Reader comments
Funding bill for charters thrills no one

This 'Solution' sounds similar to the 'final solution' during WWII. Charter Schools are already underfunded as it is, and cutting the funds that pay for a full time teacher or two is going to make things even more difficult. Throw in that District schools are just as underfunded and now they have to share and then the problem grows. Have you ever tried to steal food from a starving dog? No one does because the dog is going to bite or even try to kill you.

I thought one of the main "selling" points to charter schools was that they could provide the same or better education for LESS money than traditonal public schools. In a lot of cases it appears like that isn't happening.
The analogy of the starving dog is GREAT!

What a joke! Now school districts have to give their money to a school they have no control over. Only in Utah would this sham be pushed! Public schools are already struggling and now our esteemed legislators are asking the districts to ante up for schools they are not legally responsible for and have no oversight over. The hungry dog scenario is appropriate for this sham! If it wasn't so serious, it would almost be comical.

I have two children in a charter school. I started my oldest in a regular public school and he got so bored because his abilities were above the other students. But because there were 25+ kids and only one teacher, he had to go at the level of the lowest child. We switched him to a charter school where they have 20 kids, a teacher and a teacher's assistant. Now he is doing much better. Why should the school district get all of my tax dollars when the can't even do a good job. SEND MY tax dollars to the school where my child goes. That is all I ask.

I think that this could be a step in the right direction. The idea of tax money be tied to each student is good. This will allow parents more choices on where they send their children. It will also encourage competition in the education field which will up teacher and child performance. I think this is a very good idea.

I, for one, want better use of my tax dollars. Competition for education dollars WILL produce BETTER EDUCATION for our children for LESS tax dollars.

So far Charter schools haven't proven worth the money already spent on them. The average test scores aren't any better than public shools. Which considering that they find ways to force low achievers back to public schools is pathetic. If you don't think that is true you are fooling yourself. Another point to consider is that the only children sent to them come from families that are involved in the childs education. Parents who are MIA in their childs education will just leave them where they are. They have few to no ESL students, resource students and parent MIA students. So considering they are missing virtually every demographic which brings down test scores for public schools, the fact that they aren't outscoring public education by a mile proves how ineffective they really are.

Anonymous, do your homework before sounding off. The charter schools in the areas where they serve the at risk students you're referring to have absolutely proven to be an excellent choice--look at the data. In the lilly white, high income areas they might be debatable, but even then they provide a nice choice for the parents without hurting the OTHER public schools (yeah, charters are public, and there's nothing they're doing that traditional schools couldn't do if they would just get out of their bureaucratic rut).

Biodude, Charters ARE educating for less! They do not receive transportation money, recreation levy and only receive 1/2 the $$ districts do for administrative reports, yet they still have to do all the reports districts have to.
They build buildings FAR less expensively than districts with approx $100 per pupil less for facilities.

Annon, the legislative study last year showed that charters were meeting the needs of their students and that the parents (taxpayers) of charter students overwhelmingly approved of their charter school. The study also showed that charters test scores met or exceeded that of comparable districts. Give the charters some time to teach students and help them catch up.

Charter Shmarter, the $$ is NOT the districts $$ it is the taxpayers money. If the districts cannot meet the need of students then it is the responsibility of the parent/taxpayer to find a school that does. BTW there is MUCH more than test scores that ought to be considered when deciding on which school to send your child to.

I say let the $$ follow the student, competition is good in any industry!

Gifted students need a chance to excel too. The focus is generally on the struggling students which makes it near impossible to reach out to the gifted ones. Charter schools let these kids have a school where parents can be involved and they can excel. I think it's great!

Why is it that our legislators are constantly trying to pass legislation that they admit is flawed? Didn't they learn anything from the voucher fiasco? If they can't think of a better solution, perhaps they ought to table this until next session, rather than passing a shoddy bill that will only cause problems later.

Public schools are required to provide a whole series of services that charter schools aren't required to provide not the least of which is busing. Public schools cannot do the same things that charter schools can do. They are mandated by law to take all students. Charter schools can dictate who the student population will consist of based on where they set up shop, and what rules they put into place. If a kid cannot function at a charter school were does he end up? Back in a public school. Not quite equal, because public schools don't send kids to charter schools when the don't function.

I've been following this bill carefully. The biggest inequity here comes from the fact that the patrons of school districts VOTE for the tax levy after evaluating the need and where the money will go. They vote for the board members who levy the taxes. The board is accountable to the taxpayers for those dollars. This bill requires that some of those dollars will go to students that the board has no responsibility or accountability for.

The debate isn't which schools are better. They both fill a need. But districts NOR the patrons who live in them have any say about how many charter schools or charter school students are created in their district. That is purely a state decision. Some districts have as many as 10% charter schools students--therefore losing 10% of their local replacement funding. Others, like Park City, have NO charter students. Some of the poorest, highest taxed districts will lose as much as $2.5 million dollars per year when this bill is fully implemented. What will they do to replace that?

Transportation dollars are not a plus for a district but a minus. All districts in the past few years are subsidizing those dollars from the WPU because the state has only funded about 65% of the cost. If transportation wasn�t mandated, it would be easier for districts to change schedules, balance classroom sizes and numerous different pluses for students.

The true difference is not the district BUREAUCRACY but the legislative bureaucracy and the way dollars are give to charters vs districts. District funds are pigeon-holed leaving very little flexibility into how they are spent. Charters are given much greater flexibility. Charters, as a whole have a much younger (newer) staff who are much cheaper to hire. What will happen as those teachers gain more experience and want higher wages? Charters can also REQUIRE parental involvement as a condition of admission. Wouldn't that be a fun law for the legislators to pass--let the public schools make the same requirement.