Susie Kaeser lives in Cleveland Heights and is former director of Reaching Heights. She serves on the national board of Parents for Public Schools.
She writes:
I prefer to ignore charter schools. I know good people who work in them and use them. Charters don’t appear to have much to do with my school district. How much good can they do? How much harm?
Reports of fraud, profiteering and failure pushed me to learn more. Because charter schools are funded with public funds, I thought I would go to the heart of the matter and “follow the money.” I turned to Bill Phillis, a longtime advocate of reforming school funding in Ohio, for an explanation of the system that now uses state tax dollars to fund two different kinds of public schools. I am troubled by what I learned.
The Ohio Constitution requires the state to provide all children a thorough and efficient education. In carrying out that responsibility, the state legislature funds and regulates schools. In 1998 the legislature created “community schools,” its name for charters, and began a dual system of publicly funded schools with major differences in funding, regulation and oversight. Today there are more than 390 charters in Ohio, using close to $1 billion in state funding.
The funding mechanism is costly to traditional public schools. Public resources flow from schools that are governed by an elected school board-and expected to adhere to state regulations covering financial oversight, teacher qualification and accountability, and educational programs-to loosely governed and deregulated charter schools.
Each year the legislature determines the funding level for charter students and those in traditional public schools. According to a 2013 Department of Education report, the funding level for every charter student was set at $5,732. By contrast, state funding for traditional public school students is specific to the school district they attend, based on the property wealth of each district. Because I live in the Cleveland Heights-University Heights City School District, I thought I’d focus on its funding. According to CH-UH treasurer Scott Gainer, our per-pupil allocation in 2012-13 was $1,741, or just 30 percent of the amount promised to charter students.
Not only do charter students receive more state funds than their public school peers, but the difference comes out of the per-pupil contributions for public school students. This is how it works. The state creates a pot of money for each school district that will pay for both charter and traditional students who reside in that district. While the state promised $5,732 to charter students living in Cleveland Heights, it only put $1,741 in the pot for each of those students. This is the same amount that is added to the pot for each of the 5,787 public school students who live in the district.
When it is time to pay for charter students, the state subtracts the guaranteed amount-$5,732-for each student and sends it to their charter school. Public school kids get what is left. The $4,000 shortfall for each charter student comes out of what was put in the pot for the public school students. In 2012-13, about $2.5 million was sent to pay for 371 Heights charter school students, even though they only brought 30 percent of that money into the pot. In effect, traditional public school students subsidize 70 percent of the cost of charter school students.
To add insult to injury, once the money passes out of public hands to the charter, there is no elected school board to be held accountable for how it is used.
The state legislature has been loath to increase resources for its public schools, but when it comes to charter schools they do not hold back, at a sizeable reduction to local school district budgets. How does that make public schools better?
As I see it, the legislature has created a dual system for delivering education. Those systems receive different levels of state support, operate with different expectations, and are governed by different rules. Charter schools-no matter their quality-operate without adequate safeguards to protect public funds and undermine authentic public schools by draining away resources and children. This is wrong.
Ohio’s charter schools are not harmless. The system encourages waste through inefficiency and slack oversight. Creating two systems that follow dramatically different rules makes no sense. It endangers public education, violates public trust and undermines education pursued as a common good.
Our elected officials need to end their reckless use of public resources and fulfill their obligation to create an effective system of common schools, the bedrock institution of our democracy.
I am glad I finally decided to learn more.
Susie Kaeser
Susie, the endgame is to only have one system survive.
It’s easy to guess which one.
A conservative friend of mine remarked, “I’m for school choice.” I replied, does that mean in the name of free markets we should privatize roads and utilities? Isn’t that wasteful? Sometimes I think that conservatives are just a blinded to reality as they think us liberals are.
In NJ, the residents are denied the real choice: whether they even want a charter school introduced into their district or not. The czar of education, Chris Cerf, dumps a given charter school into a school district without any vote or input from the tax payers. The only time that Cerf might pay attention is if the residents of a school district raise their voices and strongly react to having a niche type charter school dumped into their high performing district. So the phony baloney school Rheeformers are not for real choice, it’s all a scam.
They do have choice – democratically elected school boards or corporate boardrooms.
