The Tampa Bay Times wrote an editorial urging the state to reject a for-profit charter school at an Air Base.
The base already has an on-base public school that was A-rated by the state for 12 of the past 13 years.
But Governor Rick Scott encouraged the creation of a charter on the base. As the editorial says, the local school board rejected the application:
“But organizers now are appealing to the state Board of Education, and why not? Gov. Rick Scott directed the proposal’s organizers early on, records show — and he appointed all six members of the Board of Education that will hear the case. The board should put politics aside and deny this appeal. That would be best for military families, local control and the integrity of the charter school process.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I think for-profit charter schools should be permitted to compete with other schools. Sports competition is accepted and it has a deleterious effect on studying. The boys at the gym working out for next week’s muscle game, er, basketball game could care less about what anyone has ever written throughout history, and we accept this 😦 I don’t see what is wrong with a private school, which is what a for-profit charter is, providing alternative educational settings. Everyone is still teaching to the same standards.
LikeLike
” I don’t see what is wrong with a private school, which is what a for-profit charter is, providing alternative educational settings.”
One wee little difference between private schools and charters: private schools don’t make private profit off public money.
LikeLike
I am glad you mentioned that because it points to the obfuscation of the problem: there are no private charters receiving public funding. There are public charters that are given breaks or subsidies on funding but the terms publicly funded private charters is an oxymoron and does not exist. The only charters of concern are public charters because there are union free and therefore –> they do not recognize tenure, or seniority, or unionization, etc. So, if you work for a public charter, you might make more money but you will not receive and benefits or pension and you can be fired for whatever reason. This is in fact the case for any private school and for many Union-Free Public Schools, but what is at issue is the agreement between municipalites and unions for benefits including tenure. This is what Walker from Wisc did in 2011, he rescinded the law which required the government to deduct union dues and pay the unions those dues from all teachers salaries. The effect he hoped for was to reduce the Unions, Federal-State-Local, income and therefore limit their influence, their ability to persuade administrators. But, in the final analysis, the funding issue comes down to public schools are being cut and public charter schools are getting breaks and the entire funding issues is being obscured.
LikeLike
Um, all charters are private (regardless of for-profit or non-profit status) – they are controlled by board hand-picked by their corporate sponsors, not democratic boards. They are not answerable to taxpayers. Yet all charters receive public money – that’s sort of the definition of a charter. I think you need to do some research on what charters are all about.
LikeLike
In addition, NAGB looked at the impact of school characteristics and found that:
Charter schools that were part of the local school district had significantly higher scores than charter schools that served as their own district.
Students taught by certified teachers had roughly comparable scores whether they attended charter schools or traditional public schools, but the scores of students taught by uncertified teachers in charter schools were significantly lower than those of charter school students with certified teachers.
Students taught by teachers with at least five years’ experience outperformed students with less experienced teachers, regardless of the type of school attended, but charter school students with inexperienced teachers did significantly worse than students in traditional public schools with less experienced teachers. (The impact of this finding is compounded by the fact that charter schools are twice as likely as traditional public schools to employ inexperienced teachers.)
In a study that followed North Carolina students for several years, professors Robert Bifulco and Helen Ladd found that students in charter schools actually made considerably smaller achievement gains in charter schools than they would have in traditional public schools.
http://www.nea.org/charter/
LikeLike
All schools that are publicly funded are accountable to the NYS Department of Education. The teachers must be licensed, the Administrators must have the appropriate license. The school must be chartered. All schools are chartered. We are calling ‘charter schools’ by a misnomer. The notion today of a ‘charter school’ is one that is distinct from the public school system of NYC. But, the NYC DOE is a charter also. Where schools in suburbs supplement their budget with property taxes beyond the NYS tax which is redistributed according to a formula, the ‘charter schools’ in NYC supplement their funding from corporations or grants. Regardless, of funding, the issue is whether the school falls under the authority of the NYC Chancellor or under the NYS Commissioner. But, all schools are evaluated, that is how Eva Moskowitz can compare her schools results with the DOE’s aggregate results. The claim that co-located charter schools did or did not have to pay rent was nonsense. No school pays ‘rent.’
LikeLike
Dienne: c’mon, you didn’t realize that any comment that includes the phrase “public charters” is a send up?
Although a bit overwrought, this bit of Marxist sensationalism fits right in with that:
“Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.”
¿?
Groucho.
There’s another?
