- Pregnancy
- Baby & Toddler
- Parents
- Getting Pregnant
- Baby Names
- Product Reviews
-
Registry
- Community
-
More
Want a personalized experience?
Download the free app
Working Moms
shannm
member
S/O moving to a new district and charter/public/private
shannm
member
in Working Moms
I am sincerely curious about this.
For the people who believe that it is her/his duty as a community citizen to use their nearby public schools to overall better the atmosphere:
Do you think a family relocating to a better school district is equally as harmful to a troubled school district as sending your kids to a private or charter school?
This discussion has been closed.
Re: S/O moving to a new district and charter/public/private
This is a non-answer...as I don't fall into that camp...but it's relevant.
When my kids were younger I ran the ECPTA. My kids did not and would not attend the local public schools. I was involved with Headstart, a program for which my children do not qualify. I think regardless of school choices, there is a wider community responsiblity that exceeds the tax burden. For this reason, charter schools appeal to me, as they demand parent and community participation.
And as for the fleeing a struggling district - I so agree. This is where the rubber meets the road on what I will say versus what I will do. If I can no longer afford private school, I will move. End civic duty.....
This is a good question.
You are right - there's no great answer to this. I live in Maryland - we have good public schools and we have a HCOL and high taxes. I'm not planning on moving to Mississippi or Alabama so that I can pay taxes there to support their public schools. I also live in a good county in Maryland and again, I'm not moving to another w/ shittyschools just to pay for those schools.
The people who can move are the people who can vote with their dollars - so if all the high and medium income people move out of an area or take thier kids out of the public schools, and the only people that are left are either low income families (who financially can't move) they get stuck w/ those schools.
Its a hard call.
Public schools demand parent and community participation. Charter schools *can* do it also (and they can also put more demands on parents that public schools aren't legally able to do), but not all charter schools are run by local organizations.
Charter schools can be run by virtually anyone. The Gulen movement, which is basically an Islamic cult run by a Turkish guy, is the biggest charter operator in the US. They are receiving public funds to teach American children, even though they bring Turkish people to teach them (including use Turkish nationals to teach English). How does this make sense at all?
Public education is one of the facets of a democracy, and taking public funds away from the commons of education is just insane and a giant mistake.
https://dianeravitch.net/2012/05/14/60-minutes-on-the-gulen-charters/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement#Education
"The United States of America is the only country in the world where the G?len movement has been able to establish schools (charter schools) funded to a great extent by the host country?s taxpayers. In June 2011, New York Times shed light on Gulen charter schools in the United States, revealing that "Gulen followers have been involved in starting similar schools around the country ? there are about 120 in all, mostly in urban centers in 25 states, one of the largest collections of charter schools in America." [35]"
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
I'll go ahead and answer this. No, it's not as bad, because you're selling your house to somebody and that person will pay property taxes, that will support the local schools. Maybe it'll be a person with no kids, but that doesn't matter, the money is still going to schools. When you go to a charter and your tax money gets diverted there, it's taken away from the local public school.
That being said, I'd certainly send my kid to a charter school if my local schools were bad. I'm not going to let my kid miss out on a good education out of some sense of duty. We'll probably try to send our LO to a magnet middle school and high school, as our local ones are bad.
I guess my question would be, have people actually visited the "bad" school they would be sending their kid to? Gone inside, sat in on a few classes, met the teachers and staff? I think a lot of people would be pleasantly surprised at how not horrible their local public schools are.
Like KathyrnMD said, if everyone who is middle- to high-income abandons a public neighborhood school, then there's no public support left. And the poor/high needs kids get extra screwed over.
Andplusalso, it's elementary school. I think socialization and being part of a school community is more important than having some rigorous academic work. But that also leads into how younger and younger kids are being subjected to testing and inappropriate schoolwork (i.e. homework in kindergarten) for their ages. Which is a whole other rant for me!
I will admit that when it comes to HS, I am a LOT more torn about where we will send our kids.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
I have visited my local public elementary school. It is ok. Do I want ok, or do I want to exercise my best option?
And you have a very narrow idea if charters. They vary so much. I do not believe best = most academic rigor. Nor does the private school that I pay for or the charter that I wish I could win a slot in. And do you really think charters and privates don't have a sense of community?
What's wrong with OK? Americans have this idea that their own kids deserve the best best best! And everyone else can go fend for themselves. That's the state of public education right now, and its inequity is written into how we fund schools, quite frankly. I would much rather my kids have a little less so other kids, who don't have the money and privilege my kids have, can have more. End of story.
Of course every school has a sense of community, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying (as have multiple people on the original thread about charters) that when you take better performing students out of neighborhood public schools, then public schools suffer. Charter and private schools have the option of either not accepting "harder" students, or kicking them out. Public schools don't have that option. It makes more sense to me that everyone participates in a public school, rather then having the wealthy or middle-class have their own schools.