My natural gas, electricity, telephone, and internet service all come from private regulated firms. It seems to work reasonably well.
My granddaughter’s public school also appears to work reasonably well. And she’s on an intradistrict transfer to be closer to her mother’s work. Most people do not realize that there is already choice built into the system.
It is certainly true that local school boards might allow students to go to an out of catchment school or even another district. If you try to do it without their permission, of corse, you risk jail time.
In CA, most transfers are approved. Impacted districts can deny students only in grades 9-12 . Most states have similar laws.
There have only been a few high profile “jail time” cases. It is a very rare event. Most people are simply asked to leave. A better way to phrase it would be that you “MIGHT” risk jail time in certain areas where local funding exceeds 50%.
Actually most people are asked for tuition. I think the ability to transfer depends a lot on the state, school district, and the desired school. My youngest son was allowed to transfer into a title 1 junior high and out of the more affluent (and further away) junior high to which he was assigned. Transfers out of the title 1 school were said to be much more difficult.
You are correct that it differs state by state, but most states have some form of open enrollment in K-8 now. I have posted this before for you to use: http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/report.aspx?id=268
Actually, most parents in the USA are not fined if they put their child in a district illegally. They are asked to leave. And most do. When parents fight it, that’s when the problem occurs with fines. I know that Ohio, NJ, and Conn have issues with this but other states do not (and that is because local funding in these areas exceed 50%). Do you have information that runs counter to this? If so, could you please post it? I know in my state and in the four neighboring states there are no fines. So I am having difficulty accepting your “actually most people” claim.
Pennsylvania seems to have a problem as well, luckily the court intervined to order the public school district to take the students: http://rt.com/usa/pennsylvania-school-expel-homeless-students-350/
And in Virginia those students are “vexing” school officials: http://hamptonroads.com/2011/02/nonresident-students-vexing-chesapeake-schools-officials
Here is an article from 2003 about the NYC area:http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/nyregion/schools-that-try-to-keep-students-out.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
I do agree that there is an issue in New Jersey. The Clifton Public School District offered a $300 bounty to anyone who would turn in a student who was from outside the district:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A02E6D6153FF930A25752C0A96E9C8B63
While I admire your efforts, you have NOT found evidence to support your claim. There is nothing that even suggests that the families must repay tuition. The Virginia article clearly states that “Falsifying a child’s address for school enrollment is a misdemeanor, but Chesapeake has rarely taken such cases to court. When the division’s two investigators – reduced from four by budget cuts – find such families, they JUST REMOVE THE STUDENTS [emphasis added].” The Virginia article, however, is interesting because it is state to state. The Penn article focused on kicking a student out (and I agree with your commentary), but no tuition restitution is mentioned. And the NYC article never touches upon “tuition” repayment. It only addresses the money saved when the students are kicked out.
Again, to help focus your efforts, please supply evidence to support this claim: “Actually most people are asked for tuition.”
Perhaps I am being overly influenced by the school district in Ohio.
Little effort went into it, I just did an internet search. I posted the links separately so that Dr. Ravitch need not edit be bothered to edit the post.
Here is a story about prosecuting out of district students in Georgia: http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/01/28/muscogee-plans-to-prosecute-parents-for-illegal-enrollment/
Here is another prosecution in Connecticut: http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-prosecution-of-homeless-woman-tanya-mcdowell-for-sending-son-to-wrong-school-in-norwalk-ct
The production of a good or service is a far different matter than the education of a child. Your comparison completely ignores this central point.
I am not sure how this is related to the original post (where the poster was concerned that we might privatize utilities) or the current direction of out of district students in public schools.
Here is a link to a private investigation firm catering to public school districts who want to catch out of district students: http://liarcatchers.com/studentresidency.html
And here is a link to another private investigation firm looking to catch out of district students:http://www.verifyresidence.com
Another school district in NJ:http://scotchplains.patch.com/groups/schools/p/school-district-removes-four-students-after-residency14db85f164
Another from Connecticut: http://articles.courant.com/2011-06-18/community/hc-wethersfield-student-removal-0619-20110618_1_residency-school-year-illegal-students
And here is an article about DC:http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/apr/5/brown-moves-to-keep-out-non-resident-students/
Just so I am clear about this, the there is no local funding of public schools in the Clevland Heights – University Heights school district? The post only discusses how state funding changes. Do public traditional public school students get more local funding than charter school students?
