whodat

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.

Our legislature cant pass bills fast enough to undermine our public schools and make commodities of our children. Thank you Ms. Bihlmeyer for bringing this issue to light. If you are a teacher those kids are lucky to have you on their side!

David Paris

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 11:04 p.m.

With all the failures of our investor class in the past few years, it amazes me that so many want to turn education over to them. Public schools are not perfect, and neither are parents, who, by the way, are still going to be part of the problem, but most people walking the street of the country are doing ok, thanks to public schools. I went to a parochial school from 2nd to 8th grades, and can tell you that my junior high experience was the worst experience of my life, and in no way prepared me for the public high school that I went to, which was on-par with AAPS. I think most people seem to think that our public school teachers are sub-par, and that they are over-paid, which is wishful thinking. Without unions we will surely see teacher wages & benefits drop, then, who will want to take up the profession when it pays slightly more than baby-sitting, but requires a four year degree? Good Luck with your Educational Utopia, I'm just glad that my youngest is a freshman in H.S.

shepard145

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 8:57 p.m.

The teachers union, NEA, is the problem - but not for the reasons some people think. There are plenty of excellent unionized public schools where the union's only harm is to make education more expensive then it should be. Most parents are willing to eat those wasted dollars if the schools perform. Unions are THE PROBLEM is in failing schools where they protect "union member" teachers and others whose poor performance is the cause of the failure. They put member privileges above quality education for the kids, which strips the title of "Profession" from teaching and treats it as an industry with "dues paying members" the first priority. Those who think the "evil corporations" are the problem need to wake up, pick up a book and study the US free market.

outdoor6709

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 5:40 p.m.

Dirtgrain, Not sure why my point is not valid. Saline and Dexter are not what I would consider poor, scores were Dexter reading 70th percentile, Math 52nd. Saline reading 73rd , math 67 th percentile. So do you think 33% or more of the countries in the world doing a better job of education their children a good thing?

tim

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 5:27 p.m.

The public schools doesn't "own our children", charters offer an alternative especially in under performing districts. Charters allow parents to control the culture/environment in which their children learn. Without charters only families with enough money to live in a places like Ann Arbor can expect a truly quality education, the truly wealthy skip out of the whole system and send their kids to private schools. Charters may not be perfect , but they give a poor kid a better chance in life.

Tom Whitaker

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 4:36 p.m.

Schools should be accountable to students, parents and taxpayers, not stockholders. This whole charter school thing is about tapping the $1 trillion of tax money spent on primary education and diverting it to the private sector--its a huge public service industry that Wall Street has been trying to undermine and infiltrate for decades. This is a concerted nationwide effort of conservative think tanks, non-profit organizations claiming to be advocating for education reform, the corporations that support them, and the elected officials who have benefitted from their contributions. They are all intimately interconnected, and moving toward a common goal: extracting huge profits from our kids' educations. &quot;While most education reform advocates cloak their goals in the rhetoric of &quot;putting children first,&quot; the conceit was less evident at a conference in Scottsdale, Arizona, earlier this year. Standing at the lectern of Arizona State University's SkySong conference center in April, investment banker Michael Moe exuded confidence as he kicked off his second annual confab of education startup companies and venture capitalists. A press packet cited reports that rapid changes in education could unlock &quot;immense potential for entrepreneurs.&quot; &quot;This education issue,&quot; Moe declared, &quot;there's not a bigger problem or bigger opportunity in my estimation.&quot;&quot; <a href="http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/selling_schools_out?page=entire" rel='nofollow'>http://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigations/corporateaccountability/1580/selling_schools_out?page=entire</a>

shepard145

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 3:56 p.m.

This is a little complicated because there is no one-size-fits-all solution and both sides and point to anecdotal evidence in support of their point. ..but this comes down to those people running the schools and teaching the kids. Some are good at what they do and some are not. There are many union dominated schools that work very well - that are outstanding. Where a great staff, dedicated teachers/administrators combine with active parents (who do their part), public schools can be excellent. The PROBLEM is in areas where teachers, administrators and parents fail and the union protects those who create the failing "union members" regardless of their incompetence. Union first! In those cases, CHARTER SCHOOLS should become the alternative and if available they will thrive. Higher test scores and a better learning environment free from the shackles of the TEACHERS UNION FIRST mentality that is corrosive to learning in those areas. Charter schools must also find a solution to apathetic parents - and that may be the limited supply of seats, which separates caring parents who want kids to succeed from those who don't care about education. CHARTER SCHOOLS succeed or fail not on whether they are &quot;for profit&quot;, but on whether parents want to send their kids to that school - A FREE MARKET SOLUTION - AND A FAILING NEA'S WORST NIGHTMARE. Public schools succeed and remain or fail and get replaced. In the worst areas, Charter schools may be the first learning opportunities for many kids to walk into a building staffed by people who must succeed rather then those who only need to follow union rules and pay their dues to keep their jobs.

