Are charter schools part of a neocon plot?

[CTyankee]

I'm really ignorant here, folks. But my Republican coworker, who reads the Wall ST. Journal at lunch every day, started a bit of a harangue over charter schools. My antenna caught a big whiff of neocon cockamamery.

The NYT had an editorial about charter schools, which I in my ignorance, thought were a great thing in many ways. We have one here in New Haven that is doing really well. But the Times pointed out that there are big problems with charter schools.

If anyone has a link to info so I can get up to speed on this issue, I'd be grateful!

[Wickerman]

1. no link

but some thoughts.

There have been some high profile failures. That bodes well for private schools like the RW envisions. Also, the progressive community has embraced the idea much more than the RW either anticipated or than the RW itself. The successes of the progressive schools frightens them. my .02

[Lerkfish]

2. in a nutshell, school vouchers and charter schools are a trojan horse,

designed to financially starve out public education to further the divide between haves and have nots.
the haves resent having to send their little buffies and smedleys to upper class private schools AND paying property taxes to fund public schools.
If there is a voucher program, they take that money that used to go to public school, and apply it to their private school, simultaneously funding aristocratic education while starving public education.

Oh, its sold as a help for underpriveleged communities, which is just dishonest spin.
There's no way vouchers would be enough to rescue poor districts, who survive on property tax revenues and federal money.

Just as the no child left behind is designed to eventually unfund public schools. in a sliding scale, eventually schools must have 100% compliance, which is impossible when you consider that nearly every school has a special education dept, whose students by definition cannot be compliant.

So, when that deadline comes near, federal funds are cut off, and vouchers are used for charter and private schools.
Keep in mind, also that charter schools can be parochial schools that teach Jesus along with arithmetic, and you'll begin to see where this is all heading.

[electron_blue]

4. What about charter schools that are "public"?

We have a charter elementary school that is public, parents don't pay tuition, no vouchers are used. It's considered a public school, but it's called a charter. You get in with a lottery. Is this still a trojan horse? I'm new to this.

[Lerkfish]

5. charter schools are not subject to the same restrictions and regs

as public schools. Initially, we can say "so what?" the teaching is good now. But what happens if the school decides it will now be a religious school? What happens if the charter school wants to start having kids say a loyalty oath to the president?

Gee, what would happen then?

additionally, realize that setting up alternatives to public schools, even if they are good alternatives, starve out public schools eventually. And the public schools aren't really that flush with extra cash.

I"m actually more anti-vouchers, but charter schools are in the mix and add to the problem.

[Nederland]

26. Answers

But what happens if the school decides it will now be a religious school?

Since parents have the freedom to choose, they may pull their kids out and send them elsewhere. If enough parents do that, the school will die for lack of funds. That's called free people excercising their rights.

What happens if the charter school wants to start having kids say a loyalty oath to the president?

It will get sued and lose in court.


Hope that helps.

[Dinger]

40. Do You Really Think This Will Happen With bu$h's Packed Courts?

What happens if the charter school wants to start having kids say a loyalty oath to the president?

"It will get sued and lose in court." (Your response to a previous post)


Maybe they'll get sued and lose in court, but the way things are going, I wouldn't be so sure.

[Vidar]

9. Exactly right.

[Nederland]

11. Charter schools ARE public schools

At least where I live (Boulder, CO) they are.

Giving parent a choice about where to send their children to school is the right thing to do. We're supposed to be the party of choice, right? Anyone who is opposed to charter schools needs to explain to me why giving ALL parents a choice about what is best for their children is a bad idea. Or perhaps you prefer a system where only rich people get that choice... :eyes:

[endarkenment]

15. No they are private schools chartered by the state. nt.

[noamnety]

16. What state are you in?

That's not the case at all in my state.

[AspenRose]

46. Ditto my state.

Charter=public

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

68. In Ohio and in Wisconsin...

Where I used to live and where I currently live, Charter schools are private institutions -- some run for profit and some run by religious groups. To my knowledge, there are no public-run charter schools in either state.