Currently, in OH, local districts (public schools) have to cover expenses not covered by the state funding. This usually means taxes via a school levy. Some districts have levies based on property taxes, others use income tax. Charter schools are usually funded by a corporation as well as by state funding. About 10 (?) years ago, the Ohio supreme court ruled that the way public schools in OH are funded was unconstitutional. However, nothing has been done to fix it. The worst part is that charter schools, who use state tax money, are NOT held to all of the regulations/rules as public schools. It is a completely unfair system all around
MrsH,
Thanks for the information. It appears that the citizens of Ohio pay $5,732 in state and local taxes for charter students. Do we know how much the citizens of the state of Ohio pay, in state and local taxes per student in the CH-UH school district? It appears that the average in Ohio is a little over $11,000 per student.
Ever since I have lived in Ohio, I have been astonished at the unfunded mandates that are handed down by the legislature. We had Jerod’s Law to protect kids from pulling lunch tables over on themselves. We had laws to stop students from bringing in and/or using sharp scissors. We have to post signs above all sinks about washing hands with warm water for 20 seconds. But there are other rules about the temp of water in schools being required to be tepid, not warm enough to fight germs, etc. It is truly insane. Also, if students each complied, it would take a very long time to have a restroom break for a whole class.
It is difficult to remember and follow rules that are contradictory! But that is reality in Ohio.
However, the legislature has ignored a judge’s ruling that we have fair, equal, and adequate funding in the schools across the entire state. 18 years of ignoring the ruling.
You need to decipher the state funding formula to try an apples to oranges comparison. Generally, the state pays less to the public school per student than to the charter. There is something called the “Bridge Report” if you enjoy spreadsheets that lays out the funding.
I am trying to figure out how much support charter and public schools get from local sources. Is it the case that traditional public schools cost taxpayers about $11,000 per student while charter schools only cost the the citizens of Ohio the $5,732 that comes from the state government?
In CH-UH, which is well-above the Ohio average in spending, more than 60% of the funding comes from local revenue (approx. $11,000+ ppr). The state then usually kicks in some “to provide a higher level of assistance to school districts with low property wealth relative to districts with higher property wealth.” For CH-UH, that was the $5,732 addressed by the author above.The feds usually kick in the rest (usually less than 10%). Total ppr for CH-UH in 2011-12 was $18,541.
The county provides charters with their local revenue (local ppr). The state provides charters with the foundation formula revenue (state ppr, which is addressed by the author). It appears that the inequality only appears in the foundation formula at the state level. Statewide, charters get a 3% bonus in addition to what traditional public schools receive. Charters are also given extra money to maintain their buildings. Charters can create their own boundaries, which end up pulling money from wealthier counties even if they are only tangentially located near a district.
It is clear that charters get the better end of the money stick in Ohio.
Specific data for 2011-12 can be found below. Simply find Cuyahoga County in the drop menu. Then drop down to Cleveland Heights Univ Hts City:
http://ode.legislature.state.oh.us/
http://treasurer.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/funding-schools.aspx
Just so I’m clear about this, the Ohio grifters, led by David Brennan, are profiteering from a system designed to destroy public schools in both reality and in concept. The fragmentation of resources is but one tactic.
An excellent letter by Susie Kaeser. It demonstrates that we cannot afford this dual or parallel educational non-system, with charter schools and real public schools. In spite of the claims of the Rheeformers, charter schools do drain funds and resources from the actual public schools. It’s not a benign or harmless arrangement, it is destructive, wasteful and definitely harms the real public schools. I’m glad she makes the point that charter schools do not have elected boards of directors whereas most public schools, the overwhelming majority of district schools have elected school boards who serve at the mercy of the residents.
Here is a link, written by Mark Blair, discussing the charter movement in Ohio. It is but one example. This is a public charter, not private, but there is a lot of money siphoned off the state funding that doesn’t seem to be going into the needs of the students.
http://blog.ohea.org/how-charter-schools-betray-their-students-and-communities/
Have you considered putting this issue on Change.org? This petition-signing mechanism has made a difference in many different places for many different issues! Seems like this would be a good one to add to the others. Go to Change.org to find out how to do that.
