Charter Schools

Introduction: The Joneses are a fictional poor inner city African American family with two 17 year old daughters (Mary and Sarah) and a 10 year old named Johnny. Mary and Sarah are in the 12th grade and have been attending Broden School (a Charter school) since the 8th grade when they were pulled out of Archers Academy (another Charter school). Before the 6th grade they were forced by the government to attend Hillslane public school.

When Mary and Sarah were in the 5th grade their State Legislature (and/or Congress) passed the Charter School Act, legislation which gave parents control of the money that was being spent on their children at their closest public school. So, if a public school was spending $10,000 per pupil, per year, then the parents of that child could use the $10,000 to keep their kid at his/her current public school or spend it on any other school they wish. They can only spend this money on the education of their child and don't have access to the account; they just dictate to an Administrator which school receives the money. Any money unspent is returned to the government as general revenue. The current public schools retain their full funding as long as parents choose to continue their children's education there. There is no accreditation needed to open a Charter school. Charter schools may be registered as nonprofit (like the public schools), or for-profit. There is no limit on the number of students that may be accepted to any one Charter school, no limit on the amount of profit a Charter school can make, and no conditions on how they spend their money. Charter schools have full discretion to pay their teachers whatever salary they wish and free reign to hire and fire whoever they wish, regardless of background or qualification. Charter schools that falsely advertise or mislead parents about any aspect of their school, from the qualifications of their teaching staff, to the test scores of their students, will be considered in breach of contract and can be sued by the parents and/or prosecuted by the state in a court of law. To prevent fraud and abuse, a parent who homeschools cannot qualify as a Charter school. All private schools are reclassified as Charter schools and may receive the maximum per child funding. So a Private/Charter school that charged $20,000/year tuition would receive the regular $10k from that child's government account and the parents would continue to pay the remaining $10k out of pocket.

Johnny just graduated from a Charter elementary school and Mr. and Mrs. Jones are having a discussion over where to send him to school next year and their thoughts keep drifting back to how things used to be.

"Here it is, this is what I was telling you about," Mrs. Jones said triumphantly. She handed her husband the article by Consumer Report on the top Charter school corporations.

"See, Garner's School of Excellence, is one of the highest rated for math and science, and those are the subjects Johnny says he likes."

Mr. Jones frowned as he glanced at the rankings, "Well, they aren't that highly ranked, St. Marks, Roman Academy, Stratford Prep, and a few others are ranked higher."

Without missing a beat, Mrs. Jones replied in her matter-of-fact know it all tone, "You know those are all out of state schools and we already decided we weren't going to send Johnny to a boarding school. Garner's School of Excellence has a branch just across the county line, so they can come pick him up. Moreover, I just talked to the principal this morning. She was so friendly and helpful. They have a whole slew of programs there that emphasis hands on learning; you should see the pictures of their science and biology labs on their website. They even have a program for the 10th through 12th grade where they visit the labs at the state university and use some of the advanced equipment there."

Mr. Jones and his wife rarely had arguments, but when they did he nearly always lost. "Honey", he whined, "Why can't we just keep the kids together at the same school? Mary and Sarah are doing so well at Broden School."

"There's no rule saying the kids have to go to the same school. Besides, the girls switched out of Archers Academy nearly 5 years ago in the 8th grade. Garner's School of Excellence had just opened and we didn't know what it was going to be like. I've heard great things about it from the Carpenters and, you know the Smiths down at the corner? They told me Garner's was just great for their daughter - she can even call her teacher with homework questions at night. Besides, the kids would only be at Broden together for a few months anyway; the girls will both be graduating soon."

Mr. Jones was glad the girls had gotten out of Archers Academy. The teachers seemed nice enough and the girls enjoyed it, but then a scandal hit and some of the administrators were fired for inflating test scores. When it was exposed that, despite Archers stated policies, two newly hired teachers had criminal records, it was the last straw and the Joneses had pulled their daughters out. He remembered the Archer's Academy principal/owner pleading with him; probably just didn't want to loose his 20 grand. He chuckled, the guy lost a lot more then that, about a quarter of the school's pupils left and Archers hasn't yet built back up to what it once was. They even had to let some teachers go. In fact, that reminded him,

"Honey, what about Hillslane, the old public school, I heard Steve Rangart is head of their science department. Remember Steve, he was the whiz teacher at Archers who got all those awards and then left because Hillslane upped his contract. I bet Johnny would love him."

Mrs. Jones still had bad feelings towards Hillslane. The oldest, and once the only, school in the district, Hillslane had fought the switch to giving parents control of their own tax money tooth and nail. The teachers Unions in particular had been particularly vicious, railing against the idea that parents could choose where they spent the 10k/year that it was already costing taxpayers to send their kids to Hillslane public school. The school was administered by a bloated bureaucracy, many making over 100K and 200K a year, and the school was subject to Federal controls from Washington politicians and influenced by the powerful National Education Association. All of these forces spent millions across the country, lobbying politicians, spreading false advertising, and generally fear-mongering the population, in order to continue the status quo and keep their monopoly on public funds. The national media wrote Editorials opposing the bill, advocacy groups and 'non-partisan' Think Tanks falsely claimed children's education would suffer, and opposition politicians decried the bill's proponents as 'cruel', 'cold hearted', and even 'racist'. Hillslane was located in a high crime area, in the inner city, and consistently had among the lowest test scores in the state and, indeed, the nation, despite spending that was almost the highest per pupil in the country! Mrs. Jones tried everything to get her daughters out of the school, but since she and her husband were poor, they couldn't afford private school and couldn't afford to move. Even when the Unions lost a battle and the Voucher Act was written into law, giving $2000 dollars to each family for education spending, it still wasn't enough to get their daughters out of the failing Hillslane public school.

Mrs. Jones war particularly angry because during these legislative battles the NAACP and other liberal African American political groups lobbied against the bill. Being black, her and her husband had generally supported these groups in the past, but after this outrage they disavowed them. They would support them no longer, not when they acted against their children's education.

Mrs. Jones remembered how the principal of Hillslane had blown her off when she complained about a teacher who Mary told her always gave her science class meaningless assignments and then surfed the Internet. "I'll take care of it," he told her. When nothing changed, she complained again the next week. This time he got angry, "Look lady, I talked to her. What else do you want me to do? I can't fire these people. Your daughter only has a few weeks left in class, so don't worry about it."

