We've made the case that local districts should not charter schools, since it ordinarily makes one competitor responsible for another's existence - a classic fox/henhouse situation. Some have suggested that this line of thinking is too cynical and doesn't give districts enough credit. Maybe. But consider these two news items: The Pennsylvania department of education recently began to dole out $200 million in block grants to school districts to help schools with large populations of underperforming students. In Pittsburg, the district decided to deny charter schools access to these funds because, as district spokeswoman Pat Crawford explains, charter schools are their own local education agencies and therefore "could have applied for some of the money" themselves. Alas, not true, says state department of education spokesman Brian Christopher. Instead, Christopher explains, state law requires districts - not local education agencies like charter schools - to apply for the money, which means districts would have to apply on behalf of charter schools. In a similar move, the Kansas City (MO) school board voted recently to deny contracts for food service to two local charter schools. In the heated debate, member Marilyn Simmons argued that "charter schools only want to recruit away district children and do not want a true partnership that benefits both sides." Let them eat cake, we guess (but not from the district's food service).
"City charter schools excluded from education block grants," by Amy McConnell Schaarsmith, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, July 29, 2004
"Anger over meals for charter schools," Kansas City Star, August 2, 2004