“He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors.”
Thomas Jefferson

Why do we have to define “our” kids? When I think, as an educator, of my responsibility, I don’t think of my responsibility just to the 20ish students in my classroom, my thoughts are to the impact I am having on my community, in Georgia, and to the nation as a whole in ensuring that I have 20 well taught children leaving my classroom. I am not sure why it matters whether those children come from my classroom, my neighbor’s classroom, another school, or even another state. Seems that if every educator, every person making educational policy decisions, every legislator, ever parent, and every community member had that same broad focus and commitment to the kids (and not just the dollars), then we’d see a greater rise in educational outcomes. It would become a shared accountability for ALL children’s success and the collective good of our communities. I do not think that every student who comes to my charter school will be successful – we can not be all things to all children. But we are just right for some kids, and for those kids, we’ll have great outcomes. Perhaps a chlld is much better off in the traditional public school setting…and in that case, the public school setting will have excellent outcomes. I think that the parent knows their child best and should have the right to make that call of which public school setting is right for their child. To me, it doesn’t matter where the child attends – either charter or public – as long as that child is receiving a quality education (defined by academic accountability measures) with the tax dollars spent, then that money has been used to good purpose as it was intended. And that means that everybody wins – both short and long term, as individual schools, and as a whole state.

Why does who has the control over that money even play into the equation? I laughed pretty heartily not very long ago in looking at Gwinnette County’s budget document. Within it, they defined local taxes….and humorously enough, the definition said something to the effect of ‘mandated funds collected for the common good.’ Seems to me that if the money is for the common good, then Ivy Prep students are part of that “common good” and should get their proportionate share. And that is exactly my point in the first paragraph – that we are all here to ensure that every child is well educated. Every child has adequate funding to support education. The rural districts have fought like mad (and rightly so) for equity adjustments in educational funding. The urban districts are taken care of in the funding formula because they serve a higher at-risk population – and that’s right and fair because it takes more to educate these students. So why is it any less fair for charters to receive a proportionate share to educate their students, particularly since charters are by all definitions – federal, state, and locally, PUBLIC schools. No matter that you agree with the Commission or not, you can’t get around the fact that charter schools are public schools, and thus, should receive equitable funding like every other public school. Tax dollars are collected and to be used for the common good. As a public school, students attending charters are a part of that common good, no matter who doles out the money.

I think the issue tht those in the charter sector have is that they are rarely given a fair opportunity at authorization. You and others assume that “no one wants the charter there.” The raelity is that the founding groups do a lot of market analysis before beginning the development process. I don’t think the general public knows just how much time, money, and energy it takes to develop a school. Having done it, I can tell you that I wouldn’t have invested all of what I did unless I was pretty sure there was a large enough population of students to sustain the school. Who would? I will admit that occasionally charters (nationwide) actually get authorized and then can’t pull a large enough student population. And that proves that in THAT community, there WASN’T a need/interest. It is a self correcting system. Charters are accountable to the market and to their authorizer for high academic achievement and sound busienss practices. But it should not just be assumed that there is no interest. A fair approval process should be in place – if there truly isn’t a market, then the problem takes care of itself.

As far as a community opt out, that tickles me. I mean, there are a lot of laws, rules, and regulations I’d like to “opt out” of (i.e., 70 mph on the freeway, capital gains tax, having to get a permit to hold a yard sale, and other laws/regulations I’d think generally shouldn’t apply to me or my family.) But laws and rules in general are established to protect the rights, safety, and well-being of the WHOLE, not a collective few. As I outlined above, I think the system that has been established is an appropriate checks and balances, and because charters are accountable to the market, there is an additional check and balance for every community.