Blue on blue: the Democrats' education civil war

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    June 19, 2014 12:46 a.m.

    Come on Carolyn:

    You should no better. As Fred states, public schools must accept all students that live in their boundaries. Yes, when they reach capacity, they can deny students from other boundaries.

    And BTW, I've had my own children attend public, private and charter schools and I know the advantages of each. My daughter won the lottery to enter a charter, my son did not. My son also was asked to leave two private schools. But they loved my teacher-pleasing daughter. The ONLY and I say only source of education for my son was the traditional public school.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 18, 2014 10:29 a.m.


    Really public schools limit their numbers? State law requires open enrollment unless a building reaches capacity. Then yes they can limit for that building. A school district however MUST provide a school for every student that lives within its boundaries. It can't say sorry we are full, thus the need for portable classrooms all over the Wasatch front.

    So Carolyn are you saying that EVERY charter school must take EVERY student, including every special needs student regardless of what their disability may be? Are you saying that a charter school can't set any requirements for admission for its students? Are you saying that once a student is admitted that a charter school must keep them regardless of their behavior?

  • Carolyn Sharette Sandy, UT
    June 17, 2014 10:39 p.m.

    Public school can limit their numbers and they do. They have caps and they stop allowing students to enroll when those caps are reached and they change boundaries and move students to another school.

    Charter schools cannot require parent involvement, nor can they "remove" troubling students. It is a common misperception that they can do these things, but they cannot.

  • Howard Beal Provo, UT
    June 17, 2014 8:57 p.m.

    Fred 44 is correct. Unless public schools can limit the number of students they have via a lottery, can demand parental volunteer hours and removed troubling students, the competition between them and charters is not a fair competition.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 17, 2014 5:20 p.m.

    The great thing about these discussion boards is that you get throw out all kinds of statements with no basis in facts and speak is if you have some kind of knowledge or expertise when you have none.

    If a school has a "bad" teacher, and the administrator does his job, it does not matter what the association does, that teacher can and will be terminated. If you think the state is filled with bad teachers, blame administrators not the teachers association.

    As a public school teacher I am all for competition as long as the rules are the same for both groups competing. Let my public school create a charter, limit the number of students, kick out students who didn't live up to the charter rules, you bet I will compete. Don't however ask me to compete when you tie one hand behind my back and allow my competition to use both hands.

    One last thought, how about students and parents have some accountability for education?

  • Brio Alpine, UT
    June 17, 2014 12:10 p.m.

    Without a school voucher systems, students in very poor performing school districts will not have the viable option of attending much better rated charter schools. Competition breeds improvement.

    But the status quo school system advocates do not want any competition. They want everything to stay as is with many inner-city students stuck in inferior schools with inferior teachers... all of whom are currently protected by their teachers' union, no matter how terrible that teacher may be. Under the current system, it is all but impossible to get rid or bad teachers. That is simply not justifiable or fair to the students.

    If bad teachers have to improve or lose their jobs, many will improve. And the ones who won't improve should lose their jobs. No parent in the world wants their child taught by bad teachers, as is currently often happening.

    In some cases, unions are beneficial. In this case, they are truly a hindrance to betterment and should acquiesce.

    June 17, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    How sad for the extreme Left when the courts rule against them...

    Teacher seniority has nothing to do with lower class size, funding, etc. It is all about protecting bad teachers from discipine and termination. There a far too many teachers protected by these seniority laws that have no business being near our kids.

    Teachers work for the parents. The state does not own our kids because they are in public school. It is time for the school administrations and the teachers unions to remember these facts and begin being part of the solution....