn't want to stick a fork in it. It's still a good place to touch base w. the like-minded and compare notes.

Seems pretty elementary. Many of us work during the day and don't watch TV while teaching. YMMV.

Your perception is noted but not shared by me personally. This forum gets lots more traffic than other groups.

Truth is, there are so many trolls pushing a corporate agenda on education boards nationwide that most of their stuff SHOULD sink like a rock.

I've watched several of the MSNBC shows on education, and I'm afraid that there really is nothing new there.

Something new? Look at the Finland system. Shorter days, fewer days, all master's degree teachers, no standardized exams except one just before graduation.

Emphasis? Cooperation, rather than competition.

World rankings - very good.

Now that does not suit the corporate crowd at all.

But don't expect it to generate much heat. This could be a place where educators vent to or help each other. But the mainstream Obama-is-god group won't come here. That's why it is here - to keep the disgruntled teachers from bothering them.

Posting on GD to educate the group is the only way to get real discussion. In here, most agree. On GD and GDP, the masses duck the issues because they know they can't defend the president when he pursues a wholly republican-neocon education policy. They either don't know - in which case they can be educated - or they don't care what happens to children - in which case they should be shamed.

Just kidding.

K-12 education issues on this forum with people who have enough professional knowledge to actually argue about things rationally rather than merely espouse their opinions as fact. I'm not going anywhere. Are you?

As opposed to some who are retired and just have opinions and not so much current experiences to offer.

Not talking about you, of course.

For one thing, they are free to speak out as many of us cannot. I find their opinions extremely valuable.

They also have time to engage our teachers and to work on campaigns. A group of retired teachers in my district is going from school to school registering voters and recruiting teachers to do what they can to help candidates. That's a great service and is sorely needed.

I'm sorry you don't value the opinions and deeds of retired teachers. You may be one some day.

I wrote:

And that is the truth, I was not talking about you, I was talking about others who have been out of the system five years and more.

You can't speak for them, and I wasn't addressing you.



Things are changing faster than anyone can keep up with. A classroom in the trenches teacher of seven or more years ago hasn't a clue with it's like with kids having cell phones (for example) or how out of touch textbooks are.

So I stand by my very experienced, real-time, this-week, observations, thank you very much!

I am NOT retired. I am a veteran teacher, lambasted on a nearly daily basis and blamed for the so-called 'problems' in education. And I don't like it when ANY teachers are offended, here or anywhere.

I value the opinions and advice I still seek from experienced educators, many of whom ARE retired. I would go to one of them for advice before I go to anyone with less experience. With age comes wisdom, as my grandmother used to say. Just today, I discussed an issue a student is having in Reading with a teacher who has taught for 40 years.

Kids are kids, have always been kids, and the only changes are the gadgets (cell phones today, trading cards 30 years ago) and entertainers (Justin Bieber today, Steve Austin in the 90s, The Jacksons in the 80s). One day you will understand that.

This is also a discussion board. Your comments are public. If you want a reply from only the person you are replying to, them send a private message.

We should both let it go.

I never said you were retired.

The very fact that you took it personally speaks volumes.

I find you over sensitive and I tried to cover myself by stating that I wasn't referring to you, just in case you WERE retired.

And guess what?

You took it personally.

Our students don't have time for this drama.

This personalization drama, they don't have time for it.

Retired or not, students come first.

...have anything to do with "students coming first"?

Why would you denigrate those with years of experience?

Regardless of new technologies, human evolution has not changed. Adolescents are still subject to the same drives, the human brain still learns the same way, and experience is still the best preparation for dealing successfully with daily issues.

Again, why would you cast aspersions on elders for sharing their wisdom and their experience?

anything.

...after retiring as teachers...and/or continuing to substitute teach. I agree that post was offensive...and somewhat ignorant of the teaching profession.

...that your comment is offensive...intended or not... and shows ignorance of realities of the teaching profession.

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about, and I won't out myself and my place in the teaching profession but trust me, I'm a deep part of public education at both high levels and in the classroom, I see and work with students every day that I'm not at a meeting in Sacramento or with other educational functions as a presenter or an attendee.

So, YvonneCa, you don't know shit about me, dear.

...conflict resolution that may be needed in this discussion.

original comment about professional knowledge I meant only to defend the forum, which I find informative. Those of us who are still actively teaching know that the stress levels are becoming intolerable by design. That makes it easy for small misunderstandings to trigger divisive confrontations that also serve the designs of those applying the stress.

And there are times that this board seems like too few points of view are expressed, and I see attacks, personal insults, and that's just not cool.

...educators.

How was "silencing the voices of educators" done in the past?

Do you think moderators were unfairly moderating?

...on this topic outside of this website. Much of that larger debate excludes educator voices.

I have always found moderators at DU to be fair.

I thought so too.

Tensions are high and the stakes are immeasurable.

A lot is riding on which way schools will go.

I support small learning communities, flexible scheduling, providing teachers with the tools and support they need, and I challenge many of the assumptions that many traditional schools take.

I equally abhor the for-profit charter exploiters and failing traditional school models.

Meaningful reform through traditional channels takes too long, so I am among a number of "subversive" reformers willing to find ways to make kids successful, and often that looks really different from a traditional school or classroom.

Cheers and good luck in all you do.

as I'm in Rockville Centre, L.I., NY, my 50th High School reunion ended a few hours ago, drove past my elementary and high schools, and want to repost the following.

Letter to Secretary of Education Arne Duncan Concerning Evaluation of Teachers and Principals
by current principal of my high school.
http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/letter-to-Arne-Duncan


(My h.s. is #22 nationally, #2 statewide, and #1 on L.I. We ALL discussed our appreciation for the fine educations we received here.)

Say hello to Long Island for me! Dang, I need to get back there, haven't been since 1996.

Good letter, Arne needs to hear more from us.

There are some interesting developments coming out of DC on the technology, STEM, and postsecondary/vocational fronts.

I'll update you later.

Original OP here:

Stalkers suck.