Comments about ‘Utah charter schools: After 10 years, proponents say they're a success, but not everyone agrees’

I have seen several charter schools in action. There are several key differences in how they operate. Granted, not all teachers/schools in public schools are like this. As stated in this article, they are not bogged down with tenured officials. Their students are also there to learn, not just to be babysat. This allows the teachers to cover the topics and lets kids learn. Time is not spent disciplining. They also have teachers that are not mainstream. They bring something different to their instructing techniques.
Negative issues include shoestring budgets, used and overused materials, and converted buildings. There are also a few radical parents(usually religious) that have several strong opinions as well. Things are improving though.

There are more questions than answers in this piece.

School community councils budget money from the state trust lands. They were created for that purpose in 1996. By law, members of the community council are elected by secret ballot. Any community member can run and be elected.

If I believe the story, I have to believe that Mr. Allen tried to get on the community council years before it existed, was invited rather than elected, and was not invited back when he objected to school breakfast as an agenda item.

How long was Mr. Allen in the legislature? What is his profession? Why isn't he in the legislature anymore? What is the viewpoint from parents who have tried charter school and now have their kids back in district schools? What is the retention/turnover rate at charter schools? What is the comparative rate of volunteerism at district schools compared to that of charter schools? Does the headline reflect the content of the article?

These are legitimate questions that came to mind as I read the piece. Who fact checks for the Deseret News? Where is the supposed new vision of the new umbrella group?

I believe that there are people outside the education mainstream who do not know all of the workings of charter schools. Also, all charter schools are not the same. Charter schools that are not selective in their populations may have the same low test scores as the regular public schools that serviced the same areas. In Chicago, I read that the charter schools could expel students for academic or behavior issues at anytime during the year. This is not true of regular public schools. If charter schools are created in larger numbers, and are able to be selective in deciding who attends, who is going to teach the "other students?" If test scores are king, and listening to the U.S. Secretary of Education one can easily get that idea, neither the regular public schools, nor those charter schools working in the lower performing areas will ever be able to compete who schools who openly or creatively select their student populations. The schools teaching the "other students" will then be considered failing schools.
If a charter school opened in an area and took the best 50 students from 10 different local public schools...

The charter school 25-student-per-classroom limit is the result of budgeting decisions that charter schools make. These decisions enable the 25-student cap, but having a cap does not make that happen on its own. Remember, capping students caps funding as well. Fewer students in a class means fewer dollars for that class. Charters reduce class sizes by hiring younger, less experienced teachers and by offering 401(k) instead of expensive state pensions. That may be good or bad, but it's a fact and is the main reason why charters can keep class sizes to 25 or less.

The one thing that the states public education system avoids and deters is parental involvement in the education of their children. Try and get in to a public school if you don't believe me.

These Charter schools are revealing the incompetence, graft, and fraudulent use of public education funds. I'm all for these schools and if left alone by the state education system hounding them I think they would put the public education system out of business. I am more interested in my child getting an education than the politics they are burdened with.

The curriculum in public schools focused on business training and not education.

Public education is off track as an education system and scoring public education against private education is based on different priorities. Testing is inconsistent and not based on learning and is easily altered by its bureaucracy to get a passing grade. By public educations own standards it proved that they were failing because they had to change the test to less stringent and easier questions for students to graduate. That is a system in failure.

So the public schools are struggling and financially and the legislature wants to take more money away for charter schools that only benefit a small group of people in the state? If charter schools are such a good idea, then why not evaluate what is working in the charter schools and incorporate that in to the public schools.

This was the most comprehensive Charter School article I have read. It did lack one historical item though. Charter Schools originated in the 70's here in Utah. It wasn't until ten years ago that the state began issuing charters. Before only districts could, and only SLC School district did. If the bill allowing Universities and colleges charter got through or gets through the legislative process, Utah will have three ways for a school to be chartered.

My daughter goes to a Charter school and I have had nothing but good things to say about it. Her grades have improved from failing most classes to making the honor roll for 2 years. Class size is down to where a teacher can actually teach and pay attention to students. I have been able to really have a say in what she does. I just wish all students in Utah had the same opertunity as my child has.

Six, out of six students in our neighborhood, who decided to go to charter schools, and not to our local public school have returned to it. Each returned for various reasons, but ultimately it came down to the fact the charter schools were not well organized in any way. I believe it comes down to the "grass is always greener" mentality for those who leave the system--or they are looking for a politically correct way to segregate their children in an ever growing diverse Utah popluation. Our public schools actually do quite a good job, especially when it comes to discipline and academics, and the parents who left for a while told me this is just not true in charter schools.