What a difference a year made! After passage of the Charter School Act, which stated that parents have a right to spend, at any school of their choice, the money that is already being spent on their kids at the closest public school, parents pulled their kids out of the Hillslane public school - taking their 10K/year per pupil of the school's funding with them - and enrolled them in the dizzying array of Charter schools that sprouted up throughout their community and throughout the nation. Mary and Sarah's new education didn't cost taxpayers a nickel extra. Some parents sent their kids to religious schools; Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Muslim, there was even a Buddhist Academy. Others choose special technical schools, custom designed for kids who knew they wanted to study subjects like auto mechanics and computer programming. Online Charter Schools were quite popular, especially with homeschoolers. Test scores soared and there was a growing number of kids attending college at younger ages. There were year round schools (these increased dramatically), afternoon schools, and morning schools. But the majority of Charter schools were just like regular high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools, except they tended to have smaller class sizes, more personal attention, enthusiastic teachers, advanced equipment, and Mrs. Jones was always impressed with the cleanliness of these schools. The owners of these schools took good care of their property. After all, it belonged to them, not the faceless 'public'...

The same Hillslane principal who had blown her off the year before now called her at home telling her of all the changes they were making at Hillslane. Mrs. Jones didn't care. She didn't like the man and she didn't like the school. Her kids were out.

At first the sheer number of choices was a bit overwhelming. The Joneses received constant mailings and flyers advertising the different schools. A few of the new schools were actually said to be worse then Hillslane (she didn't think that could be possible)! Some were shut down for tax evasion and other code violations. However, after the first few years, the word began to get out where the good schools were. The school their two daughters are now attending, Broden school, started out with less than 100 students, but quickly grew and now over 10,000 kids attend five different branches across two states. The other day she had scoffed at a typical press article decrying the founder of Broden school for 'exploiting' the children for profit - the man had made millions off his schools and apparently, at least according to the reporter, didn't pay his teachers all that much. But Mrs. Jones didn't give a damn how much money the man made or how little he paid his teachers! Broden educated her kids! They had discipline; Mary and Sarah's teachers kept in touch with her and she always knew how they were doing in each class. Moreover, the school also bought her children laptops, which they kept at school and took with them from grade to grade. As an added bonus, Broden provided free breakfast and lunch to her kids, helping the family finances. They also had an excellent guidance counselor who was able to secure scholarships and loans for both Mary and Sarah upon their acceptance into the state university. The counselor had added incentive to do this because the success of Mary and Sarah added to the schools reputation, by both word of mouth (through the ever talkative Mrs. Jones) and via official statistics.

Mrs. Jones was glad that the new discipline in the classroom had the added benefit of making schools much safer. Charter schools could make up their own disciplinary policies, so, of course, they choose policies that worked and that parents approved of. Uniforms were popular with parents and many of the new schools provided them for free. Mrs. Jones had been terrified over the stories she used to hear about Hillslane high school - fights breaking out in the cafeteria and parking lots, drug dealing, and kids threatening teachers. Parents didn't want gangs, drugs, and bullies in school with their kids, so Charter schools simply made sure they weren't. Penalties were harsh - fighting often resulted in an expulsion with no questions asked. There was a no-nonsense attitude to these types of incidents in the Charter schools because their owners had a no-nonsense attitude to loosing money. Sure, the owners might loose $10k by expelling a student, but it was better than permitting a raucous environment to develop, which would result in a far higher monetary losses.

The expelled students did have hope; they were generally given a chance at other Charter schools, many of which employed highly effective counselors, therapists, and even psychiatrists, in order to increase parent satisfaction and assist their students as best they could. For kids with extreme behavioral problems and/or those struggling with other psychological issues, there were specialized Charter schools. These schools ran like boot camps and the teachers acted like drill sergeants. These schools, and even some of the regular Charter schools, often had effective mentoring programs where elder students were paired with incoming students. Some of these schools were boarding schools, and parents who recognized their home situation was hurting their children (substance abuse, physical abuse, gangs, street violence etc..) often sent their kids to these schools.

Shortly after the Charter School Act was passed, Mrs. Jones recalled reading about an incident at one of these boarding schools for 'troubled youths', where a particular unruly kid suffered bruises after he was tackled by staff, handcuffed, and placed in solitary confinement for 24 hours. The press was outraged and politicians and teachers Unions demanded this 'Charter Thuggary' (they always came up with catchy phrases like this) be ended with legislation in order to 'protect the children'. Civil rights groups sued the school (the kid happened to be black), and the kid's parents sued after hearing from lawyers they could win big verdicts. The lawsuits were thrown out, the first was entirely without merit, and the second because it turned out the school had merely been following its own stated policies, which it had described to parents in detail - orally and in writing. In fact, these policies were among the reasons parents liked the school. Despite all the negative attention directed at the school, Mrs. Jones was surprised to find out that enrollment actually soared after this incident!

Interestingly, after the opportunistic parent's lawsuit failed, they still elected to keep their child in the school, but the owner expelled the child! They sued again, now claiming their child was unfairly expelled. This lawsuit failed too. The court ruled that a customer could not demand to be sold a product and that, in any case, there was a clause in the contract of this particular Charter school stating that the owner could expel a student at any time, for whatever reason he desired. The owner then broke his media silence by calling a press conference and read a prepared statement: "I expelled that student because I and the parents of the other students in my school don't appreciate being sued for carrying out our stated and effective disciplinary policies that make this one of the top rated schools for troubled youth in the country. To discourage this sort of frivolous activity we had no choice but to expel the student." He left without taking any questions. His school was never sued again.

However, Mrs. Jones knew that the new system was the most beneficial for her nephew Michael. Her sister was so happy with his new school. Suffering from autism, Michael received special treatment at Hillslane, but his primary teacher was shuffled around between three or four different schools and her sister was never able to coordinate her home parenting and therapy with the school. Hillslane didn't communicate with her, and didn't answer her questions or concerns. The director of the Hillslane program always treated her with aloofness, with a don't-bother-me-with-your-questions-you-wouldn't-understand-the-answers-anyway type attitude. Soon after the Charter School Act was passed, a special Charter school for the autistic opened in the neighboring city. It was actually a franchise of a national chain, which had been founded by a group of prominent autistic experts. Although it was a 30 minute ride on a public bus, the school paid for it, and her sister immediately noticed Michael's improvement and soon was receiving tons of information on what she could do at home to supplement Michael's work with the school. She had a personal relationship with Michael's teacher and the principal of the school actually called her to ask her if she had any questions, concerns, or suggestions on what they could do to improve the program. In fact, before the Charter School Act was passed, many states managed to pass, over the objections of the teachers Unions and education groups, legislation permitting Charter schools for children with learning or discipline problems. Obviously many of these schools had lower test scores than the public schools, a fact that the education establishment falsely used as an argument against any Charter school. The press often regurgitated this rhetoric without mentioning that the scores of the individual kids in these schools often showed good improvement.

