The Soapbox

Yeah, so lately the Utah papers have been picking up more editorials on charter schools in the state. Charter schools are a public school started by a group of people, often parents, who feel that a choice of schools is necessary for public education. So, rather than just taking your kid to whatever school is closest you can check out options and choose the best one for your student. Huh, choices, works for cars. Imagine that. Most people are pretty cool with this idea. Spreading the kids out reduces class sizes and if the school bully takes your kid's lunch money you can move them to another school. The debate arises when people realize that each kid has a money amount attatched to them. So, if a kid leaves Podunkville Elementary and goes to Metro Charter instead, the dollars follow because that money is set aside for his education and not for a particular school. Now the regular public schools whine about how charter schools are taking the money away and now they can't function like they need because they are poor. If that money was truly being spent on the kid what difference does it make? Less money, sure, but one less kid to pay for. If the public schools really want that money back they're gonna have to get the kid back. This is the good part: in order to get the kid back they're gonna have to remedy the situation that caused them to leave in the first place, and in many cases, one up the charter school. Aha, competition! Could it be, then, that the charter schools, in some way, are providing the regular schools an avenue for improvement? Many schools have room for improvement, there were five in my area alone that didn't make AYP. The charter schools did. Some claim that the problem is that there's not enough money to fund education. Maybe the answer isn't the money itself, but what the money can attract and how that money is spent. In order for a school to become competitive it needs good teachers, the best are going to go where the most attractive offer is. A competitive school needs good facillities, no parent is going to take their kid to an unsafe or unseemly school. And, a good school needs good supplies and equipment. Can't teach kids math without books and pencils. (Can't teach kids percussion without cymbals and keyboards...) Maybe if the school districts want more money they can cut the administrative costs and put more into teaching the students. Let the superintendant live with $50K for another year and give the teachers a raise and buy some textbooks. Or let the football team wear old uniforms. It just seems the money could be used a little better. I'm sure there'll be more on this later.