[Dinger]

18. They're Not Making An INFORMED Choice Because

they are not held to the same standard as REAL public schools are. Take standardized testing for instance.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dinger]

22. If You Pay Mucho Bucks To Send Your Kid To A School That Doesn't Take

standardized tests, & IF they do, they do not have to report them, well, you really don't know what kind of a school your child is going to, thus, you are not fully INFORMED, get it? And don't fucking call me anti-choice, and don't you dare tell me I have no place in the Dempcratic Party, EVER! Get it?

P.S. There are excellent private schools out there, but I'll be damned if I'll send my kid to Edison Shools, or maybe the screwed up Milwaukee-style system. But then again, peopple liek you would I guess.

[Nederland]

25. Several Corrections

1) You are not paying "Mucho" bucks. Charter schools cost less and are funded by taxpayer dollars, just like regular public schools.

2) Charter schools have to take standardized tests, just like regular public schools.

3) Parents have access to just as much information about charter schools as they do regular public schools, thus your informed argument is baseless.


Now that I've address your concerns, where do you stand? Are you anti-choice?

[Dinger]

33. "Anti-choicers have no place in the Democratic Party."

Who died and made you God?

[Nederland]

34. No one

But if you'd like to argue that anti-choicers have a place in the party, go for it.

Good luck, especially on DU.

[Lerkfish]

42. not in dayton, ohio.

charter schools are private schools using vouchers.
That's my pretty firm understanding.

[rucky]

50. not true.

at least with the Dayton charter schools I'm familiar with:

This Fall I will be teaching at a charter school in Dayton. Yes, it is run by a for-profit corporation, but still has to compete for state money.

They're under contract with the state to provide a free education to those who wish to attend. Their curriculum is held to the same state standards, and receive the same carrots and sticks as public schools. If they fail, enrollment drops and the money goes away - so there is incentive for them to do what they say they're going to do. Enrollment has increased every year since its inception.

The school is 98% African American, and part of the Title I program. Average class size is 17. It's still below state averages, score-wise, but has shown steady improvement over the past three years. I am paid above (district) scale, with raises based on merit.

I frankly don't care about the politics behind it all. It's just me and my kids in that classroom, and I know they're going to be getting a quality education and they're there because their parents want them to be there.

The other school I know about is also totally free, and exclusively take kids with ADHD and Asperger's. The company that runs it was founded by an Aspie, and they have a special curriculum. it sounds pretty awesome, IMHO.

[Lerkfish]

57. actually you just proved my point>? are you confused?

I said they were private schools, you say not true, then go on to explain they're owned by private corporations.

*scratches my head*

[rucky]

63. you said they were vouchers.

You can't use the terms "charter schools" and "vouchers" interchangibly. Under the voucher system, private schools charge tuition, and the voucher program would allow lower income students to qualify for vouchers and apply them toward tuition. Vouchers are a total scam, because it is just funneling tax money to schools with God-knows-what kind of agenda. Families use the vouchers to pay for tuition.

Charter schools are as I described in my last post.

[Lerkfish]

65. thanks for the clarification.

[noamnety]

61. That's a new concept for me

We don't have a company running ours. I have to ponder that some.

I do know that if the education was being horribly compromised, it's unlikely parents would continue to send their kids there, and likely the school would close due to lack of enrollment.

If I understand it right, all their income comes from the state funding per pupil, right? It's not like they are getting extra money from the state for "management services"? Or do I have that wrong?

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

56. How's this..........

Rich people get a choice because they are rich and can afford to send their kids to private schools. Private schools are not charter schools.
We (those who are not rich) have public education funded by taxes. When charter schools divert money where do you suppose the money is diverted from?
The public school systems has many shortcomings and flaws, none of which can be fixed by people abandoning them.
The idea that charter schools are an alternative to public eduction is a sham. Why don't we all focus attention and energy on the existing public school systems where we live?

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. Don't know, but here is what I observed:

Charter schools can be anything. I've had good experience with an elementary charter school in Pinellas, and a magnet school in Central Florida. They do have the potential to do good.

