Update: Was Bloomberg Article Fair To Bullis Charter?
Last week's Bloomberg article describing a small charter school in a fancy part of the Bay Area generated a lot of discussion including this comment emailed in from Caprice Young, the former LAUSD board member and California Charter Schools Assocation ED:
"Bullis is a great school! I would send my kids there in a heartbeat. And, I wouldn't pay the $5,000 because I can't -- but my kids still could go there and benefit from the fact that those who could donate large sums do. Every school I know fundraises: traditional, charter, private alike. The fact that billionaires send their own children to public schools benefits everyone. They could easily put their kids in private schools and their tuition would only benefit rich kids. Great public schools, including charters, keep our society from getting more divided. Urban public school systems too often feel hostile to middle class families of all ethnicities, as if their kids aren't needy enough to warrant personal attention or a welcoming environment for parents. That has to stop or our communities will become increasingly divided.PS. Bullis Charter was created because the school district closed down the only elementary in a wealthier section of town. The existence of Bullis has drawn those families back into a great public school. Despite Bullis' growth and success, the district has refused for years to provide a facility -- something that is legally mandated in California."
There are also some comments on my previous post about this suggesting that some of the figures in the original Bloomberg story might not have been fair to the school (that it's as or more diverse than some other schools, and has a higher percentage of low-income kids). What do you think?