Skip to main content

View Diary: Taxpayers footing bill for millionaires' kids (143 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is just another way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mol, RadGal70

    of segregating schools.   It's an alternative way of saying "poor, brown, black, ethnic undesirable, learning diabled" need not apply.  And STILL get public funding.

    I don't care how many ways some cons and some faux progressives rationalize " my kid is more deserving, important" than theirs, this notion basically undoes the basic philosophy of a the goal of public school system as an equalizer for democracy.  

    This notion that a school can reject a child on any basis (whether by not providing services as a public school MUST by law), is no big deal and does not undermine public school is total BS.

    Having taught for over 40 years in public schools, I know the game charters have been playing.   Here in the 90s, the neocons put tons of money into the charter movement.  Interestingly, the "charters" serving poor neighborhoods ONLY do better when they are allowed to EXCLUDE children.  They all deny they do.  But they do with words like "your child has a disability in reading and we do not have a qualified special ed teacher so your child would get services at (public school) nearby."   We had one charter who was told they could only open if they guaranteed any child in that neighborhood could not be rejected.  It was the first charter here, in a poor neighborhood, so they agreed in order to get a foot in the door.  It was opened by Chris Whittle's original group.  After 15 years, longer days, longer year, no master contract for teachers, it did no better that it's close by schools in the same neighbor that were true public schools.    But after five years they were given a charter in the "more affluent" part of town.  Still no differences in achievement as the public school.  

     So the charters skim off the top performing kids in our poorest public schools with promises to poor parents that their child no longer has to deal with the problems that might occur in the public school.  BUT here's the deal.  Those children that the charters IGNORE or REJECT are still children, human children who have the right to, deserve and education.   But as the only school they can attend because they may not have a guardian who cares, or because they may have been developmentally delayed by a lack of nutrition during the prenatal time; or have not been fed or cuddled or talked to during their first few months of life, loses teachers, services all dependent on enrollment dollars, they become sentenced to neglect and unfairness as a constant.  But who cares.  They're not YOUR kids.
    But they will be your child's peers.......we would hope positive community members.   But often because of the years of neglect from the system now manipulated by the "haves", they will be your child's burden.

    Yea, I know.  I am such a socialist to dare believe all the children in a community matter.  Yea, I believe in "it takes a village."   Charters are not public as long as there are investors who can make money; as long as they can exclude children in any way.

    •  Baltimore has had public high schools that are (0+ / 0-)

      effectively charter schools for over a hundred years.  The Baltimore Polytechnic Institute and its sister school Western High School have been skimming the cream since the nineteenth century.  I, for one, believe that their should be schools where scholarly children can focus on being scholarly.  Like it or not, the world is an extremely competitive place.

      The GOP has become the "Jerry Springer" party.

      by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 10:19:57 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I have no problem with schools being (0+ / 0-)

        "chartered" for specific reasons.   Have a "school for scholars" but also have a school for the artisans, the tool makers.  Why are the scholarly children of more value than those who can build, turn wood, or concrete or glass into beautiful, useful objects?   Why are the scholarly children valued more than the children who paint, or dance or sing.

        You missed the point.  It's the segregation on the basis of one child, not being different, but being less valued.  

        Public school teachers for years have decried the notion that we leave out children who have different gifts.   Good teachers KNOW that one size does not fit all.  But of course it would take money to provide a school system that acknowledges the value of all children.  Tax payers, many of them, already resent education and educators.  

        But chartering for the elite is not the answer.

        •  Scholarly children are more likely to (0+ / 0-)

          increase the tax base.

          I appreciate the arts. I have been an active musician since I was child. However, I also hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in computer science.   Which set of skills do you think society values most?

          The GOP has become the "Jerry Springer" party.

          by ConcernedCitizenYouBet on Fri Nov 18, 2011 at 04:08:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  But WE are society... (0+ / 0-)

            and WE can inform ourselves and others of the value of a diversity of gifts.  
            Ask people if they value plumbers when their toilets are backing up?  Or the mechanics when their car won't start and it's cold and they need to get it started.  

            We do value the others........we did for many years.  But the media and too many greedy people have decided only the scholarly mattered and NOW that is being narrowed even more....as in only the scholarly who go into finance matter.

            Either we all make a decision to change or we continue down this path to a society separated by class, and class determined by greed.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site