Interestingly, few of highest achieving public schools lost students to the Charter companies. Charter schools that tried to open in these areas, mainly in wealthy suburban districts, soon folded. Pre-existing private schools gained the most from the new Charter School Act. Before, these parents were forced to pay double for their children's schooling, first in taxes that funded the public schools, and second in the fees that the private schools charged. In effect, the government had been squelching these private schools by offering a 'free' service that directly competed with their business. The fact that there even were private schools was indicative of how bad the 'free' public schools really were. Some of these private schools, especially Catholic schools in inner city neighborhoods, operated on very tight budgets, often less then half of what taxpayers at the neighboring public school were paying in per pupil dollars. Some of these schools offered scholarships, mostly funded by private donations, to poorer students whose parents were unable to pay the private tuition. The Joneses had looked into this option for their daughters, but there was always such a long waiting list. Mrs. Jones never understood how these private schools, which spent less then half of what Hillslane spent per pupil, always had such dramatically higher test scores. She wondered why politicians were always promising more and more money for the public schools, when money didn't seem to be a factor at all in their performance. The Unions always contributed to and campaigned for politicians that pledged to give more taxpayer money to the public schools. Since this money obviously wasn't improving the public schools, Mrs. Jones assumed it just went back to the Union members. She frowned at the thought. How was this different from stealing?

In any case, after the Charter School Act passed, many of the pre-existing private schools were inundated with cash and rapidly expanded and enhanced their programs. Many of these private schools formed associations and donated heavily to politicians in favor of the Charter School Act. The Unions denounced this as corruption and Mrs. Jones was surprised to see these charges get wide coverage in the press. She was glad that these private schools were finally countering what the Unions had been practicing on a massive scale for years. Mrs. Jones also read that the number of homeschoolers, a group that had been under constant regulatory attack by the teachers Unions and public school officials, who didn't trust that parents were sufficiently 'qualified' and competent enough to educate their own children, dropped sharply after the Charter School Act. Many of these formerly disenfranchised parents were able to find a school that they deemed satisfactory. Some homeschool parents formed their own schools. Mrs. Jones stifled a laugh, the Charter School Act opponents must have been quite embarrassed by the fact that homeschoolers consistently won top academic competitions, including the widely watched National Spelling Bee competition.

"Honey, I asked you about Hillslane and Steve Rangart." Mr. Jones' voice snapped her back into reality. She realized she hadn't answered his question.

"Oh sorry, I was just thinking about the old days. I still don't trust that school."

"That was over 10 years ago. Hillslane has really turned around. 90% of their students graduate now.", Mr. Jones smirked and added sarcastically, "And they fired your favorite principal."

That was true. The exodus of students had threatened the school with collapse. The principal was fired and more then half the teachers had to be laid off. She recalled with humor the Union threatening management with a strike if they went ahead with the layoffs and salary cuts. Management called their bluff; the Union knew that another strike would destroy the school and their jobs. In fact, the Union soon collapsed, its members voted to disband it - its only purpose was to artificially raise their salaries and now, without their monopoly on the public funds, if the Union was successful in that purpose the school would have less to spend in the classroom and would not be competitive with the new Charter schools. The Unions had also acted to make it nearly impossible to fire teachers for incompetence, thus they incentivised incompetence, contributing to the failing system. These rules were soon revised and Mrs. Jones noted with some satisfaction that the science teacher whom she complained about years before was one of the first to go. The woman had over 20 years experience and a PhD in Education.

"PhD, hrumph," Mrs. Jones thought disdainfully. A fat lot of good it did her, or any of the teachers at Hillslane. Many of the older teachers had PhDs and Master degrees because the Union demanded management (aka - the public) pay them more for each higher 'qualification' and pay for all teacher tuition. In fact, the Unions made sure the pay scale was based only on these 'qualifications' and, most especially, seniority. Additionally, the Unions required that all teachers have education degrees and fulfill endless certification steps and other regulatory requirements. All of this kept the number of teachers in short supply, thus raising the salaries even further of those paying the Union dues. The Union leaders used their dues money for a wide range of political purposes, often without the consent or knowledge of their members. It seemed like every other week there was a different scandal breaking out with Union officials mismanaging or stealing Union funds and political corruption. New teachers were routinely compelled or intimidated into joining the Union. But the most galling part of the entire system, in the mind of Mrs. Jones, was that almost half of the teachers who taught at Hillslane sent their kids to private school. With their salaries, they could afford to.

Mrs. Jones remembered the first time she heard about Steve Rangart. Her daughters came home one afternoon from Archers Academy and all they could talk about was Mr. Rangart and his crazy experiments. And it wasn't all fun and games, she never saw her daughters study so hard for a class. Steve Rangart was a researcher with a long and distinguished career at a major pharmaceutical company. But research was only his third love, his first was children and his second was teaching. The Unions barred him from teaching at Hillslane because he lacked the proper 'qualifications'. After the Charter School Act was passed, he inquired if he could teach a class or two at newly formed Archers Academy. The school jumped at the chance, in fact, now it is common practice for Charter schools to pay various professionals to teach select classes, or speak at their schools. Some do it for free. Steve started off working just three hours a week, teaching an advanced chemistry course, but loved it so much he took an early retirement from his research job and accepted a full time contract at Archers. He soon become director of the school's science department and the Archers science program won many awards for its high test scores and Archers students always placed near the top at the regional and national science competitions.

Meanwhile, Hillslane had undergone rapid changes. Their dropout rates had fallen from 50% before the Chart School Act to 20%, but the new principal needed something to boost the schools reputation and assure parents that the school's troubled past was behind them. He needed Steve Rangart. However, Rangart was a tough customer; he knew how valuable he would be to Hillslane. He knew what he was worth and he intended Hillslane to pay him what he was worth and not a cent less. In the end, Hillslane nearly broke their budget, but they got Steve Rangart. Just in time too, the scandals started hitting Archers not long after he left and the Joneses withdrew Mary and Sarah, enrolling them in Broden.

