Have You Ever Seen So Much Confusion?

We live in a technological world. Kid are getting more technology smart all of the time. So, it seems that a virtual school seems a great testing ground for new educational methods. It seems that public education favors this idea, except when teachers are left out.

Now, let's think about why this might be. The Wisconsin Court of Appeal decided that parent supervised virtual training was illegal. Of course, in our world of standards based education we'd expect that the problem was low standards. Without teachers surely kids could not achieve the excellent results achieved in public schools. This seems obvious, but no, that wasn't the case. In fact, children in Wisconsin Virtual Academy (WIVA) achieved better than the average public school child. HMMM. Does something smell fishy to you?

It seems pretty obvious what is going on here. This is not about educating kids. It's about resisting change because teachers' unions realize that if this new innovative method of education is successful, their members may have to find new jobs. What more proof do we need that public eduation really isn't about education, it's about control.

So, next time you hear someone talk about standards and test results, remember WIVA, and remember that education works best when parents have choice.

Generous New Jersey Law Gives Charters...90% Funding

OK. We all like a bargain. New Jersey is getting a 10% savings on charter schools, even after increased in charter school funding recently. But this is really confusing. Charters are supposed to be about school choice and innovation, but we fund them at a lower rate that other schools, and expect better results. Am I the only one who sees this problem?

I'm still confused about states' understanding of school finance. I'm more convinced that legislators just don't get it. As a CFO of a very large charter school, I'm dumbfounded by legislators who say that charters get a great deal.

Let's look at the facts. Even in Colorado where charters get 100% of the Per Pupil Revenue funding, charters often don't get equal funding for special education, federal impact aid for military presence, or federal title money. In addition, it's much more difficult for a charter to issue bonds, and charters aren't automatically included in mill levy overrides. Before I go too far, I have to say that our district has been relatively fair with us, but none of the concessions our district has made to us is mandated by state law. It's hit or miss for charters.

So, let's run some numbers. What is the real per student revenue for our school district?

For 2006 the PPR for our district was just over $6,000. The district reports $7,926 of total funding in its School Accountability Report. This means that the district receives about 30% more money than is reflected in the PPR amount. Charter schools are not legally required to get any of that. In addition, builders are required to give parcels of land to the school districts worth millions of dollars--none to charter schools. On top of that school districts have bond elections to pay for their buildings. Charter schools pay for their buildings out of PPR. This is a real cash deduction from PPR, even though school districts count charter students in their revenue estimates in order to determine their debt capacity.

I've seen varying estimates, but the fact is that even if a state authorizes charter schools to receive 100% of PPR, the charter school is likely to be effectively funded at 20% to 50% less than its authorizing school district.

So, I have a question. When people compare academic performance of charters to public schools and find no difference (let's conceded the point for a moment), the conclusion is that the charter school is still a better bargain for the taxpayer. So, we can cheer with charters in New Jersey for their increase in funding, but charter school education in New Jersey is better than a 10% discount for taxpayers. It's more like a bargain basement jackpot.

Have Your Students Been to MIT?

MIT is is an elite university--one of the best in the country. So how could your students get to MIT? Maybe the don't have to go there.

MIT has one of the largest web sites with access to course materials and video lectures. It's all available at http://ocw.mit.edu/ocwweb/hs/home/home.index.htm. There are 1,800 courses.

This isn't specific to charters, but with many charters short on funding and needing some help, what better way to learn from great scholars on a budget?

Also, this could be used to show students what college (a great college) is really like. In addition, AP level courses could use lectures to supplement teacher's lectures or use lectures when the teacher is absent and a subject specific instructor isn't available. This would be great at small rural schools as well.

So, take a look, be creative. If you students can't go to MIT, that doesn't mean they can't get an MIT education.

Why Don't We Let Principals Do Their Jobs?

Principals have a lot of responsibility. We hold them accountable for the performance of our students and kids. It only makes sense that we would give them the freedom to do their job the best way they see fit.

Peter Groff sees things this way. The state senator from Denver, Colorado has proposed legislation that would encourage districts who innovate by exempting them from certain state laws.

One of the issues is that districts tell a principal to be creative, to innovate, but then does not provide budget freedom for a principal to distribute money to area that most needs improvement. While business people would clearly see the need for more autonomy for principals, teachers don't see it that way. Unions tend to oppose these kinds of proposals because they fear that teachers will either be cut, or be held to a higher standard.

If Colorado approves this bill, it will be a boost for principal authority and accountability as well as school innovation and potential success. We've hired principals, now let's let them do their jobs, which is to do what's best for out kids.