In Indiana, Rep. Bob Behning is shocked--shocked!-- to hear that charters receive on average $7,000 less per pupil than public schools. Do we need to look into this more closely? No, we need a new law that simply forces public school districts to share their assets with any charter school that says, "Gimme." Ka-ching!
Democrat Rep. Ed Delaney has pointed out the obvious--that this will require taxpayers to fork over even more money just to avoid losing services in their local school. And Delaney also points out (for what may be the gazzilionth time) that the charter system lacks oversight and accountability.
But when it comes to forcing taxpayers to subsidize non-public schools, you always have to look at Florida.
HB 1259 is wending its way through the legislative process, but the fundamental idea of the bill is clear enough--charter schools get a cut of any construction money (capital improvement, etc) raised by the public district to which they're attached.
In other words, if East Egg School District decides to raise $1,000,000 for a new elementary school, and Bogwash Charter School has 2% of the students who should be at East Egg, then Bogwash is entitled to $20,000 of that. Ka-ching! Well, practically speaking, what it really means is that if East Egg needs to raise a million for a new school, they'll actually have to raise one million, twenty-some thousand to cover the amount that Bogwash Charter gets to skim right off the top. Or they build a slightly smaller school.
There are a lot of details wrapped up in this (including the mysteries of Florida school finance), but the notion is a simple one--every time a public school builds or renovates something, charter schools get a nice little bonus. Proponents of the bill argue that this is about "parity" and getting more money for charter school students.
I guess when the money follows the child, it's not enough.
House Minority Leader Fentrice Driskell calls it.
Well, yes. The charter school business is at least as much about real estate as it is about education. These sorts of legislative attempts to direct more and more money toward charter schools have been ongoing for years. The amount of money that follows the child is never satisfactory (unless we're talking about public schools, in which case they already get more than enough).
Charter schools are absolutely a means of taxation without representation, a mechanism by which taxpayers are required to fork over money to feed education-flavored businesses that do not at all answer to those same taxpayers. These kinds of laws are just ways to expand the business model. Ka-ching.
Wait a min. You make this point repeatedly. But if a district school is educating 80% of the kids, why should they get the money for 100% of the kids ? The fault in your argument is there is such a thing as variable cost. For example, teachers salaries. If a district school is educating fewer kids, it needs fewer teachers. Doesn't mean that there are fewer teachers in aggregate. Just means some are working at the charter. Only difference if fewer teachers are paying union dues. Oh wait .... Now I understand your issue ...
ReplyDeleteIt would be a special day if you understood my issue (or at least didn't pretend that you didn't). Setting aside for the moment that figuring per-pupil expenses is a fiction, to use your example, charter supporters are now arguing that to educate 10% of the students, they need 20% of the funding.
DeleteAnd I know you understand stranded costs, even though you pretend not to. Having 10% fewer students does not mean 10% fewer teachers (if three third graders move to charters, you can't cut a teacher), nor do you have 10% fewer transportation expenses and certainly not, as suggested by the Florida law, 10% less of a school building.