Your recent guest commentary from Clint Bolick on charter schools ("Charter Schools transforming Arizona’s education landscape") was filled with inaccuracies. I’d like to set the record straight.
Charter schools do not receive less funding than district schools. In fact, they receive $981 per student more in state funding, according to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee.
And charters do not spend more of their funds in the classroom "where it counts" than district schools. In fact, charter schools spend nearly twice as much on administration as school districts, according to the Arizona Department of Education.
Let me address another set of facts the writer didn’t specifically misreport, but to which he alluded. Academic performance of students who attend charter schools is not superior to students who attend their local, neighborhood public schools. According to the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, some charters do better; however, most charters do the same as district schools — or worse.
With these facts in mind, and knowing that the families of nearly nine out of 10 Arizona students continue to choose their neighborhood public school, isn’t it time we put our energy, resources and investment there?
Dr. Timothy L. Ogle
Executive Director, Arizona School Boards Association
Pat Mytush posted at 8:02 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.
The "total funding" arguement that charters get less money than district schools is true and Mike accurately reflected why that is the case. The REAL ISSUE that everyone is losing sight of is our state budget woes. Ours is going to be once again in a huge deficit and the money that comes out of there for education spending is more per pupil to charter kids by the amount the letter writer states. Te other sources of funding does not matter to our state's impending financial doom yet the AZ Conservatives are quite happy spending more for students to attend an overall inferior educational setting. The state spends more and gets much less.[wink]
Mike McClellan posted at 4:09 pm on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.
ccmomof3 is right . . . to a point.
Yes, when you look at total funding per student, her numbers are accurate.
But . . .
1. The difference between funding of charter schools and district schools includes Title I monies, which often charter schools do not qualify for because they don't serve that population.
2. The difference in funding also includes monies for special ed programs, and again, charter schools mostly don't serve that population.
3. The difference in funding also includes monies for ELL programs, and again, the huge majority of charter schools don't serve that population.
So when you see the difference in funding, one of the realities is charters can't receive funds for programs they don't have.
And as ccmomof3 knows, districts float bonds for much of their building repair and construction, thus calling the facilities "free" is less than accurate.
ccmomof3 posted at 9:52 am on Wed, Dec 5, 2012.
Chuckles is correct. The facts are here...
For FY 2011, District schools received $9412 in total funding per pupil, while Charter Schools only received $7,834.
http://www.azleg.gov/jlbc/districtvscharterfunding.pdf
In addition, Dr Ogle is certainly aware that charter schools typically have to pay rent or debt service on a building purchase directly from operating funds, this is why less money gets to the classroom. They do not have the luxury of receiving 'free' facilities like district schools do.
Masterrogue666 posted at 12:59 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.
The problem with public schools is that ILLEGAL ALIEN CHILDREN take resources away from the children of US CITIZENS. That needs to stop FIRST! When that happens (Especially in states where said persons are prevalent), they'll be a huge surplus of funds. We need to take care of our citizens FIRST, and foremost.
DonMey posted at 12:10 pm on Tue, Dec 4, 2012.
How is it a "half-truth" when I specifically cited it? According to the department of education, about 10% of kids receive some level of special needs education. If 10% of the population translates to a 20% increase per student, there's something wrong.
Just looking at the math:
1700 more per student than the charter school's 7800 equates to 17k when done at base 10. Which means that one special needs child costs almost 25k, which is over 3x as much.
Abstract01 posted at 7:49 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
Good summary, Mike.
Mike McClellan posted at 6:13 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
Speaking of half-truths . . . DonMey notes that charter schools don't get fed money for "special needs" kids.
Well, Don, that's because most charter schools don't have special ed programs.
No program, no funding. And, as the article you cited notes, for-profit charters are ineligible for federal aid.
As to the article you cite, it's interesting to note that the Great Hearts Academy complains about the need for more money to teach low-income kids.
Hmmm, more money to teach kids?
I thought you conservatives believed that money isn't the solution?
