Charter Schools

After L.A. Teachers' Strike, California Task Force Recommends Strict Restrictions on Charter Schools

Union leaders made charters a major point of contention during the January protests.

|

Teachers' unions frequently oppose charter schools. Nowhere has that been more true than in California, where union leaders zeroed in on charters during the massive teachers' strike that occurred this past January in Los Angeles.

The California Policy Charter School Task Force—created as a result of the workplace negotiations in that strike—released a report this week recommending strict limitations on charter schools. Charters, which receive public funding but are independently run, typically aren't unionized, so their proliferation siphons off potential dues-paying members from the union.

Critics also take issue with how charters are regulated, as the schools aren't always beholden to the same requirements as traditional public schools, and charters themselves are often subject to different oversight standards. The California Policy Charter School Task Force, which includes both union and charter school representatives, unanimously endorsed the creation of a statewide entity to standardize oversight requirements across all charters. A majority of the board also wants to establish universal guidelines, "such as rubrics or handbooks," for charter applications.

But increasing such regulations on charters is a flawed approached, particularly when considering that the schools are known for employing innovative approaches to education. Why hobble charter schools with unnecessary new requirements?

The California Policy Charter School Task Force report also advises that a one-year moratorium be placed on new virtual charter schools, during which time researchers would delve into their operational practices and procedures to ensure they provide an adequate education.

In addition, the report recommends that school districts be granted almost full discretion in authorizing or denying charters, and says that districts should be permitted to reject a charter petition based on the "fiscal impact" it poses. In other words, a school district could rebuff a new charter if officials felt the competition would burden the existing public schools in the area. That requirement would almost surely doom many new charters from getting started.

The report is now in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). We'll have to wait and see how seriously he takes its recommendations.

Advertisement

NEXT: House Will Vote on AOC's Proposal to Expand Medical Research on Marijuana, Magic Mushrooms

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Aren’t monopolies that engage in activities which injure the public good through eliminating competition supposed to be … oh wait…. it’s a union. And it’s Crazyfornia. Nuff said.

  2. “On Strike for our Students”

    lol

    1. You doubt their motive?

      1. “You doubt their motive?”

        lol

  3. But increasing such regulations on charters is a flawed approached, particularly when considering that the schools are known for employing innovative approaches to education.

    Feature, meet bug.

  4. Sadly, Charter schools are already not as independent in California as elsewhere in the country. Many are run by boards friendly with the Unions and many county rules already restrict them heavily. Calling them charters is pretty near to false advertising. Indeed, I am pretty confident that most charter schools in california are nothing more than a false flag operation meant to delegitimize the movement nationwide.

    1. I am pretty confident that most charter schools in california are nothing more than a false flag operation meant to delegitimize the movement nationwide.

      It’s hard to come to a different conclusion. Charters are run incredibly stupidly in California, and then offered as examples of why privatizing the school system wouldn’t work.

  5. “…and says that districts should be permitted to reject a charter petition based on the “fiscal impact” it poses.”

    Competition is a bitch, ain’t it, union thugs.

    1. And they’re just the dogs needed to fuck it.

  6. Charter school “inovations” include lower numbers of children with special needs, especially severe special needs and lower retention rates. When charter’s get rid of kids they can’t handle those kids end up in the public system, which, unlike charters, have to take them at any time during the year. How about requiring charters to state what number of students they enroll and then require that if they have opening they take all comers like real public schools have to. And fine any charter that fails to provide the full services for special needs students that real public schools have to provide.

    More broadly, the competition mantra is grotesque in this context. Competition implies winners and losers. That is fine when you are talking about companies making widgets. It is utterly immoral when you are talking about educating children. The children are the losers in this jungle competition. We need all schools to do an excellent job not just some.

    And why shouldn’t all schools have the same rules. A rule that is good for a real public school should be good for a charter and if a rule is bad for a charter why should it apply to a real public school?