But, what I have observed is that there are signs of right-wing activity at Private Christian Schools. There was one I called for reasons I don't remember, but I do remember the phone message that I heard. I thought it was incredibly odd, because anybody who called would have heard that message and it very clearly was a message that would have warded off liberals who were seeking a school choice for their children. The message was basically, if you're calling for tickets for the Oliver North speech, please contact XXX-XXX-XXXX. This was very odd because it was a very small elementary school. Why is Oliver North going around to elementary schools to do speeches?

[endarkenment]

6. magnet schools are not charter schools

charter schools are private operations 'chartered' by the state to serve as public education institutes. They are in my opinion, as others have noted, a trojan horse intended to destroy the public school system by privatizing it.

The purported benefit of charter schools is increased educational quality, but:

"On August 16, 2004, the Department of Education released a great number of reports without public announcement. Buried in the mountains of data was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools. These results, from a study of 6000 4th grade pupils in 2003, showed charter school students performing worse in both mathematics and reading than comparable students in regular public schools. This study may have been buried to avoid negative publicity, since the Bush administration has been a strong supporter of charter schools."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school

In fairness, this wiki entry is a hot ticket.

[Nederland]

12. Fun with statistics

The quote you provided is true only in that it takes advantage of people with poor math skills. The way the can say that charter schools perform worse than regular public schools is by comparing them to the national averages. The method of comparison conveniently ognores the fact that a fairer method of comparison is to compare charter schools with the public schools in the same area--that way you are eliminating demographic differences and comparing apples to apples. Charter schools tend to rise up in poorer areas and places where parents are frustrated with bad public schools. As a result, it is only natural that they would appear to underperform in a national comparisions given that they are starting out with a disadvantage right off the bat.

[endarkenment]

14. The analysis is difficult.

Charter schools tend to skim the top in their locality, so you cannot do a straight comparison that way. The study attempted to look at all students with a similar background across the nation and then sorting for charter/non-charter. Given the large sample that appears to be a fair analysis. Then again it seems that everyone has an axe to grind here. As I noted the wiki page is controversial.

[noamnety]

17. Do you have a basis for that claim?

Charter schools tend to skim the top in their locality ...

Local area principals love to promote charter schools - to problem students that they want to get rid of.
Our school has just slightly more than average special ed students.

[Tansy_Gold]

32. Local charter schools may perform better or

much worse than their "public" cousins, depending on the student demographics.

The local newspaper where I used to live in western Maricopa County, Arizona, annually published the standardized test scores of all the schools in the area. The charter schools performed WAY below the others, which is probably a result of parents whose children are performing poorly in the public schools switching them to the private/charter schools in an attempt to help them. Because the public schools in more affluent districts routinely achieve good scores when compared on a national basis, there is less need for high-end academic private schools in that region. Because the schools in less-affluent areas do not have high scores, there is a tendency for the charter schools to make promises they ultimately can't keep.

Arizona has one of the highest percentages of charter schools in the country, and also one of the highest rates of failure of such schools. I don't know how strictly the charter schools are regulated, but I do know there have been some really tragic results, including schools run by people with sex crime backgrounds, etc.

The whole charter school thing often pitches potential results that sound too good to be true. That alone ought to raise some red flags.

After all, it's not just the school that makes or breaks the child's academic success. If the kid goes home to a house without books, without a supportive family environment, without a loving family, without adequate nutrition and healthcare, no school on its own can produce a bright, happy, intellectually curious child.


Tansy Gold, looking for a teaching job

[Dinger]

24. Link Or Source Please?

[noamnety]

7. Some misconceptions in this thread

I teach at a charter school. It is a PUBLIC school. It is not a private organization functioning as a public school, it IS a public school. They often run with LESS funds than a traditional school, because they don't benefit from the loopholes that communities use to get around equitable state funding - like local bond issues that get passed in rich neighborhoods that supplement education dollars for rich kids.

