Public Schools vs. Cyber Schools

Our local paper had an article about cyber schools today. A few things caught my attention.

A superintendent of a traditional school

"suggests finding an alternative way to assist in funding other than through
the home district."

The article also stated

As part of the public school system, cyber charter schools receive about 75
percent of the per-pupil funding of a student’s district of residence. When
parents enroll their child in a public charter school, the resident district no
longer has any responsibility for the education of that child."

I have a hard time understanding why school districts think they should receive per- pupil appropriations for students they no longer educate. For one thing, the home district might write the check, but the money isn’t generated by the district. It is TAXPAYER money to begin with! Some of those taxpayers choose an alternate form of education. If they happen to choose another public form, their child still deserves that per-pupil funding as much as any traditionally schooled child.. The home district shouldn’t even be keeping the 25% unless the student participates in district athletics or other extra curricular activities.



From a superintendent at another school ....

Bower said that with more students moving online for education, Rockwood must
find ways to compete.

Mr. Bower gets it! He understands that schools are being forced into competition. The big government education monopoly is slowly coming to an end. While that may be distressing to some districts, it will benefit our children greatly. After all, educating our children is what it’s all about, isn’t it? Funding the operation of a bottomless money pit is not my priority, nor that of most other parents who send their children to school. There will never be enough money to appease any district. They need more, more, more. Cyber schools, charter schools, and home schools are all proving that more money is not the solution to our education crisis. In most cases, these alternatives are producing better results with less money. Why wouldn’t that be appealing to parents? Why shouldn’t the taxpaying parent have a choice? And why should taxpayer money continue to support only the least effective means of education?
Many countries out performing US schools (and there are many) credit school choice - competition created by attaching the money to the child rather than the district of residence. I have a feeling our bureaucratic thinkers will cite the success to a national curriculum and ignore the competitive factor. As it is now, teachers and administration are not accountable to parents. We are merely a nuisance to many educators. Parents are the number one complaint of many professionals. The job wouldn’t be bad if they didn’t have to deal with parents. I would take that to mean poorly mannered, rude parents because I’ve seen parents treat teachers horribly. But as a parent who has experienced the “let me do my job” syndrome first hand, I can tell you many teachers don’t want bothered with parents at all. They are extremely defensive and resentful of any opinions or input regarding OUR children. This has to change. While I understand there are lazy parents who have the “he’s your problem from 8 to 3" mentality, many of us are simply not that way. Even so, a financial shift would also shift the responsibility, rightfully, back to the parents, who would then be making decisions about their child’s education even if they were they type to never give it a thought before.

http://http//www.tribune-democrat.com/local/local_story_322002529.html