    1. How about requiring charters to state what number of students they enroll and then require that if they have opening they take all comers like real public schools have to.

      Because then they would be just the same as public schools and they wouldn’t really be an experiment in something different, now, would they?

      We need all schools to do an excellent job not just some.

      That’s what competition does. Do you know why your average public school performs so poorly? It’s not because all the good students are being siphoned out the system – the good students leave because the public schools suck, not vice-versa. The reason the public schools suck is that they are obligated to take all comers, they have no meaningful competition, and they are not beholden to either the students or the parents due to being mandatory and publicly funded.

      When we talk about introducing competition to the education system, we’re not talking about the kids, we’re talking about the schools.

      If there winds up existing a special school that takes in the problem children that no one else wants, why is that a bad thing?

    2. “Charter school “inovations” include lower numbers of children with special needs, especially severe special needs and lower retention rates. ”

      Charter schools in California are required to accept any child who applies, with a blind lottery if there are not enough open spots. While it is true that some charters have violated these rules, it is a testament to just how bad the situation is in the State.

      Special needs education is a problem throughout the state. Public AND Charter schools artificially inflate their special needs rolls because it gets them access to additional funding. It works like this: a kid joins the school with special needs, and the school gets extra funding to take care of them. After 2-3 years, that child no longer needs intervention or moves on from the school, and now the principle is looking at a loss in funding. So they find more kids to go into the program.

      “When charter’s get rid of kids they can’t handle those kids end up in the public system, which, unlike charters, have to take them at any time during the year.”

      This is not a problem unique to Charters. There are problem kids all over the school system that get bounced out of one school and go to another. Certainly, Charters do not need to accept them at any time, but to say this is a problem with Charter Schools is incorrect. It is a problem with public schools in general.

      “More broadly, the competition mantra is grotesque in this context. Competition implies winners and losers. That is fine when you are talking about companies making widgets. It is utterly immoral when you are talking about educating children. The children are the losers in this jungle competition. ”

      This is complete horse shit. Do you lose as a consumer when Google and Apple compete to earn your phone-dollars? Of course not. Winners and Losers are the schools that can or cannot make children winners.

      There are private schools (not charters) in Pasadena, CA with tuition lower than what Pasadena Unified School District spends on its students. Competition created this environment, and all provide good educations to children- with different emphasis on curriculums for the parents to choose from.

      If you want to talk about grotesque, you have no need look no further than the bloated teacher’s union and administrations of public schools that are more concerned with funding that teaching.

    3. And why shouldn’t all schools have the same rules. A rule that is good for a real public school should be good for a charter and if a rule is bad for a charter why should it apply to a real public school?

      It seems that the irony of mandated education is completely lost on most people. But, then again, when most people are educated by mandate, what can you expect?

    4. Maybe because special needs kids require more of the teachers time and attention, depriving the rest of the class? Mainstreaming should be a car by car basis.

    5. “Charter school “inovations” include lower numbers of children with special needs, especially severe special needs and lower retention rates. When charter’s get rid of kids they can’t handle those kids end up in the public system, which, unlike charters, have to take them at any time during the year.”
      Hmm. Yep, your cites are, uh missing.

      “More broadly, the competition mantra is grotesque in this context. Competition implies winners and losers. That is fine when you are talking about companies making widgets. It is utterly immoral when you are talking about educating children.”
      Bullshit. Kids gain when the competition forces the thug union member top fire the incompetents.

      “And why shouldn’t all schools have the same rules. A rule that is good for a real public school should be good for a charter and if a rule is bad for a charter why should it apply to a real public school?”
      Because government schools (that’s what you mean, itsn’t it) are pretty much prohibited from firing incompetent teachers. No, I don’t want that rule applied to those who are trying to do better rather than trying to keep a job.
      You are a union thug, aren’t you?

      1. “You are a union thug, aren’t you?”

        If it quacks like a duck…

  7. No charter that teaches nonsense — such as creationism, especially if suppressing science to flatter superstition — should receive a dollar of public money, directly or indirectly.

