Your statement that “In many cases, charter schools are no friend of municipal public schools” seems an elitist argument at best: only the very wealthy should have the opportunity to insist on high standards for their children’s education. <\/p>
You complain that where charter schools are available, those students needing “special services and attention” get left behind. You claim that “poverty has more to do with performance than anything else.”<\/p>
Even if those assertions are true, why should “motivated” kids and their parents be kicked to the curb? <\/p>
Rather, should we pander to families that can’t be bothered to motivate their kids or help them to improve their circumstances by getting an education – at public expense?<\/p>
That’s pretty incredible when you stop and think about it: the child of a low-income family that may not even pay taxes can get an education – including language arts, history, math and science – at no cost to the family. And some people are unappreciative enough to not take advantage of that and it’s all the fault of charter schools. Unbelievable.<\/p>
Mashpee spends over $20 million to educate 1720 students, or over $12,000 per student. The ratio of teachers and professional staff is less than 13:1 (source<\/a>) If students are dropping out, failing or graduating with poor skills, I certainly don’t think that Sturgis, or for that matter Mashpee taxpayers, bear the responsibility.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Your statement that “In many cases, charter schools are no friend of municipal public schools” seems an elitist argument at best: only the very wealthy should have the opportunity to insist on high standards for their children’s education. You complain … Continue reading