Charter schools don't 'siphon off money...'
Seattle Times reporter Brian M. Rosenthal doesn't seem to like charter schools, and it shows. In his August 29th article he says charter school opponents "...expect voters to be wary of siphoning off money for charters..." He repeats this tired fabrication without explaining that charter schools are public schools, so they don't "siphon off money."
Charter schools are tuition-free and open to all students. Every child attending a charter school is a public school student and is entitled to the same funding that children at other public schools receive. For example, if a parent in a low-income urban community decides her child may do better in the local charter school, her child should not be denied equal access to the same funding that children receive at other public schools in the same city.
If voters pass Initiative 1240 and allow charter schools, every dollar spent in a charter school would be dollar spent on public education, to provide kids with what they have always been promised: a chance at a brighter future and the skills they need to achieve their highest potential.
Comments
Why I Changed My Mind About Charters
I've changed my mind on charters. They sounded good at first. Then I found out some facts. As a parent of a young child, I'm now strongly opposed to them.
Charter "schools" always become like "private academies" that all of us have to pay for, even though very few of us will benefit. Charters skim "the cream" off the top and lure in the most academically able students. They also attract the most involved parents and those students with the fewest behavioral issues - the same groups who already excel in our public schools, all over our state.
The real objective for people pushing "charters" is to inject private companies into the operation and management of our public schools---and ultimately to make money from them. Their ultimate goal is to make our schools private businesses, where the bulk of our tax dollars will then be directed into the pockets of company executives and large investors.
Look at school districts around the nation: The money taken out of the system by "charters" is a major factor in the large deficits many of them are facing.
No acrimony intended against you or anyone else who disagrees, but what you've written, Liv, is just wrong. Completely wrong. Please learn the facts. You'll see why charters are such a bad idea for all of us.
The real objective of those
The real objective of those supporting charter schools is to give children a chance to get an education rather than being indoctrinated and brainwashed into left-wing radicalism and to also end filling union boss pockets and the Democratic Party with taxpayer money.
a simple explanation
The initiative intention is to open 40 new schools, with no additional revenue to pay for them. Right there is a clear demonstration that the intent is to take current funding and spread it out over more schools. That decreases the amount of funds existing schools receive. If the kids moving to charter schools all moved in neat little bundles of say, 25 second graders from public school X, then that public school could simply hire one fewer second grade teacher and move would perhaps be funding neutral. But that's not how it works. For existing public schools, funding will decrease but costs will not decrease proportionately.
Also, as Ken pointed out, charters may attract new students not already including in public school apportionment, so that increases state costs.
Third, don't forget that this initiative creates bigger state government, more state level bureaucracy of at least three million dollars for the first five years. Six hundred thousand dollars a year is approximately the annual state apportionment funding for a hundred kids.
smaller pieces of the funding pie
To me, I-1240 is wrong for Washington State. I keep coming back to “do we need MORE under-funded schools?”
Already our schools are struggling with tight budgets because state funding is inadequate. And, fact is, charter schools created under Washington State’s I-1240 WILL take their share of limited public school funds (local school district, levy) so existing schools get a smaller share: the pieces of the funding pie will be cut smaller.
Existing schools budgets will take more funding reductions, meaning things like larger class sizes, reduced staff, and fewer electives and extra curricular programs (which PTA/SA's already work hard to keep going). How I see it is that while a small set of kids get "more options", the rest, larger set, of kids get "reduced options".
Don't forget that taxpayer dollars are necessary to set up charter schools and staff the new charter school commission (to be accountable to no one). The State fiscal impact statement states: "Known state agency implementation costs are estimated at $3,090,700 over five fiscal years." (http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/2012/1240_fiscal_impact.pdf , p.1)
Selections from I-1240 FIS:
"To the extent charter schools attract students from private or home schools, overall state student enrollment in the K-12 public school system could increase, increasing state expenditures. The cost of funding a student, using 2011–12 average school year costs, is $5,814 for basic education funding and transportation costs. However, under current law, the state would be required to fund these students should they choose to enter the public school system. Therefore, the fiscal impact to the state and school districts from any new student enrollment is indeterminate, but non-zero." (p.1)
“Charter schools provide another enrollment option, but they do not change current law that state funding follows the student. Therefore, the fiscal impact to school districts from providing state funding to charter schools is indeterminate, but non-zero.”(p.2)
“Because the characteristics of charter schools are unknown, the fiscal impact to the state and school districts from making charter schools eligible for grants and matching funds is indeterminate, but non-zero.”(p.2)
“Charter schools authorized by the Commission are not eligible for local levy moneys approved by the voters before the start-up date of the charter school, but must be included in levy planning, budgets and funding distribution for local levies submitted to the voters after the start-up date of the charter school.”(p.2)
“To the extent the charter school changes a school district’s state and federal revenues, the school district’s levy base may increase or decrease, changing the amount of property tax that can be collected. Because the characteristics of charter schools are unknown, the revenue impact on school districts’ property tax levies is indeterminate, but non-zero.”(p.2)
“However, because it is unknown where charter schools will be located, the fiscal impact to the state to provide local effort assistance to school districts is indeterminate, but non-zero. ”(p.2)
“Because the fee calculation and the amount of state operating funds allocated to the charter school is unknown, there is an indeterminate, but non-zero, revenue impact to the state and school districts.”(p.2)
"Estimates assume the need for operational and staff support to the Commission at the cost of $970,300 over five fiscal years.""Estimates assume these new duties will require additional operational and staff support to the Board at the cost of $815,000 over five fiscal years."(p.3)
"Estimates assume the Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction will require additional operational and staff support to allocate and reconcile funds paid to charter schools and to perform duties as the Board’s fiscal agent. These costs are estimated at $764,400 over five fiscal years."(p.3)
"If all charter school employees were to seek representation and bargain, the maximum estimated cost to the Washington State Public Employment Relations Commission is estimated at $461,000 over five fiscal years."(p.3)
"Charter school employees must become members of state retirement systems if their membership does not jeopardize the federal tax status of these retirement systems. The one-time cost of seeking a federal tax status determination is estimated at $80,000 in fiscal year 2013."(p.3)
Response to WPC comment
Both the CATO Institute and the Rand Corp seem to disagree with WPC's analysis of the impact of charter schools on public school funding.
