The charter thing is a little more ambiguous
than it is being made out to be.
It is quite possible under charter systems
for the teachers in a school, or for a teachers
union, to set up as a charter. This unfolded
similarly with some schools in New York City
some years ago, before anybody knew what
charter schools were.
So there is a workers control/cooperative
dimension to this (as there could be in
a voucher system). We risk condemning
such departures from the status quo to
the point where we become apologists
for existing management of public
schools, which is somewere short
of perfect.
Re: some of the descriptions, in principle
the contract establishing the charter can
contain any regulations applying to the
public school, though typically there
would be some relaxation of these regs.
That's one of the purposes of charters
in the first place.
The reservation about 'quality control'
is not well-founded. Quality control
of public schools is sadly lacking.
There are other reasons to be worried
about charters, as well as about existing
schools.
mbs
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 10:36 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:17134] Re: school vouchers
In a message dated 00-03-15 19:48:58 EST, you write:
<< t is my opinion that one of the most important tasks for socialists is
the protection of the public education system. A defeat of any attempt
to undermine it is an important victory.
Jim D. could you or any one explain what a "charter school" is? >>
* * *
In Chicago, charter schools are publically funded, privately run schools
that
are basically contracted with by the school board to provide education
without having to meet the normal standards or submit to the union contracts
required by the regular public schools. It's contracting out of public
education. --jks