We cannot randomly decide to become a religious school, anymore or less than any other public school (I'm going to ignore the whole Kansas evolution debate in that statement).

We are not allowed to bypass regulations or rules any more than any other public school. We are subject to state testing, we are subject to NCLB, etc. The one exception that I know of is that a teacher can be hired in without full certification - but they need to be in the process of getting it, and it does affect NCLB/accreditation status of the school, so there is tremendous pressure still to hire certified teachers, and those without certification get their positions advertised yearly, to ensure there isn't a more qualified person who can step in.

We cannot discriminate against students any more than any other public school, and in some cases LESS. For example, a magnet school can drain surrounding schools in a district of brain power. A magnet school can decide to only accept the brightest or most talented kids within a large school district. A charter school, on the other hand, has to accept ANY child from within the state that wants to attend. So we get everything from special ed on up to the gifted range, with everything in between. The logic behind that is that a district with a magnet school can claim they are giving equal education to a lower achieving student by virtue of sending them to an alternate school within the same district - they haven't "turned anyone away." A charter school doesn't have other schools within their district typically - they are their own unique district, so everyone is accepted, everyone has access to the same resources within the school.

[Nederland]

28. Thank you

It's nice to have someone who knows first hand describe the truth about charter schools.

[DUHandle]

54. Truth, bullshit.

I just read a description of charter schools in Michigan, a very good description, but a description of the schools in one state alone.


reason for edit: removed the word one

[ieoeja]

43. Then what the heck is a charter school?

Why does it exist?

[noamnety]

45. I can tell you why OURS exists

Ours exists because the founders had a vision of an education that revolved around using the arts as a means to achieve understanding and acceptance of each other.

So where other schools have football, we have none. Where other schools hold their male athletes up as the students standing on the highest rung of the ladder of success, the person on the highest rung at our school - so much as we have one - might be a student with autism who has an incredibly beautiful voice, or a male ballet dancer.

They had a vision of students using the arts to achieve social change, to tell parables through theater or dance, or to use photography to document the world around them and act as a witness. They envisioned a place where cooperation, rather than competition, determined how groups interacted.

And they saw that there were no schools like that within a hundred miles or so that were free and open to anyone. So they created one.

[DUHandle]

55. Is that not exclusionary? n/t

[noamnety]

60. No. (nt)

[zeemike]

8. Not neo-con at all but old con

The idea of getting rid of public education goes back to the John Birch Society in the 1960. It was the old cons response to integration. There claim was that the schools were infiltrated with communist that were teaching our children, but the real motivation was race.
Ever sense then the right wing has kept up the pressure on public education and has the goal of eliminating it piece by piece with vouchers charter schools or what ever it takes to undermine the public education
There goal as I see it is to eventually sell off education to the cooperation to run as a profit business. And the broader plan is to sell off the government itself to the corporation, then we will be living in a perfect world with no need for elections other than there entertainment value.

[Dinger]

41. Thank You Zeemlike

You said it better than I ever could.

[ieoeja]

44. Actually, it is older than that.

One of King George III's first appointments in the Americas was for the chief magistrate in the region. His appointment produced a lot of complaints from people like James Madison. The new appointment was campaigning for the aboltion of public schools because, "educated people are more prone to rebellion".

This battle pre-dates the founding of this country.

[JPZenger]

10. In cities, people need a choice

In cities, the people need some choices. If people don't have a choice, more families will move out of cities, which will increase sprawl.

In PA., a whole system of charter schools were initiated by a former Republican governor. The system has been allowed to continue with a Dem. governor. There has been mixed success - but that is the way it is supposed to work. The few charter schools that were not managed correctly failed, and the better schools attracted more students.

One of the worst school districts for many years in PA. has been Chester City. It was a complete failure. About half of the elementary school students have chosen charter schools to get away from the public schools.

In Phila, the charter schools had an unfortunate side effect. It resulted in the closing of some Catholic schools. The Catholic schools in Phila have served large numbers of non-Catholics. The charter schools were free to parents - so they moved from Catholic schools.

