Laura Waterman wrote: > While it is true charter schools are public schools, nevertheless a > subtle difference is inherent which in practice can widen to leave > parents, teachers, and students with less accountability. > > The term "charter" implies contract rather than mandate. Normally a > document conveying legal status from a state empowered to grant such > status, charter schools may be 501(c)(3) organizations and thus > regulated by the nonprofit laws of the state and if tax > exempt, by the regulatory powers of the Internal Revenue Service. > Almost any configuration is allowed, however, except for profit charters. > (However, for profits may manage the programs).
Of course "charter" implies contract rather than mandate. Charter sponsors are not suppose to mandate what occurs in the schools. Teachers and parents are the ones directly responsible for the operations of a charter school. Sponsors only set general guidelines. > Charter schools can be former public schools, former private schools, > and new schools but not home-based schools. > > So Ms Massey is correct in saying there is the possibility of less > accountability. I can't follow the logic of this implication. How do any of these statements imply that charters are less accountable? Charters are responsible for meeting the goals set by their sponsors. Charters are responsible for meeting the expectations of parents. Charters have to report student achievement to the public and charters are subject to the reporting requirements and sanctions of the No Child Left Behind Law. From my perspective charters are more accountable than traditional public schools. > The boards of charter schools are required to have a majority of > teachers in the governing body, unless the requirement is waived. > And the organization must be configured as a non profit or co-op. How does this make them less accountable? > This is definitely not the same as a school board elected by > the public in an open and regulated election process. Except that in a charter school parents know the teachers who are board members and the other parents who serve on the board. How many people on the Minneapolis School Board do you know personally and speak to weekly? > None of this means that a particular charter school will become less > accountable. It does mean that the representative governing body, a > public body, elected by the voters, is absent in a charter > school. The charter school board members are not required to present > their credentials and run for office in an open process. No! What this means is that the electorate is just smaller and more personal. It means that the parents who have the most at stake elect their representatives. It means that in school districts, like some in Arizona where the majority of the electorate don't have children, students don't get short changed. And it means that in cities like Minneapolis, where the school board is controlled by a political party with intimate ties to labor unions, that more financing actually goes to education rather than to union members and contractors. Of course, this doesn't mean that charter schools couldn't benefit from strong oversight and conflict of interest laws (in the same way as could NRP contractors could). Michael Atherton Prospect Park 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
