Level the field for charter and public schools

(PNI) Leveling the playing field on public-education funding is long overdue.

We must change the fact that charter schools receive public funds and can receive exemptions under Arizona's state procurement rules. These rules are in place to ensure public dollars -- your tax dollars and mine -- are spent fairly, competitively and without conflict of interest.

Recent Arizona Republic articles highlight the charter schools' administration and board members' link to quite expensive purchases. It is no wonder that administrative costs are higher for public schools; they must adhere to rules that charters can be exempted from.

It is time to level the playing field as well as protect our public dollars. Charter schools should be required to follow the same set of rules as Arizona public schools because they receive part of the same public funds.

-- Karen Havird, Phoenix

A sex-offender dilemma

Republic reporter Michelle Ye Hee Lee identified just a few of the many symptoms of the sex-offender issues that face our communities ("Unwanted, unsettled, unaccounted for," A1, Sunday).

The focus must remain on the big picture and where our continued failure to act by our current (and past) elected officials will soon take us.

Their failure, despite being informed that something needs to be done today, likely will mean some poor child will have to be hurt or abused before they do what is required to help resolve or at least improve the system.

Yes, it will take tax dollars. Yes, there are many more sex offenders in prison waiting to be released and need some place to go. So, stop wasting time talking about failures and pointing fingers and start talking about solutions and taking responsibility.

-- Michael White, Peoria

More political alienation

I write in response to Nomiki Konst's timely column, "Arizona Democrats need to update plan to grow party base" (Opinions, Saturday).

I believe the column, although directed at Democrats, applies equally to both major political parties.

The growing number of voters who register as independent certainly reflect a range of rationales, but one is a growing sense of alienation from the traditional "political-party mentality" pervasive in both groups.

I have not yet registered as an independent but have seriously considered this option because of my negative assessment of the functioning of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Political parties must reinvent themselves to become relevant and viable as voices of the people they claim to represent, rather than the established and well-financed interests currently in full control of the levers of power.

From my point of view, the Democratic Party has the right core values and perspectives; it just functions and campaigns so much like the other party that it fails to distinguish itself as a preferred choice worthy of allegiance.

-- Melvin Hall, Scottsdale

Arizona now purple state

I must disagree with Nomiki Konst's column claiming Arizona Democrats had a bad year ("Arizona Democrats need to update plan to grow party base," Opinions, Saturday). That was true only for the Arizona Corporation Commission.

Democrats won all three winnable congressional seats and ran the closest race for U.S. Senate since Dennis DeConcini's victory in 1976. Further, they picked up four seats each in the Arizona House and Senate. And only two states (North Carolina and Georgia) had narrower margins for Mitt Romney over Barack Obama than did Arizona among the 24 states Obama lost. We are indeed now a purple state.

-- Gary Peter Klahr,

Phoenix

Driver's license solution

It seems there is a simple solution to the "problem" of issuing driver's licenses to young people who have qualified for work permits to avoid deportation under President Barack Obama's executive order.

Since the state can issue different types of licenses, why can't the MVD create a license that expires at the conclusion of the executive order and be clearly labeled "Not a United States citizen"?

My daughter's license before she turned 21 was clearly labeled that she was a minor to prevent her from going into bars. Why can't the same type of logic be applied here?

This would satisfy the governor's fears of the license being misused or of attempts to illegally gain benefits that the license holder is not authorized to receive. The kids need to be able to drive to work.

Why is this so hard?

-- Chip McTiernan,

Youngtown

Fed up with greedy CEOs

Regarding "Hostess done in by brass" (Letters, Friday):

I believe Americans are fed up. Not with all Republicans. Not with all Democrats. With greed.

What I am frustrated by is excess. I see the excessive salaries paid to CEOs and professional athletes and entertainers.

Maybe if they had to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes on every cent they earned, it would also help fund those programs.

--Kelly Murray, Tempe

Seasonal sharing needed

You recently reported that the Harris Poll found that Americans plan to spend more this Christmas season than last but are less likely to give a charitable gift. How dismaying!

To think that another necktie for Uncle Elmer may be on the list but not a donation to help the one in four children in the U.S. who lives in poverty suggests the milk of human kindness has curdled.

