^^^
I had a similar response to The Reader articles posted by Via Chicago (I also don't assume he holds these opinions). I will say that I am skeptical of charter schools. I think that many people accept them without thinking (which you seem not to have done), but, in general, they do a passable job where normal public schools have failed. I am always nervous about the general privatization and lack of transparency that surrounds schools like these and I think the types of buildings that they build reflect that (a goal of increasing notoriety) but public schools also have flaws (the strengths of the teacher's unions in deflecting attempts to find ways to evaluate teachers, including non-test based).
That being said, the people in charge of charter schools can (and sometimes do) benefit from the huge taxpayer funding and self-ascribed, unreleased salaries. The question is, are these BUILDINGS necessary (because this is a forum on buildings) and do they actually help educate children or promote the goals of one school battling for funding over another?
__________________
“The test of a great building is in the marketplace. The Marketplace recognizes the value of quality architecture and endorses it in the sales price it is able to achieve.” — Jon Pickard, Principal, Pickard Chilton
Last edited by ChiPhi; Apr 2, 2012 at 7:04 PM.
|