There are nearly 30,000 students in Utah charter schools, more than 5% of total enrollment, and the number continues to grow. Within ten years, charters could be teaching more than 10% of total enrollment. This is a significant amount, and these are students that districts don't have to spend money educating. Since they are not incurring these costs, the charters should get the money.

Due to overall enrollment growth, fixed costs are not an issue since charter schools are primarily diverting enrollment growth. Even in those districts not experiencing growth, existing schools can be consolidated to account for reduced costs and funding.

I am still annoyed by the throw everything that was defeated back on the table Ominibus bill. THis 'law' was defeated because of the problems it was going to create. It reestablished an adversarial relationship between the systems and it harms more Charter schools than it helps. The money 'saved' by the state exceeds the money most Charters gained from the local school tax (The state had been kicking in funding). It was a creative way to cut funding to Charter schools AND also cut funding to District schools.

We need to take a serious look at thieves in sheep's clothing who actively steal from our children in our legislature. It is time to get rid of Howard Stephenson. He has done enough damage already.

The article was right. The tax money should go for the education of children wherever they might go to school. Parents are willing to pay out of their pocket because they think their children will get a better education at a charter school. Maybe instead of crying about less revenue, the school districts ought to be looking at: (1) determining ways to cut overhead and costs because they are not teaching as many children; and (2) looking how they can provide a better education so that parents are not motivated to send their childrens elsewhere for an education.

It is really time to start addressing the issues Ogden School Board instead of crying about unfairness.

I'm a charter school parent and I pay taxes to the Granite School District. First, Charter Schools are not tuition-based schools, they are public schools. Second, my portion of my taxes I pay should go to where my children are being taught.

I am not causing the Granite School District to incur any cost for the education of my children. There is not a teacher, a principal, a custodian or food service or a transportation service from Granite that our family is using. There is an open seat in the class because of our decision to go charter school.

I find it disappointing that Ogden District wants their cake and frosting to go with their meat and potatoes. What is wrong with sending my property tax dollars that typically go to our school district from being redirected to our charter school? It is the correct solution.

You hit it on the head, Bill!

Our society has made a philosophical decision that schools are so important to society that all of society should contribute to their support, even those who do not have children in schools.

Money does not come from the individual student, nor is it spent on the basis of the individual student, yet this bill allocates it on that basis.

This is the same argument that Utah voters rejected in the voucher election. People can choose to opt out of the school system, but they should not be able to opt out of supporting a strong public education system.

We as a society have decided that our education system is too valuable to society, and thus everyone helps support it through taxation.

I am a charter school parent and a property tax payer. I cannot understand why people cry foul when it comes to change. My kids go to a charter school for a better education. My tax money should benefit them just as much as any other kid. Our charter schools run on a budget per student, that is much less than a public school. Why can't a public school cut their budgets and still provide top notch education? I think the Ogden school district needs to get their thumbs out of their mouths and start acting like responsible adults. Our precious tax money puts food on thier tables, maybe that should be cut back a little. Just a thought...

Our "regular" public schools need our help, not the "invention" of charter schools. Charter schools have simply caused more woes in the world of education. Utah would be in much better academic shape if those who branched off to make charter schools would have placed their interest and effort in the existing public schools. How foolish many Charter School founders and parents are.

Follow the Money to the Special Interests of the few that cllaim they are doing it for the genral good. It's not just about educating children, just like Foster Care is a money maker for the social worker. The general population of society has a responsibility for moving society forward. We have learned that privitization only creates jobs for administrators. Adults need to come to reality that parenting is grassroots to a common society.

charter schools are going to go the way of disco.

Sounded good at the time but a laugher a few years later.

The charter school by me is now doing some heavy advertising and recruiting.

Parents are "seeing the light" and coming back to the local school.

It will take a few years to get rid of the bad charter schools. The good ones will find ways to function on their own without involving the local school district.

Our public school system has morphed into a management heavy, support personel heavy, rediculious mess with three support people for every teacher, no wonder there is no money to give teachers the raises they desperately need. Just one example: Every school district has it's own procurement wherein they buy their desks,office equipment and supplies. If all purchases were made by one office at the state level, large volume purchases and no need for district procurement personel would save millions of dollars.
If you are a really big thinker, emagine if there was only one school district for the whole state, the savings would be mega millions, and your property tax would be cut in half

I left regular public schools to try a charter school this year. I love 25 student per class limit, uniforms, and 1 aide for every grade. It gives my kids the best chance to succeed. I spent hundreds of volunteer hours each year at "public school" trying to make it better. My "public" is trying, but this is the only way to get the higher standards that my kids need to succeed. I could not pay all the expenses for my 3 kids to go to school, I am grateful for the taxes paid by all, and I just hope the legislature and Ogden city can figure out what is best for all.

