Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
If we fund charter schools with public dollars and they are so great and available to all, why can't we just have the same experience in public schools? Why do we need a higher tier publicly funded education when education should be universal and accessible to all taxpayers? What kind of democracy do we live in where we create more haves and have nots from childhood based on the wealth of their parents? It's an eventual self destructive system that punishes the less fortunate child.
|
I actually think this is a pretty fair question.
We do offer a lot of these same experiences in public school, the CBE does offer "traditional learning", Science, Art, All Girls... options.
Some of the key problems with the CBEs offerings is that they don't nearly meet demand, and they make it rather difficult to know how to apply (in comparison to the charter school).
I don't know if Malcolm in right or not, I have has some personal experience that would indicate that he is right in a way where they are take small and informal steps to manage their applicant pool towards a high "quality" of applicant prior to needing to engage in cherry picking of students.
But I think there is also an extent to which it is a self-selecting sample towards academic quality. The people taking the time to research school school options, send in special applications, make extenuating transportation arrangements for their kids.... are the type of people with the resources and interest in helping their children excel at school.
I think what is being somewhat ignored here is that even if a person laments the erosion of public education and the antithetical attitude the government shows towards education. It still might be rational to choose to put their children in an environment where they are surrounded by others who have more academic drive (internal or external). Because environment maters a lot, if your friends and peers are expected to complete their homework and get good grades, you are more likely to hold yourself to that standard, and as a parent if you send you kids to a school where you know other parents maintain that standard, then you know your kids are more likely to have those types of friends....
I respect the fight, but I don't think Charter Schools or the Attendees are the problem here.
I'm all for arguing that Webber, Edge, and Rundle should not be getting per student funding from the province, if Families are willing to put $20,000 - $30,000 / year into those schools and they are offering things that public schools cannot offer, I see no reason they shouldn't reduce their offering or raise their price by $9000.
But Charter Schools are not doing this, fundamentally they are making similar offerings at similar price points to public schools. The families choosing them are not going there because they have the resources to drop an extra $10K / student / year on school. They are going there because they were offered something that exists in the public system, but they did not have access to for whatever reason.
The Fight is with the fact the provincial government wants worse public schools, and with the CBE for not having the ability as a board to allocate their resources in a way that meets customer demand.
If you are arguing that charter schools should not be funded that i view that as the same argument as saying CBE should eliminate, the Arts school, the science school, the all girls school, the TLC schools, the language immersion schools, IB programs.... you are just drawing the line in a different place.