Socialized costs.

The GOP mantra.

I don't like charters run by EMC's, but there are some really good charter schools in DC, and it seems unfair that they have to pay such high rent while the neighborhood schools don't. If the facilities aren't being used, I don't see the point of keeping them idle rather than letting a charter use them.

They are set up to siphon off money from public schools. I don't care how "good" you think some of them are. They cherry pick their students, don't take all comers, and they are NOT held accountable for the money they spend.

They need to be abolished. They serve no purpose. If any are any good, let them operate as the private schools they are and charge the families that use them tuition. I can tell you, 99 percent of them would close tomorrow.

But then again DCPS is screwed 7 ways to Sunday

DC? i thought the story was about florida

We have "school choice" which means kids go in for a lottery for the public or charter schools they want, so that the kids from Anacostia can go to the "good" schools west of the park (this works kind of ok but not great). So, yes, *somebody* (public or charter) has to take every student, but you can't be sure that you're neighborhood's school will take your kid. Each neighborhood school has a reserved portion of seats for neighborhood children, but they can choose which applying kids they want.

To the extent there's selection, it's that the charters get enough applicants to fill all their seats, so anybody whose parents don't bother to apply end up being assigned to a neighborhood school.

The other rule about DCPS is that whatever was true last week probably isn't true this week. We've been through 7 chancellors/superintendents in 8 years and gone from receivership to an elected board to an appointed board to direct mayoral control in that same period of time. The whole district is broken and the charters are at least listening to what parents want. *shrug*

In general, nationwide, I am distrustful of the charter movement; on that I think we agree.

people should be ashamed of using them

Landlords should just donate their property?

and charter funding going to a landlord, and that half being used by a charter. The latter seems a much better use of public money. Also, anything in the inner city right now is worth 5 times what it was 10 years ago, and nobody wants to lease to a school anymore.

If they don't like that they can do what traditional public schools do - build schools.

It comes out of their payment from the city. That makes more sense to me than giving it to a developer.

The issue in Florida is not whether a building should remain half-empty or empty. The issue is whether charter schools that benefit for-profit management companies should receive free use of those facilities or whether they should pay for that use. And why should empty public facilities be used gratis by for-profit companies when they could be sold and the proceeds returned to the school district and/or taxpayers?

There was a non-profit school operating with public funding. After financial difficulties cropped up, requiring more public funds to bailout, it was discovered that a for-profit company owning the buildings was owned by the same parent company as the non-profit school was...and was charging the non-profit school highly inflated rent.

For some charter school companies, collecting the rent is their main business plan. One example:http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/12/mavericks_high_charges_charter_schools_350000_rent_fees.php

See my post above. I don't know if it was same company you mentioned, but same exact scam.

It's a big business in Florida. Public money to private companies.

once that is done then what these schools will teach will be upto people like the koch bros

Charters are educating about 45% of the children in DC because the district schools are so very, very bad for the most part, despite spending more money per student than Fairfax County does.

DC public schools are in theory open lottery citywide, but public schools get to reserve a portion of their seats to retain a neighborhood character, which means they get to pick the kids from the neighborhood they want. Charters can't do that.

you know somewhere along the line a Bush is making money off it.

And a much lower percent in DC (after the first disastrous year where people took the money and ran, they made it much harder). IIRC the only for-profits left around here are the three KIPP schools.

I know because my daughter is an educator at a South Florida charter school.

But nationwide, only 17% have performed better than traditional public schools.

And education privitized. Its Jeb's legacy, and he's still working to see it implemented.
As near as I can tell, reasons are:
1) Destroying teacher's union, which is most powerful union in Florida and supports Dems.
2) Profits for private education companies.
3) Less government control over curriculum, thus allowing teaching of religion and quasi-science.

Justifications:
1) Taxpayer's money will be saved. Thus far, that doesn't appear to be the case. Despite efforts to keep it quiet, several charter schools have been exposed either profit-gouging, or financial mis-management requiring a public bailout.
2) Public schools aren't doing a good job, private schools will do better. This is difficult to address. Public schools required to test students, charter and private schools not. Limited studies indicate some charter and private school students learning better than public, but those schools may have fewer students with learning disabilities, behavior problems, and from low-income or broken homes. Some charter/private schools test worse than public. Again, these studies were very limited, probably not enough data. GOP doing all they can to prevent more thorough studies generating better data.

They're pushing for this in Michigan, too, under the "Education Achievement Authority."