Question of the Day: What kind of charter school do you want to see?

On another thread, Peoria Public Schools Board of Education member Jim Stowell asked this question:

Charter schools will be the focus of Monday night’s meeting. Thoughts? Please address funding, teacher (union) leadership and involvement, parental and student responsibility – and focus of curriculum. I have heard of a desire for both a math-science school and a vocational charter. Seven are left and several applications are already moving forward.

This is a great opportunity to give feedback to the board, and I didn’t want my readers to miss it, so it’s the question of the day. More information about charter schools in Illinois can be found at the Illinois State Board of Education’s website. You might also find this resource helpful. And I also gave a brief overview of charter schools in this old post from a couple years ago.

164 thoughts on “Question of the Day: What kind of charter school do you want to see?”

  1. Just a question about rumor of double dipping that I heard. Is Hinton receiving a separate salary from Edison, as he was an Edison administrator and Edison schools need a qualified administrator to over see their operation in a district?

  2. going back to the makeup of the committees. Why aren’t any parents or staff on these committees? We are the ones in the schools on a regular basis. Are we not educated or informed enough to come up with creative solutions to what we see on a first-hand basis?

  3. New PJS headline: District will redistribute Title I funds–With Hinton’s new plan Title I schools will increase from 13 to 24. I believe I did speculate that this possibility was behind many of the school closings, etc. According to the story, there won’t be more Title I money; it will just be distributed differently. So what’s the advantage?

  4. Happy to remind folks that Hinton will be gone in another 13.5 months which is way too long but…did you catch where the paper read “Hinton said the debt of the school district is such that he and his staff need to realize $5 million in spending cuts, or a combination of reduced spending and increased revenues, each year over the next several in order to dig itself out and end up with a cash reserve.” That implies he WON’T be history at 6-30-10! OH PLEASE BOE – Don’t extend his contract – PLEASE!!!

    Furthermore, do we really believe this is possible without drastic negative impact because of the compounding? Taken at face value he said $5 mill must be cut next year so then in year 2 that will mean $10 mill will have been cut from programs and services (or added revenues har har har) and by the 3rd year $15 million etc. Get real Francis!

  5. I have been deliberately staying out of this thread because I want to save my comments on the MSA for later. However, I must comment on the fact that the Supt. talks about closing yet MORE schools but NOT about reducing redundant central admin, including admins with major fiscal questions surrounding them. I would like to see a significant percentage (at least 20%) salary reduction for all central admins as well as a freeze on bonuses, car allowances, etc., until D150 has their finances in order.
    How many of you have been outraged at excessive bonuses awarded to corporations like AIG execs when they are getting OUR money?? This is the same thing but on a local level.
    Also, I would like to request that the next spdt. be REQUIRED to live in the D150 tax district as well as ALL central admins. I think it is insane that those who get the highest salaries and benefits from our taxing body don’t even live in our taxing district. I grew up in Chicago and my mom was a Chicago Public School teacher. She was required to live within the city of Chicago boundaries. I think at LEAST the central admin should be required to live in the city where they get their paycheck. Look what has happened when the Supt. and other central admins DON’T live in the D150 tax district.

  6. Oh my gosh Sharon – the sentiments you directed to Emerge were spot on. The District cannot afford to lose any of its “customers” and with such a diverse school population, it has to work hard to deliver the appropriate education to all its constituents.

    Emerge, I have just gotten “acquainted” with you of late through your own blog and your comments on the Peoria Chronicle. You, like Diane, seem well informed about the broader issues facing the District and you would be a great addition to the search committee or the MST project.

    I hope as the District reorganizes it considers using the PTA groups as more than just a source for fund raising. It is really a missed opportunity that the PTAs are not used as agents for change and as a liaison between the general population of parents and school administrators.

    The District needs to develop some organized method of gathering the “voice of the customer.” Interested students, parents, and community members should not have to organize at Godfather’s and storm the Board Meetings in order to be heard. This type of communication is not productive and as we have seen – it is too little, too late. Nothing against those of you that regularly attend these meetings – because I understand your frustration.

  7. Frustrated: If that’s all we have, that’s all we have. However, that group did change the original plan that ended up with the lesser of evils–Wacky Wednesdays. Actually, it seems that the only way to get to 150 admin is to get to the media (and the blogs are now part of the media) with our concerns. Of course, I don’t speak as a parent; I speak as a former teacher. You just mentioned students, parents, and community members. To succeed, I think the district has to get to the point where it really listens to teachers, also–teachers are often parents and community members, too. I realize that you don’t agree with teachers about tenure, charter schools, etc.–but there are other issues about which teachers could easily be the ally of parents and the community–more so than administrators are. The administration doesn’t seem to understand that teachers are the ones who have to make administrators’ ideas work. And to be effective–certified or uncertified–the teachers have to be in on the decision-making process and/or sold on the ideas of the decision-makers; otherwise, the delivery of services, programs, etc., will not work. A teacher has to have his/her heart in teaching–and, also, in the subject to be taught.

  8. Sorry, didn’t mean to leave the teachers out. You are absolutely correct. But teachers are “insiders,” or at least should be. It goes without saying that when the District is thinking about altering the curriculum or selecting a new reading series or, for that matter realigning schools, that a number of those in the trenches from various schools should have input into determining the teaching tools and the educational direction. I realize this happens too infrequently. My omission of teachers to the list of those that should have a voice was just an oversight — no hinden meaning.

  9. Frustrated: I really didn’t think you meant to leave teachers out–but had to throw my 2 cents in. I think the public thinks teachers are “insiders,” but they really have very little to say on many important issues. For instance, for years at Manual we complained and complained about absenteeism. Administrators even denied that attendance was as bad as it was. I finally got tired of it. I made out a chart showing the attendance records for a semester of all my students (without names) and put the records in order from the most absenses to the list. It was appalling. I sent it to Mike Bailey of the PJS and he did a column about those attendance records. Board members did listen and did start making attendance an issue. The present attendance campaign is a direct result of the interest that board members, especially Sean Matheson, took in the issue at the time. However, I believe that making the information public was what led to action.

  10. Forgot to add: Then several of us started sending board members–and the PJS–information about students who were passing classes even though they had excessive absences. These are my reasons for believing tenure is a necessity. If we hadn’t had tenure, we would not have risked our jobs by calling attention to these problems.

  11. Sharon… that is lame… tenure doesn’t protect you from retaliatory firing… whistle blower laws do.
    Tenure is a joke and needs to be gotten rid of, yesterday.

  12. Kcdad: If you had tenure, would that be your cry? I understand why the general public wants to get rid of tenure; I understand why teachers don’t want to give it up. I do believe this: Once all the unions are broken (and that seems to be a goal in the U.S. right now for all unions, not just for teachers’ unions), the pendulum will eventually swing, and we will have the same turmoil that led to unions earlier in our history. The old “what goes around comes around” will apply.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.