Here is an interesting case from Idaho. A Boise charter school is closing because it's enrollment declined and now it can't make payroll. There is certainly an element of mismanagement, but the other side is that Idaho has a law that allows school districts with declining enrollment to use prior years' enrollment to offset a single year decline. The courts ruled that this law doesn't apply to charter schools.
Charter schools aren't protected by the district and they aren't protected by the state, even though they are public schools. Seems to me that by most people's definition of unfair, this is unfair. Wouldn't you say?
3 comments:
Charter schools are closer to independent (private) schools than public schools in this respect.
The charter chain High Tech High School expanded from San Diego to Silicon Valley -- and failed. Why? My opinion
http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2007/02/high_tech_high_.html
is that the board and administration failed to understand the different marketing needs.
More news coverage:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070616/ai_n19310081/
Public schools don't have to market themselves.
Private (independent) schools do, and do it well for long-term success.
Many charter-school operators haven't gotten the message that they aren't really public schools.
What an infuriating case. Thanks for making a good point.
Liz,
I think in this respect, perhaps charter schools are in between private and public schools. If they have to market themselves as hard as you say, then perhaps a charter isn't as necessary in that particular geographic area.
The idea that they "aren't really public schools" doesn't make sense to me. They are publicly funded and have to adhere to most of the same criteria as non-charter schools. In fact, they are being constrained more and more as time goes on.
Post a Comment