I live in a city in which the public school administration has been giving away public buildings (and public funding) to charters for the past 10+ years. Instead of taking that money and investing it in services and teachers for the neediest students in this city.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
I 100% agree. I also think of the fact that most parents say they would do anything for their child--even die for their child. So why would I not choose a school that can better support and educate my child? Easy decision for me. FYI...I am also a teacher in Chicago who has worked in both traditional public schools and charter schools (which are also 100% public and part of the Chicago Public School system but without many of the restrictions and without the union).
Thank you for clarifying this about the Chicago system.
Clarify what? The fact that charters aren't unionized? That's a shocker! And also means that charters have a better chance of screwing teachers over and paying them less.
And you are 100% sure that charters can't kick kids out? Because that sorta goes against every charter I have ever heard of.
I'm not sure why you're so combative about this. We have different opinions about the role of parents in public ed, that's cool. I admit that I'm pretty far left when it comes to the issue.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
I am sorry you think I am being combative. I really don't feel like I am. I was just answering your question about what was wrong with "ok." You did ask me that, right?
The way that you were describing the schools near you made it seem like they were very different than what is around here. The other poster made it clear to me that they were public, just like here, that's all I was referring to. I wasn't being sarcastic, I was literally thanking her for the information.
And yes, the charters here have no more ability to remove students than the traditional public schools.
And exactly what Kathryn said!
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
Charters are public, that is the thing. So technically, it is spending efforts to improve public schools (assuming the charter is successful, unfortunately, many are not). I think the big difference is that the traditional schools are heavily influenced by unions and the charters are not. It is my impression that public charters started popping up because people wanted to try it a different way.
I am very torn about this and I'm an elementary teacher. On one hand, I of course want my child to get a good quality education. Does that translate into a charter, public, or private? IDK. On the other hand I'm currently at a school, which I've been a part of for 7 years, and I'm facing the reality that I've lost my position there for the next year due to charters as well as other external factors. What's ironic is that our school, which is in the poorest district in my city and has gangbangers and homelss kids has the highest test scores in the district. Our scores almost rival those of neighboring rich districts. And yet, our enrollment has been slowly dipping in the past 3 or 4 years and part of it is due to charters that have popped up in or around our district.
So as a professional I'm not warm to the idea of charters. As a parent I love schools that require/demands parent participation because I'm a huge advocate for that. But, I'm not a huge advocate of creating a school of elites and leaving the "poor and stupid" left in the dust. I don't think people should feel like it's their civic duty to stay in a crap neighborhood/school just to support the school system. But, I also think that every parent should look beyond the facade of a school and slowly peel those layers to find out what that school could offer them and their children. I also feel that what a lot of charter supporters fail to see is the fact that charters require parent participation because they know that studies after studies show that parent interest and participation in a child's academics have proven over and over that it contributes to their success. So imagine if you put in the same hours supporting your child in an "ok" school that you would in a charter and you might be surprised to see your child flourishing just as well as if they were in a charter.
You need to read Diane Ravitch's book "The Death and Life of the Great American School System". She goes into detail about the history of charters and "school choice", and educational reform in general.
Charters aren't the same as a neighborhood public school. They DON'T have to take every student, unlike a neighborhood school. That fact alone means that public money is going to schools that not all kids can go to. How does that translate into an equal education for all?
Teacher's unions are a good thing. They aren't the sole reason the US school system is messed up. Poverty and the vast inequity between districts has a lot more influence on how "good" a school is.
DS2 - Oct 2010 (my VBAC baby!)
While I agree that teacher unions are not the sole reason for the issues we currently face in public schools, I believe they play a large role in maintaining the status quo. Some unions, at least the one here in Chicago, make decisions to benefit teachers first and foremost and then consider children later (to their detriment).
It is my opinion that radical changes need to happen in order to fix the broken systems, and pressing for more of the same and protecting teachers with no accountability, as some teacher unions do, will only push us further behind and widen the education gap that exists in America today. While charter schools are not the complete solution, I think they can be part of it by making all schools seek out new ways of thinking and by allowing teachers and individual administrations to be creative.
As for charter schools and how they are different, I hate, hate, hate to say it, because I support them, but some charters do kick students out for fewer reasons than traditional publics have to have. Many, however, do not do this. That is what is challenging and great about charters is that they are all very different. As a parent, you have to do research and find one that works for your family.
As for working in a charter school, I prefer it to traditional public and do so willingly knowing I take a MUCH lower salary. The freedom, support, and respect I gain back in a charter make up for the money. I also know the students I am teaching are getting a better education not only in my classroom but in every classroom in the school because every teacher truly wants to be here, and because the criteria for employment is much higher because of the freedom my administration has in hiring.