Submitted by Titus DosRemedios, Mar 6, 2007 13:28

I've never understood this arguement. "Charter schools can take the students, but leave the money with us." Why would a public school need to keep money, even "transition support" funds, if it was losing students? Sounds like the school has less work to do with fewer heads around to educate. The money should follow the student, end of story. After all, charter schools are public schools. The teachers union's arguement might be more convincing if it were applied to vouchers which channel public funds directly into the private sector.

Wanting to make it easier for charters to unionize also sounds odd to me. The teachers who choose to work for charter schools know of the school's union status or lack thereof at the time of being hired. If they wanted to work in a unionized environment, they'd probably not seek out employment in a charter school. Trying to impose unionization on an environment that may not need it or want it sounds dubious to me.

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.