On an education note, I found it interesting after my son was accepted into the new charter school being started in our county, that the state supreme court ruled the state charter school comission unconstitutional.  The local school boards, with the backing of the teachers unions in a couple of counties sued because they would not have control of the funding, citing (ironically enough) a law that had been put in place to promote segregation back in 1877 or thereabouts.

Power and union control trumps school choice...again.

This is the Georgia case? That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.

It is a case of a liberal court throwing out the will of an elected body on political grounds.

Posted by rcrusso on 6/1/2011 1:11:00 PM (view original):
A liberal court in Georgia? Or did I miss something?

Liberal relative to the State Legislature.

5 Dem, 2 Pub. 3 of the Dems and one of the Pubs are up for re-election next year.

Posted by antonsirius on 6/1/2011 11:33:00 AM (view original):
This is the Georgia case? That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.

Going by memory here, but the law that was referenced in the majority's opinion forms the basis...but the problem is what the original law was intended for.  Many believe that context matters.  I'm new enough to Georgia to not know the history real well, but on a personal level, sending my kids to the new charter school would certainly be (or have been, depending on what happens) a better option than their current one.  That said, the schools here are actually better than where we came from.

This is a case of the status quo fighting change.

We need to start school voucher programs, charter schools and more private schools that are not bound by the edicts of the NEA.

Posted by silentpadna on 6/1/2011 4:10:00 PM (view original):

Posted by antonsirius on 6/1/2011 11:33:00 AM (view original):
This is the Georgia case? That's an interesting interpretation of what happened.

Going by memory here, but the law that was referenced in the majority's opinion forms the basis...but the problem is what the original law was intended for.  Many believe that context matters.  I'm new enough to Georgia to not know the history real well, but on a personal level, sending my kids to the new charter school would certainly be (or have been, depending on what happens) a better option than their current one.  That said, the schools here are actually better than where we came from.

It's a weird decision to read as an outsider... the majority claimed that the counties and school boards have ultimate authority over general education in the state (a "county rights" argument, if you will) which the state government kind of tacitly conceded when they tried to argue the charter fit the definition of a "special" school, which used to be reserved for vocational schools, schools for kids with special needs etc.

But then the main dissent basically calls the majority liars in so many words, and says there have always been parallel education systems administered by the state, and the charter schools were no different. I haven't been able to tell at all who's right and who's wrong on it.

My "interesting" comment was mainly directed at the your suggestion that the majority opinion was essentially rooted in a segregationist law though. I hadn't seen that anywhere before. 

Posted by swamphawk22 on 6/1/2011 6:58:00 PM (view original):
This is a case of the status quo fighting change.

We need to start school voucher programs, charter schools and more private schools that are not bound by the edicts of the NEA.

swamp, if you want to participate in the discussion and get treated like an adult, try to contribute something other than hollow slogans. Direct your posts to the specifics of the case in Georgia, and not your usual meaningless boilerplate.

That's me being polite. I can't guarantee it'll be repeated.

It's not all that surprising that "segregation" would be the basis of an argument.   As a rule, any private education costs money.  Therefore, only families that can afford additional costs can provide it for their children.  That pretty much rules out low income families.   Depending on the location, this could include a large amount of minorities.   If the charter school made the tuition "affordable" at a certain cost that was designed to exclude the average income of the minority families, it could easily be construed as an attempt at segregation.   Perhaps correctly.

IOW, admission standards are a tricky thing.  They can be manipulated. 

In this case, for admission, there were no real standards involved.  Those selected were selected by lottery only.  Some of the more liberal teachers and administrators are calling it "white flight" away from public schools, but I don't see it as being necessarily that, especially since there is equal opportunity for anyone to be admitted.   In Atlanta and some of the local county charter schools, people of color have been helped more than hurt by the addition of the charter schools.  Is there an element of "white flight"?  Maybe.  I know for us, I'm just looking for the best option available for my kids.  I don't care about race and neither do my kids as near as I can tell.

To an extent, it's less about color and more about "desire to learn".  Of course, that isn't going to work as a fight.   It only takes 1-2 kids to ruin any opportunity to learn in a classroom.  Their gender or race is irrelevant.   Parents who are forking out thousands of dollars per year to send their kid to school will handle the problem if their child is acting out(or the school will handle it because they don't want other parents taking their money elsewhere).   You don't get that in public schools because parents will defend their child's actions and some group will come to their defense if the school tries to take action.  It's a real problem with education.    So parents with the means seek other avenues. 

In this case, it sounds like everyone has the same chance of being admitted(although I believe there has to be some behavioral or academic standards) but there's still the "problem" of transportation to/from the school.  I assume public buses aren't going to shuttle kids back and forth from their homes.  So families with no way to transport their child don't really have the same opportunity.

With that said, I'm not sure I care if everyone has the same opportunity.   If a parent has the means and desire to get their child a better education, it's seems ridiculous to prevent them from doing so.

Transportation is an issue in this case, although they are working on limited bus routes.  There are also 'uniforms' with logoed polo shirts, etc.  I suppose that could be limiting.  There are also behavioral standards within the schools, expected volunteer time from the parents that is agreed to in advance.

I imagine that could add up and be constraining.

That's really the bottom line to me as well.  I don't like that my kids end up being pawns.  But as you say (and I mentioned ealier in the thread) "desire to learn" and parents fostering that desire are much bigger factors in results than anything else.