In fact, the Rangart story was indicative of the changing way that teachers were paid and hired. The number of college students pursuing education degrees dropped dramatically. Most students who wanted to be teachers instead majored in the subject they would be teaching and often settled for a minor in education. The only credentials that mattered to the owners of the Charter schools were the credentials that mattered to parents. Teachers stopped going back to graduate school because the Charter school owners generally wouldn't pay them more for their degrees and certainly wouldn't pay their tuition. Teachers were now paid by their results, by the pure merit of their teaching skill. Hardworking teachers, who put in long hours, whose students scored higher on the standardized tests, whose students had fun in their classes, and who interacted well with parents, were paid more than those who were less successful in these tasks. Of course, the more experienced teachers were still generally paid more - but only because their experience made them better at what they did.

The remaining teachers Unions in the country often disparaged the Charter schools for unequal payment of their teachers. For example, Mr. Rangart made nearly ten times the salary of the lowest paid teacher at Hillsdale. But the Charter schools didn't care what the Unions said, they only cared what their customers said, and parents never seemed to care about much besides that their children get the best education possible. In fact, brutal bidding wars between the Charter schools often erupted over the top teachers. Headhunter type organizations were paid handsomely by Charter schools to seek out and recruit top teachers and administrators from across the country. Although teacher salaries, especially the starting salaries, were often lower then they had been under the monopolistic public schools, with hard work and perseverance, the top teachers and administrators could often make more than ever would have been possible under the stifling Unions. Some teachers quit the public schools to start their own Charter schools. A few of these teachers, through their hard work and successful school design, became fabulously wealthy as their schools prospered. Some of the larger Charter corporations went public and their stocks soared. Billions of dollars of newly created wealth, added to the national GDP, reflected the success of the new educational system. Teachers sometimes owned, or were paid in, stock from the school they worked at. The most successful Charter corporations created hundreds of millionaires among its veteran teachers and administrators.

The contrast was striking. The Union system generated their millionaires by sickly standards rooted in denial, doublethink, deception, patronage, cronyism, exclusion, and outright theft. The Charter system generated their millionaires by righteous standards rooted in ability, talent, merit, imagination, creativity, and the voluntary participation of their customers. The Charter system didn't just educate kids better, it injected society with a much needed dose of moral values.

The Charter schools often had 'open houses' where they tried to sell their school to prospective parents. Mrs. Jones noticed a new attitude among teachers; and it wasn't just for show. They genuinely seemed happier in their jobs. Whether they worked part time or full time, what they did really mattered and was always noticed. The Charter school owners noticed, the parents noticed, and the kids noticed. If they did a good job, they were rewarded; if they didn't do a good job, they either took a pay cut or had to find a new job. There were no more freeloaders. Each teacher had individual value. Mrs. Jones thought of a quote Sarah had read her the other day from the 30th President of the United States, Calvin Coolidge, "Industry, thrift and self-control are not sought because they create wealth, but because they create character."

The teachers were also given more leeway to do their jobs. Many of the Charter school owners came from a business background and recognized that people immediately faced with a problem often find the best solutions. Administrators were more hands-off than they had been in the past and teachers were usually given leeway to craft their own curriculums, lectures, experiments, and interactive games and exercises. Excessive paper work and red-tape hurt productivity, so teachers and Administrators worked to dramatically cut the time wasted on this. Also, the best Charter schools kept the number of Administrators very low in order to maximize spending in the classroom, cut costs, and increase their profits. The remaining Administrators often spent a great deal of time in advertising, public relations, and meeting with parents, so teachers increasingly took on Administrative tasks. They all knew what the other teachers were doing and there was special emphasis on student transition between grades. The system worked from the bottom up, rather then the top down. Washington had no influence at all and, seeing it now had no purpose, Congress abolished the Department of Education. The press howled.

Back when public schools and teachers Unions had their monopoly on the public education tax dollars, the teachers all had specified curriculum and specified textbooks. In fact, teachers used to get into more trouble deviating from the curriculum than if they stuck with it and taught it poorly. Especially upsetting to the old Administrators was when teachers would do something that wasn't 'politically correct', or discussed topics such as religion or politics with their students. The old Administrators would rather have ten teachers like the incompetent PhD teacher Mrs. Jones complained about, and who was eventually fired from Hillslane, than one teacher who 'caused trouble' and 'stirred up the pot' by being 'controversial'.

Mrs. Jones didn't care for 'political correctness', not because there was anything innately wrong with the concept, but because it stifled innovation, discouraged risk taking, and encouraged apathy and incompetence, all of which acted against the education of her children. But this was all a thing of the past. The other day Mary came home talking about the debates they had in class over such normally polarizing issues like gay marriage and abortion. She was happy and smiling and animated, not because they had broached these issues, but because her teacher and classmates actually cared what she thought about them. The new Charter schools cared about what their students thought, because they wanted them to be thinking and creating, not regurgitating. Thinking and creating students were smarter students (higher test scores) and thinking and creating students were happier students (happy customers), both of which increased the profits of the Charter schools.

Mrs. Jones had also read some Editorials from some national newspapers bemoaning the 'politicization' of the new Charter Schools. These Editorials claimed that the Charter schools got rid of many of the old textbooks and the new ones, especially the history textbooks, were too 'rightwing'. Mrs. Jones wasn't very political and didn't know what they meant by 'rightwing', but certain facts did surprise her, such as the fact that Communism had killed over 100 million people, more than in all wars in history combined. Mrs. Jones was puzzled, she never learned about this when she was in public school. In fact, in glancing through her daughter's history textbook, Mrs. Jones found that many chapters had more then one author, each of whom interpreted the historical happenings very differently. The chapter questions at the end (and the classroom discussions), probed the student to make up his/her own mind between the points of view. It was curious, there was always one point of view that she immediately recognized as similar to her old public school textbooks, but it was the other viewpoints she had never seen before that were most interesting to her. For example, Mrs. Jones had always been taught that FDR and his 'New Deal' saved the country from the Laissez-Faire politicians during the Great Depression and that Lyndon Johnson's 'War on Poverty', 'Great Society' had lifted millions of African Americans out of poverty. But these textbooks included an additional point of view, which stated FDR had prolonged and deepened the Great Depression and that Lyndon Johnson's 'War on Poverty', 'Great Society' impoverished African Americans and led to the dissolution of the black family. Mrs. Jones didn't know what to make of all of this, and didn't have the time to dwell too long on any of it, but it was certainly fascinating. She certainly didn't see how adding other perspectives to a textbook was 'politicizing' anything, as these national newspapermen seemed to think. In fact, now that she thought about it, not having these perspectives in these textbooks was politicizing the textbooks. Better to expose the kids to all of it and let them make up their own minds was the philosophy of Mrs. Jones, the philosophy of most parents and, therefore, the philosophy of the Charter schools.

Of course, there were some parents who complained about the new textbooks, and others who didn't want their kids taught about evolution, and still some others that didn't approve of the health/sex-ed classes. These parents were most often in the minority, and most ended up keeping their kids in the offending school anyway because they knew their kids were otherwise getting a good education. However, a few select parents did pull their kids out of these Charter schools and placed them in schools that were consistent with their own values. No one could ever really complain about what was being taught in school because no one was forced to send their children to any particular school.

But the main difference Mrs. Jones noticed in the new system was that her kids were happier. Charter schools quickly discovered that a happy child was the key to happy parents, which was the key to more students, and therefore the key to higher profits. Some schools, especially high schools, let the students rate the effectiveness of their teachers. Classrooms were now alive with richly vibrant and interactive games, often custom designed by the newly endowed teachers. Historical biographies, written by exciting authors who wrote history like it was a story, replaced the droll fact condensed textbooks sanctioned by the Washington bureaucrats and the NEA. There was more emphasis on creative writing, rather than the '5 paragraph formal essay'. Teachers and their classes often made up their own summer reading lists, with most input coming from the students. Kids created their own websites and computer programs. Mrs. Jones thought it was all quite amazing. Her kids now liked to write. Her kids now liked to read. Her kids now liked to learn. They were finally being allowed to think.

Mrs. Jones finally turned to her husband, "Dear, I know it was almost 10 years ago, and your right, Hillslane has improved, and I do like Steve Rangart, but Garner's School of Excellence is where Johnny wants to go, and it's where I want him to go. Won't you at least come tomorrow night to their open house?"

Mr. Jones threw up his hands. "Okay, okay, I'll come and check it out. But no promises." He shook his head. "I just don't like walking through these schools, I feel like they just see us as walking chunks of cash."

Mrs. Jones laughed, "Oh don't be silly, would you rather they not see us at all? You remember what open houses used to be like?"

Mr. Jones shuddered at the memories, "Good point, when your right your right. Ok, we'll go tomorrow night. Will they let us take Johnny with us?"

Mrs. Jones replied, "They'll let us take whoever we want. Remember, we're paying customers; they work for us. They know we don't have to choose them."

Disclaimer: The characters and institutions in this story are completely fictional, any coincidental resemblance to any person, living or dead, or institution was unintended. However, the general themes and patterns found in this story are deeply rooted in reality. I believe these predictions accurately depict what would come to pass if Charter School legislation similar to what I've described was enacted. I also believe my portrayal of today's educational system and the current opposition to real education reform is accurate and, in fact, has played out in political battles that have already taken place. I am hopeful that this will enable people to view Charter school legislation and our stagnating public schools in the proper light.

Note: All hyperlinks lead to further stories and research that have been published throughout this website. These links generally illustrate underlying patterns or expand on other unrelated concepts readers might find interesting. A large number of relevant news articles have been posted at the end, with commentary, as further evidence emphasizing key arguments found in the story.

If current private schools are allowed access to the 10k in Charter school money it will cost taxpayers a fair amount of money. Much of this might be raised by eliminating Federal fundings for a wide variety of Education programs that the Charter schools could implement more effectively (if they choose). Headstart, school lunch programs, after school programs, even daycare programs, and a plethora of wasteful grants and other programs could all be eliminated. Eliminating the Department of Education would save billions. It may also be the case that legislators (and parents) will be so surprised at the excesses of services provided by the Charter schools that they decide to cut funding of their public schools, which also cuts the funding of the Charter schools. It would be best if all of these decisions were made by state legislators and county commissioners, not the Federal Government. In fact, it would be best if the Federal government had no part of education at all. Considering that the Constitution leaves education to the states, this shouldn't be too much to ask. It is disappointing that the courts have not declared the Department of Education unconstitutional (along with the many other Federal programs and regulations).

Admittedly, there is a strong temptation to advocate national legislation to setup and implement something like the 'Charter School Act', but I feel the setup and running of these programs should be left largely to the states. If the Federal government screws it up, and judging by its past track record and the special interest clout in Washington, this is a distinct possibility, people will have nowhere to run. It would make things easier on the Charter school chains and franchises to have standard regulations (if any) and procedures in every state. One can easily imagine Charter schools already established in a state lobbying the state legislators for increasing regulations, fees, and licensing in the name of 'the public good' or 'public safety' in an underhanded attempt to stop new startups and keep out-of-state competition from encroaching on their profits. Federal legislation, possibly filed under the interstate commerce act, may be required to put a stop to some of this nonsense and to enable students in a state to attend schools in neighboring states, or even boarding schools across the country. These sorts of things need to be looked at in more detail and fleshed out (especially the question of the constitutionality of these laws).

I have also mentioned standardized test scores throughout this story. This might imply I support the continuation of nationally standardized testing, which may seem to contradict my disdain for Federal involvement in Education. However, there is no need for Federal involvement because the Charter schools are plenty capable of constructing their own tests, driven by parental demand for accountability. I'm guessing that various Charter school associations would most likely contract out the tests to a reputable company. These tests might be state based or nationally based, or perhaps parents won't demand testing even take place and rely more on standards like graduation percentages or SAT scores. By presuming parents want national standardized testing ,I am, perhaps, committing the same mistake that the folks in the Education Department or the NEA make everyday, taking the elitists attitude that I know what is best and that I know what parents want. This is especially egregious considering I personally disdain standardized testing and don't believe it is a useful barometer for much of anything. A better approach is to assume parents will want some sort of statistics to go on and that the market will filter a satisfactory way of doing this to the top.

I would support a Voucher program over the existing public education debacle, but I view it as only a half-hearted step towards reform. With Vouchers, the government returns to parents, oh... about half, or maybe, if they're lucky, three quarters, of their own money to spend at the school they please. With Vouchers, the argument that parents of the poorest children might not be able to afford the extra money actually has some merit. These students would continue to be stuck in the failing public schools with no way out.

The pure libertarian view, whereby control and jurisdiction over Education policy is taken from the Federal Government, the States, and the Counties and given directly to the people, is an interesting one. In such a scenario there would be no taxes, regulations or requirements for Education and every school would be truly private. Private foundations and charity organizations would exist to help the poorest areas. My gut feeling is that this may indeed prove to be the best scenario for permanently improving education in this country. However, legislation repealing all the old education laws and taxes is certainly not politically feasible at this time. The 'Charter School Act' legislation that I've described is politically feasible (as it is really just common sense), provided the proposal is not skewered and slanted and demaguaged (and rest assured, it will be). After this legislation is passed, and people adjust to the idea of (gasp!) being able to spend their own tax dollars where they desire and see the benefits of (gasp!) having more control over their kid's education, the pure libertarian view can be more closely examined and (perhaps) pursued.

The public school system is already so beleaguered by bureaucracy; so cowed by the demands of due process; so overwhelmed with faddish curricula that its educational purpose is almost an afterthought.
-CA Justice Janice Rogers Brown

I suppose it is because nearly all children go to school nowadays, and have things arranged for them, that they seem so forlornly unable to produce their own ideas.
- Agatha Christie

Just as eating against one's will is injurious to health, so studying without a liking for it spoils the memory, and it retains nothing it takes in.

Do you think nobody would willingly entrust his children to you or pay you for teaching them? Why do you have to extort your fees and collect your pupils by compulsion?

It's time to admit that public education operates like a planned economy, a bureaucratic system in which everybody's role is spelled out in advance and there are few incentives for incentives for innovation and productivity. It's no surprise that our school system doesn't improve: It more resembles the communist economy than our own market economy.

- Albert Shanker - During his time as head of the American Federation of Teachers

When school children start paying union dues, that's when I'll start representing the interests of school children.

If the only motive was to help people who could not afford education, advocates of government involvement would have simply proposed tuition subsidies.

Despite a documented low correlation between money spent and improvement in the quantity and quality of public education, the reform of public education has focused almost exclusively on the financial issue.

As for money, the relationship between it and effective schools has been studied to death. The unanimous conclusion is that there is no connection between school funding and school performance.

To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.

The more subsidized it is, the less free it is. What is known as `free education' is the least free of all, for it is a state-owned institution; it is socialized education - just like socialized medicine or the socialized post office - and cannot possibly be separated from political control.

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in nursery.

At every hour of every day, I can tell you on which page of which book each school child in Italy is studying.

The education of all children, from the moment that they can get along without a mother's care, shall be in state institutions at state expense.

Give me four years to teach the children and the seed I have sown will never be uprooted.

Ideas are more dangerous than guns. We don’t allow our enemies to have guns. Why should we allow them to have ideas?

In the first place God made idiots. This was for practice. Then he made school boards.

I agree with Boortz, and I'm happy to say most of the readers at Digg.com do too.

Personal Observations and Experience (This has been put on a separate folder because, in retrospect, I don't feel my personal observations add a great deal to this piece. I'd recommend this only if you've read everything else and still have time.)

Guest Commentary: Geoff Dobson, also known as 'Dobber', is a former Charter School teacher who is

interested in Educational reform and was generous enough to offer valuable feedback in the writing of 'A Charter School Tale' and volunteered to share his personal observations:

After I graduated from the University of Pittsburgh, I decided that before starting a career that would fulfill my own personal goals, I wanted to spend some time working for the betterment of society. I researched different “volunteering” (not totally free labor, but extremely low-pay) options; two of the most prominent being the Peace Corps and Americorps. I ended up deciding on the Americorps program. I was offered a ten-month position as an Americorps domestic volunteer with an inner-city Philadelphia Charter School called YouthBuild Philadelphia. My position was officially called Technology Educator. I ran a non-profit computer refurbishing outfit, through the school, and a group of students were my workers. The “company” was called Urban Tech, and you can check out an advertisement here, www.urbantechproject.org, that pictures some of my former students Raphael, James, and Maria, working on the donated computers.

This unique experience was considered “alternative education” and part of their quite radical curriculum. All of the students at this school are aged 18-21 and were formerly expelled from the public school district of Philadelphia, for a multitude of reasons ranging from violence, to truancy. This school was started in 1991 to address the ongoing problem of a large number of inner-city youth not graduating from high school. In 1991, the dropout rate was hovering around 50%, since then, it has only gotten worse. To learn more about this school check out its website here: www.youthbuildphilly.org.

I am a proponent of education reform. I have not yet decided on a policy that is best, but I recognize that the current system needs change. Many argue that charter schools and school choice in general is the way to go. I see reason to believe school choice is worthy of more consideration. I will give some positive observations of my own, from working in a charter school for one year:

1. First and foremost, the school exists. Without the charter school legislation that most states have adopted in the past fifteen years, this school would not exist. This school provides education for a specific demographic: eighteen to twenty-one year old, inner-city, drop-outs (and/or kick-outs). After spending one year at this school, the former drop-outs (approximately 62% graduation rate) now have a high-school diploma, and many aspects of support for success in life. This school offers everything from SAT preparation, to psychological services, to drug and alcohol abuse prevention and help, to career services, to furthering education placement, and many more.

2. Since the school is a Charter School they can offer teaching jobs and other faculty positions to anybody. Some of the teachers there are former successful CPAs that want to switch gears in life. Some of the teachers hold teaching certificates and enjoy working with that specific demographic. There is no tenure at this school, and teachers that don’t perform well are fired. In my experience, the faculty that wanted to do well and truly cared about the students, excelled, and therefore, continued to have a job. Those that didn’t, were let go.

3. The teachers enjoyed the fact that they could adapt their curriculum as they saw fit. Each teacher was charged with coming up with new and innovative ways to engage the students, and they adapted to the students’ needs. They were relieved of the bureaucracy of the Department of Education telling them what they had to do, what they had to teach, and how to do it. When techniques worked, they were pursued. When something didn’t work, it was dropped. All techniques were discussed (with other teachers, principals, students, etc) and examined.

4. Since the program I taught (technology job-training) was only one year old, I was able to try out radical (I would call them common sense) teaching practices that would not be possible under State guidelines. For example, I abandoned the traditional ABCDF grading system for a credit based system. My students had already all failed in schools that used the standard practices. If these students were going to be successful, I had to think outside the box. So, I explained to them that necessary skills that they needed to learn. They were given time frames (usually 6 weeks) to learn them within. There were no tests, no homework, no quizzes, and no memorization; just constant learning. I explained to them that it was in their best interest to spend the time that we were allotted for class, approximately five hours per day, actively working and learning. As long as everyone was on-board with this mindset, the class was successful. Every student worked at their own pace, and smarter students were encouraged to help slower students, for credit. I put up a “scoreboard”. It was a large poster board with everyone’s names as rows and every possible learning experience or completion of a task that had value, as columns. I identified tasks that must be completed, at some time during the six week period, and it was up to the student when to do it. Those tasks were listed first on the scoreboard. But, it was a dynamic scoreboard, in that it was often being changed. I allowed the students to offer suggestions, and if I thought that their suggestion merited educational value, I added it. For example, two students got credit for fixing the school secretary’s CPU fan. Another student got credit for networking a new computer lab. At the end of the semester points were awarded for every task completed. It was easy to see who the “A” students were. And for the students that didn’t pass, all I had to do was point to the scoreboard and say “you better do more next rotation.” They couldn’t say they were cheated, or it wasn’t fair, because the policy was hanging on the wall, and I (and other students) was available to help them with any task they had trouble with.

That experiment was only possible because the only educational authority I had to answer to was the school principal. She loved the idea. I documented everything and provided an analysis paper at the end of each month for her. I can only imagine what education would have been like if my teachers were allowed to think outside the box.

Now, don’t misinterpret me and think I am suggesting that we throw out the system entirely. The situation I was in was extremely unique, and drastic measures had to be taken, if my students were to have any success at all. I am simply pointing that exciting possibilities exist, if the reigns of control are only slightly loosened.

5. Smaller class sizes and more faculty makes for better relationships. One thing I definitely learned through my experience was the fact that a good student-teacher relationship is much more important than material, curriculum, or even teacher expertise. This seems obvious to me, so I will not elaborate. Charter Schools can address this problem because it is up to their management what ratio should exist. In Williams Arizona, maybe a 20 – 1 ratio is perfect; but in Garwin, Iowa maybe a 16 – 1 ratio yields better results.

6. Discipline can be handled more on a per-case basis. I think back to middle school, and remember the “bad kids” always getting the same punishments. Week in, week out, they do something wrong, and then they get one of the standard punishments. In charter schools, the management decides how the school will deal with unruly students, and the parents decide whether or not they agree. Should the punishment for throwing globes out the window be tar and feathering? I don’t know. But if it works, and a charter school employs that tactic, and parents see results, and choose to send their children there, then so be it!

7. Way less paperwork. I’ve heard horror stories about all the worthless paperwork that some of my friends have to mindlessly deal with just to satisfy some government standard. At YouthBuild, paperwork was secondary. The management team decided what things needed to be documented, and that’s what we documented. No unnecessary busy work for employees. What was really great, was if I had a problem with something, I simply walked upstairs and poked my head into of the management offices and talked it over! If I were in a public school, I would have had to take a personal day, drive to Harrisburg and hope to get a meeting with a bureaucrat, who would probably just re-direct my concern to some committee that wouldn’t do anything about it. And why should they? They don’t care about little old me, when they have thousands of teachers to be in charge of. But, at YouthBuild, the executive director did care about me! In fact, we were in the same lunchtime aerobics class!

8. Standards, hah! Why should Johnny, who lives in Alburg Vermont, be taking the same standardized test as Jenny, who live in Ramah, New Mexico? Every year I hear bad news about test scores. Basically, here’s how I observe it:

1. Give students national, standardized test. 2. Score tests. 3. Display bad results.

The easy way to fix the problem of displaying bad results, is to simply knock out step number one! Don’t give the tests!

Well, needless to say, YouthBuild de-emphasizes standardized tests, which exist in the interest of bureaucrats, and focuses its energy on learning, which exists in the interest of the student.

These are just some of the observations off the top of my head. YouthBuild was no utopia, and problems came up. But, it was great to know, that we both created the problem and solved the problem. In public school, in many situations, the employees do not create the problem (they are just following guidelines) nor are they allowed to solve them (the solution might break a guideline).

Sometimes all it takes is a bit of simple math. I'd like to apologize to readers, as I quoted the $13,00 number repeatedly in 'A Charter School Tale'. Coulson makes a pretty strong case here that the number is actually twice that:

We're often told that public schools are underfunded. In the District, the spending figure cited most commonly is $8,322 per child, but total spending is close to $25,000 per child -- on par with tuition at Sidwell Friends, the private school Chelsea Clinton attended in the 1990s.

What accounts for the nearly threefold difference in these numbers? The commonly cited figure counts only part of the local operating budget. To calculate total spending, we have to add up all sources of funding for education from kindergarten through 12th grade, excluding spending on charter schools and higher education. For the current school year, the local operating budget is $831 million, including relevant expenses such as the teacher retirement fund. The capital budget is $218 million. The District receives about $85.5 million in federal funding. And the D.C. Council contributes an extra $81 million. Divide all that by the 49,422 students enrolled (for the 2007-08 year) and you end up with about $24,600 per child.

For comparison, total per pupil spending at D.C. area private schools -- among the most upscale in the nation -- averages about $10,000 less. For most private schools, the difference is even greater.

The school, which will run from fifth to eighth grades, is promising to pay teachers $125,000, plus a potential bonus based on schoolwide performance. That is nearly twice as much as the average New York City public school teacher earns, roughly two and a half times the national average teacher salary and higher than the base salary of all but the most senior teachers in the most generous districts nationwide.

The school’s creator and first principal, Zeke M. Vanderhoek, contends that high salaries will lure the best teachers. He says he wants to put into practice the conclusion reached by a growing body of research: that teacher quality — not star principals, laptop computers or abundant electives — is the crucial ingredient for success.

“I would much rather put a phenomenal, great teacher in a field with 30 kids and nothing else than take the mediocre teacher and give them half the number of students and give them all the technology in the world,” said Mr. Vanderhoek, 31, a Yale graduate and former middle school teacher who built a test preparation company that pays its tutors far more than the competition.

In exchange for their high salaries, teachers at the new school, the Equity Project, will work a longer day and year and assume responsibilities that usually fall to other staff members, like attendance coordinators and discipline deans. To make ends meet, the school, which will use only public money and charter school grants for all but its building, will scrimp elsewhere. <.>

Ernest A. Logan, president of the city principals’ union, called the notion of paying the principal less than the teachers “the craziest thing I’ve ever heard.”

Randi Weingarten, president of the United Federation of Teachers, called the hefty salaries “a good experiment.” But she said that when teachers were not unionized, and most charter school teachers are not, their performance can be hampered by a lack of power in dealing with the principal. “What happens the first time a teacher says something like, ‘I don’t agree with you?’ ”

Only when teachers and the educational system is outside the control of the teachers unions can these sorts of experiments happen. This decentralized control, bottom up approach to education with the money going strait to the classroom might just work.

