Sometimes I see comments on my posts or I hear education talk from friends and others that let me know, lots of people are confused about the difference between district schools, charter schools and private schools. So here’s a basic—very basic—description of the three types of schools. There’s lots more to say, lots of subtle and not-so-subtle similarities and differences, but these are the basics.
School districts and all the schools inside them are publicly funded. They get a mixture of state, federal and local funds distributed on a per student basis. The students attend for free.
Charter schools are also publicly funded. They also get a mix of government funds—not an identical mix but also allotted on a per student basis—and their students also attend for free, no tuition required. Sometimes charters have students pay fees for some supplies or activities (so do school districts, though generally not as often), and some of them beg, cajole and guilt parents into contributing to the school. But if a child gets in, he or she walks through the front door the first day without having to pay for the privilege. And—this is important—charter schools can’t be religious schools.
Private schools are privately funded and privately run educational institutions, and they charge tuition. They can be directly affiliated with any religious denomination. In fact, more than 70 percent of private schools in Arizona and nationwide have a religious affiliation.
School districts are called “public schools” (or sometimes, pejoratively, “government schools”), but should charters also be called “public schools”? That’s a matter of definition. They’re publicly funded but privately run, which means they have one foot in the public sector and the other foot in the private sector. Tucson voters elect the members of the TUSD school board. Charter schools create their boards some other way, not through public election, so the general public has very little say in how they’re run. Some charters are run as nonprofits, and in some states, like Arizona, they can also be for-profit enterprises. However, their students take the same high stakes state tests as kids in district schools, while private schools aren’t required to take the tests. All this creates a great deal of confusion. When some people say “public school,” they’re referring only to school districts, while others mean both district and charter schools. Some people try to distinguish district schools by calling them “traditional schools,” but that’s a very misleading term. Districts often contain schools that use alternative, non-traditional methods, and some charters are rigidly traditional. I use the terms “district schools” and “charter schools” because those are the only terms I know where everyone agrees on their meanings.
Those are the basics. If you want a more complex look at what goes into charter schools, which are a confusing, complex hybrid of public and private, here’s a good analysis. The author isn’t fond of charters, but his description of the institutions is solid.
So, when you’re talking high stakes tests and school funding issues like Prop 123, you’re talking about both district and charter schools. If you’re talking vouchers—Empowerment Scholarship Accounts or tax credits that go to School Tuition Organizations—you’re talking private schools (and in the case of ESAs, home schooling as well).
This article appears in Mar 17-23, 2016.
Tax credits also go to public district schools and charters. Originally they were for the support of extracurriculars and fine arts programs, but recently the tax credit legislation has been modified so that tax credits can be used to pay fees to standardized testing corporations and test prep programs:
“A credit is allowed against the taxes imposed by this title for the amount of any fees or cash contributions by a taxpayer […] to a public school located in this state for the support of standardized testing fees for college credit or readiness offered by a widely recognized and accepted educational testing organization […] preparation courses and materials for standardized testing […] of the public school.” ARS 43-1089.01
While this change to the legislation was still hot off the press, the employees of one local public district high school went straight to their Site Council and tried to get $6,000 of the school’s undesignated tax credit funds allocated to pay for AP exams for families that did not qualify for Title 1 assistance. This is money that might otherwise have been applied to fund the orchestra, the choir, the debate club…I think you get the idea, David.
Who could have been behind this change to ARS 43-1089.01? Could it have been one of our local public district Superintendents who recently demonstrated how useful it could be to increase AP exam testing rates as he was trying to deflect criticism of his district’s abysmal AZ-Merit scores?
http://tucson.com/news/local/education/tusd-recognized-for-gains-in-advanced-placement-classes/article_2b4a306c-a720-5d3f-a379-3555f6782048.html
And of course it helps you increase AP test taking rates if you can get tax dollars that might otherwise go to fine arts and extracurriculars directed instead into the pockets of corporations developing and hawking standardized tests.
Your friends in high places in public district administration seem to be pushing interesting agendas and keeping interesting company these days, David. No doubt you will want to devote one of your upcoming blogs to this interesting development, described in a recent AZ Daily Star editorial co-authored by H.T. Sanchez and Lisa Graham Keegan:
http://tucson.com/news/opinion/sanchez-and-keegan-make-it-easier-to-hire-teachers/article_346770a2-27a7-54b5-a4ea-36aa886ed288.html
If he keeps it up, how much difference will there be between public district schools and charters? He’s already outsourced sub recruitment and erased much of the difference between Basis and UHS. Now he wants some of the obstacles to hiring uncertified teachers removed. It’ll be interesting to see how far this goes before the so-called Democratic party establishment admits that their TUSD Board majority has brought a full blown corporate reformer into town, whose right-wing, reactionary policy agenda they continue to rubber stamp while trying to pass themselves off as “progressives.”
AZ Legislature expanded tax credits for public schools? And I have to find it in a comment on this article? Come on guys, less bias reporting and more news please.
They didn’t expand them. They said money that had been available to fund extracurriculars and fine arts can now be used instead to pay standardized testing fees. It is a transfer of funds from educational enrichment for students (a grossly underfunded budget category in most publicly funded schools) to the enrichment of testing companies (a grossly overfunded budget category in most publicly funded schools). Some people like that kind of educational policy, but it’s not generally favored by the sort of people who vote so-called progressive candidates onto school boards.
Tax credits are a “rope a dope”. The legislature doesn’t fund school according to the Constitution so tax credit donations give the illusion of more money to schools. They are now used as a way to divert revenue away from schools so to give the one party dictatorship in the legislature and the ninth floor occupant the excuse, “we just don’t have the money,” while they give it away.
Tax credits are a “rope a dope”. The legislature doesn’t fund school according to the Constitution so tax credit donations give the illusion of more money to schools. They are now used as a way to divert revenue away from schools so to give the one party dictatorship in the legislature and the ninth floor occupant the excuse, “we just don’t have the money,” while they give it away.
Parents who are being asked to pay out-of-pocket for the expense of fine arts programs and extracurriculars in the “publicly funded” (publicly under-funded) schools their children attend may not agree with Frances Perkins’ broad opinion on Arizona tax credit policy, which provides tax credits to public schools as well as tax credits for social service agencies and private schools.
There are a lot of problems with existing public school tax credit policy, including that public schools in affluent districts are able to collect more tax credits because the population they serve owes more taxes and is more able / inclined to participate in the program, so the net effect is to produce funding inequity from one public school or district to the next. Nevertheless, the change to the public school tax credit policy mentioned in previous comments is not a positive one: to take money that had been made available to compensate for budget cuts to educational enrichment programs for students and use it to pay for corporate-produced multiple-choice standardized tests is a further impoverishment of school systems (public district, public charter) that already had insufficient opportunities in arts, athletics, and activities.
http://teaching-abc.blogspot.cl/2012/08/public-or-not.html
http://teaching-abc.blogspot.cl/2014/06/local-schools.html
We can argue about the merits of “choice” all we want (that’s fine), but charter schools accept taxpayer money and do not charge parents anything to attend. Therefore – charter schools ARE public schools.
We have come to a point in information were all journalists, authors, sources, charities, businesses and government entities must be researched, vetted and scrutinized. I just had to see if George Soros was involved somehow.
The link David provided
It leads to: http://educationopportunitynetwork.org/dont-blame-bernie-most-people-dont-get-charter-schools/
Who bankrolls this network? The Institute for America’s Future. They claim to be bi-partisan and neutral. Who are they?
http://www.groupsnoop.org/Institute+for+America%E2%80%99s+Future
Liberal Leadership
As of September 2011, Robert Borosage and Roger Hickey serve as co-directors of IAF.
Borosage previously worked as director of the Institute for Policy Studies and founded the Progressive Majority Political Action Committee. Borosage also served as a senior advisor to Jesse Jackson’s failed 1988 Presidential campaign. He has also advised the late Senator Paul Wellstone (D-MN), Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL). Hickey co-founded the Economic Policy Institute.
Work
Each year, IAF hosts a “Take Back America” conference, recently renamed the “Take Back the American Dream Conference.” The conference gathers liberal leaders from across the country. The 2010 conference featured Phil Angelides, Howard Dean, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), former Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), Arianna Huffington, Jesse Jackson, Van Jones, Benjamin Todd Jealous, Markos Moulitsas, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Andy Stern and other liberal politicians and activists.
Can you believe this is a charity? http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=8902
Then, the Soros connection: a labor-dominated lobbying and electoral network heavily influenced by progressive plutocrats and secret donors working on anti-corporate, anti-military, welfare-state, and other “progressive” programs.
Incubator for the Apollo Alliance, now a project of Tides Center. Apollo’s executive director, James Ringo, is paid by Institute for America’s Future.
A favorite of George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
http://www.undueinfluence.com/iaf.htm
OPV search Soros under the individual heading and read the treasure trove of socialist activities directed at the US.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/
OPV: Typing a lot and saying nothing.
In the words of one of your American movie media actresses AZ/DC, “”Why are you so obsessed with me?”
If you aren’t intelligent enough to follow the links, don’t blame the messenger.
Not necessarily obsessed with you, just wondering why you are so obsessed with The Chump. It amazes me how certain people can be duped by such obvious horse shit. SMH, DMF.