Does it escape everyone that charter schools may do better because parents are more involved. They choice to put their kids in charter schools which indicated a higher level of interest.

Also, funding parity? If we are getting more for less, why change? If advocates really need more money to run the schools just as well as the public schools, just keep the kids in the public schools. If they can do more with less, more power to them, keep doing it. But why in a budget crises year would you ask for more?

I do agree with opening up enrollment. Let them take all comers. If they can take everyone (even a few troubled teens) and still do well, they deserve our respect. But not more money. That can't be the answer to everything.

There are way too many charter schools being built. I'm not sure how anyone can say the kids are getting a better education. Yes, the class size may be a tad smaller, but who is teaching them? Most likely parents that have no degree and they just think they know what they are doing.

My 13 year old was just accepted into AMES. I attended the school for a "parents tour" and was very impressed with the classroom size, teacher-student interaction, and especially the eagerness of the children. Dr. Church at AMES was very adamant that one of the things that made the school financially stable was their close tie to Cottonwood High School. By leasing space and teachers from Cottonwood for specific courses, they don't have the high overhead of a glamorous building. The monies they receive are poured into more than adequate equipment and a higher than average teachers' salary. Creating satisfied teachers in this way has helped them to feel motivated to build a CAREER at the school instead of moving from job to job - thus fostering relationships with the students they supervise.

the purpose of schools is social engineering, heaven forbid the purpose might be to teach students. In Europe, which so many of Professor Orfield's compatriots want to emulate, the money follows the students. You can choose any school you want, and the tax money to educate your student follows along. That is a European practice I would like to follow.

The facts reported in this article and the reports from the charter school folks just do not add up:

Fact - Charter schools have lower test scores.
Charter School advocates - Test scores are as good as public schools.

Fact - Charters take over $5 million dollars from local districts.
Charter school advocates - Charters cost less.

Sure some charters skim the best prepared students and score above average, but the overall picture is dismal. There was not even a mention of legislators building charter schools, then leasing them back permanently to charter schools. Come on, let's get some more balanced reporting. This article was way too supportive of the charter school debacle draining dollars from real schools.

I applied at APA. It did seem like a great school. However, they were offering only about 75% of what I made as a public school teacher and no health insurance for my family. It seems like only people who are just starting out, or for whom money is incidental, could afford to teach there.

I think the point most people arent listening to is that parents want to have some input instead of being ignored in the educational process. Alot of kids get ignored. They are usually the kids that should be succeeding. I apreciate public schools and I appreciate charter schools. Why do people insist on one system when we so obviously need a few choices to fit the diversity of our student population. School is a 15 year year journey for kids. I am sorry to say but I find the discipline in public schools out of control. Sorry but when I send my kids to school I expect them to listen to thier teacher. BUT I also expect the teacher to listen to me. I like our Charter school a great deal. I dont have unrealistic expectations but the few expectations i do have I insist on being met so far its great.

Interesting that so many comments say class size doesn't matter, and what do charter schools promote? Smaller class sizes. I think that is a great advantage that charter schools have. They were promoted as a cheaper alternative, but continually come back and request "equal" funding to traditional schools. It appears to me from this article that charter schools want all the advantages (few that they may have) that traditional public schools have, but don't want to be saddled with the disadvantages. If they can achieve that they should outperform traditional schools.

we tried one that turned out to be a very disfunctional charter school. all i can say is NEVER AGAIN. charters are run by boards with NO educational experience. they feel their "experience" trumps teachers experience. if anyone crosses them they get fired. NO THANKS.

There are some cute photos in this article. I am struck by the lack of multi-cultural diversity in them. Public schools are to educate the whole population. Charter schools do not have that same responsibility. Instead of draining money from the public school system to educate a few of the elite, or even upper middle class, why not put the money back into public education. We live in an area where there is a strong Hispanic influence. These people have come here to work. They spend money here. They live here and the children go to school here. Public schools and charter schools should be on the same footing, if they are to be compared. If charter schools want more of public tax funds, they should educate more of the public (and not just the upper and upper middle class).

This article is a little confusing, but my guess is that it is obvious why charter schools are having a little success. They seem to be cherry picking the students, they defer the cost of athletics to regular schools, they have many committed volunteers, the parents are dedicated to their children's education and they have patrons who scavenge dumpsters for school supplies. It hardly looks like a revolution in education.