No, it's really just a single idea about what constitutes corruption and what constitutes doing the work of the people. I don't know how to put it more clearly: If we pay for the solution to a problem, people who aren't addressing that problem shouldn't end up with the money.
> Voucher qualified schools meet the same state test standard and exceed public school performance on those metrics.
>> A charter school has flexibility through waivers; however, in exchange for this flexibility, the charter school is bound by contract to be held accountable for meeting the performance-based objectives specified in the charter.
They only have to meet goals that they set for themselves, not the state's goals.
> And your phrasing implies it’s discriminating on something other than academic aptitude, or at least reasonable participation.
It was not trying to imply that something like racial discrimination was going on. My objection is to publicly funded institutions selecting students by academic aptitude (or how well they speak english, or whether they have health problems that will interrupt with the school day. As it turns out, those things correlate with skin color around here, but that's a separate conversation).
I mean, by all means be selective, just don't expect to get tax money for it. What the public is paying for is the educator of last resort. We're not paying taxes so that your A student can go to Harvard, we're paying taxes so that your D student has a shot at community college. One of those is cheap to teach, the other is expensive. Charter schools scoop up the cheap ones and pocket the extra, leaving public schools without the resources to handle the difficult ones. That's why this isn't the case:
> Vouchers give money to education for all kids.
Public schools do things like vision and hearing tests or free lunch so that all of their students have an equal shot at basic things like being able to see the board and study without being hungry. That's not a model that works if you just allocate the same dollar amount to each student and make policies that act like kids are fungible.
Doing so would be like funding the 911 call center such that each citizen gets one call per quarter, and you get cut off once you run out of calls. This whole every-man-an-island perspective just isn't effective at solving any of the problems we have.
> Voucher qualified schools meet the same state test standard and exceed public school performance on those metrics.
That's not true in my state. From https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdechart/faq
>> A charter school has flexibility through waivers; however, in exchange for this flexibility, the charter school is bound by contract to be held accountable for meeting the performance-based objectives specified in the charter.
They only have to meet goals that they set for themselves, not the state's goals.
> And your phrasing implies it’s discriminating on something other than academic aptitude, or at least reasonable participation.
It was not trying to imply that something like racial discrimination was going on. My objection is to publicly funded institutions selecting students by academic aptitude (or how well they speak english, or whether they have health problems that will interrupt with the school day. As it turns out, those things correlate with skin color around here, but that's a separate conversation).
I mean, by all means be selective, just don't expect to get tax money for it. What the public is paying for is the educator of last resort. We're not paying taxes so that your A student can go to Harvard, we're paying taxes so that your D student has a shot at community college. One of those is cheap to teach, the other is expensive. Charter schools scoop up the cheap ones and pocket the extra, leaving public schools without the resources to handle the difficult ones. That's why this isn't the case:
> Vouchers give money to education for all kids.
Public schools do things like vision and hearing tests or free lunch so that all of their students have an equal shot at basic things like being able to see the board and study without being hungry. That's not a model that works if you just allocate the same dollar amount to each student and make policies that act like kids are fungible.
Doing so would be like funding the 911 call center such that each citizen gets one call per quarter, and you get cut off once you run out of calls. This whole every-man-an-island perspective just isn't effective at solving any of the problems we have.