This NYT story confirms what I've been saying: charter schools are really about de-funding public schools. All public schools, not just in the ghetto. If they succeed in that, then the extremists' next goal will be privatizing schools altogether.
However, chances are slim they'll succeed, because once that corporate-socialist model is established, there will be strong moneyed interests lobbying to keep government funds flowing to privately managed (charter) schools. We'll have a system of only private schools financed by taxpayers, i.e. the worst of both worlds.
However, chances are slim they'll succeed, because once that corporate-socialist model is established, there will be strong moneyed interests lobbying to keep government funds flowing to privately managed (charter) schools. We'll have a system of only private schools financed by taxpayers, i.e. the worst of both worlds.
But some parents are wise to what's happening. Witness the anti-charter "revolt" in Millburn, New Jersey:
Millburn's superintendent, James Crisfield, said he was caught off guard by the plan for charters because 'most of us thought of it as another idea to help students in districts where achievement is not what it should be.' He said the district could lose $270,000 — or $13,500 for each of 20 charter students — and that would most likely increase as the schools added a grade each year.
'We don't have enough money to run the schools as it is,' Mr. Crisfield said, adding that the district eliminated 18 positions and reduced bus services this year.
"'Public education is basically a social contract — we all pool our money, so I don't think I should be able to custom-design it to my needs,' said [one Millburn parent Matthew Stewart] opposed to charters, noting that he pays $15,000 a year in property taxes. 'With these charter schools, people are trying to say, 'I want a custom-tailored education for my children, and I want you, as my neighbor, to pay for it."
By Winnie Hu
July 16, 2011 | New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment