I'm missing something: It's a charter school. If Gauna feels that these payments have been made at the expense of her son, why would she keep him enrolled there? Is the whole point of a charter school system not that you can vote with your feet? Similarly, why have other parents not left if they feel like their child's education is suffering as a result of these decisions?
But ultimately being allocated by the parents who select the school their child will attend, right? I guess there are probably some parents whose taxes don't cover the cost of their child's education, but that seems more like an argument against publicly funded education in general rather than being a strike against the voucher system. It is a surprising amount of money so I understand why people would be skeptical, I'm just not understanding what the issue is if parents feel that the school is delivering on its education objectives.
The parent (who may be very happy with the school) is not the one paying. The tax payer is paying and the state has some responsibility to make sure the money is being spent well. As the article talks about, the charter schools are not held to anything near the same standards as the public schools, but still receives public funds.
I'm missing something: It's a charter school. If Gauna feels that these payments have been made at the expense of her son, why would she keep him enrolled there? Is the whole point of a charter school system not that you can vote with your feet? Similarly, why have other parents not left if they feel like their child's education is suffering as a result of these decisions?
A big part of the complaint is that the money used is public funds.
But ultimately being allocated by the parents who select the school their child will attend, right? I guess there are probably some parents whose taxes don't cover the cost of their child's education, but that seems more like an argument against publicly funded education in general rather than being a strike against the voucher system. It is a surprising amount of money so I understand why people would be skeptical, I'm just not understanding what the issue is if parents feel that the school is delivering on its education objectives.
Not trying to argue against a voucher system but,
The parent (who may be very happy with the school) is not the one paying. The tax payer is paying and the state has some responsibility to make sure the money is being spent well. As the article talks about, the charter schools are not held to anything near the same standards as the public schools, but still receives public funds.