Massachusetts has a handful of charter schools, but most poor people have to send their kids to whatever school the local government chooses to supply them. Rich people here get to choose a school, of course. A ballot question would gradually raise the cap on charter schools, enabling some additional poor families to behave like the rich.
If you haven’t seen a unionized schoolteacher working past 2:50 pm you haven’t been to Massachusetts lately. Public school teachers, whose total compensation is at least double the market-clearing wage (as demonstrated by what private and charter schools pay), turn out to various evening events educating citizens regarding the damage that will be inflicted on their children if more charter schools are allowed. See saveourpublicschoolsma.com:
In 2017, charter schools will siphon off more than $450 million in funds that would otherwise stay in public schools. if Question 2 passes, that amount can increase by $100 million a year.
[the site notes that “Save Our Public Schools is a grassroots organization of families, parents, educators and students” but I have never seen anyone other that a union schoolteacher working at one of the events]
Most voters send their children to government-run schools. Most voters live in towns where government-run schools are, in fact, the only option for families that can’t afford, or don’t want to afford, a private school. The unionized teachers fighting this measure stick to one message: when a child switches to a charter school, the local public school will receive less funding and this lack of funding will result in a lower quality education for your children. The evening events explain the complex way in which even a district with no charter schools available might receive less money from the state.
I’ll be interested to see what happens, but if this works I think it will be the blueprint for the rest of the country. As long as the majority of kids are in public school, unionized teachers need only say “public school kids will do worse due to having less funding” and any initiative relating to charter schools will die.
From my (rich and charter school-free) suburb’s mailing list:
The Happy Valley Committee has weighed in with a clear and convincing argument for why we should vote “No on Question 2”. I will certainly follow their lead- voting no on 2!
———————————————
I am no fan of the “Common Core” Curriculum, and feel that we have yet to develop adequate reforms to ensure our schools remain competitive and beneficial, especially for students who are less privileged (by virtue of economics, race, native language, etc).
That being said, I agree with the School Committee: Question #2, if passed, would pull money away from our public schools and there would be a worrisome lack of accountability for the use of that money. This is deeply concerning.
As I see it; Question #2, even though well-intended, is not a recipe for reform but an abandonment of our responsibility to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity for a good education.
So, I will be voting “No” on Question #2.
[In other words, the “reform” process started 50+ years ago needs a little more time. Maybe we will catch up to the world leaders if we save the budget from predation by charter schools, except that our suburb has never had one!]
——————————
I too am voting no. I understand and agree that children need the best possible education. I am a former teacher.
If #2 had come with funding it would be a different story. But I cannot vote for charter schools that decrease the overall budget for inner city public schools (schools that already are suffering from inadequate budgets) in order to allow for more charter schools.
I volunteer in a class in a public school in Roxbury that has awesome teachers and interested students and definitely needs more resources.
[She’s writing about the Boston Public Schools, which the U.S. Census Bureau says has the highest per-pupil spending of any large school district in the U.S. (and therefore perhaps the highest in the world?). Note that the headline $20,502/student number for 2013 doesn’t include capital expenses such as actually building schools.]
The [officials who run a high school jointly with another town] Committee also voted unanimously in early October to oppose question 2 after a long, good discussion about equity and finances.
The Committee concluded that while the concept of Charters was not necessarily at issue, the funding, fundamental lack of local control over the governance of MA Charters, selective nature for admission and retention of students, and impact of outside (out-of-state) corporate interests in this campaign were all of great concern.
[Charter schools in Massachusetts are regulated by the state, apparently, so a local committee like this would lose influence.]
Voting “no” on that question would leave the funding with the public schools, for newer equipment, more supplies, and fewer children per classroom. Opportunity to provide more attention to a struggling or special needs child, as well as to provide supplemental and thought provoking materials for the curious child. Let’s work to improve the neighborhood schools so every child can receive a good education, with the proper $$ and materials available to the teachers.
[I.e., if we work together we can reverse the 50-year process that left us where we are today.]
I do have to admire the optimism of the Millionaires for Obama regarding this issue. If the world’s most lavishly funded government hasn’t accomplished something after 50 or 100 years then surely it hasn’t been given a fair chance.
Ask the administration of a public school if they’d need more money if you sent them more students and they’ll say yes, there’s an additional cost to them per student so more students require more money. Okay. Then ask them if they’d need less money if you sent them fewer students, which is what charter schools do. No, they’d say in that case, we still want the same amount of money even with fewer students. Apparently, costs are only proportional to the size of the student population if it means more money for them, never less. 😉
It’s worth noting that France, which has much stronger separation of Church and State than the US does, the government funds most private schools to the same level per student that it funds public schools. The overwhelming majority of private schools participate, including parochial ones. The requirements are to follow the standard curriculum and not discriminate for admissions.
A lot of teachers spend quite a bit of time working at home doing things like grading papers and drawing up lesson plans.
Also, it’s pretty well known that most lavishly funded governments in the world are found in Scandinavia. This would include Finland, supposedly the best country for K-12 education. A quick Google search shows that their government spending is around 58% of GDP versus 38% for the US.
Another interesting artifact in you post is that you didn’t need to include the word union in this statement = “I have never seen anyone other that a union schoolteacher working at one of the events”. This appears to be a way of expressing antipathy to unions in general.
“that can’t afford, or don’t want to afford”
I am unfamiliar with that construction. Either you can afford it or you cannot. Desire has nothing to do with that calculation. I can afford a deep-fried Twinkie, but I have no desire for one.
