Opinion by Gregory A. Miller
The Arizona Republic
November 23, 2012
Re: “Insiders benefiting in charter deals” and “Critics say state is lax on charter purchasing practices,” by Ann Ryman (Nov. 18, The Arizona Republic).
Just the titles of the articles are misleading. It should be “Taxpayers are benefiting” because charter schools spend about $7,300 per student in state, federal and local money vs. over $12,500 per student at the district public school.
Ryman indicated that she and her team had “reviewed thousands of pages” of public documents. She found no criminal or bureaucratic bungling on the part of the 50 largest charter schools, just good business practices that are monitored by yearly outside independent auditors to minimize operational and supply costs of these independent, non-profit and for-profit businesses.
Show me a district principal who needs a new television for the media center who doesn’t wish the PTA would go buy it at Target, Best Buy or Walmart for about $250 instead of using the state procurement system and spending $400 for the same TV!
As for conflict-of-interest concerns, or public-trust issues, lots of districts do business with their board members and their families for construction of classrooms, athletic facilities, supplies, etc., with full disclosure and non-voting of the board member.
It is the same for charter schools, as a requirement of their contract (charter) with the state and the required procurement policy even after the exemption. There has been no loss of public trust in Arizona’s charter-school option. In the past 17 years, we have gone from a first-year enrollment of 6,500 to the current 144,800 (a number that is only limited by available space for students). That increase represents an annual growth over 13 percent.
With all due respect to those in the Legislature who believe that charters were established only to “provide an educational setting that may meet specific needs or try out non-traditional methods of educating students,” they are sorely misinformed.
The Education Reform Act of 1995 not only provided “labs of innovation,” it also put choice into the system. It not only gave birth to charters, it gave parents choices other than the neighborhood school within the district system. It put competition into a tried and poorly performing government-run system. It would save money! On new facilities costs alone it has saved the taxpayers of Arizona billions — yes, billions of dollars during the past 17 years.
The idea of free enterprise, with concerted public overview (When was the last time a district school was closed for poor academic achievement?) was taken on by charter operators with passion. We invested our own money, we run our own schools, hands on, and we live and die on our students’ academic performance and sound financial management.
Have there been poor examples of charter schools? Yes, but they have been eliminated by parents voting with their feet or by public oversight and closed by the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools.
This type of “expose” is always used as a driver of public opinion to add more regulations to try to create a charter profile that looks like, smells like and tastes like all other choices in education. It serves the purpose of the current public-school blob to eliminate by bureaucratic regulations (strangulation) these institutions of higher academic achievement and opportunity provided to the students and parents of Arizona.
Gregory A. Miller, CEO of Challenge School Inc., is the charter-school member of the Arizona State Board of Education.