January 26, 2015 - 15:43
Having discussed in class the article by Wilford Shamlin III regarding charter schools, an interesting conversation began, which was the discussion of what actually differentiated public, private, and charter schools. At the end of class we had come to the conclusion that private definately was not public; however, the distinction between private and charter was not defined as well as that between public and charter. It was clear that private schools are privately owned and receive donations and that public schools are owned by the state and receive government funding but charter schools remain a blurred line in between both. My question arose here, if we cannot actually define the foundation of a charter school, how can we properly measure where the funds are going and which funds are accounted for per capita?
We briefly discussed the quote at the end of the article that said, "Charter school administrative costs, per-pupil, run twice as much as traditional public schools."
Shamlin III failed to say exactly what these numbers were referring to. This could account for the private funds that charter schools are receiving in conjunction with government funding which would of course result in a higher cost per-pupil. That being said, this could also mean that the private funds being recevied by these charter schools are going directly to more advanced programs and/or equipment than the goverment was willing to provide, which would also result in the government spending being twice per-pupil.
The possibilities are endless, thus the definition of charter schools remains lost.
I wonder if there is a way that charter schools too can be standardized and well defined in order to assure an efficient way of spending or if regardless of the amount of money recevied by either supplier that charter schools must focus on independent sectors on a case-by-case scenario to be the most effective. Thoughts?