    Clingers would be hardest hit. They deserve it.

    1. “Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland
      June.11.2019 at 8:08 pm
      “Clingers would be hardest hit. They deserve it.”
      Bigoted assholes hardest hit on a November night in 2016, and you deserve it, you pathetic piece of shit.

    2. I’m sorry, but schools aren’t people so they have no first amendment rights.

    3. Which LA charter schools are you referring to?

      1. None.
        And none in the bible belt either, I’d wager.

    4. I don’t think that’s an issue with charter schools. But the teachers union’s nonsense is far worse than creationism, in any case.

      Believing in fairy tales may not get you very far, but graduating from high school and being functionally illiterate is tantamount to amdeath sentence when it comes to a kid’s future success.

      1. “I don’t think that’s an issue with charter schools. But the teachers union’s nonsense is far worse than creationism, in any case.
        Believing in fairy tales may not get you very far, but graduating from high school and being functionally illiterate is tantamount to amdeath sentence when it comes to a kid’s future success.”

        I have some shirt-tail relatives who home-school their kids and believe some character mentioned in the bible actually lived for 400 years or some such. Suffice to say, we no longer are included in mutual family gatherings; such idiocy is beyond my tolerance.
        Regardless, the damage here, assuming there is any, is limited to 3 kids.
        And any supposed ‘prevention’ of that supposed damage (as I’m sure the bigoted asshole would prefer) means those kids would be infected by the same sort of worship of the state as indoctrinated by the union thugs employed by the government schools on the majority of kids.
        Don’t believe me? Look at the ‘spontaneous’ walk-outs of grammar school kids on 11/9/16. The gal who cuts my hair saw her kids on TV “RESISTING TRUMP!!”. And she voted for him.
        Three kids believing that Dinos and people walked the earth at the same time are a far smaller danger to our civilization than those who believe universal, “free” medical care is a “right”.
        Hey, rev? Fuck you with a running, rusty chainsaw.

        1. Plus, those three kids might grow up and realize that no, Jesus did not ride a dinosaur into Jerusalem. Not so much with the indoctrinated.

        2. Pushing the religion of global warming is far worse than any Jesus or Biblical bs. It undermines the scientific method and has policy consequences. Those are the schools that should be de-funded.

        3. I have some shirt-tail relatives who home-school their kids and believe some character mentioned in the bible actually lived for 400 years or some such. Suffice to say, we no longer are included in mutual family gatherings; such idiocy is beyond my tolerance.

          Your problem is that you are deluded about human nature when you think that the world is divided into people who believe in idiocy and people who don’t.

          I guarantee you that you, I, and everybody else on this planet believes in ideas just as idiotic as that Methuselah lived 969 years (but often a lot more harmful to yourself and others).

          1. “Your problem is that you are deluded about human nature when you think that the world is divided into people who believe in idiocy and people who don’t.”

            Your problem is that you believe that.

    5. No school that teaches nonsense — such as progressivism, democratic socialism, and social justice — should receive a dollar of public money, directly or indirectly.

      FTFY.

      Bitter clingers like you would be hardest hit. You deserve it.

  8. eliminate public schools entirely. problem solved..

    1. I second that.

  9. “On strike for our students”.

    Yep. We want to teach them how to protect their phony-baloney jobs if they ever become teachers’ union officials.

  10. The sooner California self-destructs economically, the better for the rest of the country, both because it removes their lobbying power and because it serves as a bad example.

    So, please, California: kill charter schools, double teacher salaries, add lots of school diversity officers, raise income taxes to 20% and raise real estate taxes to 5%! Go for it!

  11. […] its report, recommending stricter limitations on privately-run public charters. To many observers, this was an unsurprising conclusion, as charters often aren’t unionized at […]

  12. […] its report, recommending stricter limitations on privately-run public charters. To many observers, this was an unsurprising conclusion, as charters often aren’t unionized at […]

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.