**
**
**
**
**

Featured Brokers


**
Princeton Real Estate

**

**


EDITORIAL: State should pay full cost of charter schools
Wednesday, January 27, 2010 1:03 PM EST

Current Rating: 0 of 0 votes!Rate File:


   A new charter school serving Princeton, South Brunswick, Plainsboro and West Windsor is set to open in September and school administrators in the three districts are not very happy.

   That’s because the charter school — the Princeton International Academy Charter School, approved Jan. 11 by the state Department of Education — will be funded by the three home districts, complicating their upcoming budget discussions and taking money away from their educational programs.

   The school boards — and, by extension, the public — will have no say on how the money is spent aside from periodic reviews by the state, raising potential issues of fiscal accountability.

   Charter schools are public educational facilities that operate within approved areas, but independently of their home school districts. They draw students and funding from those districts, but are governed by a private board of trustees and have no ties to the districts that provide them with the cash to operate.

   Many of the schools have been successful educationally, but it remains unclear whether their successes are based on their ability to draw the best students away from local districts or because their educational programs offer more than the public schools with which they compete.
   The new Princeton-area school — the second serving Princeton and one of 76 that are expected to be operating in the state in September — will teach students through a “Mandarin-English dual language immersion” and “International Baccalaureate curriculum framework,” according to a press release.

   Organizers of the new charter school, which includes educational professionals and local residents, say it will offer the kind of skills needed for success in an increasingly globalized world.

   ”The vision of Princeton International Academy Charter School,” according to its Web site, “is to educate young people of all backgrounds consistent with the highest ideals of human development, participatory democracy, and social justice with fluency in two international languages — Chinese and English — to promote a peaceful, ethical, and equitable world. PIACS students will be advocates, leaders, and change agents skilled as thinkers, communicators, and risk-takers who are knowledgeable, caring, and reflective in asking important questions and collaborating wisely, creatively and effectively for answers.”

   We have no quibbles with the school’s mission and believe that, if the school succeeds, it will produce graduates who will do a lot of good in the world.

   Our concern is with a funding mechanism that cuts the public out of the loop.

   The Princeton Charter School, for instance, one of the state’s first, receives about $14,000 per student for its nearly 300 students, according to the 2007-2008 State School Report Card —which works out to more than $4 million. The Princeton Regional School District provides about 54 percent of the funding, with the rest coming from the state and federal governments.

   The more than $2 million provided by the school district comes out of its public budget — a spending plan that must meet state cap rules and goes to voters for approval. That complicates local budgeting.

   If the state is committed to the charter school program, it should relieve local districts of funding schools they have no control over. The state should provide 100 percent of charter funding, leaving local tax dollars in the hands of local educators.


 
 Comments

Comments are limited to 200 words or less.

Free Education is not Free wrote on Feb 4, 2010 3:13 PM:

" Is it fair that a person who rents an apartment and has 5 children and pays no real estate taxes but wants to be in a CHARTER SCHOOL gets to attend for free ? "

reductio wrote on Feb 4, 2010 12:04 PM:

" But we do have separate police for Princeton Borough and the Township and it seems to work fine. So there is a choice between the police systems. But there is only one school district for Princeton. So the police situation would seem to support the idea of more charter schools. "

Dummy wrote on Feb 3, 2010 5:15 PM:

" Police force, where did that come from??? Go back and finish your donuts!

The teachers work on the kids' brains 180 days a year? "

reductio ad absurdum wrote on Feb 3, 2010 2:57 PM:

" Hey, if we're dissatisfied with our local police forces, let's set up charter police forces or give people vouchers to take to private police forces. Of course there would be a stipulation that unions would not be allowed in charter police forces or the private police forces to which one would take the voucher. See, it's choice, shouldn't we have the choice as to which police force we want since it's our tax money. And it sets up competition between regular police forces, charter police forces and the private police forces (Pinkertons). It should just work swimmingly, oh yeah. (sarcasm alert) (satire alert) (hyperbole alert). "

Why wrote on Feb 1, 2010 5:06 PM:

" Montgomery pays about $11,000 per student. Maybe you need to see where Princetons $17,000 per student is going. I would sure want to know! "

Princeton Resident 2 wrote on Feb 1, 2010 3:01 PM:

" Sorry! I posted the note below as 'Princeton Resident' not realizing the name was used! Didn't mean to grab the name! "

Princeton Resident wrote on Feb 1, 2010 2:58 PM:

" To Hold Teachers Accountable, you mention that the taxpayers should decide how their dollars are used. Sounds reasonable. But this mandarin immersion school was not voted on as far as I know.

I also agree that even in good school districts, the bar can be raised. but taking money out of the public school budgets will make that goal for them difficult.

As a tax payer with two kids in the public school system, I would much prefer additional spending in the existing schools. Already our local PTOs are charged with funding many programs and activities to supplement the core education.

Losing students - and their funding - will only exacerbate this.

What activity, program or trip will the existing public school do without next year because a state official decided that Madarin Immersion for the few students that win the Charter Lottery Admission is more important than continuing to support fund, and god forbid, expand the existing public school system? "

Tom wrote on Jan 29, 2010 4:38 PM:

" Correction: I just looked it up. The cost for PRS is only $17,000 per child. Sorry for the mistake "

Tom wrote on Jan 29, 2010 3:59 PM:

" To Princeton Resident:

I understand your point. The Princeton Public Schools have based their budgets on the assumption that all the school taxes are theirs. Now that there are charter schools, they need to revise their assumptions. In the short term, there will be disruptions to their budget. But over the longer term, as they account for charter school attendance (and the resulting fewer students in public schools), they shouldn't have a budget problem.

