Hello, I am whining:
So it ends up if you wonder how charter schools are budgeting themselves into reduced class sizes, increased arts programs, more expensive food programs and better benefit packages on a regular school budget, you are totally anti-child.
Also, you may not be a teacher. And any time you take off over the summer means you are a lousy teacher.
Additionally, if you ask about a school's changing demographics, this means you are racist, because you are inadequately colorblind. If you suggest that colorblindness is a disease of privilege, you are mean.
So let me make myself abundantly clear in my own sandbox: I have yet to receive answers to any of my questions about Edison Charter School's financing.
I am over bothering to comment on the article, although I was intending to post this one but I think the site is broken:
You're inadvertently getting at the problem: if a charter - which is not a regular public school - has its arts program intact and the regular public schools don't, there is some kind of funding issue going on.
(The SF Weekly article suggested, by the way, that the difference in student services was entirely due to a slightly lower starting teacher salary. That's not possible; it adds up to about $40,000 total and if Edison also offers better benefits is entirely offset. I'm wondering if charter schools are exempt from paying the average teacher cost, because that would be a big pile of money if they have a young, low-seniority teaching staff. For instance, although I am a high-salary teacher, I do not take benefits from SFUSD and therefore my school loses $25,000 annually by having to pay an average - just on me.)
It is almost always a funding inequity, since school finance in California works to provide charter schools with additional per-student dollars.
(This is true; there's a recent study out about it.)
That's unfair and inequitable to the vast majority of children in California who DON'T attend charter schools - which, AGAIN, have been shown to be no better than regular public schools.
(This is true, repeatedly demonstrated and reported. Yet somehow it doesn't seem to catch on.)
We need an equitable school funding situation, not one that prioritizes some learners over others. And minding one's own business in such a scenario doesn't help anyone; it condones inequality. That's fine if you don't agree, and you're quite welcome to cast aspersions on my character and profession. However, I am entitled to my opinion, and it is based on actual facts. None of us are entitled to our own facts.
(Charter school advocates are hincty hinky! Uppity and suspicious. They're like a bunch of Birchers seeing socialism in the hissing of a gas grill - the best ever image in a New York Times story, by the way.)