I thought you charter school advocates claimed (20 years ago) that charter schools would educate kids better and need less money to do so?
I guess that's no longer operative, to use a Nixonian phrase.
Maybe those for-profit charters could cut their profits and provide their schools more funding. Or maybe cut their high advertising expenses and put more of that money
in their classrooms.
Lastly, VofReason is right about the parents -- keep parents involved in their kids' educations, and the chances are the kids will learn.
VofReason posted at 1:39 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
If you still cling to the issue of funding for schools you have already made the decision as to how you believe. Kids can learn in either setting as long as there is good parent involvement. If not, doesn't matter. Until the funding pays parents to care, it won't have an effect on student learning. Remember, in the 1800s kids had one book, a personal chalk board, and piled into one room school houses. Many learned more than in today's schools with computers and layers of administration.
DonMey posted at 1:00 pm on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
Nothing like accusing someone of a lie by telling your own half-truth. Charter schools receive less overall per-pupil funding. They do get more from the state general fund, but don't get property taxes, and don't get a lot of federal dollars that are allocated to "special needs" kids.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20110501charter-schools-funding-gap.html
chuckles3 posted at 8:21 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
Hmm according the AZ Dept.of Education 2012 Progress report, charter schools received $1700 LESS per pupil.
Hmm, imagine that, me citing something silly like an actual document, than some throwaway reference to a political committee....
No agendas here....charter schools don't use School boards, do they Dr. Ogle?
Go spread your BS somewhere else.
RubidouxFalcon posted at 8:08 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
Don't forget home schooling. It's growing, it's progressing and it's not just a bunch of religious zealots doing it.
Fact is that if you can afford to, have the skills to, you should home school your kids, at least in the early years. You know darn well that they are getting maybe 2-3 hours of quality academic time in a normal school day. Recess, lunch, transition, physical education, and so on take up the rest.
We're nothing special and are homeschooling our 5 year old (our oldest of three, with one on the way). He's way beyond his peers in reading and math.
And don't tell me my kid is weird. He socializes all the time-plays soccer, goes to church (no, that doesn't make us religious zealots), plays in the neighborhood, goes to activities at the community center and so on.
The argument that home schooled kids turn out weird is just not accurate. Weird parents turn out weird kids. You've never met a weird public schooled kid before?
Dale Whiting posted at 4:08 am on Mon, Dec 3, 2012.
When parents have a choice, Charter Schools flurish. That speaks volumns. The question is "What happens to the children of those parents who do not choose the Charter route?" Anyone got those statistics? Apparently some do the same, others do worse.
Cerulean posted at 1:41 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
“Board members and administrators from more than a dozen state-funded charter schools are profiting from their affiliations by doing business with schools they oversee.
The deals, worth more than $70 million over the last five years, are legal, but critics of the arrangements say they can lead to conflicts of interest.
Arizona’s regulations on charter schools are relatively lax. The STATE ALLOWS CHARTERS TO SEEK EXEMPTIONS FROM STATE LAWS THAT REQUIRE SCHOOLS TO OBTAIN COMPETITIVE BIDS for goods or services. Nearly 90 percent of the state’s charter holders have gotten permanent exemptions from the state Board for Charter Schools, according to the state’s database.” (emphasis is mine)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/20121016insiders-benefiting-charter-deals.html?nclick_check=1
DemocraticDad posted at 1:02 pm on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
Thank you Dr. Ogle.
To add to the information that you stated, a study was done by Stanford University in 2009 on charter school performance in 16 states. This is from that study:
States that demonstrated lower average charter school student growth than their peers
in traditional schools included:
o Arizona
o Florida
o Minnesota
o New Mexico
o Ohio
o Texas
Anyone who would like to read the entire study can find it at :
http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/MULTIPLE_CHOICE_CREDO.pdf
truth posted at 11:57 am on Sun, Dec 2, 2012.
The U.S. rating in the world this year is 74.1 down 0.4, Arizona is rated 47th in the U.S. what more can be said?