As we express relief that we have not suffered the awful devastation of Hurricane Sandy, we omit a donation to the American Red Cross or Salvation Army in favor of yet another toy for little Joey.

With the unprecedented demand for emergency food, we fail to give a can of peanut butter or a donation to the Association of Arizona Food Banks and instead give a box of candy for Auntie Em.

Even your stories of real people who benefit from the Season for Sharing may be overrun by our own Season for Spending.

-- Ruth Wootten, Tempe

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Michigan Moves Toward More Charter Schools (ContributorNetwork)

The Michigan House Education Committee approved lifting several restrictions on the number, spacing and style of charter schools. House Republicans favored the bill, but it still has to pass Senate democrats who oppose it, says CBS News Detroit. Here's a Q-and-A about charter schools and public school academies in Michigan.

What is a charter school?

Charter schools are public schools that are owned and governed by private organizations or universities. National Charter School Resource Center defines charter schools as "independently operated schools that are allowed to operate with more autonomy than traditional public schools in exchange for increased accountability." Charter schools are also referred to as PSAs (Public School Academy). The Michigan Department of Education says they are held to the same standards as other public schools, including open vs. selective enrollment, anti-discrimination practices, immunizations and teacher certification. The perks of charters schools, supporters say, are freedom to make more educational decisions and accountability based on student needs not state-mandated guidelines.

How are charter schools funded?

With Schools of Choice provisions in the State School Aid Act, parents may choose where to send their children. With the child goes all or most of his per-student state funding vouchers. Governing organizations also invest money and apply for grants, but state dollars are the primary source of income. Charter schools are in competition with each other and with public schools for ADA (average daily enrollment) funds.

How does a charter school evolve?

As PBS explains, "A group of people--educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs or others - write the charter plan describing the school's guiding principles, governance structure, and applicable accountability measures. If the state approves the charter, the state funds the charter on a per pupil basis."

What charter school restrictions are changing in Michigan?

Most states, including Michigan have placed restrictions on how many charters can operate in an area. Currently, Michigan has 255 charter schools, but if the measure passes congress, as it's expected to by the end of the year, that cap may be lifted. Other legislation lifts some restrictions on cyber schools.

Why the debate over more charter schools?

While charter schools were initially operated by colleges and educational institutions, charters are now available to private for-profit groups. Opponents are concerned that profit-based charters with a vested interest and access to public funds negatively impacts quality of education. Michigan Parents for Schools says that further that the charter school bills would prevent teachers from unionizing and make it easier for administrators to hire from independent contracting groups rather than hiring teachers directly.

Marilisa Kinney Sachteleben writes about people, places, events and issues in her native "Pure Michigan."

View the original article here

Senate hearing: high debts from for-profit schools (AP)

Washington – Students attending for-profit colleges are subject to subprime mortgage-like loans that saddle them with thousands of dollars in debt and waste millions in taxpayer dollars, Democratic lawmakers and education experts said at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

The hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee came just days after the Education Department issued new rules to deal with the student debt problem at career colleges, rules that those at the hearing said did not go far enough.

"I believe it is going to take more than these rules," committee chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said, to do something about what he described as the "toxic mix" of companies trying to maximize their profits and vulnerable people taking financial risks to improve themselves.

Republicans on the committee, who say Harkin has unfairly singled out the for-profit college industry in a series of hearings, boycotted the event. Industry representatives, who take strong issue with the hearings' findings, said they had not been invited to testify.

"I think this is really the second coming of the subprime crisis," Harkin said, citing figures that nearly a quarter of students at for-profit schools default on loans within three years and that students at such career schools account for 47 percent of all student loan defaults.

Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, also noted similarities to the housing meltdown, saying career schools are offering a panoply of financial support programs to people, often of lower incomes or minorities who are not educated in the consequences of defaulting. "It's the hijacking of the American dream. Offering promises that cannot possibly be met," he said.

Harkin also pointed out that large for-profits receive almost 90 percent of their revenues from federal taxpayer dollars, 23 percent of all federal student aid money. He said that in 2009, for-profit colleges received $18 billion in guaranteed student loans.