"strong public school system" What is that supposed to mean? The public shool system is top heavy, hard to steer and beholden to the wants and wishes of the universities who claim to have "research based education" yet they can never produce the proof their positions. Maybe its time to shake up the public school system and start over....

I agree with the post at 8:17. Just because your child goes to a charter school it should not free you from the tax burden for public education. Those without children must accept the tax burden (not always without compliant either) and so charter school parents must as well. If you believe public schools are not doing their job then just abandoning the system and those that get left behind is not the best answer for our society as a whole.

The fact the legislators who allowed the creation of the charter schools also exempted them from following the same procurement processes required of the districts, so the charter schools can build the school with all the bells and whistles the districts can't, then pass the cost along in the lease amounts, which are covered by the districts portions. If you want apples to apples, the charter schools should be required to accept the lowest bid when building their schools, just like the districts. Of course that would mean the legislators that now build the charter schools would have to lower their bids to get the job, but it would lessen the amount the districts have to kick in. Why should the charter schools have a better facility than we allow the regular schools, are their kids better?

The real concern is that money collected by one agency is being handed over to another with no accountability. No one, including the Ogden Board, has a problem with tax dollars funding charter schools. They do have a problem with the state creating a system, and then refusing to pay for it. Now local school districts, which do not oversee charter schools, are stuck with the bill and charter schools, unlike the rest of the system, don't have to say where the money is going. Charter schools are public schools overseen by the state of Utah and they should be funded by the state -- not local districts. Keep in mind, the tax money afforded by SB 2 is in addition to the per pupil money already being directed away from school districts.

Three issues here:

1. When Charter Schools were first started 8+ years ago, the legislators promoted them as a way to add funding to the regular public schools. The "school choice" crowd on Capitol Hill said "look at all the students that will be taken out of regular public schools and all of the savings that will bring." If that is no longer the case then we were misled and deceived!

2. When the regular school districts raise property taxes or bond for buildings they have certain steps that they must take to inform the taxpayers. Many times they are criticised and become the "bad guys" because of this. If Charter Schools get to piggy back on the property tax revenue--where is their responsibility for truth in taxation? They get another free ride and the regular school districts must do all of the dirty work.

3. Charter Schools are constructed out of funds from a legislative "slush fund" and do not have to go to the public and beg for bonding money like the regular districts do. Why not?

Charter Schools want to be "public" when it suits their purposes and want special considerations when it doesn't. This must change!

The "what's mine is mine" tone in many of the comments is disturbring. If the patron's money is restricted only to go to his/her school, then it ceases to be a public school; it is private. Public money cannot legally be restricted to private use.

Do the words in the Constitution "for the public welfare" no longer apply in Utah?

Or, have we reverted to the 1970s version of Russian detant: "What's mine is mine, what's yours is negociable."

The people have spoken and they voted down funding charter schools from public school funding sources.

What part of Bigelow's failed bill doesn't he understand? This bill did not pass on it's own, he had to sleaze it through the back door to get it passed. Don't rob Peter to pay Paul.

Okay, I didn't even read the article, but the picture is really disturbing. N'est pas?

Part of the problem with this part of SB2 is that Ogden District and every other school district in the state, will be paying the Charter Schools in their district for every child enrolled, whether or not that child would/could have attended a district school.

For example, if I live in Granite District but want to send my child to American Preparatory Academy in Draper, it is not MY tax dollars that are going to follow my child, but tax dollars from the Jordan District taxpayers that will follow my child.

PLUS, the Legislature reduced the amount of money that the State will provide for each Charter School student, because that money is now being covered by the local school districts. All in all the Charter Schools are receiving about $100 more per student with this plan then they received last year. The State Legislature has effectively passed on the responsibility of taxing citizens to the local entities and thus making themselves look better in an election year. This bill just makes the school districts look like the bad guys all around and keeps the legislators smelling rosy, at least in their own minds.

I thought that it was the district where the student lived that sent money to the charter school (wherever it may be). Which seems fair, I guess...isn't the job of the school district to provide for the public education of students within its boundaries?