Rand Corp:
Charter schools are pulling in so many onetime private school students that they are placing an ever-greater burden on taxpayers, who must fund an already strained public education system, according to research released Tuesday.
CATO Institute:
While most students are drawn from traditional public schools, charter schools are pulling large numbers of students from the private education market and present a potentially devastating impact on the private education market, as well as a serious increase in the financial burden on taxpayers.
In highly urban districts, private schools contribute 32, 23, and 15 percent of charter elementary, middle, and high school enrollments, respectively.
The flow of private-school students into charters has important fiscal implications for districts and states. When charters draw students from private schools, demands for tax revenue increase.
Charter schools are not public schools
Charter schools are not public schools. Ownership determines whether something is public or not, and charter schools are not owned by the public. They are owned by the entity that holds the charter.
Government funding does not make them public. Defense contractors are funded largely by the government but Lockheed is not a public corporation.
Universal service does not make them public. The phone company provides universal service but CenturyLink is not a public corporation.
Strict government regulation does not make them public. Investment companies are regulated by the SEC but Goldman Sachs is not a public corporation.
It is ownership and ownership alone that determines if something is public or private and charter schools are not owned by the public so they are not public schools.
I'm a bit surprised that the Washington Policy Center doesn't know the difference between what is private and what is public. I suggest you review your own positions on Property Rights.
Does private infer bad though?
What I find interesting about this comment is that there is no indication of whether or not a private entity might be able to perform something BETTER than a public entity. USPS versus Fedex or UPS is an example that comes to mind where the private sector is outperforming the public sector. We just landed a rover on Mars due to the efforts of JPL, a federally-funded but privately managed entity.
I highly doubt that WPC doesn't know the difference between public and private. The point of their argument was to counter the ad nauseum argument that money will be siphoned when in fact, the money follows the student. It doesn't surprise me to hear this talking point over and over again, but just because you say it a lot, it doesn't make it true.
FedEx vs. Post Office?
Can FedEx deliver a simple one page letter for less than 50 cents, anywhere in the United States?
Why not? I thought they were better than the USPS.
50 cents = Insolvent
Um, USPS is facing a massive financial crisis. FedEx has a $27B market cap. Hmmm, I am guessing one organization is better than the other.
A 2006 congressional mandate is strangling USPS
The USPS fiscal problems were created by Congress and not by its own business model. What other entity, public or private, is required to pre-pay retirement benefits 70 years into the future -- including for employees that aren't yet hired.
http://www.nalc.org/PostalFacts/08292011-fargo-monroe-ri.html
That's right, no indication
LO Monaghan is right that my comment does not apply a judgement about whether private or public are good or bad. There are somethings that the private sector does better and there are some things that the public sector does better. The private sector, let's recall, is all about the profit motive. The public sector has no profit motive.
USPS versus Fedex or UPS is an example that comes to mind where the public sector is outperforming the private sector. The USPS will carry my mail to any point in the US for 47 cents. That's AMAZING. Fedex does touch anything for less than about $7.50.
I highly doubt that WPC doesn't know the difference between public and private yet they continue to refer to charter schools as public schools. It doesn't surprise me to hear this talking point over and over again, but just because you say it a lot, it doesn't make it true.
AMAZING?
There is a reason why USPS is on the brink of bankruptcy. Maybe there is a reason why FedEx doesn't charge you 50 cents to send a letter.
Public or private aside, I-1240 also requires that charters are run by non-profits, so this argument is completely disingenuous.
Charter school funding
Charter schools do siphon off money from the school district in which they reside. The charter school bill requires that a conversion school would be allowed to use the existing facility without paying rent. The school district would be responsible for major repairs
and safety upgrades while the charter school would cover routine maintenance. If the charter school receives all of the state allocation for each child and the portion of local levy dollars, where does the district get the money to handle any major repairs and safety upgrades? It will come out of the general fund and will impact the amount of money available to fund other needed items in the district.
Do Charter Schools have to take all comers?
Wondering if charter schools have to take all students on a first come first serve basis or lottery? Do Sped, ELL, and disadvantage youth all have to be accpeted?
Charters have to take all
Charters have to take all students who apply. A student in Bellevue can apply for a Seattle charter and vice versa. Charters are not neighborhood schools.
If there are more applications (and keep in mind, a charter can require an application form - many are multiple pages long) than spaces, then a lottery is required.
By Federal law, charters have to accept all students including Special Ed, ELL and homeless students. However, statistics show that they underserve these groups. A Government Accountability Office report from June 2012 backs up that charters underserve Special Education students. (They do this by telling parents of those students they don't have the services the students need and direct them back to their regular districts who then HAVE to take in those high-need, high-cost students.)
There is nothing in this initiative that guarantees any charter will serve at-risk students. And, if there are more than 8 approved charters, they all go into a lottery (and are not rechecked to select the best ones that might serve disadvantaged students).