Skip to main content

View Diary: Public Education's 'Shock Doctrine Summer' Rolls Out (171 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Jeff... When you put this line in your opening... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    angelajean
    The transference of public spending on education to the private sector, whether it is to a private school or a "non-profit" charter entity, is a dynamic that is well underway.

    It indicates to me, by putting "non-profit" in quotes, that you are implying that most charter schools are non-profit in name only.  The only statistics I've been able to find on profit vs non-profit charter schools is the Yale Law School study, which estimates as of 2006 that 14% of charter schools were essentially for-profit, with the overwhelming majority real (not front-only) non-profits.

    I feel that your characterization is perpetuating the incorrect myth that most charter schools are in fact for-profit, when the statistics that I was able to dig up say otherwise!

    Cooper Zale Los Angeles http://www.leftyparent.com

    by leftyparent on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 11:56:15 AM PDT

    •  Everything I read talks about how (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elfling, Linda Wood

      charters have to get "alternative" funding because public school monies do not meet the needs.  I read all kinds of ways charters are being encouraged to "compete" for grants, compete for public funds, or turn to investors.
      Just like public schools sooner or later those schools will find they need something more than competing for monies.
      But in public schools, we understand this.  When we compete for monies, some kids win, some kids lose.   One way the whole soda/candy machines got in the high schools was that the strapped for money public schools made deals with Coca-cola et al to allow their machines in the school, if the schools got a percentage of the monies.  Public schools were partnering with corporations that we making our kids obese, forming bad habits for kids, in order to buy more ever increasing in costs materials.  Teachers, every one of us, HATED it back when it started and we know most now have buyers' remorse.

      Hardly my idea of the common good.  I resent this whole "Race to the Top" for top for the states from the Obama administration.
      A sentence or two from some adult hired by the state  determines whether the children from State A or from State B deserve some monies to enhance their education.

      In grants, it is determined by some writer which school gets the monies.  The school where I sub often is in a relatively wealthy ares, the majority of parents being college educate.  Many of the parents are doctors, lawyers and college professors at a small, expensive private liberal arts college.
      The guy doing the same job I did for the seven years before I retired (media center/librarian/technology educator and I are friends.  Our jobs were the same but oh so different.  He never ever shelves any books.  He has parent volunteers doing that for him.  I did it myself every day after school.  He gets parent volunteers daily to help kids while he teaches classes.  I never got a parent helper except once (she was a assigned by the courts for community service and had no idea how a library worked.  She was more work than help for me).

      And when grants came available he had a cadre of college educated parents on a committee whose sole job was to help the school get grants.  

      If I did not write the grant, it simply did not get written. Both of us besides our daily teaching classes were required to keep all the computers and printers working for everyone in the school, train the staff on all new technologies, software and hardware, order new materials from books to equipment, and repair books, etc etc.  

      So here's the thing. I was in a school where we had over 85% of our population was on free/reduced lunches.  Our teachers were pressured constantly to take classes for getting our scores up.  They cut all spending on field trips and the arts.   So while his school's PTA raised money for field trips, an art teacher, we had neither.   Sure we got lots of Title I funds.  Much of it was spent on tutors, on materials.    When his staff asked parents to supply calculators, paper, pencils, art materials, kleenex, snacks, they got it tenfold.  We, the teachers, at our school filled in for the parents who did not send anything.

      The whole notion of competing for funding with other public schools, let alone add charters, is just, imo, another step on the road to destroying the notion of public education.

      •  Good provocative questions... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        angelajean
        Everything I read talks about how charters have to get "alternative" funding because public school monies do not meet the needs.  I read all kinds of ways charters are being encouraged to "compete" for grants, compete for public funds, or turn to investors.

        Charters generally get less per student than conventional schools so they can make up the gap by being more efficient, "doing more with less", or seeking grants from foundations and other non-profits.  The bulk of charter schools are not for-profit so they cannot have investors and offer a return on that investment. They can only have donors.

        One way the whole soda/candy machines got in the high schools was that the strapped for money public schools made deals with Coca-cola et al to allow their machines in the school, if the schools got a percentage of the monies.  

        Conventional non-charter public schools are facing a much more profound privatization effort from big business.  More so than soda machines, from the big business that makes billions selling text books, testing programs, reading programs, and consulting.

        I resent this whole "Race to the Top" for top for the states from the Obama administration.

        Agree with you completely there!

        The whole notion of competing for funding with other public schools, let alone add charters, is just, imo, another step on the road to destroying the notion of public education.

        Conventional schools compete with each other for grant funding.  Charter schools are no different than conventional schools in this regard.  As long as state educational funding is less than ideal (and when has that not been the case?) enterprising school staff are going to seek additional funding where it may be available.

        Cooper Zale Los Angeles http://www.leftyparent.com

        by leftyparent on Fri Jun 24, 2011 at 03:26:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  semantics (0+ / 0-)

      Google "charter school fraud" for an extensive list of scams linked to charter schools. In most instances, these fraudulent operations are "nonprofit," but individuals are walking away with huge piles of cash. Furthermore, studies in Texas, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and elsewhere have found that charter schools tend to have higher administrative costs, much of which is due to marketing staff and higher salaries for management. So it can be very profitable for an individual to work in management of a non-profit charter school. Just because an entity is defined as a "non-profit" doesn't mean it can't be a vehicle for individual enrichment.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site