[Nederland]

13. Absolutely right-- it's about choice

The anti-choice crowd here at DU will always attack any system that gives parent control over their own children's education.

[Recursion]

19. What are the data on this?

Everybody seems to argue like conservatives on this: all high-flown ideals, no data. What are the facts? I don't know; I'm asking.

1. What percentage of students in problem public schools are able to take advantage of charter schools?
2. How much state funding (that could be going to those same public schools) are the charter schools getting?
3. Controlling for demographic factors, how do students in charter schools perform compared to their peers? Do those differences continue when they leave the charter school? What are their compared college admission rates? How do they do once they're in college?
4. What are the regulatory and stautory differences between charter and public schools? What's the difference in a charter school and a magnet school? If they're all really just public anyways, why not just call them public schools? If the idea is to deregulate public schools, why aren't school districts changing their regulations?

Do we know any of these things yet?

Also, I often bristle when I hear people talk about what a crisis our public schools are in. Are they really? Schools are safer than they have been in decades (another fact the media likes to hush up... school violence overall was considerably higher in the '70s than it is now, but the violence has spread out a little and no longer exclusively affects browner-skinned students in poorer schools). People freak out about falling standardized test scores, but a much higher percentage of high school students take standardized tests than did a few decades ago. If we no longer self-select for people who are definitely going to college, of course SAT scores will drop.

Anyways, the whole school reform movement strikes me as yet another part of the "hell in a handbasket" RW creed.

[Nederland]

23. Answers

All good questions. Here are the answers, at least as they apply to where I live (Boulder, CO):

1. What percentage of students in problem public schools are able to take advantage of charter schools?

100%. Charter schools are open to everyone and who gets in is decided by lottery (although sometimes there are loopholes to allow siblings to be placed together).

2. How much state funding (that could be going to those same public schools) are the charter schools getting?

In Colorado money follows the student. What this means in practice is that charter schools receive slightly less money per pupil than regular public schools due to the fact that certain budget items like facilities maintenance are separated from the "money follows the student" rule.

3. Controlling for demographic factors, how do students in charter schools perform compared to their peers? Do those differences continue when they leave the charter school? What are their compared college admission rates? How do they do once they're in college?

This is hard to answer for reasons explained in the above post. However, you have to ask a more fundamental question first: who gets to decide what is meant by "performance"? Do parents get to decide what constitutes a good school for their children or does the state decide?

4. What are the regulatory and statutory differences between charter and public schools? What's the difference in a charter school and a magnet school? If they're all really just public anyways, why not just call them public schools? If the idea is to deregulate public schools, why aren't school districts changing their regulations?

This varies from state to state and district to district. Sometimes there are no differences at all, sometimes the difference is merely one of teaching methods (this is a common--many charter schools are founded to implement a new and different teaching methodology). In other cases the rules regarding special needs students are relaxed so that schools can still operate in a manner that matches their methodology. For example, in Boulder there is a charter school that emphasizes environmentalism and teaches its students to live in harmony with nature. Because the school is small and takes its kids on hikes and outdoor activities practically every week, imposing the standard handicap accessibility rules on it would basically ruin the curriculum.

[Recursion]

35. Thanks!

Q: What percentage of students in problem public schools are able to take advantage of charter schools?

A: 100%. Charter schools are open to everyone and who gets in is decided by lottery

If they have to have a lottery it's not 100%, is it? What percentage of students who apply get to go?

Q: How much state funding (that could be going to those same public schools) are the charter schools getting?

A: In Colorado money follows the student. What this means in practice is that charter schools receive slightly less money per pupil than regular public schools due to the fact that certain budget items like facilities maintenance are separated from the "money follows the student" rule.

How is the difference between the two made up? What pays for the facilities of charter schools? Or do they just make do with less money? How is this any different from a plan that just lets students enroll in any public school in the state and have their money follow them there?

[Nederland]

39. Response

If they have to have a lottery it's not 100%, is it? What percentage of students who apply get to go?

