Comments about ‘Senate amends education funding bill to help charter schools’

I rarely applaud Howard W. Stephenson.

Clap...clap...

Thank you.

The House was making by far the most foolish educational choices this state has announced when it began to seek the removal of Charter Schools. Charters run for so much less and get similar if not better results than what we get from the other system. A smarter thing for the House to do would be lowering the amounts districts get to be equal to that of Charters and asking the Districts to innovate on the same budget constraints that Charters have. We'd save a whole lot more tax money as Districts streamline cutting waste.

Kudos to the Senate for stopping this nonsense immediately. Public charter schools offer a valuable alternative education at no additional cost to the taxpayer. Public charter schools are not "better" than traditional public schools, just different. Each family and student should have as many options as possible to find the best "fit" for their educational needs. Charters help provide those options. A "one size fits all" approach to education has never been optimal, and never will.

Charter schools actually cost much, much more per student than a regular public school, check the facts. I'd like to see charter schools teach special ed. on the tight budget that public schools do...impossible. I don't mind keeping the charter schools we currently have, but must we build new schools when everyone else is taking a cut? Isn't this is a little strange?

It's about time that Utahns started seeing the value of Charter schools. This is the only real solution to Utah's education morass. The public shool system should be applauded for the valiant effort they've made to stay afloat in a sea of budgetary problems and huge classrooms. Nevertheless, it's time for some of that pressure to be removed from the public system and transferred to the charter schools. Well done, Utah Legislature.

To: Christian

Four years ago two Charters opened in the area of my regular public school. At that time, the regular public schools were promised by many Legislators (who had a stake in the building of these schools) what a wonderful thing this would be. Our class sizes would definitely go down.

Well, here we are four years later and my average class size has gone from 35 to 38. These two Charters are notorious for dumping their most expensive (receiving special services) students back on to the regular public schools and keeping ALL of the funding attached to those students. So much for "removing some of that pressure" from the regular public school system.

Well done? I disagree!

These guys are dopes. Charter schools haven't been successful anywhere in the country. Their scores are lower and their cost is higher both things had opposite promises a couple of years back. Many of our legislators make their money through charter school funding. This needs to change. I encourage all house members to vote down these amendments. This is bad legislation.

PS.. I am a Utah Conservative businessman who thinks our legislature is on the take a corrupt.

If the funding isn't working out because kids change schools, then change how the funding is allocated - maybe base it on a monthly average attendance instead of once a year.

As for the cost of building new charter schools, the state isn't paying for that, nor are the school districts. Also, charters are typically built (on their privately raised funds) for a fraction of a traditional school.

And yes, they do the same job for less money because of the funding formulas. If you exclude charters whose mission is to educate special needs children (ESL, autistic, special ed.), their average scores are higher than traditional schools. And the parents and kids are happier since they've chosen a school that matches their needs, instead of trying to fit in to a standard mold. If a charter is failing, it shuts down rather quickly. You can't say the same for a traditional school.

"As for the cost of building new charter schools, the state isn't paying for that"

WRONG!!! Please research before you post. The state (taxpayers) certainly ARE paying for it (just not in the traditional bonding for buildings way).

"If you exclude charters whose mission is to educate special needs children"

Why would you do that? That same demographic (ESL, special ed) is represented in the regular public school data--why should it be excluded from Charter data? Answer: It shouldn't!!!

False,

Your information is the same as your name. Charter schools are serving the needs of special education, and are doing it within the classroom. There is no class at my school that does not have a handful of kids with special needs working along with their peers. We even have students that would never be allowed mainstream participating in classes. They have a full time educator that works alongside them. You won't find that level of service at the district level. They tend to hide those types of kids in a cluster group or ship them off to a special needs school.

Go to the state website (USOE) and look up the statistics collected with Upass scores. You'll find roughly the same population of special education students in Charters as in Districts. In one case you'll find an extremely high one because the Charter was built to serve autistic students.

I am not sure where the information on finances is. It is public information since Charter schools being public report directly to the state. The fact is Charters do not receive the same funding as a District school. Charters receive less.

After a year of public school for our child we are moving on to a charter school. While it has alot to do with our belief that the school system in Utah is broken, it also has alot to do with what we feel will be a smarter education choice for our child.

Although we think the world of our sons current teacher, we think less of the school, and its supporting mechanisms. The factors such as the UEA which has a sickening stranglehold on education, overcrowding, district morass, and a lackluster PTA. Primarily, it stems from parents who seemingly don't care about thier children in the public school system. At least in the charter school system, parents have to go out of their way to get children in the school.

Unfortunately, private schools cost too much for average wage earners in Utah thanks to the UEA killing school vouchers.

Glad to be on our way out of the regular school system dominated by the UEA

I think you have a skewed perception of the UEA. Why would the UEA be interested in overcrowding and a lackluster PTA? It's a teacher's union, and both of these things make a teacher's life more difficult. Both my parents are teachers, and I can assure you things are better with teachers collectively fighting for what's right in the classroom rather than out-of-touch lawmakers on Capital Hill. (ie school vouchers meant to suck public dollars into private hands)

Utah cannot continue to fund public education in two different ways. One way for public schools and one way for charter schools. Sen. Stephensen needs to quit micro managing public education.

Public dollars to private institutions doesnt concern me as much as a union that does everything it can to preserve itself and its way of doing business. If UEA appears self serving, its because it is, and they know it.

The problem with the education system is that it hasnt adapted to the modern environment. Sure there are computers in the classroom, and I can check my childs grades online. Hey I can even pay for my childs lunch online. But show me how they are innovating and preparing children for today, let alone the world of tomorrow. The classes are still structured as they were in the 1950s, the major difference is that teachers hands are more tied now.

My arguement stated that a lackluster pta and overcrowding were additional factors. UEA alone is not the sole factor, but a major factor nonetheless. However, I believe if UEA could force parental involvement or reduce class sizes it would.


So what if money is choked off from a failing system... Call it beating a dead horse or throwing good money after bad.
Spending money isnt going to improve anything until you improve the quality of the approach to education.

Steven Jarvis, we have been down this road before. Charters are funded in different ways and do not receive some money because they do not offer the services. Charters receive the same per student WPU that the District receives. Charters now receive a portion of their money from the Districts' Property Tax money for student instruction. Charters do not receive money for transportation or school lunch, unless they offer these services. If Charter Schools want the same funding then they need to fight for Taxing rights, not continue to perpetuate the myth.

TO PROBLEMS:
UEA is really an Association, if it were a true Union, there would be a Teacher's Strike until demands were met. If Unions, or Associations, are not working for their members they are not doing their job. Yes, my husband is a member of the UEA. No, we do not like everything that they do. For one a better PR person who could understand that there is exciting and innovative things happening in the classroom to help children of today and tomorrow. But, you don't hear about that and if you do it's buried behind the full funding of education cries.

Can't ignore the facts. Charters are better than public schools and cheaper to run too.
The corrupt UEA will fight them to the death while our corrupt district continue to abuse or teachers and children.
Open up the system and let the good teachers have options in their careers. Our kids will do much better while allowing the system to crack down on teachers having sex with the kids, the new epidemic....sick!

CDMom,

It isn't a myth. Charter Schools receive less funding and can be more fiscally frugal. I am sure the numbers do include property tax. They don't busing and lunch. Better funding is on its way. The state will go to equalization within three years and other plans will balance the funding.

I was incredibly relieved to hear my charter had budgeted well since it was opened and had their own rainy day fund. The intent is to purchase the building the school is at. The reality is it will allow the school to function. I asked how much our school puts towards salary and benefits. It is about 65% of our budget. Compare that to the District.

What I don't like as much is the dearth of technology. We simply can't afford what should be in every public classroom. Neither can districts for that matter. We do what we can with our limited resources.

The problem I see from all of this is that the districts went on a money grab and targeted the system that has been more fiscally prudent. More cool heads prevailed and reversed the money grab.