Meanwhile, 57 percent of students who enrolled in 2008-2009 departed without a diploma and with a high probability of debt. Students at for-profits make up about 10 percent of all college enrollment but account for almost 50 percent of all loan defaults.

The lawmakers heard from Eric Schmitt, who after obtaining a paralegal bachelor's degree at an Iowa career school found himself $45,000 in debt and without a job despite promises of a 100 percent placement rate in his field.

But Harris Miller, president of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, an industry group, told The Associated Press that Harkin "has always exaggerated the size and dimension of the problem" and "only invited witnesses who are ideologically opposed to what we do."

He said the default rate at career colleges is no different from that of other institutions serving low income people and minorities and that graduation rates surpassed those of community colleges. He denied that career colleges were making money by pressuring students to take out high-interest loans. "We don't want to be in the lending business," he said. "We don't make money."

Harkin, addressing Education Department undersecretary Martha Kanter, said the new rules issued last week were "better than nothing," but noted that the stock prices of the companies owning the schools soared after the rules were announced.

Under the rules, schools will only be able to receive federal money if at least 35 percent of their former students are repaying their loans. Under the original plan, schools could have lost their federal loan eligibility immediately for not meeting criteria, but the final rule was softened to give schools multiple chances over a four-year period to improve their statistics.

View the original article here

Senate hearing: high debts from for-profit schools (AP)

Washington – Students attending for-profit colleges are subject to subprime mortgage-like loans that saddle them with thousands of dollars in debt and waste millions in taxpayer dollars, Democratic lawmakers and education experts said at a Senate hearing Tuesday.

The hearing of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee came just days after the Education Department issued new rules to deal with the student debt problem at career colleges, rules that those at the hearing said did not go far enough.

"I believe it is going to take more than these rules," committee chairman Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said, to do something about what he described as the "toxic mix" of companies trying to maximize their profits and vulnerable people taking financial risks to improve themselves.

Republicans on the committee, who say Harkin has unfairly singled out the for-profit college industry in a series of hearings, boycotted the event. Industry representatives, who take strong issue with the hearings' findings, said they had not been invited to testify.

"I think this is really the second coming of the subprime crisis," Harkin said, citing figures that nearly a quarter of students at for-profit schools default on loans within three years and that students at such career schools account for 47 percent of all student loan defaults.

Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, also noted similarities to the housing meltdown, saying career schools are offering a panoply of financial support programs to people, often of lower incomes or minorities who are not educated in the consequences of defaulting. "It's the hijacking of the American dream. Offering promises that cannot possibly be met," he said.

Harkin also pointed out that large for-profits receive almost 90 percent of their revenues from federal taxpayer dollars, 23 percent of all federal student aid money. He said that in 2009, for-profit colleges received $18 billion in guaranteed student loans.

Meanwhile, 57 percent of students who enrolled in 2008-2009 departed without a diploma and with a high probability of debt. Students at for-profits make up about 10 percent of all college enrollment but account for almost 50 percent of all loan defaults.

The lawmakers heard from Eric Schmitt, who after obtaining a paralegal bachelor's degree at an Iowa career school found himself $45,000 in debt and without a job despite promises of a 100 percent placement rate in his field.

But Harris Miller, president of the Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities, an industry group, told The Associated Press that Harkin "has always exaggerated the size and dimension of the problem" and "only invited witnesses who are ideologically opposed to what we do."

He said the default rate at career colleges is no different from that of other institutions serving low income people and minorities and that graduation rates surpassed those of community colleges. He denied that career colleges were making money by pressuring students to take out high-interest loans. "We don't want to be in the lending business," he said. "We don't make money."

Harkin, addressing Education Department undersecretary Martha Kanter, said the new rules issued last week were "better than nothing," but noted that the stock prices of the companies owning the schools soared after the rules were announced.

Under the rules, schools will only be able to receive federal money if at least 35 percent of their former students are repaying their loans. Under the original plan, schools could have lost their federal loan eligibility immediately for not meeting criteria, but the final rule was softened to give schools multiple chances over a four-year period to improve their statistics.

View the original article here