That's true, and I guess my response wasn't really accurate. What I should have said is that everyone has an equal opportunity to go to a charter school, but that opportunity is naturally limited by physical space restrictions. In practice, if a charter school does an good job it will attract more students and therefore more money, and be able to expand. In Boulder, about twice as many students apply to charter schools than there is space for. This deficit is artifical however, because Boulder placed a moratorium on charter schools that prevents their expansion. The moratorium was enacted to allow time to study the effects of charter schools on the district as a whole. Once the moratorium is lifted I would expect to see charter schools expand to meet the excess demand.

How is the difference between the two made up? What pays for the facilities of charter schools? Or do they just make do with less money?

The difference is made up mostly by charter schools being slightly more efficient and parents chipping in to perform tasks. For example, I know one school where the landscaping is done by parental volunteers. In general, charter schools tend to see much more active involvement by parents than regular schools.

How is this any different from a plan that just lets students enroll in any public school in the state and have their money follow them there?

The difference is primarily in how easy it is to start a school and the nature of that school. With a charter school, any group of parents that wishes to start a school my do so by applying to create one. Their school will succeed or fail based upon how well it does attracting new students. The result is a school that is high tuned to the desires of parents because it cannot take its yearly enrollment for granted.

In a sense, charter schools mimic the way universities work in this country, only better. They are similar in that students are free to go to any university they want to. They are different in that enrollment isn't based on academic achievement or ability to pay. Given that our university system is excellent to the point that the world's elite send their children to America to be educated, I'd say it's a model worth emulating.

[ulysses]

49. mm-hmm.

I should be so lucky to have more than a handful of my kids' parents show up for conferences.

[NoSheep]

20. People start charter schools for different reasons.

Some are conservative. Some not. It's pretty hard to be a charter school and they don't get any extra help. My boyfriend lends money to these schools through the credit union he works for so they can do things like get a fire hydrant installed or a sprinkler system. If it was a neocon plot, the money would be there already.

[OzarkDem]

27. In Ohio, yes

Here in Ohio, they've actually been used to funnel education money from the state into the pockets of GOP donors, posing as "entrepreneurs" running private, for profit charter schools.

[donsu]

29. yes - they want to kill public schools & dumb down masses

nt

[Nederland]

30. No

It's about choice and the freedom to make your own decisions regarding the education of your child. Anyone who says parents shoud not have that right is by definition anti-choice.

[OzarkDem]

31. Not exactly

Parents always have a choice about where to send their children for education. But not everyone's educational choice needs to be funded with taxpayer dollars. And those that do need to be held to the same standard of accountability as public schools.

[Nederland]

36. Not exactly

Rich parents always have a choice about where to send their children for education.

That's a far more accurate way to describe it, isn't it?

And those that do need to be held to the same standard of accountability as public schools.

Agreed, and they are. See some of the above posts, particularly the one by a charter school teacher.

[Tansy_Gold]

37. It's about much more than choice

And I personally think using the notion of "choice" is disingenuous.

There are a lot of problems with the public school systems in each and all of our states. For example, California was dealt a serious blow with Prop 29 (IIRC) that left an entire school system underfunded by freezing property tax valuations. The charter school alternative was promoted as a "fix" for the failures of the public school system. Indeed, many people promote the notion of competition, saying that if the poorly performing public schools are given some competition, they will shape up. Needless to say, if they are in poor districts with low funding, they CAN'T compete.

Now, each state is different in the way it handles charter schools. Arizona has been historically very "liberal" in the way it deals with them, and the result is that it has had a lot of real scandals: schools/owners that take the money and run, leaving the students with nothing.

But if there is not a provision to allow each and every parent and each and ever student equal access, then it is not about choice at all. Even if there is an impartial and totally "fair" lottery system for determining who gets in and who doesn't, there still is element of equal opportunity. If there are only 100 vacancies and 900 students applying for them, some will "win" and some will get stuck in the bad/underperforming public schools. Even the idea that there are special provisions to allow siblings to attend together -- isn't that similar to a "legacy" admission to an elite university? "My brother got in, so I get to go, too, nyah, nyah, nyah."