Ohio legislators should have their feet held to the fire about the tremendous lack of accountability required for charters. If they take public monies, they should HAVE TO follow the same rules, one would think. Bet most people in OH are unaware of this.
Some of the rules for public school are in place because the local politicians who control the public school system are in control of the largest single employer in the area.
Other rules are in place because the state tells parents which school to attend, so is obliged to have extensive regulations. If parents could choose schools, they would be able to avoid some things that can only be handled by regulation when parents can’t choose.
Please be specific. What rules for public schools are you talking about? Most school rules are dictated by the State government including standards, teacher evaluations, school hours, attendance policies, financial accounting, safety, graduation and data collection to name a few. The number of unfunded state mandates is staggering.
Local school boundaries are drawn by a democratically elected school board. If you think there is an oppressive, all powerful government pushing parents around, you have never attended a board meeting when elementary – read neighborhood – school areas are being redrawn.
Would you also advocate someone in Ohio “choosing” to use a police force in Indiana? Or do you find the democratic process of electing representatives to oversee local government services now obsolete? Do you think location is the only way to offer “choice” or can leaning be differentiate within schools (hint: the answer is yes – look up schools within schools, magnet schools, STEM and arts programs)?
MathVale,
Magnet schools and programs are choice schools, as is the ability to take individual courses that are not offered by the school you are assigned to attend.
It seems to me that everyone is comfortable with choice within a school, at least for high school students. This agreement seems to break down when we are talking about choices outside the assigned school. I have tried several times to start a discussion to find out where the agreement breaks down and why it breaks down, but no one has been interested. Perhaps this is a conversation that you would like to have?
As for specific examples of regulation meant to limit a politicians ability to use control of the school district to further their political ends, what I have in mind is limits on how money can be spent hiring individuals and contracting services. Requiring licensing for teachers limits (but does not eliminate) the ability of school administrators to use school jobs as patronage positions.
I don’t know any parents who would choose understaffed classes, limited materials, crowded classrooms, mold, broken chairs, no globes or maps, asbestos in walls that are crumbling, no library, few computers, etc. The laws that govern state and local schools protect students from these situations. Second hand furnishings, low security, questionable behaviors by administrators. These are all monitored by public rules and oversight. Some have the idea that charters are like private schools. Most ate far from that. Far.
Laws have to protect traditional public school students precisely because parents do not get to choose a school. When given choices, some even choose schools without computers at all, others choose schools with a lot of technology.
Total bs. Parents often choose to live somewhere because of the schools. The existing schools in districts are being weakened and ruined by idiotic politicians who are starving out public schools and giving money to charter companies who are profiteering from it all. It is a sham!!!!!
Certainly parents with money choose school districts and pay a premium to live in “good” school districts.
I should add that if a parent can not afford to live in the school district in Ohio, they can be jailed if they try to send their child to the neighboring school district like Kelly Williams-Bowler.
I do not see your school choice as solving anything. If you naively think that people in a wealthy suburb are going suddenly open their school doors to every poor rural and urban kid – you must have a lack of oxygen in your area. So say every kid now gets a full voucher and is then sent off to pick a school. Some schools may accept his voucher. But parents that have the means will be willing to pay more to get a more exclusive school with better teachers, more services, better facilities. So we have something resembling the university system where few can attend without going in debt.
Ann Rand Carpet Sniffer,
Are you independently, and without remuneration in monetary from or as part of an organization, commenting on this blog? Are you, in fact, as a non-k12 teacher, posting under the direction of an institution? Until you answer, your posts have painted you as suspect, and all readers should disregard your elite-fed boiler plate.
I am a teaching economist. I have taught economics as a non-tenure track faculty member for 25+years for the most part at a public university, typically teaching introductory economics every semester. Neither myself or any member of my family has any connection to any K-12 institution (one possible exception is that my middle son helped teach a public school teacher PD course as part of his summer employment between his second and third year in college last summer. does that count?). My middle and youngest son both attended a Title 1 traditional zoned elementry school, both went to a traditionally zoned junior high school (the youngest transferred into a Title 1 school, the middle went to the assigned juniour high school), all three (my foster son came to live with us from out of state the summer of his junior year in high school) went to the assigned public high school.