Dirtgrain

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 3:14 p.m.

outdoor6709, when poverty is factored into comparing PISA scores, we see that our public schools are some of the best in the world. This negates your point.

outdoor6709

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 2:58 p.m.

The public schools are the classic monopoly. Constituent (student) service declines while those in power rally to protect their not the students or taxpayers interest. If you think your school is great, compare it to its pears around the world. <a href="http://www.globalreportcard.org/map.html#" rel='nofollow'>http://www.globalreportcard.org/map.html#</a>

vivian

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 1:36 p.m.

Why is it that so many of the comments reflect an apparent fear of the profit motive? Why do people assume that a company attempting to make money by providing education would do a bad job, when the continued existence of such a company would depend on customers' satisfaction with its product? People who seek out a product and pay directly for it (as parents who seek an alternative school for their children do) often demand higher quality goods and services than do people who simply accept what's offered them, and they're usually inclined to take their business elsewhere if they don't get the quality they were promised. In my experience, public schools are quite variable in the quality of their products and services, and the attitude I encountered when I expressed dissatisfaction with the education my kids were getting was essentially 'too bad...shut up and go away.' One of my children was taught for a semester by a woman whom the department chair conceded to be incompetent. After many parents complained, the incompetent teacher was transferred to another school within the district. I can't say for sure, but I think that a teacher who generated that much discontent on the part of the parents wouldn't remain employed in a well-run for-profit school. I also agree with many of the folks here who question the justification for the large number of (and often extraordinarily high salaries of) public-school administrators. A well-run for-profit school would probably have less fat at the top, even if the CEO and other officers were earning a living, because it's not a sound business model to pay a lot of people a lot of money for very little productive activity. Apologies for the long post, but this topic merits a lengthy exchange of ideas, IMO.

Townie

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 1:32 p.m.

If our legislators were truly concerned about education they'd have an open public discussions about what is wrong and what needs to be done about the issues. Instead, we just have their knee jerk reaction to everything: pass something that hurts unions and 'privatize' whatever it is they want to 'change'. That is their first and foremost goal here. Let's be real about this - how many bills have come out of the Republican legislature that have as the goal to cripple, destroy, etc. unions? This is just another one. For the Republicans privatizing any government function is always the solution. When all you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.

Klayton

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 4:03 a.m.

I think the deeper question is why do so many parents feel compelled to look into alternatives for their child's education? Their local school is not working for them and is stuck in the industrial age. I think local schools need to stop complaining and start getting into the 21st Century! Public schools (not talking about charters here) need to redesign their curriculum (I would much rather my child learn how to write a 21st century blog for networking than reading yet another Shakespeare play), our school day (why can't students start school at different time or have more virtual options within the district), our teachers (more PD with digital technologies please!), grouping by age (rather than development appropriateness), preparing them with more specific skills for the future workforce. Being a teacher myself I am a believer in the public school system and I do send my children to the local public schools in Ann Arbor and must say it is disappointing to see my kids reading very old textbooks (rather than using books online or more up-to-date resources), getting &quot;busy work&quot; as homework, having very little technology integrated into their classes (or for homework!), and I'm looking at a very outdated website at my children's school (many of the teachers have a &quot;webpage&quot; that has not been updated in well over a year!). I can see why other parents look at charters, virtual options.

braggslaw

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 3:47 a.m.

Predictable and unfortunate.... a teacher writing a column to keep the money train headed to the MEA. This column is laughable and littered with self interest.

DonBee

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 2:13 a.m.

Ms. Bihlmeyer Thank you for standing up for your union and your pension. The founder of the Thompson Companies offered to open 4 charter high schools in Detroit and fund the buildings and extras. He is a wonderful person, he put his whole fortune on the block to do this for the children. Instead those children are still trapped in a failed system. One out of eight that start kindergarden graduate and are functionally literate. The result, the teacher's union was so violently opposed he withdrew the offer. Sound like for profit? Not to me and I am sure not to you. By law charters have to be non-profit. They can, like any school, hire a for profit management company. Some do, just like most public schools outsource some services. But this is not the story line that the teacher's union wants people to know or understand. Since state law makes each school be a separate district (the goal being to keep them from ever opening), having management that is familiar with federal and state laws and paperwork is critical and the overhead of having a paperwork specialist for every 200 student building would rob money from the classroom. Again this was something the lobbyists for the teacher's union got put in the law. Yes, the teachers union is all for the children and only for the children.

maallen

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 12:36 a.m.

It is interesting to note, that Karen Bihlmeyer the author of this opinion piece is herself a teacher. Again, it all comes down to the money, but nowhere does she suggest how we fix the traditional school system. There is nothing wrong with funding a PUBLIC charter school with taxpayer money. It is a public school.

Joe Kidd

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 12:18 a.m.

