Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I think we as a society actually structure this relatively well, precisely because it's not a bright line drawn at 12th grade. K-12 education is mostly paid for by the state -- families generally don't have much in the way of out-of-pocket expenses for that level of schooling. Baccalaureate programs aren't funded entirely by the government, but they are subsidized by the government -- states provide varying levels of direct financial support for public schools, they operate scholarship programs, they provide low-interest loans, they offer tax incentivized saving mechanisms, etc. Post-graduate professional degrees are subsidized maybe a little but they're pretty much entirely paid for by the person getting the degree.
Though I am asking those who ARE drawing that bright line (and yes, those people exist in this forum) I think in theory you're correct. As it sits on paper that's exactly how it reads, but I can't get passed the "put in practice" part where a lot of this isn't true for a great many people in this country. And I say that because the ONLY think readily available to just about everyone is "loans" and even then I think there's a bit of malpractice in awarding these loans as there are people who simply shouldn't be allowed to take the money because they are never going to be able to pay them back and that is known a lot of the time and they are granted anyway.
I think the line should be where most people can get a first time job that offers a living wage and a path to advance. My simplistic understanding is that 60% of these types of jobs now require a college degree. But I am not invested enough in this topic to know how that 60% number was arrived at to know how valid it is nor what level of college degree this means to know where that line should be drawn. But basically -
Our kids go to one now and I have to say, what I had heard about them is not at all the reality we are experiencing. Our kids love it and what they are able to provide in the way of options for learning is quite remarkable. My guess is, as with many other things, people take their anecdotes they experience or hear from friends and project them onto the entire concept. We feel fortunate that our kids are allowed to go to their school and it produces, by far, the best opportunity in our area. We'd have to move 2-3 school districts away to get a comparable experience for them.
I'm not sure if it's this way everywhere. but in my real life friend circles, the guys that are most in favor of charter schools are also the most conservative. I don't know it's a liberal / conservative thing other than as best I can tell charter schools seem like they oppose teacher unions some. But I don't know if that's right.Our kids go to one now and I have to say, what I had heard about them is not at all the reality we are experiencing. Our kids love it and what they are able to provide in the way of options for learning is quite remarkable. My guess is, as with many other things, people take their anecdotes they experience or hear from friends and project them onto the entire concept. We feel fortunate that our kids are allowed to go to their school and it produces, by far, the best opportunity in our area. We'd have to move 2-3 school districts away to get a comparable experience for them.
I had a really negative opinion of them based on stories I'd heard in the past....that was a mistake on my part. I'm glad my wife didn't quit fighting me on this. She was right and I was wrong and I get reminded of that frequently
Interesting. I haven't heard much through that lens and our kids have a really diverse group of kids they go to school with, both economically and racially.
It’s correct, there is much more resistance to charter schools on the left than the right.
huh..really? What are the arguments? Genuinely curious. They were never an option for us prior to moving to Florida....never lived around them.
I think I remember seeing something about charter schools taking more funding from public schools. But I honestly do not track it as we do the homeschooling thing, which liberals seem to be totally against too
Thanks. Can you elaborate?
This all varies a lot by State but on average, a public school teacher makes about 17% more a year than a charter school teacher. Public schools also are more likely to be unionized where as charter schools aren't so there are more protections, better hours, more academic freedom, etc. The lower top end salaries and conditions also lead to charter school teachers not lasting nearly as long. Public school attrition rates are around 11-14% where as charter schools are 20-25%. Now Michigan is a State with a strong teachers union and good pay relative to cost of living. Here, charter schools are pretty much only for new teachers and teachers who can't get public school jobs. We have a ton of them because of the Devos family influence but Michigan charter schools have also been regularly found to to be the worst in the county when it comes to corruption and graft. For example, Michigan has given $100,000 grants to 72 different charter schools that never opened.Joe Bryant said:
My wife worked at one for a year. Its operation was for profit. Paid dirt and class was filled to the brim. Limited support staff and what they had was primarily part time. Get as many kids in as possible and no matter what they do they stay. If you can teach something in between, great, but it isn't a priority. I'm surprised she stayed all year, but we needed the money then.Joe Bryant said:
Yep and Michigan is one of the absolute worst because it allows for-profit schools. The Devos family are the biggest charter school proponents in the country and were practically able to write Michigan's charter school laws. This problem is very much their fault. I believe other States actually do have better charter school systems. On the other hand, Michigan has a good public education system so it's all relative.
I know we’re supposed to stay on our partisan sides, so this doesn’t really fit the narrative I guess then, but I saw a lot of this left and right divide well before Trump was elected.
Like anything, there are good charter schools and bad charter schools. On whole though, they are a net negative. Some States are better about regulating them than others and maybe if States doing it poorly learned from States doing it well, the system could be improved to be a net positive.Joe Bryant said:
Thanks for this...had no idea. I assume the first line item is true of our school. Our tax dollars do go towards the school and I can't speak to the regulation in my state but the rest doesn't apply as best as I can tell. I'll chalk it up to our school being the exception and being very fortunate that's the case?Ilov80s said:
I don't think llov80s was being political. He was speaking of what has been going on in Michigan for quite a while....well before Devos became Education Secretary. That family's money and influence had a direct impact on how charter schools came to be in Michigan. It's only "political" now because of Betsy's appointment by Trump to his cabinet.
You have already had a few answers from those that have experience and knowledge on the subject. I'm going to answer from the perspective of someone who has some ideas on the topic but no actual depth of knowledge. In other words I'm going to reply from a general philosophy that may or may not mesh with any particular reality. ETA: I'm going to answer from the perspective of someone on the left, which in this case I think is a relatively common perspective.Joe Bryant said:
They are being more efficient by using government money though. Charter schools are funded through taxes just like public schools. In some cases those are more efficient, in many cases they aren’t because of the redundancy.
This is what I loved about being in Rock Hill / Fort Mill area of SC. Elementary and middle schools had areas of emphasis. Some schools focused on STEM, others focused on foreign language, others more traditional, there was a montessori option etc. There was basically a school for any type of child you could think of in that area. Only place I've ever lived where this was true. They were areas of expertise for each...still public schools, but there was a choice for "how" and "what" in learning. Prior to moving our oldest son was in the montessori school and was thriving and he had already decided he wanted to do STEM work in middle/highschool.
I'm not as informed as I used to be about them, but I at least agreed about the net negative. I stopped paying attention once Devos was appointed secretary because nothing was going to change as long as she was in charge. Since her days are thankfully numbered it may be a topic to re-engage though.
Agreed. I’m not fundamentally against charter schools. It’s the execution that has been questionable to poor in so many places.
I think a distinction should be made between “status quo” and actually doing nothing. The federal government is already very involved in the student loan process. It’s doing stuff.
I think you got a bit carried away here. Doing nothing might win a cost-benefit analysis over other options. The benefits of doing nothing might simply outweigh the costs maybe by a lot, but there are still costs.