Of course, if the state isn't chipping in funding that it could--and should--then that's a big problem. The idea behind public education, as others here have pointed out, is that our society, at all levels (locally, statewide, and nationwide), agrees that EVERYONE has a responsibility to help support education. The state leaving the burden of cost to local districts, which may have vastly unequal resources for taxation, creates an uneven patchwork of haves and have-nots.

Seems to me there are two main issues: how the money can be divided fairly, and that the state doesn't seem to be funding public education very well.

For my money (and more than that, for my children), I like the idea of charter schools; one-size-fits-all education is neither a good idea nor a requirement when it comes to public education. There are many ways to reach the end goals of education.

Like "Anonymous | 8:17 a.m." says above, bad charter schools will close and good ones will thrive. That is something that doesn't happen in public schools now - bad teachers and administrators will shuffle around the district for decades, protected by the UEA.

The money that follow students is for operating costs and does not affect fixed capital expenditures. So some of the school districts' fixed costs remain the same, no matter how many students are enrolled, true. But no money is provided to the charter schools for their fixed costs. That means they fund their buildings and other equipment from private money or by more efficiently allocating their operating cost budget which they receive from the school districts. So they're doing more with less.

Unlike "State funding for state schools | 2:37 p.m." states, there is accountability with charter schools. They have standards. If they didn't, people wouldn't send their kids there and the school would close.

On a similar note when it comes to accountability, the voucher bill that was defeated recently would have made private schools who accept voucher money be accountable to the state, where they are not now.

I pay money in taxes for my children's education. If I think the public school system isn't where my children belong and I want to send my kids elsewhere, then either give me my money back, or use it for my kids. That is all.

Here's the thing. When I receive my property tax notice it clearly states how much I am paying to Nebo School District. Why? Because they have gone through the proper procedures (truth in taxation, etc.) to receive that amount of property tax.

If Nebo has to turn around and give X amount of that money to the Reagan Academy or American Leadership Academy it is only fair for my property tax notice to reflect that. AND, I want the Charter Schools to have to go through the same channels and procedures as the regular school districts when they want to raise property taxes or bond for buildings. Why should Nebo have to go to that time and expense and not Reagan and ALA?

Why do we have two separate systems? If Charter Schools can't make it on their own without Representative Mike Morley (and many others in the legislature) protecting them with special laws tacked on to the Omnibus Bill (so he can build more Charter Schools and make more money--conflict of interest anyone?) then they should close up shop.

Charter Schools=Public schools. A charter school is a public school district of one school. We enjoy the small class sizes, the uniforms. We like the teachers and administrators. Our school can choose to not renew teachers' employment or to keep teachers..unlike the traditional school system.

Let's face it, traditional schools are having a hard time. You can't get rid of bad teachers or administrators. You can't close schools to accomodate shifting population.

Charter's provide a choice and they should be funded identical to traditional district schools since they are public schools. If the WPU is $6500 then the WPU for the charter should be $6500.

You can't add them to the tax rolls since they have no boundaries. Anyone can attend. I could chose APA in Draper or NPA in West Jordan regardless of where I live.

Charters are typically built for far less money than a comparable district school. They raise their own money for it too.

The regular public schools in this state are crowded enough, all you opponents of charters - do you really want 5% more kids back in the regular classrooms? And in that 5% - most are parents unsatisfied that those regular classrooms are meeting the needs of their kids. Parents know their kids best - not wise to second guess them. So you'd wind up with a lot of kids who don't fit in well, who have needs the overworked teachers don't have time to address. Do you REALLY think that's a good idea?

Do consider also, that every kid in a charter school is getting less funding than a regular school gets for the same kid. So that 5% of the school population would cause a rise of 6-8% of school expenses if forced back into regular schools.

Isn't it amazing that charters are easing the growth pains of our schools, test scores are equal or better than the public schools, parents are happier, costs are lower, and people have nothing better to do than gripe?

State funding for state schools | 2:37 p.m. Sept. 8, 2008 ,

Your statements are also incorrect. Charter schools have yearly audits and must account for every penny spent each year.

Part of the reason that charter schools do not get the full WPU is because they "can do more with less". At least that is what the supporters in the legislature keep telling us.

Aside from that they do not receive transportation money from the state, they do not have a bus fleet. They do not receive federal lunch money, typically charter schools do not have commercial kitchens for preparing and cooking meals.

But, charter schools do have to fill out and turn into the state the same reports that districts fill out and turn in. There is reporting to the state for the money they spend.