I couldn't disagree more although I wish this did not have to happen. A couple things that Ms. Bihlmeyer brings up that are suspicious to me: &quot;The money being used to fund these private, for-private educational companies belongs to the citizens of Michigan. More specifically the public educational system.&quot; The money will be used by and is paid by the citizens of Michigan. Also most charter schools are dominant, more common than for profit schools. &quot;What happens when these private, for profit companies, sell out to investors that do not have the best interest of our children in mind?&quot; ' If this did happen, and I doubt it would, that would mean the school is doing so well investors want to buy them. That indicates they are doing a very good job. So, are you implying that investors are all crooked and they would strip the school of operating funds and leave the kids dangling? To suggest this I think you need to offer some proof that happens a lot. &quot;Should these companies lose ground, who do we go to? Members of an elected school board? Superintendents? Taxpayers? No, we will be subjected to an executive board, a CEO and shareholders.&quot; This makes no sense. &quot;lose ground?&quot; If a charter school fails the students can enroll in another charter school, a private school or a public school. &quot;Allowing large for profit companies to benefit so generously on our tax dollars, allocated for public education, is unethical.&quot; Are you implying that charter schools are making someone rich? Do you have some facts to back this up? If they are getting rich, how? The bottom line is if parents want to put their children in an alternate school from public education, why do they not have the right to do so? They pay taxes too, and I suppose they could say the same thing about public schools. Here are some reading materials: <a href="http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/188.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://yalelawjournal.org/images/pdfs/188.pdf</a> <a href="http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Item_I_-_Parent_Empowerment_Legisla" rel='nofollow'>http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Item_I_-_Parent_Empowerment_Legisla</a>

Dirtgrain

Sun, Mar 11, 2012 : 12:10 a.m.

&quot;Parent Empowerment&quot;? These ALEC and Mackinac Center bills with doublespeak names are making for bizarre times. How about &quot;Neighborhood School Destruction Package&quot;?

dswan

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 11:48 p.m.

Of all the positions on both sides of the charter school issue, the &quot;companies should not make a profit of our kids&quot; argument is completely invalid. There are many parties operating within traditional schools that walk away with a profit - administrators, teachers, support staff, vendors; and depending on the amount, it's well deserved. Instead, let's reframe this point: What's an acceptable profit margin? Who should be earning it? Should measurable goals be set before the profit is rewarded? Should teachers earn automatic step increases based on time served and degree level, plus contract raises, even during a decade long recession? Let's also not forget that Charter schools have expenses traditional schools don't - property taxes, sales taxes, NWEA tests, come to mind. It would be great if AnnArbor.com researched these issues and shared their findings, as opposed to posting a letter representing one side of the argument. The comparison of for profit charter schools to Finanical organizations that received a bail out seems a stretch. No parent is going to continue sending their child to a charter school that fails to educate their son/daughter. The Colleges and Universities that authorize Charters have the option of not renewing a charter and closing the school, as Victory Academy in Ypsilanti is experiencing now - has the state board of education closed any traditional school for failure to educated it's students? Let's measure growth instead of proficiency. Let's make charters and the companies that run them more transparent. Let's reward teachers who meet growth goals. And in districts overcome with poverty, let's build programs that educate/incentivize parents to play a role in their child's education.

snoopdog

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 11:35 p.m.

&quot;Due to the amount of tax dollars that are taken from the public schools&quot; Charter schools are public schools, no taxes are taken from the funding of public education. Charter schools offer parents and children more choice in securing the best education and spending their tax dollars where it will benefit their families the most. For too many years now, parents and their children have had to play &quot;second fiddle&quot; to the unions that run public education. It is about time that the kids come first because that is what education is all about. Good Day

Adam Dickson

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 11:34 p.m.

Gambling with children's education? Charter schools produce standardized test results that consistently surpass the results of the DPS schools. Sounds like the gamblers are winning. Charter schools have higher standards for their teachers, and can fire them AT WILL if they don't produce results! If I had a kid, I'd have no problem putting them in a charter school.

a2citizen

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 11:32 p.m.

Parents who send their kids to charter schools for a better education are fooling themselves because of the &quot;grass is greener on the other side&quot; mentality. The same goes for &quot;school of choice&quot;. A public school education is a public school education. 1 + 1 = 2, whether you are in a public, charter or private school. If you don't send your kids to a private school for financial (or any other) reasons, fine. But don't kid yourself into thinking a charter school is providing a better education than any other public school. If you are to busy to be involved in your childs education a stranger standing in front of a room full of 20 or 30 kids is not going to be of much help.

Dog Guy

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 11:28 p.m.

As a longtime taxpaid teacher, I share your concern for my sinecure, my check, and my benefits. I am distressed that parents might have more concern and fondness for their children than for me. Thank you for your attention to this proposal.

Jeff Gaynor

Sat, Mar 10, 2012 : 10:28 p.m.

I couldn't agree more. At its worst, this is a nightmare. The most positive spin would be saying it's better for tax money to go to investors rather than to staff - mostly teachers, and to some degree, resources for students. I reckon some might argue this might save taxpayers money. Doubtful, but even adding that into the equation, but at what cost - and for whose benefit?