I think–now I’m going out on a limb here–that perhaps because Rep. Hubbard participated in deseg (a program meant to extend more equal opportunities to minority students), that he values the fact that when you have a choice, you are empowered. We could have the best schools in Missouri, and still our kids would still be “lucky” to be born here, and less lucky if born elsewhere. If you are poor in St. Louis, if you can’t move to the county, if you can’t afford private school tuition, your only choice in the city other than an unaccredited school district that will hand your child a “certificate” when they graduate instead of a diploma–your only other choice is a Charter school IF you happen to have one in your part of town.

Can you imagine if we prohibited competition for some other necessity? If, say, people in Saint Louis city were only allowed to shop at Aldi’s? We wouldn’t even let them travel out to the county to shop at Wal-Mart–they would have to be residents. Now imagine that most of the fresh food at Aldi’s was going bad–but residents of the city were still forced to shop there! Some might start a garden–but not everyone has those resources. Some might get their food sent to them–but that could get very expensive and they might not be able to feed their entire family. Most would still have to shop there and suffer the consequences of poor nutrition. Now, can anyone explain how this is fundamentally different than how we operate education in the city?

some much wrong in the preceding, so little time to correct..

1. um, yes, public money is used to pay for students at charter schools. Sponsoring entities provide little funding, and if the past is a good indication, little support. I understand that there is some movement in the case of the latter regarding SLU and City Montessori and KIPP and WU.

2. parents can no more directly close failing charter schools than they can failing public schools. The charter schools that have been closed have been closed either because the formal board controlling them rescinded the charter or the sponsoring university withdrew their sponsorship. Is parent engagement better in charter schools than traditional public schools? The evidence is still, out, IMHO..

3. the evidence on charter school performance is mixed; there has yet to be a good study of charter school vs public school outcomes locally that does a good job of controlling for differences in students backgrounds, family backgrounds and school differences. The national evidence suggests that there might slight effects for some groups, but the evidence is not convincing..

4. charter schools enroll from the entire city. There is no statuatory requirement for students to live in a particular part of the city to attend a charter school. Charter school operators may choose to designate enrollment boundaries if they operate more than one school; I don’t think any of them have done that yet.

5. Finally, charter schools are not the only option for urban educational reform; as important are the host of other reform options that have occured within public school districts. There is compelling evidence that some of the strategies pursued by a diverse set of school districts–everything from Chicago, Washington and Milwaukee–are providing additional viable models for school reform.

The point is that there is much that charter, public schools and private schools could learn from each other about establishing and maintaining quality elementary and secondary schools. Unfortunately, the ideologues on both sides control the debate. And in that camp I would place Rodney Hubbard, who showed little enthusiasm for this sort of hard work as state representative, as well, I fear, DFER.

Would agree with the basic tenants of BroBill’s response but not to the letter. I would especially disagree with his #2 “parents can no more directly close failing charter schools than they can failing public schools.” Since charter’s primary source of funding is students, they can’t charge tuition, then it would go to reason that bad performance or even make the parents mad, the revenue suffers. The charters whose sponsors pulled the plug did so mostly after parental complaints. It wasn’t becuase they were paying attention since in the beginning, sponsors didn’t get paid for sponsoring or administrating. That has now changed.

TFerguson, do tell us how it won’t be pretty. Charters primary source of revenue is the student, not tuition or even the donations some receive from foundations. I think charters are likely to do just fine.

Then why did the Texas Can! on Goodfellow close? I have extensive knowledge of the city schools, and none of them ever sunk to that level of deregulated hell.

In the coming economic crisis, I don’t see charters (which only emulate magnet schools) being successful or even surviving. The larger public wants more “regulation”, and better use of their tax dollars, huh? They will quickly see that charter schools do not fulfill either.

I would be fine with charters if they did not use public funds, taking away from public schools. People argue that “choice” and “competition” make things better. However, in such a system there is always losers. What about those poor kids that have crappy parents who don’t give a d@mn? The solution to this lies within the public schools, the magnet system, that the charter schools have tried to emulate, and consistently fail, all the while dragging the public schools with them.

The larger public wants more regulation? What planet are you living on?

You still haven’t given any reason that Charters will suffer in the economic crisis. If anything, they are likely to grow stronger as SLPS continues to fail.

The only thing that would hurt charters is if the state actually fulfilled that oversight role you alluded to and dissolved SLPS. Blow it up and start all over. Get rid of AFT and other elements that have destroyed the district and put the kids first for a change.

Then charters might have something to worry about. If I were a charter, I wouldn’t lose any sleep.

Isn’t if fascinating that someone could actually defend the SLPS? How could anyone deny a parent a choice to send their kid to any school of their choice? We have tax money stolen from us “for the common good” and then we are told where we must send out children. And, if you want to send you child to a private school or home school, then we will keep your tax money anyway. I can have a choice for phone service, where to buy gas, where to eat, but I don’t have a choice to send my child to the school of my choice unless I pay extra. What a country!

The educational system has become an industry. We teach children useless information that means nothing to us years later. The educational system has become a stop to learn trivia. Never mind that the kids can’t function once they get out of high school. That child may know what the capital of Montana is, but has no clue how to purchase a home, balance a checkbook, or learn how the stock market works. Let’s not get into the theories becoming realities. Here you have teachers teaching man made global warming when there is NO conclusive evidence. That sounds like propaganda to me.

College tuition has become outrageously expensive but still no one blinks an eye. The system is broken and all we hear is how we need to throw more money at it. Money is not the problem in education.

It’s time to rethink what we are teaching our children. It’s time to get back to the basics how how to communicate in English, know how to add and subtract, understand real politics and not what a party wants you to know. We just had an election between 2 people who had no real qualifications to be president. Most of us had to hold our nose to vote. Now we have the governor of Illinois being arrested and people already claiming that Obama wasnt involved. Why are we making assumptions either way without doing the investigation?

Sorry to go off in a different direction but the idiocy of the American people amazes me. Then again, that brings us back to the educational system now, doesn’t it?

The idiocy of the American people is looking back at you in the mirror every morning when it’s time to shave. What did you learn in school? I never took much in school that merely taught me trivia, but no one taught me to balance my checkbook or buy a house. BUT NOW, with NCLB, my kids are learning the same drivel every year so they can do well on the standardized tests with which success or failure in public education is measured. There is no longer time or incentive for teachers to put the test content into context. Climate change is real. English has always been and will always be our language. We just gave $740 billion to a bunch of goons that are supposed to be experts in how the stock and credit markets work, so who do you suggest is qualified to teach such content to school children? Who has time to home school or the money for private when mom or dad or both are working for minimum wage to keep the lights on?