As I wrote in another post, some charter schools have targeted the communities where the public schools are lower-performing, and this results in charter schools with lower over-all test scores (which are published). It doesn't mean the schools aren't doing their job of teaching the kids; it MAY mean more of the kids are simply in lower-performing demographic.

Some charter schools in Arizona have had religious affiliations, and there have been problems with it. There are also problems with public disclosure of how the public funds are spent, whether on students and educational needs or on administrator salaries and perks. In some of the most egregious cases, the administrators have bled the schools dry.

It seems to me that with all the debate and all the money that's spent, we ought to be able to come up with a truly public education system that does a good job for ALL kids, whether they are rich or poor, and not have to open the door to potential scam artists or -- how unfair is this? -- lotteries to see who gets a good education and who doesn't. If it's up to the Fates, it's not choice at all.

Tansy Gold, who is about as pro-choice as they come

[noamnety]

52. administrators bleed traditional public schools dry, as well

Corruption, bribery, embezzlement, kickbacks all happen in traditional schools.

"In January, Paul Blanchette, former business manager of the Bay Path Regional Vocational High School in Charlton, Massachusetts, pleaded guilty to embezzling $5.4 million from the school's fund accounts over a seven-year period, using the money to acquire a stable of 40 racehorses."

Just ONE of the cases listed here:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=9902

Corruption is a separate issue from the neighborhood/charter school debate. A person doesn't become corrupt just because their school district doesn't have fixed boundaries.

[Tansy_Gold]

58. Yes, corruption is everywhere. That's not the point

We all know that public officials -- in schools, police depts., whatever -- have cheated, lied, stolen, embezzled. Business manager of the public high school where I used to live did it. Town manager did it. Police chief did it.

The difference between the public school system here -- and I'm only talking about Arizona -- and the charter school program is that there are clearly distinguished accountability standards for the public schools that don't exist for the charter schools. For instance, if parents want to make an informed decision on where to send their children to school, they can check the salaries of the teachers, classified staff, and administrators of the local public school. It's all public information. Can they check the pay stub of the janitor? No, of course not, but the pay scale for various positions -- and the exact salary for some administrators -- is considered public information (it's paid from public funds).

This is not the case for the charter schools. There were numerous cases where individuals started charter schools with nothing much more than a credit card to buy the books and desks; enrolled students and collected the funds from the state; and then disappeared. Now, to be sure, the state of Arizona has tightened the regulations and this doesn't happen quite so much any more, but it was almost a weekly headline a few years ago.

Charter schools are often expected to do everything the public schools do and more -- they're also expected to make a profit for their owners. How do they do this, on even less funding than the public schools? Do they perform more efficiently? How do you measure the "efficiency" of education? Do they pay teachers more and therefore get better teachers who don't waste so much paper or something? I don't know. I just know that I have a real problem with that equation.

I also have a much more serious problem with any education apparatus that takes tax money but has no public accountability standards and/or that practices any kind of discrimination, and that includes "lotteries" and "sibling legacies" to determine who gets in. Maybe it's different in Boulder, CO, but the way it works here in Arizona is not to my liking.


Tansy Gold

[noamnety]

59. What do you mean by "make a profit for the owners"?

WHAT owners? There is no owner of a public charter school, just as there is no owner of a public neighborhood school.

Your statements about a lack of public accountability in Arizona charter schools seems to be incorrect:

Financial Accountability:
• Adhere to State statute for submission of an annual budget.
• Every charter school must submit a detailed business plan as part of their charter application.
• Must conduct an annual external audit both programmatic and financial with an independent certified CPA.
• Must annually demonstrate compliance with the uniform system of financial records for charter schools (USFRCS for charter schools) or must demonstrate compliance with generally accepted accounting principals (GAAP) if they have received an allowed exception from the USFRCS.
• Must submit annual financial reports to the Superintendent of Public Instruction regarding funding by program for inclusion in the Superintendent’s Annual Report.

http://www.ade.state.az.us/charterschools/info/downloads/charterschoolaccontability.pdf

That's the same basic requirements as Michigan. We have to submit a budget, which undergoes independent audits, and it's public information - thus, by law, it's accessible to whoever wants to see it.

