The House Education Committee passed a bill Thursday morning that officials hope would better position Kentucky to win federal money to improve the academic
performance of public schools.
House Bill 176, sponsored by Rep. Carl Rollins, D-Midway, would allow school districts to close low-performing middle and high schools and restart them under the management of a private or non-profit operator, known as an educational-management organization, or EMO.
“I think (the bill) helps us be a little more competitive in the Race to the Top,” Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday said after the committee meeting. “It shows we have a real good plan to help turn around low-performing schools.”
Thursday, January 07, 2010
Bill to fix low-performing schools clears panel
This from the Courier-Journal:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Why is an EMO preferable to a Charter School?? Is this really about low performing schools and the students who must get out of them or is this simply facilitating the "Race to the Top" application???
I'm not sure I understand the difference between an EMO and a charter. An EMO is whatever the legislature says it is and I suppose Wiliams wants it to be more....somehow. I would be inclined to agree in so far as the number of schools affected under the current proposal. It feels a little thin to me.
To the extent it is about low performing schools, it is a good idea. To the extent that it supports the state's bid for federal dollars, that, too, is good.
But a charter school law, disguised under a different name, that broadens eligibility for private businesses to take over schools for the beneift of, say, suburan whites - not that anyone would propose such a thing - would be disequalizing, unconstitutional and a very bad idea for Kentucky.
I'm late to this discussion and found this post looking for info on the House bill that just passed the Senate today while the Charter schools amendment failed.
I'd like to hear more why you think charter schools are a very bad idea for Kentucky? Why does everything need to be equalized and cookie cutter?
The variety of specialties that charter schools bring sounds like a good idea to me. I love to be able to enroll my son in a school specialized in Mandarin Chinese or math/science or music instead of the time wasters that are study hall, gym and home-ec.
Very bad idea? I didn't say that.
Since this is a news & commentary site, we post a number of stories from individuals with perspectives on both sides of the issue - so it's easy to get confused as to what I believe.
My take, is that charters are an OK idea, but I can't say it any stronger than that.
What justifies it in my mind are two things: Ky ought to take the federal RTTT dollars, and we have a number of schools that have performed badly for more than a decade now. Those schools ought to be subject to a fresh infusion of ideas unbound from regulation.
A law that allows charters to become too disequalizing is likely to be unconstitutional - so we shouldn't look for charters to take away from schools that are meeting their goals. But these persistently poor schools? Sure.
Viewed from the point of view of frustrated inner city or rural parents who have never had access to a successful school, it seems fully just.
But beware. A lot of charter supporters will argue in favor of poor inner city kids, only to offer legislation favoring white suburban kids. That is little more than an effort to take money out of the system and move it into private hands - for profit.
THAT is a very bad idea.
Post a Comment