To: Charters,
You make it sound like the founders of charter schools are out their fund raising for their buildings, yet I have never heard of a charter school not being able to build for lack of funds and/or fund raising for the building.

The State has a fund that helps charter schools and has people who help with grant applications for start-up costs including the building.

Charters are not easing the pain, there are students who return to the district schools every month, yet the money stays at the charter school.

Hidden Agenda | 5:58 p.m. Sept. 8, 2008 ,

None of our public schools can make it on their own. Do you want to close down all public schools because they can't give out a free education without funding?

I was very much against this 'law' as it went through the legislature because it was designed in a way that most Charter schools would actually receive less funding than they did under the former system. It also meant the District would lose funding as well.

We need better leadership in the legislature.

The problem I'm sure the Ogden district is trying to solve, as the educators in Nebo district are suffering the same fate, is that a large number of students attend a charter school for the first few weeks, then realize they don't like it and transfer back to their public school.

State funds for schools are allocated months before this takes place. When the student transfers, the money doesn't come with him. Then the public school has an unexpected rise in class size without the proper funding to even try to compliment this.

If students and their parents want to go to a charter school, fine. Just don't change your mind and come back because the rest of us are the ones who suffer for your poor planning.

Yes I have nothing better to do than gripe because Charter Schools were sold to the public by conflict of interest legislators as a "cheaper" alternative to the regular public schools!!! Look back on 8+ years of the charter movement in Utah and see how many times the taxpayers were promised that they could (and would) do more with less. Originally, the Charter Schools upheld these promises. For example, before certain legislators started to build fancy buildings for them, many Charter Schools met in more humble abodes. Today, in contrast, "Funding Parity" is the battle cry of the charter movement.

The lies and deceit put forth by many conservative legislators in this state is sickening.

If Charter Schools can't make it by adhering to the original concept of "do more with less" then maybe a little more "griping" is called for.

And to: Charter Parent

Be careful what you ask for. If you really want "identical funding" then you are going to get "identical rules and regulations". Your little charter kingdom will no longer be able to follow different laws and regulations and will experience the cold hard realities that the regular school districts face everyday.

Re: anonymous 8:17. Parents who send their kids to charters do not, and can not, opt out of funding for public schools.
Re: Justamess 9:11. Many charter parents went the way of the charter school only AFTER investing time and energy into the public school systems and finding them unresponsive and unwilling to change, or to remove failing programs or teachers, where those occur.
Re: many others: Charters allow choice in public education. That's good. if charters fail, that's accountability. If public schools fail... what choice do you have? what accountability is there to ensure a good school?.... Choice and accountability universally are good. Not all who need an alternative to the current public system can afford private, especially since they are (still) paying taxes for the public system. It has less to do w/ eliteness than finding a fit for your child. Remember East Germany and the Trabant: only car available..never changed in 50 years, supremely expensive. Once the wall fell and options existed, Trabant had to adapt or disappear. They disappeared rather than adapt. Very little in life remains static, no competition, forever. Think of stores (Sears replaced by K-mart, then WalMart as times changed). Choice is good

I'm so impressed! I'm so impressed that people in UT are starting to FINALLY see the light about charters---to see that charters only benefit, at most, the top 10% of the population's children...especially as they are set up in UT. They are FINALLY seeing that, yes, the school choice guru's have been lying for years about HOW schools are funded, and that charters would somehow create "empty" seats in public schools (which is impossible, as they are still public schools). As charters are set up in UT, and most places elsewhere, they are elite materialistic fads that will fade. Very few have and will survive. I am SO impressed to see so many people realize that we have a responsibility as a community to educate EVERYONE's children--as charters still discriminate against so many via their acceptance policies, lack of appropriate services for students disabilities, or segregate them into separate schools. Let's not even start discussing the discrimination toward parents who work (can't volunteer), can't afford the supposed "volunteer" payments many charters now offer as regular "donation" options, uniforms, home-made lunches (as most do not offer any other options for food at school), supplies, and so forth!

Disillusioned,

Reality states otherwise. Charters are thriving for the most part in Utah and are operating on a significantly smaller budget than their peers. They cost the taxpayer a fraction to build too, because they save so much on land and materials. The ones that rent the school save even more. It is a system the District should be moved to because it operates more effectively and efficiently than the District model.

It isn't just the elite that have access. Many special needs kids (usually higher than the state or local school average) attend Charter schools because the ability grouping and smaller class sizes benefit them more. Charters have great special education programs that you just can't get by staying at the District schools Besides, the Charter must accept children based on a lottery and certain rules, meaning your conspiracy theory is ill-founded just as much as your claim Charters don't serve special needs.

