Share this
Twitter
Myspace
Digg
Del.icio.us
Reddit
Slashdot
Furl
Yahoo
Technorati
Newsvine
Facebook
Export PDF
Print
E-mail
Tags
Article IndexBY PATRICK J. DIEGNAN
COMMENTARY
Many will agree that charter schools in the right place and at the right cost are a viable option for educating our children. But just as public schools are required to get voter approval for their annual spending, charter schools should have to prove their worth to the public before they open their doors and start spending taxpayer money.
After all, charter schools are funded by taxpayer dollars, and their mission should be supported by the local community. Ninety percent of the cost of charter school students comes from the local Board of Education budget.
That’s why I have sponsored legislation (A-3852) that would require charter schools to be approved by the voters of the district at the annual school election before they are authorized to operate.
This is an opportunity for charter schools to prove their case, especially so-called “boutique” charter schools that are proposed not only in Middlesex County, but in communities across our state. Should we be opening them in strongly performing school districts and should taxpayer money be used to support them? That’s a question for the voters, whose money is being spent, to decide.
Recently arguments have been put forward that SOS is actually a schill for a National Teacher's Union Group.
I can only assume you mined this gem from the blog NJLeftBehind, the brainchild of Laura Waters. It may interest you to know that on numerous occasions Ms. Waters has been caught red handed blatantly making stuff up in her blog. I will refer you to several posts where I and other members of Save Our Schools NJ have had to correct her, and she has had to admit she was flat out wrong.
6/23 Ms. Waters incorrectly stated that the problem with Assembly Bill 3852 is that it requires a "yes" vote from Camden residents, when only 19% of them showed up to the polls in the last gubernatorial election. In Camden the decision would be up to the board of school estimate, not the voters. Ms. Waters was forced to correct her erroneous claim.
7/7 Ms. Waters claimed that 3852 would require a special election but didn't specify who would pay for it, and then snidely added that "Maybe we get to vote on that too". In fact, the election would be held during the annual school election, not a special election. Ms. Waters failed to correct this error.
9/6 After Gordon MacInnes wrote an editorial for NJ Spotlight Ms. Waters mistakenly claimed that Save Our Schools NJ has received $500,000 dollars from him. In fact, Save Our STATE NJ received these funds. When confronted with her error, Ms. Waters removed this section from her post and stated she "saw SOS-NJ on the donor list and jumped to conclusions."
9/7 In a post related to Rev. Reginald Jackson's rebuttal to Gordon MacInnes Ms. Waters includes a "Nota Bene" at the end stating that Mr. MacInnes has no formal connection to the Education Law Center, but in her post on 9/6 she asserted he was "closely connected with the Education Law Center".
Are you noticing the pattern? Ms. Waters can't really be bothered to fact check, seems to have little regard for the truth and will make phony connections if it suits her purposes.
Regarding her assertions regarding Save Our Schools NJ, on 5/16 in a post entitled "Four Degrees of NEA" she played the Kevin Bacon six degrees of separation game. This is how she linked SOS-NJ to the NEA. Not with facts or reporting, by playing a GAME! Funny thing about that game, I can link myself to Kevin Bacon in 4 degrees, but I've never met the guy, and he sure hasn't given me any of his money to fight charter schools!! Just for fun, here are my four degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon. My ex-husband was in a movie with River Phoenix, and I'll let "The Oracle of Bacon" do the rest...
http://oracleofbacon.org/cgi-bin/movielinks
Speaking of fun, Ms. Waters made the same claim again on 8/12. (It wasn't any more true in August than it was in May, but if you keep repeating the same thing, clearly people who don't do their homework will believe it.) I decided I would play the game too, this time with with Ms. Waters. It was pretty easy to draw a line almost straight from her to ed-reform venture capital entrepreneur John F. Kirtley. Here's what I posted in response to that blog post:
"Wait, wait, this is a fun game! Let me try!! Laura Waters writes an anti-union EdReformer blog. She has garnered enough attention to write opinion pieces for NJ Spotlight. One of those opinion pieces was highlighted by the ed reform blog redefinEd (stay with us here) which is run by venture capital entrepreneur John F. Kirtley. So, Laura Waters is being paid by ed reformer venture capitalists to attack teachers unions! I knew it! No big surprise there."
Do I think Ms. Waters is taking money from Mr. Kirtley? NO! Making a connection between two people or two organizations with no proof is utterly meaningless. Unless you're Ms. Waters...
You have decided to not only take Ms. Waters at her word, but have trotted out her lies to suit your own purpose. If I am incorrect and Ms. Waters is not your source for this false information I apologize for wasting your time. If you have seen this connection between Save Our Schools NJ and the NEA elsewhere, please, reveal the source of this information so we can properly and fully respond to it. I have asked Ms. Waters to do the same and she has failed to do so to date, yet keeps repeating the claim. If your only source is Ms. Waters, I suggest you consider your source very carefully, and in the future check your facts before repeating her libelous claims.
It frightens me that you can't debate this issue with Save Our Schools based on the facts and have to rely upon false accusations to try to belittle those you see as your opposition. This tactic significantly impacts your credibility, especially in the eyes of the parents and children you are hoping to serve.
Second, I must take issue with the statement that letting charters prove themselves costs nothing. They cost money that comes out of sending/home districts annual budgets. They cost a great deal of contention in communities - making adversaries out of neighbors. They have the potential to segregate a community with special interest charter schools. There are real, quantifiable costs and others that may be hard to measure but certainly exist.
Finally, I suggest that when we look at where the money is these days, there is far less protecting the status quo than there is in the charter school industry -- which is being backed by private funds that I believe should be disclosed when a school receives those funds. It would be an eye opener for many to see where the money is these days......charter schools are a booming industry and there is a lot of money in it.
Second, I must take issue with the statement that letting charters prove themselves costs nothing. They cost money that comes out of sending/home districts annual budgets. They cost a great deal of contention in communities - making adversaries out of neighbors. They have the potential to segregate a community with special interest charter schools. There are real, quantifiable costs and others that may be hard to measure but certainly exist.
Finally, I suggest that when we look at where the money is these days, there is far less protecting the status quo than there is in the charter school industry -- which is being backed by private funds that I believe should be disclosed when a school receives those funds. It would be an eye opener for many to see where the money is these days......charter schools are a booming industry and there is a lot of money in it.
But let's use some common sense, people. We shouldn't be opening Hebrew or Chinese-language charter schools. Come on, folks. Let's get real. Those schools are clearly an attempt at segregation and creating a taxpayer-funded quasi-private school (yes, charters are public schools, but I wonder how many low-income children of color will be enrolled at that Hebrew school).
These schools don't pass the smell test and are clearly cases of where common sense could have gone a long way.
So, I say, let the charters prove themselves - but, by definition, this can only be done by allowing them to open their doors and for the parents who choose to send their children there to take the risk. It's their money being spent (many times unwisely -- e.g., excessive legal fees, excessive extracurricular activity fees, and administrator salaries) too.
It costs NOTHING except the time of the founders and DOE reviewers to approve a charter and see if there is demand for the school (measured by applications). If there is demand and the school as judged by the reviewers as offering an excellent alternative to the status quo, the charter should go forward. If there is no demand the school will not open its doors.
On November 8th it's time to vote these clowns OUT.