Lastly, the last time I checked, it cost the PRS about $22,000 per student from school taxes. So PRS is still making a profit on each student who attends charter school since they only need to pay out $14,000. "

Princeton Resident wrote on Jan 29, 2010 1:17 PM:

" I don't think Tom understands the cost dynamics of the public school education. When a child attends the charter school, it is not a matter of having one less child to educate. There are many classes in the lower grades at the public schools in Princeton that are below the acceptable class size, so no additional teachers would be required if many students returned to the public school. By eliminating the $14,000 allocation for each student, the public schools lose a large contribution to their fixed expenses which include school and athletic facilities, the high cost of providing out-of-district eduation for special needs kids, and the govt-mandated cost of busing for all students, whether they attend public, charter or private schools. "

JLB wrote on Jan 29, 2010 9:07 AM:

" In theory, the money follows the child to a public charter school. The charter school is supposed to receive 90% of the funding a student in a district school receives. In reality, most charter schools are receiving only about 75%. It is hard to see how the district schools are being deprived of funds! "

Hold Teachers Accountable wrote on Jan 28, 2010 11:44 PM:

" The Princeton Charter School is a clear example that standards can be raised, even in "good districts" (although that begs the question who you are comparing them to: Camden?)....Let the taxpayers choose what is the best way to use THEIR tax dollars for their children! The district teachers continue to put their jobs before our childrens' interests. If they don't innovate, they should face the consequences! "

Taxpayer wrote on Jan 28, 2010 2:50 PM:

" Well at least the NJEA still has a supporter in the Packet. After all, they are "for our children".
.
How about allowing for the possibility that alternative schools give parents and children alternative (sometimes better) educational choices? And many schools, especially in the Abbot Districts spend a fortune on teachers, superintendents, security, etc., and they still are failures.
.
So if folks are really interested in saving money on educational expenses, we know what schools should be eliminated. "

Irene Wilson wrote on Jan 28, 2010 1:43 PM:

" While budget concerns are an important issue, especially in these financially uncertain times, the future of our children must always be a primary issue. As global competition increases, it is imperative that our children are afforded every opportunity to achieve. The charter school under discussion provides immersion in Mandarin. Fluency in this language well as a deep understanding of the Chinese culture can only help our young people compete more effectively in the coming years. It seems to me that this charter school offers the community an invaluable key to the future for our children. "

taxpayer wrote on Jan 28, 2010 11:58 AM:

" Charter schools are doing no better than the regular public schools. Some are doing worse but you are not supposed to bring that up. Shhhh. Actual studies have been made of charter schools versus regular public schools and charter schools are no better than the public schools in most cases. If there is an excellent public school, that seems to prove nothing according to charter school advocates but if a charter school is excellent then, wow, that proves that charter schools are superior and that public schools are horrible, according to the anti-public school crowd.
A study by the US Education Department reported in July of 2006 that children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools (and that included charter schools, too). "

Joan wrote on Jan 28, 2010 8:48 AM:

" I agree with Tom. Granted the first year could certainly cause an adjustment, it is not impossible for the districts to work this out. "

Privateschools wrote on Jan 28, 2010 5:20 AM:

" Where do the people live who go to the following schools?

Lawrenceville Day School
Chapin School
Princeton Day School
The Waldorf of Princeton
Princeton Friends School
Stuart Country Day School
St. Augustine's (Kendall Park).
Noor El Muslim school (South Brunswick)
Etc.

There are more private schools surrounding Princeton than most places.
I suppose it doesn't matter that these schools charge tuition anywhere from $6,000 to $40,000? The districts still get the money from the students who leave the district for these greener pastures. No complaints there. To the private schools they say - take them - we still get the money.
This is in spite of the fact these families must also pay their taxes. I suppose "rich" people can afford to do that if they do not like what the public school is offering. What about the people who cannot afford to pay private school tuition and high taxes? Do they get any choices?
I believe that it should be possible to operate off of the money of the students who actually go to your school.

As it stands, with all of the students not in the district, there should be a surplus of funds.

Do the districts know how much money that they have that is earmarked for kids who are not there? Shouldn't it matter or do they just take the money and spend without giving those families a second thought? "

Mother wrote on Jan 28, 2010 4:35 AM:

" Here is something to consider. If each child in the district is worth $14,000 to the district (in the case of Princeton), what happens when a child in the district does not go to the public school? Does the district still get the $14,000? Where is that child? If they are now at a private school because the district is not serving their needs, their parents have to pay a private school fee and still pay high taxes. Does anyone question why the district can continue to operate with the money of a student that it is not serving? In other words, individuals need choices. Individuals are paying taxes and in some cases taxes and private school fees - even in these high performing districts. There are huge numbers of private schools clustered around Princeton. These schools draw from the districts in the charter. Why? It is not about the school system, it is about the families and in the districts and the future of these children. We cannot let politics block progress. "

Tom wrote on Jan 27, 2010 7:46 PM:

" This is a silly editorial. If a child attends the charter school, then the school district has one less student it has to educate. As a result, the school district can reduce its expenses proportionately. Since the charter school will have relatively predictable enrollments, it doesn't require much planning in advance to see how the school district will need to adjust its budget.

For the money that the School Board Administration is paid, I would expect they could handle this relatively simple budgeting problem. "


Add your own comments:
(optional)
   
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Although we do not have any obligation to monitor these comments, we reserve the right at all times to check the comments and to remove any information that is unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable to us at our sole discretion, and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law, regulation, or government request. We also reserve the right to limit future participation by any user who violates these terms. All threats to systems or site infrastructure shall be assumed genuine in nature and will be reported to the appropriate law enforcement authorities






----------------------------------Neha