The key reform promoted by "No Child Left Behind" and the Broad Foundation is closing district-run schools and replacing them with charter schools, which are generally nonunion and pay their employees less money. Charter schools generally have to make do with less money than district-run schools because charter schools don't get local tax money (property taxes). "No Child Left Behind" proposes to close the gap through 'choice' and competition between schools. The invisible hand of the market will somehow close the gap.
In a message dated 6/19/2004 10:11:37 AM Central Daylight Time, jon kelland writes: << Though I haven't looked at the funding of charters for several years (and imagine it hasn't really changed) charters in Minnesota are actually better off in per pupil funding than their non-charter, public counterparts. The difference is made up by a law (like I said, I imagine it is still on the books) that requires school districts to pay the federally required special ed dollars directly to charter schools and the district must then wait for reimbursement from the feds... >> The problem with jon kelland's argument is that special education services represent only about 5% of the district's operating budget, and fairly large part of that is reimbursed by the state and federal governments. Services which the district must provide for its own students as well as those not enrolled in district run schools represents a minor part of the money received from property taxes. The money spent on bonds to pay for school construction is considerable, and eats up a large part of the money raised through property tax levees. With the exception of one school, the district owns the properties that house its schools, and therefore don't have to include rent in its operating budget. One of the things I want to do is review the process by which construction projects are awarded, and the particulars (Was there a competitive bidding process?), beginning with the contract(s) awarded for building the satellite classroom buildings that were built to create the space needed for the class size reduction program that began in the early 1990s. And why did the district recently have new school buildings constructed when it was projecting a drop in student enrollment for the areas of the city served by most of the new schools? Why are the new buildings designed to house large, rather than small school communities? Remember the research that shows a correlation between small schools and high student achievement? -Doug Mann, King Field Mann for School Board web site: www.educationright.com - REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
