John Oliver did a bit recently about charter schools. You can watch it below. Since I'm an employee of a charter school--and have been for nearly a decade--I thought I might put out my perspective on it. I'm not disagreeing with Oliver's critique--it verifies a lot of what I've heard--but instead using it as a starting point to talk about my experience.
The purpose of a charter school in its platonic form would be to provide variety of pedagogical approaches to education. Unlike private schools (the big one in my neck of the woods is Liahona Academy), charter schools provide an alternative to what we call "district schools" at a fraction of the cost. (Liahona, for example, runs anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000 per year for tuition. Rowland Hall, another local private school, costs about $20,000 for a high school student, though their fees vary depending on what grade the student is in, how many days they attend, and more.) And by a "fraction of the cost", I mean, there's no tuition. Like any public school, it's funded through taxpayer dollars. Now, we still charge students--there are lots of fees that vary depending on classes taken, extracurricular activities, and other choices of the students. But we don't charge tuition.
Our charter allows board members' children, returning students, siblings of current students, and teachers' students to have "priority seating", then we use the lottery system (an irony, considering Utah won't allow a state lottery which would help fund education) to fill in the gaps. This is, as I understand it, fairly common practice--and it makes sense. If one is working at a school with students of that age, one would probably appreciate being able to bring the student to work.
The oversight of the school is tied to the state's Board of Education. We're required to abide by almost all of the bylaws and regulations as a district school, but without the same financial benefit. We operate on a smaller budget (considering the student population of the school) and only recently been given an increase in per-pupil funding. The school board is run by volunteers--founders and parents who have a vested interest in seeing the school continue to thrive. They make up subcommittees, including those that make curriculum decisions, financial decisions, and school-wide policy choices, such as what constitutes approved uniforms or the opening up of a new sport or major activity.
Financially, we take in fees to cover specific costs, but most of our budget comes from the state's coffers. Because we service students all over Utah Valley, we don't have district money to help offset the cost of running the school, so the CFO of our school takes pains to ensure that there's always plenty of money in the bank for a "rainy day". The purchase of the building itself took years to complete--we started in a renovated bowling alley--and will take years to pay off. The students are well-served and, for the most part, we have a strong, vibrant, passionate community.
In short, the critiques John Oliver leveled at charter schools don't really apply to my school. That isn't to say he's wrong--it simply isn't applicable here. We don't have any sort of external "educational management", and while we "run the school like a business (busenose)", that is a misleading description at best. We utilize financial philosophies the way businesses sometimes do, but we aren't turning any sort of profit. And since there isn't a larger company running the school that can make money off of us, the cash we receive is the cash we use. Our frugality and ingenuity of working with what we have has helped us gain a stable financial footing, one that we don't take for granted. We've worked hard to make this school successful, and we haven't done it by outsourcing the management of our school.
This isn't to say that we don't struggle. We have had some misfortunes that are irreparable (the sorry state of the soccer field is just one) because the financial costs and time investments are too great to support. The school is jumping into its 10th year (a far cry from some of those featured in Oliver's piece), and I still don't personally know what keeps me in the classroom. We have conflicts in our community over the validity of state testing--but, since we take state money, we have to proctor the tests. I mean, I love my job and my school, but I don't delude myself into thinking this place is a flawless paradise. It's like any other place--immense positives and, as often goes hand-in-hand with that, incredible negatives.
Charter schools are no magic bullet to curing the educational problems in the United States. Correctly done (as, I feel, my school has shown), the charter school alternative is an immensely powerful asset to the communities in which they operate. There are still a lot of difficulties in starting, maintaining, and continuing a school. Funding aside, there are PR problems, district antagonisms, and false expectations of what a charter school is, can be, and should be.
Still, having found a home at my school, I have to admit that I'm pretty happy this place exists.
The purpose of a charter school in its platonic form would be to provide variety of pedagogical approaches to education. Unlike private schools (the big one in my neck of the woods is Liahona Academy), charter schools provide an alternative to what we call "district schools" at a fraction of the cost. (Liahona, for example, runs anywhere from $60,000 to $80,000 per year for tuition. Rowland Hall, another local private school, costs about $20,000 for a high school student, though their fees vary depending on what grade the student is in, how many days they attend, and more.) And by a "fraction of the cost", I mean, there's no tuition. Like any public school, it's funded through taxpayer dollars. Now, we still charge students--there are lots of fees that vary depending on classes taken, extracurricular activities, and other choices of the students. But we don't charge tuition.
Our charter allows board members' children, returning students, siblings of current students, and teachers' students to have "priority seating", then we use the lottery system (an irony, considering Utah won't allow a state lottery which would help fund education) to fill in the gaps. This is, as I understand it, fairly common practice--and it makes sense. If one is working at a school with students of that age, one would probably appreciate being able to bring the student to work.
The oversight of the school is tied to the state's Board of Education. We're required to abide by almost all of the bylaws and regulations as a district school, but without the same financial benefit. We operate on a smaller budget (considering the student population of the school) and only recently been given an increase in per-pupil funding. The school board is run by volunteers--founders and parents who have a vested interest in seeing the school continue to thrive. They make up subcommittees, including those that make curriculum decisions, financial decisions, and school-wide policy choices, such as what constitutes approved uniforms or the opening up of a new sport or major activity.
Financially, we take in fees to cover specific costs, but most of our budget comes from the state's coffers. Because we service students all over Utah Valley, we don't have district money to help offset the cost of running the school, so the CFO of our school takes pains to ensure that there's always plenty of money in the bank for a "rainy day". The purchase of the building itself took years to complete--we started in a renovated bowling alley--and will take years to pay off. The students are well-served and, for the most part, we have a strong, vibrant, passionate community.
In short, the critiques John Oliver leveled at charter schools don't really apply to my school. That isn't to say he's wrong--it simply isn't applicable here. We don't have any sort of external "educational management", and while we "run the school like a business (busenose)", that is a misleading description at best. We utilize financial philosophies the way businesses sometimes do, but we aren't turning any sort of profit. And since there isn't a larger company running the school that can make money off of us, the cash we receive is the cash we use. Our frugality and ingenuity of working with what we have has helped us gain a stable financial footing, one that we don't take for granted. We've worked hard to make this school successful, and we haven't done it by outsourcing the management of our school.
This isn't to say that we don't struggle. We have had some misfortunes that are irreparable (the sorry state of the soccer field is just one) because the financial costs and time investments are too great to support. The school is jumping into its 10th year (a far cry from some of those featured in Oliver's piece), and I still don't personally know what keeps me in the classroom. We have conflicts in our community over the validity of state testing--but, since we take state money, we have to proctor the tests. I mean, I love my job and my school, but I don't delude myself into thinking this place is a flawless paradise. It's like any other place--immense positives and, as often goes hand-in-hand with that, incredible negatives.
Charter schools are no magic bullet to curing the educational problems in the United States. Correctly done (as, I feel, my school has shown), the charter school alternative is an immensely powerful asset to the communities in which they operate. There are still a lot of difficulties in starting, maintaining, and continuing a school. Funding aside, there are PR problems, district antagonisms, and false expectations of what a charter school is, can be, and should be.
Still, having found a home at my school, I have to admit that I'm pretty happy this place exists.
Comments