When the schools talk about efficiency, they aren't talking about paying teachers more or using less paper. I'm not sure where you're getting that from, it's rather silly. As an independent school district, we have less overhead. We have a principal and a supervisor (both of whom have voluntarily taken pay cuts when we were having financial troubles, one of whom gave up his entire salary for a year to see us through the birthing pains - they are usually the first to have paycuts if we're having a tough year). We don't have to use funding earmarked for students to pay a remote location to run school districty things like coordinating programs at various schools within the district, and we don't manage a bus system because we aren't a neighborhood school. And in our school, we don't spend a dime on organized sports.

We certainly don't have an "owner" who pockets any money from the state that we don't spend - not that I can conceive of having leftover money, given that our state has cut back per student funding over the last few years, despite costs rising.

There is no profit, there is no owner.

Your statement on discrimination is inaccurate, at best. Every school in a physical building has limited space - they cannot take an infinite amount of students. Charter schools haven't managed to break that basic law of physics any more than neighborhood schools. Neighborhood schools manage the population by redrawing districts; the parent's ability to afford a home in various neighborhoods determines the school you attend. If you think the students in Detroit are getting access to the same resources as those in Grosse Pointe, you are mistaken. If you can find a system that is LESS discriminatory than "every one has an equal shot regardless of income, talent, or residency" please link to it, I'd love to read about it.

[IndyJones]

38. The public schools here suck so I'm not opposed to charter schools.

[FrenchieCat]

47. Charter schools are a false choice.....cause they are offered as though

it gives "more choice" to students and their parents...but actually, the school decides who'll get a spot....normally.

[noamnety]

51. Ours is first come first served

Students that sign up in January get a spot above someone who signs up in August. Doesn't matter what the student's grades or income is.

As far as I'm concerned, that's more choice than a traditional school - which gives you none at all. If you live on this street, you go to this school. If you live on that street, you go to that school. From one year to the next, a school district can arbitrarily change the boundaries, and force you to switch schools.

Charter schools that are forced into a lottery system because of space restraints provide a more equitable choice than school admissions that are determined solely by where you can afford to live.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

48. Does "I" come before "E" except after "C"

If you attended a Charter School, I'll have to answer that question for you.

You bet your ass...

[GrantDem]

53. I think the underlying issue is --->>>

that private schools and/or charter schools are not bad in themselves; the problem is with vouchers and No Child Left Behind.

If you can afford, and so choose, to send your child to a private school then that is your right. However, vouchers and NCLB are nothing more than a right-wing effort to choke the public education system into failure. The link below provides some excellent info on vouchers.

http://www.adl.org/vouchers/print.asp

[Dinger]

62. Excellent Information. Thank You!

From Ding:)

[mmonk]

64. More Grover Norquist than neocon.

Neocons just need a vehicle to power and will hitch a ride anywhere they can find it. They have to be watched. Examine who you vote for.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

66. absolutely...just as much a part as is union busting and cheap labor

[bedpanartist]

67. responding from the charter school capitol of the world, Dayton, Ohio

with three years of experience as a teacher and a bus driver of inner-city kids, I can tell you this. There are some good charter schools, and a lot of really shitty ones who specialize in packing in as many children of the ghetto as possible.

Any Tom Dick and Harry who can fill out the proper bureacracy can start getting 6k a kid and start a school in the basement of a church.

Meanwhile, the public schools are mired in the decades old practice of bureacratic girthyness that makes the simplest of deeds often complicated, and a world that requires documentation of anything one does because there exists a control and elimination management culture who is there not to support those who do the actual work on the ground (teachers, bus drivers, custodians), but rather to serve as masters of control.

There has got to be a middle ground somewhere. If the public schools could somehow shed the bureacracy and put the ground workers in charge of the house, then perhaps that might be able to happen.