What else would you like to know?
We do have a choice in OH. It is called open enrollment. You can choose to attend a different school in a neighboring district. However, you have to apply every year and the school you want to attend can deny your application if they don’t have the resources to serve you (special ed, etc) or if they have a large number of students living within the district and the class size is too large. There are also some rules regarding athletics, but I am not clear on all of those specific rules.
Have the laws changed since the Ohio mother was jailed for enrolling her children in the adjacent district?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-mom-jailed-sending-kids-school-district/t/story?id=12763654&ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F
Reblogged this on Middletown Voice and commented:
This is what civic responsibility looks like….thank you Susie!
Great article!
Dear Diane: This essay about Ohio and its dual system of public schools is “right on” — but Ohio is not the only state with a “thorough and efficient” clause in its state constitution. I worked in two others — New Jersey and Pennsylvania — and the same article could be written about them. Charter schools — especially those run by politicians and their family/friends — have virtually no oversight, while regular public schools are regulated to death — literally in some cases, as “failing” schools are closed.
Taxpayers are subsidizing two (and in some cases, multiple) separate yet unequal systems of public schools. I suppose someone could make the argument that this state of affairs is “thorough” — although such an argument would necessarily be hopelessly convoluted. But there is no way it is “efficient”, and public interest law centers should be forcefully making that case before the states’ highest courts.
As always, thanks!
Rob Broderick
Beverly, NJ
Robert Broderick,
The expansion of charters and charter chains is leading to the growth of a dual school system. We have been there, done that. It is wrong.
What are the specific requirements of those who demand “choice”? Do they have to do with academics, religion, cost, indoctrination, etc.? I don’t ask this as: “What do you think others want?”. I mean if YOU advocate for choice, what do YOU want and how would YOU fund it? And remember to put your wants into perspective with everyone else’s needs.
I would think that giving those that can not afford a Waldorf, Montessori, or progressive education for their children the chance to obtain it for their children is a good place to start. Then perhaps language immersion programs for those in the area that prefer it for their children.
At the high school level, there might be room for increased specialization. In my school district, the high schools each constructed new football stadiums the same year that the drama budget in both high schools was eliminated. Might it have been better to build one somewhat larger stadium at one school and funded the drama program at the other? Course offerings could also become deeper if students with simpler interests and talents were allowed to gather together.
I don’t think it would be more expensive (in my town at least the tuition at the Montessori school is about the average cost of a student attending traditional public school), but it would require an alternative to the traditional catchment system of school admissions. It is likely that there are enough families interested in a Waldorf school living in my town, but they are spread across catchment areas. The same would be true of other specialized approaches to education.
Of course I am only speaking for myself, not “those who demand choice”.
Once advocates for “choice” would have this available, how would the crisscross of transportation be worked out, paid for, justified, and responsibility and liability for returning kids home safely be guaranteed? In these presumably preferable educational scenarios, would there be a guarantee that a cross-section of all financial and cultural levels and provisions for all kinds of special needs made? Would students who need to use wheelchairs, have one-on-one constant supervision have proper accommodations?
Furthermore, if Montessori and Waldorf schools are so preferable to some parents, why are these ideas not embraced by the educational community at large? Are there any public Montessori or Waldorf schools? Can there be schools within schools that offer programs within a public school setting?
What is the real reason for separating students from their own communities to attend school? I would not want my k-8 student to travel outside the community to go to a different school. K-2 are def too young to be transported to a strange school.
I guess my real question is: what do those who demand choice want a school to be? Why isn’t their local public school working for them? What are their specific demands?
I guess where I come in on this is: if I want good schools for my own kids, I don’t think mine “deserve” more than other people’s kids, so rather than “choice” in another building, why not figure out how to give ALL kids the same education? Obviously, CC is NOT the answer. If private and charterschools are exempted from CC, then this is NOT what people want. If excessive testing is not wanted by those who want “choice”, then why can’t this be the norm in public schools?