You discuss per-student spending and point out that it doesn’t cover the capital cost of building the schools. I usually see that figure used as a comparison to private schools’ tuition-per-student, and they have capital campaigns to build their schools and buy land (so it makes sense to exclude it from the public school number as well).
When I was bombarded with arguments about Propositions to further fund the schools in California FROM the very teachers in those public schools, I felt that there was unethical behavior being condoned and encouraged. I couldn’t come to any conclusion about how to best modify that behavior, though. We sent our boys to public schools in Southern California for K through 5 or 6, tracking them into private school only when confronted by the indifference and criminal culpability of the teachers’ union. Ugly stuff, up close.
Colin: People say “I can’t afford X” but then they demonstrate that they could actually buy it if it were more important to them. This is common with flight training: “I can’t afford helicopter lessons” combined with “I just renovated our kitchen” or “I just bought a new SUV” (both of which cost more than helicopter lessons). The same is true with private school. A lot of parents will say that they can’t afford it, but really they want to spend the money on something for themselves. Not all parents are altruistic. See the econ paper referenced from http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Rationale
Vince: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_spending_on_education_(%25_of_GDP) shows that Finland’s government spends 5.9 percent of GDP on education while the U.S. government spends 5.5 percent. However, a lot of Americans pay privately for college whereas universities in Finland are free. So total spending, as a percentage of GDP, is likely much higher in the U.S.
Are teachers killing themselves with after-hours work? I’ll take your word for it. At our local school there are “hundreds” of applicants for each open job. After three years there is no financial incentive for a teacher to do any work, either during school hours or afterwards. See https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2015/03/01/teacher-jobs-in-massachusetts-new-jobs-for-healthcare-gov-programmers/
Yes, public school systems are overfunded and run by toadies. Also, the educational environment sucks. Even the schools ranked 10/10. I grew up in one, and live in one now. Some things never change.
On a related note, I’m getting a bit worried about all of the displaced toll collectors from the Mass Pike cutover to all-EZPass all the time. What other jobs are available at the pay to which they are accustomed, and did they get a full pension acceleration, or are they left to twist in the market-clearing wind?
The US higher education system or health care system or residential housing finance system are good examples of what happens when government and private enterprise conspire to really screw things up. Give me free enterprise or give me a government monopoly, but a combination of both is the worst of both worlds. I think the teachers here know that the charter schools are a Trojan horse and the US public school system isn’t ideal but it could be a lot worse.
To quote from the Massachusetts DOE “charter schools are independent public schools” (http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/).
The choice is not between public schools and charter schools. Charter schools ARE public schools. The choice is between conventional public schools and charter schools, between unaccountable public schools and charter schools (which must justify their existence every 5 years). And I guess the most apropos distinction is that the choice is between union-run public schools and public schools which are not union-run.
@philg: At our local school there are “hundreds” of applicants for each open job.
I guess demand for teachers varies greatly over time and location. In 1987, I was feeling a little bored w/ my MA defense contractor software job and didn’t want to go through another winter. On a whim, I mailed my resume off to the Miami-Dade County, FL school district seeking a job as a math teacher. W/i two weeks I was sitting in an interview at the school district’s downtown Miami headquarters and after about one hour had a full-time, permanent job offer in hand at the same salary as my software job back in snowy MA. I turned it down and from what I subsequently learned about the abysmal state of the Miami-Dade County school system and the horrendous students, I’m sure I wouldn’t have lasted anyway.
The comparison of total American vs. Finnish spending on education would be similar to the situation in health care, if you’re correct about private spending. In America about half of all health care spending is government spending. In other developed countries, it’s usually between 70% and 90% and those countries spend less in total. In other words, more government spending leads to less total spending. In the case of education, a more lavishly funded public sector in Finland leads to less total spending on education, with superior results.
I also never stated that teachers are working themselves to death. It would also be interesting to see if it’s really common that there are hundreds of applicants for teaching position in most American states. I doubt that it’s actually true even in your local district.
Vince – I think you’re confusing cause/effect with correlation (at best).
In the US, health care spending has dramatically increased since the government got involved, which seems contrary to your position.
Also, I could just as easily argue (with no cause/effect evidence) that lower spending leads to better healthcare, as evidenced by Finland’s lower spending and better care. Ergo, all we need to do is decrease spending and our healthcare will improve.
In the US, health care spending has dramatically increased since the government got involved, which seems contrary to your position.
You missed my point. Governments in every other developed country got more involved in health care spending and spending increased less than it did in America. One of the reasons for that is that other governments use their negotiating power as large purchasers to negotiate lower process for pharmaceuticals. Also, having a single payer, as Canada does, reduces administrative costs. Apparently, this is difficult for many Americans to believe because so many have been taught to hate the government since they were kids. The fact, however, is that health care bureaucracy and paperwork is more is more costly when it is under the control of Canadian governments than when it is run by American insurance companies.
I meant to write this:
The fact, however, is that health care bureaucracy and paperwork is less costly when it is under the control of Canadian governments than when it is run by American insurance companies.
Speaking of Scandinavia, Sweden has had nosediving PISA scores for a decade now. Personally, I think educational spending can be reduced, since the measured effect of extra spending, even lavish spending, appears to be negligible. (Recall that Kansas experiment, for example?)
Teachers may be amused to hear that I taught at university 20 years ago for an annual salary of $18,000 (sic). I was a grad student, but was also responsible for developing and holding lectures etc for a number of courses, much like a lecturer would be. The students even so gave me satisfied evaluations.
Here is more on the Kansas experiment, for those who don’t know what I was going on about: https://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html