Our one enormous problem with Charter schools is that they are unable to meet demand. Wait lists are over a thousand at several schools. Even some of the Charters that have done so-so have pretty large wait lists. We need to double the number available.

To disillusioned: I don't think you know what you are talking about! My children are at a charter school--which, by the way, offers special education, free-lunch program, school lunch, has a lottery system to fairly determine which students from our lengthy waiting list gets in. Most parents at our school WANT to volunteer; many who work volunteer in other ways--by helping with evening school-wide events or doing things at home for individual teachers. My children's uniforms cost far less than my neighbor's wardrobe, I can guarantee that. I think you ought to research the facts before your spout off over-generalizations, which only show ignorance.

Steven,

Didn't you once work at a Charter School (Liberty) that almost closed shop? Doesn't sound like thousands on the waiting list at Liberty now does it?

You are WRONG about Charters and Special Education. Let me give you some facts. My school has a population of appx. 1000 students. We have 7 full time and 2 part time regular Special Education teachers each with at least one full time teacher aide. We have one full time "severe unit" program teacher with 3 full time teacher aides. We have one full time "emotionally damaged" program teacher with 1 full time and 1 part-time teacher aide. These are the MINIMUM number that we have to have according to Federal and State unfunded/partially-funded mandates. We can't (legally) have less.

Now, log onto the web sites of Reagan Academy, Liberty Academy, ALA, Merit College Prep Academy, etc. and count the number of Special Education teachers they have serving student populations of 600-1000 students. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE!!!

Charter Schools "strongly encourage" their Special Education students to return to the regular public schools because they know how expensive those unfunded/partially funded mandates are. It isn't right or fair!

You say you have a long line of student wanting to go to charter schools but cannot - but they are public? They’re public because they use public money, but they restrict students to only those that they choose. Over crowding in classroom exist because the public school system must take all students in the district. Public schools have problems no one disagrees with that. But we should have decent PUBLIC education for all – not only those that can make the list. Charter schools are governments answer to education just like social security is for retirement. Opting out for privilege and require those who are not privileged to accept the broken system left behind by law.

NO charter school has a waiting list of 1,000.

Stop the lies please.

Charter schools DO get to pick and choose. I've had MANY students that left public school and came back a few weeks later because they were asked to leave.

Naturally, public schools can't refuse them.

Liberty hasn't closed down. And yes, I did work there till the layoffs. It is an excellent school, but has the problem of being in a rural area. It also didn't help having one employee who made it his or her goal to destroy the school after being fired. But thank goodness that person was as charters can fire poor teachers.

I am right on Charter schools and special education. Each Charter operates a bit differently, but they function according to the law in this regard. Last year after the layoff I found a job at a different Charter in more of a temporary position. My duties were connected mostly to special ed, yet that isn't what I would be listed under on the employee directory (administration, even though I wasn't doing any administration work). At that school we had a couple severe needs students (we mainstream them) but provide an all-day educational assistant. We had less students than you, but more full time educators whose primary responsibility was special ed. It is obvious that you do not have the knowledge or expertise to criticize special education services that schools you have no association with provide.

Elitism,

I agree with you that we need 'decent public education' for all. Actually, I'd go beyond just decent and restate your goal as "excellent public education." That is why Charters exist and why they must be allowed to grow.

Charter schools are an initial step in repairing some problems in traditional public education. They offset student population growth by providing cheaper to build schools than the District model. They cap enrollment, keeping class size down and often hire instructional aides further strengthening the teacher/student ratio in the classroom. These two factors help both models deal with the high influx of kids needing to be educated in a cost effective manner.

Charter schools also meet a more diverse set of student needs through ability grouped instruction. This means that each child is instructed and challenged on an appropriate level based on their ability, instead of on their chronological age. Charters do both of these things while still being accountable to State and Federal governments just as Districts are.

Science Teacher,

Unless you are going to cite specific examples and use your name, you will lack credibility. For one thing, Charter schools are Public Schools. That was your first mistake. The second was taking what the students said as fact. While it is important to listen to the students, if you as an educator have not spoken to those who were purported to have said that, then you cannot say for certain that it is the truth. To apply this to your stated area of study, it is a theory (or gossip) until proven otherwise.