😎
LikeLike
Most of the terminology in the conflict is biased. So understanding what is going on requires objective definitions. All organizations have production or overhead costs, like salaries and benefits. There is a diversity of public schools. There are NYC schools and there are many other districts. Funding is met by a state formula, that is, a redistribution of tax revenues. Determining whether this is fair is an empirical issue. But, many districts supplement their formula funding in other ways. Hence, the claim that a school is making a profit is questionable and needs to be proven. Supporters of the traditional public schools look at the ‘charter schools’ and their salaries and claim that it is for profit. But, one of the reasons for public school teachers taking on large class sizes and lower salaries is because they also get health benefits and pension benefits. So, whether the production costs are accurately accounted for is questionable.
LikeLike
I think you love to spew meaningless baloney that ignores reality and the truth of the situation.
LikeLike
You seem to like to make unsubstantiated denunciations. If you can’t make a critical reply, just delete it, it was over your head.
LikeLike
Look in a mirror and say the same thing to yourself.
LikeLike
“The district also notes in its response to the appeal — citing documents from the private group — that organizers were directed early on to a for-profit charter school company “upon advice from Governor Scott.” That presents a different narrative about how and when the school partners got together. And the district says it calls into question whether the foundation and the educational provider would truly operate at arm’s length.”
A government contractor got a sweetheart deal thru a captured, corrupt politician?
Well, I never. No one could have predicted that would happen when they allowed public schools to be run by private contractors and set up an appointed state board so the contractor could go around the local elected body.
Well, anyone could have, except for ed reformers. They were spending all their time screaming about “union bosses”.
LikeLike
“The base already has an on-base public school that was A-rated by the state for 12 of the past 13 years. ”
An interesting case study. What kind of parents would be found on a military base?
LikeLike
The problem here is that it’s trying to replace a school that already is succeeding by all the standards applied to it – and succeeding by a lot. A charter would seek profits from this – but how could they seek to do better than a school that already serves its students well? What would the community get back from the charter that the public school couldn’t possibly provide.
The reasoning for charters is always based on the monopolistic nature of public schooling and their argument for competition (as you point out) – but that’s premised on the charter being ideally better than the public schools it displaces, and minimally at least equal.
This charter is (though it is not stated) seeking to displace the successful public school – what choice do these parents need and for how many students? The charter would NEED to siphon money from the public school to prosper – I can’t imagine a clearer example of a charter being a parasite for a public school.
What will happen if the public school starts failing because it’s suddenly underfunded? What if the charter isn’t a quality school (and it’s hard to predict whether it will be) – and is similarly either underfunded because of the public school competition, or simply does not work for this community? What if the parents don’t want it?
This is some absurd caricature of reformers almost trying to make a point of saying ONLY the teacher matters and not the resources – I can’t imagine any other scenario where this proposal makes sense. Where will their space come from? Their funding? Their equipment?
Why do we NEED competition and divided communities competing for resources if the evidence is that the community is strong, cohesive, and the school is doing its job? Is lack of choice bad even if the evidence is that ALL students are being served? What if a strong community can only be achieved with a critical mass of invested people? Apparently that has little value – either because it’s not measurable or it’s not applicable to a business model.
LikeLike
I think this case is actually worse than a “parasite”:
“The applicant, the Florida Charter Educational Foundation, said a K-8 school on the grounds of MacDill would meet the needs of military families who cannot get their children into Tinker Elementary, the on-base school run by the Hillsborough County School District. The charter would add 875 elementary and middle school slots to augment the 550 places at Tinker. Base commanders were behind the plan, saying it would provide a better environment for military parents who rotate in and out of assignments and typically lack a support structure outside the military community.”
They need additional seats in an on-base school. But they don’t want to pay to build a school. Instead, they contract with a private entity to start the school, the private entity provides the up-front costs, and makes that back on a cut of per pupil funding.
They’re really abandoning their responsibility to provide a public school with sufficient capacity for all the kids. They don’t want to pay for one. Enter the charter, who take care of that by starting a school.
These kids would be moving from a public school off-base to a privatized school on-base. The public school on-base is fully enrolled, and indeed doesn’t have capacity for all the children who live there.
LikeLike
The purpose of the charter is not to improve education. Its purpose is to make money. The name of the game is making money. It’s sad that a governor, who is supposedly conservative, would completely ignore the will of the people.
LikeLike
The school’s name is Tinker. The air base’s name is MacDill. I only mention this because there is a Tinker Air Force Base in Oklahoma.
LikeLike