Charter schools are now the most rapidly growing form of schools in the nation’s education system, but surveys show Americans generally don’t understand what charters are even if they tend to favor them. Are these schools public? Are they private? Who really runs these schools, and how do they take in and spend money?
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
"charter operators will use third-party corporations to purchase
buildings and land from the public school district itself, so taxpayer
dollars are used to purchase property from the public. "
I can't properly evaluate this claim because insufficient details are given so we can understand it. Just how are taxpayers purchasing this property? Surely there is a context for this but those of us not privy to the ways in which charter schools work aren't going to know what that is.
There is a later claim about long term debt financing, "charter operators will use independent, though often closely affiliated, private nonprofit or for-profit entities to acquire long-term debt that ultimately must be paid for by the public." But again there is no explanation of the law and mechanism through which this debt must paid by the public.
I think this issue is important enough to be more fully grounded and not simply a series of conclusions without the supporting facts and details that would make the author's points salient.
Looks like someone is paying you to shill for charter schools. There were LOTS of fine points made in this article. You want to focus on one alone that you insist is not substantiated. That's the kind of tactic used by a Defense Attorney to hide his client's unlawful actions.
Yes, the one unsubstantiated claim is the one that can undermine and discredit an entire position. As I have said before, I scrutinize arguments on 'my' side at least as closely as those of the opposition because, being inaccurate in small ways can cause people new to the issue to reject the position entirely. That's not perhaps the best way for people to react but it does happen and ought not to be facilitated by sloppy presentation. In addition, obfuscating the issues does no one any favours.
Not sure why I need to comment on the other points. The author did a good job on that and surely doesn't need me to say so. I wanted the article to make all of its points clear. That ought to be a minimum requirement to get past the editors and put before the readers.
Instead of hurling charges "
you might stop and recognize that not everyone you disagree with has any ulterior motive (or payment) other than the point they are making. I notice you didn't clarify these issues yourself so I still don't understand the author's particular points I commented on.
I expect I'll continue to strive for clarity from an article or person I basically agree with and care about. I have done that all of my life, gratis. If I don't care about it, I usually won't bother and I often comment and disagree with basic premises when I believe it is called for. In this case had no disagreement with the author's basic premise so didn't mention that. Do you think it would make him feel better to give a kind of 'pat of the back' up front before making my comment? If so, I can try to remember to do that. It's not my style but my style has its shortcomings and I recognize that.