Signaling deep discontent and a possible spreading revolt among the city's public school teachers, faculty at two more Los Angeles high schools met this week with a leading charter school operator to discuss alliances aimed at breaking away from the school district.

This is truly an amazing phenomena, especially as it attacks a central plank of the teacher's Unions arguments against charter schools: that private companies provide sub par working conditions and benefits. Even some proponents of charter schools mistakenly acquiesce the benefit of unions to teachers, and instead trumpet the gains made by students, which if one considers, is really the whole point of education anyway... However, as stated in 'A Charter School Tale', the basic human instincts of justice, fairness, and happiness stemming from quality, competence, and hard work, are both emotionally and financially beneficial.

The educators also responded positively to Barr's claims that the group's small central staff allows more than 90% of state funds to go directly to instruction and higher teacher salaries. Significantly less money reaches district classrooms, largely because of the L.A. school district's sizable bureaucracy. <.>

District officials have been reluctant to grant teachers and principals the freedom to run the schools and unable to provide the support needed to carry out the transformation smoothly. <.>

For Barr, the interest comes from two very different schools. Taft is a racially diverse school with middle-of-the-road test scores and a largely veteran, stable faculty. Santee, by contrast, serves poor minority students in one of the city's most gang-infested neighborhoods. Student performance is some of the lowest in the district, and at the end of the campus' first year, roughly 40% of its teachers left — several of them taking jobs at Green Dot schools.

The United Auto Workers has launched a big new push to organize the plant, trying to capitalize on fears of lower pay, outsourcing of jobs and on Toyota's treatment of injured workers. <.>

At a new factory being built in Mississippi, Toyota plans to pay workers about $20 an hour in a region where many people earn $12 to $13 an hour.

If teachers are better off without public school unions, maybe autoworkers are too, and it just might save their jobs in the long run...

A good article on the recent decision by the (liberal) Florida Supreme Court to overturn portions of the recent Charter/Voucher education reforms passed by the Republican legislator and signed by Gov Jeb Bush (who. IMO, is one of the best governors in the nation). I especially like this article's emphasis on race and that it was featured in an African American magazine. Since Conservative/Libertarian philosophy is race neutral, this might seem hypocritical. But this approach is necessary, as seen throughout this website, in order to refute those on the left who constantly emphasize race:

Florida's voucher program was challenged in court by the usual collection of school choice foes, including the state teachers' union and the NAACP.
It's interesting that the NAACP backs the education establishment on vouchers, given that polls show most blacks favor school choice. In several states, voucher programs have been established to serve minority students in troubled inner-city school systems.

Black parents tend to support school choice because their children are disproportionately affected by the failures of the public school system. Against that, it's curious that the Florida Supreme Court -- at the behest of the NAACP -- has ruled that poor minorities must keep their seats in the back of the public education system's bus.

The Florida program was in its infancy, but almost 95 percent of the students who were receiving state scholarships to attend private schools were black or Hispanic. A pioneering school choice program in Milwaukee, Wisc., was championed by a black activist who battled the state education bureaucracy and its allies in a successful effort to expand educational opportunities for poor African-Americans.
Could you imagine the outrage if Conservatives/Libertarians abolished a program which benefited 95% minorities? Conservative/Libertarian policies nearly always result in positive outcomes for minorities, yet for some reason the debate is always diverted to center on the intentions of the proponents of these positive policies. In another article, Florida Libertarians call the ruling "bizarre, unrealistic, and a new form of Jim Crow to keep the poor out of private schools."

The court found that taxpayer support for private schools in general is unconstitutional because Florida's constitution requires "a uniform, efficient, safe, secure and high-quality system of free public schools." Private schools aren't "uniform when compared with each other or the public system," the justices wrote. They're also exempt from public standards on teacher credentials and requirements to teach about a wide range of subjects, such as civics, U.S. and world history and minorities' and women's contributions to history.

Milwaukee's innovative school choice program has become a beacon of hope for reformers everywhere. But the educational establishment has never accepted its success and is now striking back. A cap on the number of students that can attend the city's private choice schools has been reached, and starting Feb. 1, education officials will implement a rationing plan to allocate the program's available seats. That could disrupt up to 4,000 families and create such chaos among the participating schools that several could be threatened with closure.

In 1995, then-Gov. Tommy Thompson joined with state legislators to expand choice in Milwaukee to include religious schools, but a compromise set a limit on the number of participating students at 15% of the enrollment in Milwaukee Public Schools. Today that means some 14,500 students, and demand is now higher than that for the slots which give $6,351 annual scholarships to students opting for choice schools (The public schools' per pupil spending is about 80% higher).

"You could not design a more fiendish way to cripple Milwaukee's choice program while still claiming to keep it alive," says Father Bob Smith, who heads Messmer.

Next Tuesday, Utah voters go to the polls to decide if their state will become the first in the nation to offer school vouchers statewide. Referendum 1 would make all public-school kids eligible for vouchers worth from $500 to $3,000 a year, depending on family income. Parents could then use the vouchers to send their children to private schools. <.>

But wait. Arrayed against the vouchers are the usual opponents. They call themselves Utahns for Public Schools. They include, predictably, the Utah Education Association (the teachers union), Utah School Boards Association, Utah School Employees Union, Utah School Superintendents Association, the elementary and secondary school principals associations, and the PTA. No to vouchers! they protest. Trust us. We know what's best for your kids.

Following in the footsteps of my 12/16/05 post on American Indian Charter School, here is another profile of a successful Charter School:

1/17/05 Washington Post Jay Mathews (education writer) is writing a book on KIPP, a charter school chain with 47 schools nationally:

The report says in 2004-2005 more than 80 percent of the KIPP students were eligible for the federal free or reduced-price meal program -- the usual criteria for designating which students are low-income -- and more than 95 percent were African American or Hispanic.

The achievement figures for American students who fit that profile nationally are, on average, abysmal. The achievement figures for American students who fit that profile but have been in KIPP are, again on average, quite the opposite.

"While the average fifth-grader enters KIPP in the bottom third of test-takers nationwide (28th percentile), the average KIPP eighth-grader outperforms nearly three out of four of test-takers nationwide (74th percentile) on norm-referenced reading and math assessments," the report card says. "In the fifth-grade year, approximately 40 percent of KIPP schools outperform their respective districts on state reading exams, and just over 60 percent do so in math. By the eighth grade, 100 percent of KIPP schools outperform their districts in both subjects."

It is encouraging to me that in several instances KIPP principals and teachers whose students were not improving h