Charter schools cannot arbitrarily boot students. They must follow guidelines set out by the state that outline all procedures required for expulsion from school. The only difference in this regard between a District school and a Charter is a rule about attendance. When a student has a given amount of unexcused absences (I believe it is ten days) then the student must be withdrawn and the state informed.

It is more likely that these students chose to return to your school because they preferred the structure to the Charter. They cannot simply be kicked out despite what they have said.

Steven,

I know Liberty is still open. But you sidestep the point. There are currently openings at Liberty--not thousands on a waiting list. Your exaggerations and hurt your credibility.

I have worked in Special Education now for 18 years. Can you say the same? I have 18 years of "expertise and knowledge" that you claim I don't have.

So--you now want to claim all administration and faculty that work with Special Education? OK, I too can play that game. I simply listed the faculty and administration at my school that are currently classified exclusively as Special Education. If I were to play the game by your standards, you could add one more administrator, 12 more teachers, and countless teacher aides that work with Special Education students at least two class periods a day.

Furthermore, I know EXACTLY what is going on (or in this case not going on) in the Special Education departments at ALA and Reagan Academy. I stand by my original assessment. Charter Schools are NOT providing Special Education services to the same percentage of the student population that is being served in the regular public schools. FACT!!!

I don't have to provide proof to give an opinion based on my own experiences. And I definitely don't have to give a name to make things "credible". Get real!

I have seen many students that went to local charter schools and were back in my class within a month or two. Some didn't like the academics with no sports or activities. Many were "booted" for bad behavior... fighting, gang-related activity. One of my favorite students was booted because he protected (and fought) a bunch of kids that attacked a younger family member on school grounds.

The charter simply told them to leave and reregister at our school. WE, as a TRUE public school are required to sign them back up, no questions asked.

Why would I lie? Why would they lie about why they were kicked out? Does it somehow make them look better in my eyes to say they broke the rules and were kicked out?

You can spout all day long how charters follow the rules and accept all kids no matter what.

I know the truth. ;)

Hurt,

You missed the point. Liberty has factors that curb its enrollment. Had it been north of Provo it would both be full and have a waiting list.

Actually if I was to play "that game", every FTE that has a student with an IEP is a 'special educator' because they are part of the SPED team for that child. That wasn't want I claimed. Those I referred to save one (the school counselor) only work with Special Ed. full time.

Good for you. Eight-teen years is quite commendable. That still does not make you an expert of Special Education in schools you are not associated with. Posting yourself as one is unprofessional, especially considering your derogatory comments.

Do not assume you know what is or isn't going on over at another school and print is as fact. Doing so is both reckless and harmful and could get you in trouble with state regulatory committees. Is that why you are unwilling to post your name?

Steven,

Yes, that is a great idea! Let's get some state regulatory committees involved in an audit of Charter Schools (and regular public schools for that matter). Let them delve into their acceptance practices, special education services, and the whole range of very important issues brought up so far in this forum. That is exactly what is missing. Some real data and not anecdotal stories and "facts" posted as truths by myself and others.

You are very passionate about education, special education, and Charter Schools and that is to be commended. Even though I often disagree with what you have to say I often find your postings interesting and thought provoking. We are all (regular, charter, private, etc.) striving for the same thing aren't we? I'm sure many children in the State of Utah are better off because they have had you as their teacher.

Science Teacher,

Do you understand primary and secondary resources? You are not a primary source for those comments. That is why your comments lack validity, because you did not witness the events or sayings first hand. You are just reporting what others have said. When that happens and you (or someone else) uses them as fact it is called hearsay or gossip.

When those comments are meant to harm or disparage public schools I will rebut them. It would be made easier if people would make less conjecture about what happens or happened at other schools they have never been to.

Incidentally, the only reported expulsions from a Charter the past three years that I am aware of was the ALA hit list reported in the media. Unless one of your examples was this known event which was a matter of public record, they each need to be researched more carefully.

To Audit:

That already happens on a yearly basis at each Charter school. The State gives great feedback and specifics on areas the school can improve. At one school I served at our Sped files weren't done satisfactorily, so they were fixed.

I would like to see a greater dialogue about how we can address the problems we face, because it is worth the discussion. I'd like the State to hold an education summit like many other professions do and work to some resolutions besides just the underfunding the system rally-cry from the Union. While we are underfunded, other problems go less noticed because of the heavy focus on money.

Call it hearsay, call it conjecture. It matters not. I know nothing of any ALA list, but I've seen many students booted from charters. I know because I'm the one finding a seat for them in the middle of October.

What happens legally and what happens under wraps are often not the same.