facebooktwitterRSS
- Advertisement -
  • Most Commentedmost commented up
  • Most Emailedmost emailed up
  • Popularmost popular up
- Advertisement -
 

« News Home

Don’t believe charter critics



Published: Fri, March 15, 2013 @ 12:00 a.m.

By Stephanie Klupinski

Special to The Vindicator

The Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools (OAPCS) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan membership organization dedicated to the enhancement and sustainability of quality charter schools. OAPCS encourages well-reasoned, honest debates about how all public schools can be improved to best meet the needs of students.Unfortunately, the commentary by Janetta King of Innovation Ohio (Vindicator, March 11) contains a great deal of misinformation about charter schools that must be addressed.

First, King’s assertion that charters “cost the state twice as much” as district schools is simply not true. Unlike district schools, Ohio’s public charter schools do not receive local tax dollars. When a student leaves a district for a charter school, only the state and federal funds follow. A true comparison of charter and district funding — one that accounts for local, state, and federal revenue — reveals that Ohio charter schools receive, on average, $2,000 less per pupil. In a recent analysis by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools of all state charter school laws, Ohio’s ranks the lowest in terms of equitable funding.

Nonsensical solution

Moreover, her proposed solution — to fund charters based on what they actually spend — is nonsensical. Charters spend less money than district schools precisely because they receive less money. Under King’s circular reasoning, districts that spend within budget should also never receive increases because funding should be based on what they currently spend. Across Ohio, charter schools serve fewer white students and more economically disadvantaged than state averages. To suggest that they be funded according to some number that represents minimal operational costs, while nearby districts serving fewer poor students are funded at higher levels and according to what it actually costs to educate kids, is unconscionable.

King also resumes a tired and unproductive debate about which is better — district or charter. Most people on all sides of the political spectrum have moved beyond this kind of zero-sum thinking, a mindless sandbox argument where the only losers are students. Reasonable progressives and conservatives alike recognize that most variance in school quality depends not on whether the school is district or charter, but whether the school has excellent leadership, high-quality teachers, and the financial capacity to do the job. Rather than aligning themselves in a district or charter camp, they align with the goal of creating a public education system that provides a quality education for all of its students.

Finally, King’s claims that charters are unaccountable and low-performing are not grounded in truth. She compares charter schools to all public schools in the state, despite the fact that district schools serve, on average, a more privileged student population than do charter schools, and she neglects to point out that over 100 charter schools serve students with special needs or those most at risk (dropout recovery). Under King’s approach, we should also expect Youngstown city schools to fare as well on state tests as suburban schools in Poland and Canfield. To be sure, poverty is not an excuse, and all schools should be expected to perform to high levels. But it is hardly surprising that suburban schools tend to outperform urban schools, district or charter, especially on static measures like the Performance Index that King references.

A true apples-to-apples comparison shows that Ohio’s urban charter schools consistently outperform the district schools from which most of them come. Last year, 40 percent of urban charters received a report card grade of Excellent or Effective, compared with only about one-fourth of urban district schools. Moreover, state law ensures that charter schools that fail to meet certain academic benchmarks for two out of three years are shut down — a consequence that does not apply to poor-performing district schools. One could then argue that, contrary to King’s claims, charters are actually more accountable than district schools.

Civic goal

In his re-election victory speech last November, President Obama urged the nation to move past their differences and to unify around important civic goals — and the first civic goal he named was ensuring that all students have access to excellent schools and teachers. His administration recognizes the valuable role public charter schools play in accomplishing this civic goal: they increase the number of public school options available for students most in need, they raise the bar about what’s possible in education, and they help close the achievement gap. Innovation Ohio and other progressives would do well to recognize this and to support all public schools that give economically disadvantaged students more opportunities, rather than misconstruing the facts.

Stephanie Klupinski is vice president for legal and legislative affairs with the Ohio Alliance for Public Charter Schools.


Comments

1formerdemliberal(182 comments)posted 1 year, 1 month ago

As I mentioned in a previous post reply to Ms. King's article, her participation in the current state school funding formula while serving with the Strickland administration immediately disqualified her opinions regarding the lack of "fairness" of public school funding allocations as objective.

I agree with Ms. Klipinski that Ms. King's proposals would appear to create incentives for inefficient school districts to spend/waste more taxpayer dollars to justify subsequent additional budgetary requests in the name of solving future learning outcomes that have not been accomplished in the past. In effect, Ms. King's so-called solution to improving quality learning would throw more money at underperforming school systems (and their employees) in an attempt to solve their classroom performance deficiencies without subsequent accountability.

How many times have taxpayers heard a superintendent or school board member justify a tax increase request by implying that quality education comes at a cost and that the additional funding is all about the "kids"? How many more times will taxpayers be suckered by slick talking school executives extolling the need for additional funding without demanding that levy funds go directly to fundamental classroom learning (textbooks, computers, multimedia equipment, structural improvements, reading, writing, 'rithmatic) along with accountability of positive learning results rather than into the pockets of underperforming union faculty or the pensions of school administrators?

Certainly the charter system is not perfect. The charter education system is in its infancy and needs to weed out poor or unscrupulous providers. On the other hand, successful charter schools such as YCS have proven that under the right leadership and collaborative working environment between teachers,administrators and parents, quality learning and discipline can be achieved at a lower overall cost than the cost structure currently found in many union-based public schools.

I believe that the teachers union lobby fears that more parents and taxpayers will come to ultimately realize that better education is not always directly correlated with higher labor costs and the gravy train from assuming ultimate taxpayer approval of school levies may dry up as voters demand greater accountability from their local school systems of cost-effective learning accomplishments.

Once again, I believe that Innovation Ohio represents a classic example of a public-employee union advocacy group masquerading as education advocates primarily in the interests of the economic benefit of their membership by proposing additional public school funding allocations at the expense of private/charter schools, rather than focusing on education innovation quality to meet the competitive challenges of their successful charter school counterparts.

Thank you, Ms. Klupinski, for your insight refuting much of Ms. King's Democratic/pro-union propaganda.

Suggest removal:


News
Opinion
Entertainment
Sports
Marketplace
Classifieds
Records
Discussions
Community
Help
Forms
Neighbors

HomeTerms of UsePrivacy StatementAdvertiseStaff DirectoryHelp
© 2014 Vindy.com. All rights reserved. A service of The Vindicator.
107 Vindicator Square. Youngstown, OH 44503

Phone Main: 330.747.1471 • Interactive Advertising: 330.740.2955 • Classified Advertising: 330.746.6565
Sponsored Links: Vindy Wheels | Vindy Jobs | Vindy Homes | Pittsburgh International Airport