I felt abandoned by my local district when they succumbed to all this CC garbage just to get a few Fed Dollars.
I don’t know any answers but what we are doing — letting ALEC and Koch Brothers and Gates calling the shots is not any answer that I prefer.
I think that, like many aspects of education, this approach to education will work best in densely populated areas. The less dense, the larger the transportation problems. The schools should, of course, guarantee equal opportunity for all, but there might not be as a precise balance of SES in each school. Just as many college students prefer to attend HBCU’s, there might be similar preferences in K-12 schools.
I certainly think these choice schools could be (and are) run by local public school boards in some districts. I have often pointed to Thomas Jefferson High School as a somewhat controversial example (it is a public magnet with very high admission requirements, including scores on standardized exams).
If by the educational community at large you mean public school teachers in traditional zoned schools, I think it is politically difficult for any traditional school system (by which I mean school systems with all and only geographically zoned attendance zones) to have any specialized approach to education in their schools. The curiculum in these schools must not offend too many people in the catchment area too much.
As for students attending schools outside their community, attempts to balance SES of students in different schools are designed to do exactly that. Given the SES segregation in housing, preserving neighborhoods and mixing SES students are two incompatible goals.
This kind of system acknowledges that what I want for my own kids is not necessarily what my neighbors want for their kids. I sent (and send) mine to public schools, but I have friends and neighbors who sent their children to a private Montessori school and a private progressive school (the local private Waldorf school is relatively new and I am not sure if I know the parents of any students there). Given the emphasis on the individuality of students, I am surprised that this is controversial.
Did I hit your questions? If I missed something, let me know and I will do my best to answer.
Also, in OH, if you choose to open enroll your child in a different district, the parents are responsible for transporting the child to and from school.
Somewhere along the way, I remember being a kid of 11 who couldn’t understand some of the decisions our forefathers made, such as running over the First Nation Peoples and bringing slaves to these shores to mistreat and use for economic gain. I decided I wanted to become a teacher in order to help all children have an opportunity to have a comfortable and secure life, if given the tools to learn.
I have never seen the need to trample others or to seek only what is good for myself and my kids.
As I look at what some “need” for their own children, I don’t see much evidence that there is recognition that every child deserves the same opportunity, regardless if his/her parents’ financial success. It gets all muddled up in politics and personal rights.
Funny how money messes with so many minds with one person having the luxury of doing as he pleases and feeling no sadness that others don’t have enough to eat.
Rather than pull students out …separating them into different schools… Making money in a private sector based on the misery of some. Why can’t all these great ideas that separate people be made available to all?
I guess I feel that the return on investment made in children should be their ability to succeed in our society, not be trampled by profiteers.
Good day.
Thank you for the comment…well said!
I am just trying to get a handle on what motivates the decisions made by advocates for choice. I find that often we want one thing for ourselves and something else for “them”.
I just don’t know what draws the lines in our minds. What makes us feel more deserving or worthy than another? What makes people feel superior? How do we know that someone achieves their success from work or luck? How do we determine the instruments used are accurate or useful? You can’t make qualitative judgments based on quantitative data alone. Yet we do.
Funny. Behaviors are more indicative of tbinking processes than some random test scores. Differences are more interesting than sameness. Aren’t they? People who resent labels tend to be making the label machines these days.
I just wish efforts were being made to helo the kids who need help rather than to find ways to push those kids aside and pretend that we are helping them. That is the travesty in all this.
Here is the website for the only charter school I have ever stepped foot in: http://www.communityroots.org . It is in NYC and seems like a fine school and the families there seem to like it.
You might contact Joe Nathan, a semi-frequent commenter on this blog. He works with a variety of schools in the Minneapolis St Paul area.
Hmmm. I don’t see the point in my posts sometimes. I must not speak English. I ask one thing and get an answer having nothin to so with my reasons for posting. So I shall bow out. Happy New Year y’all. 🙂
A perfect example of politicians who are making decisions for education when they haven’t spent any amount of time in a classroom since they were students themselves! They have no clue what’s really going on…or do they? Kasich has been out to sabotage the public schools since he took office. He stepped up this twisted goal when teachers campaigned against SB5 and won. This sore loser has stepped up his goal to destroy public schools ever since.
Currently charter schools are allowed to pick and choose their students. They keep them all until after ADM week (the week when they count student heads to determine funding for each district), then they tell the parents of low achieving students and discipline problems that they are not equipped to handle their child’s needs. Then these parents enroll their child in the nearest public school. Public schools have no choice, and have to take them.
Additionally, because of the funding issues/low enrollment, the public schools frequently have what is called open enrollment. That means they allow students from outside the district (usually from major cities), to enroll in their (usually suburban) schools. Many times these are students that have been expelled, or flunked out of their home school, so the parents send them to the nearest suburban public school with open enrollment. These are frequently the students you wouldn’t let your child play with.
So what you end up with are the less than model students in the public schools with less funding to meet their needs. That also means that the charter schools get the bigger funding to service students that don’t need it nearly as much. Kasich is trying to groom the charter schools to educate only the elite.
You may think this is a good idea, however, take a good look at the teachers that are working with these ‘elite’ students. Recent, inexperienced college grads flock to these schools just to get their foot in the door. Please keep in mind that the first five years of a teachers career is really their apprenticeship. They may be good teachers in spurts, or eventually, but haven’t really learned everything they need to know about teaching until they have experienced it for a few years themselves. (No, student teaching isn’t enough.) Also, in a public school setting, the experienced teachers are constantly helping, and giving advice to help these young apprentices. In charter schools, these inexperienced teachers are surrounded by others like themselves, with little experience to help them.
You also might want to take a long hard look at those charter school teachers that ARE experienced. Public school teachers generally make a lot more money than charter school teachers. IF you were good at your job, and you had a choice between working at school ‘A’ where you would earn less money or school ‘B’ where you would earn a lot more money, wouldn’t you go to school B? Even those teachers that had previously been at public schools and moved to charter schools I would question, because their retirement income would be higher if they had just stayed the remaining years with the public schools, unless they had been there for 40 years.
I had a friend that had been in the public school system and went to the charter schools for her retirement job. She left after one year because she was afraid of losing her teaching license if she remained, because of the illegal practices she would be expected to go along with. This even included the fact that she had the OAT test on her desk a week before it was given! Public school teachers get them the morning of the test, and have to return them daily upon completion, and they only test one subject per day. No time to teach to the test. I’ve heard of others who had to elevate report card scores in order to lead parents into believing their child is a lot more successful than they really are. As a public school teacher I have to keep a sampling of a students work in a folder for each child as proof of their abilities.
When a charter school student does poorly, the teacher fails them, and that’s the final word. In at least some of the public schools, if the teacher believes a child should be retained, the parent can say NO, and the child gets pushed unprepared to the next grade level. Rarely can a child catch up on a previous year while attending classes for a more advanced grade, for which they were never prepared. Then comes the Third Grade Guarantee where the child is stalled in third grade until he can pass the test. Enter again the unhappy parent who of course blames the teacher and the schools. They may even enroll that child in a charter school where the cycle begins all over again.(Remember? Kicked out of charter school after ADM week, and dumped back in the public school system because the charter school can’t address their needs.)
Kasich and his Kronies are in the business of divide and conquer when it comes to schools. Someone should have told him a country divided cannot stand, and neither can schools or any other venue. I find it difficult to believe that he doesn’t know this.
I’ll be retiring soon, so I’m one of the least affected by these changes. However, I feel it is necessary to make the public aware of how they are being manipulated. I care because my grandchildren go to public schools. Their district is currently rated “Excellent,” but I don’t see that continuing if this continues.
~ A 31 Year Veteran
There are many magnet schools that have very competitive admission criteria like Thomas a Jefferson High School. They most certainly don’t take everyone that applies. Are schools like TJ High school public schools?
My mother taught at a public arts magnet school in OH for years. There was no admission criteria. If you wanted to attend this school, you submitted your name and there was a “lottery” to choose the students.Of course the “lottery” made sure there was a balance of race and gender. Being talented in the arts (music, visual arts, dance) had no bearing on who was selected to attend this school. It was a joke.
http://www.plunderbund.com/2013/12/30/42147/ this article talks about the devious claims made by Kasich. Howvdifbhebget elected? Lying.