Thursday, December 07, 2017

SC Public Charter School Oversight All About Money


Image result for follow the money
"South Carolina's virtual schools have cost taxpayers more than $350 million since 2007 and have produced poor academic results, including some of the highest dropout rates in the state."

Shall we contemplate why a student would enroll in a virtual school? Some are aspiring professionals in athletics or the arts whose schedules require flexibility. Others are ill or avoiding bullying. Still others have done poorly in classrooms and hope to gain diplomas on line. Why wouldn't there be a high drop out rate? How can such a diverse group be held to the same standards as those enrolled in classroom instruction?

The S.C. Public Charter School District Board of Trustees in its wisdom thinks they should be. That was the rationale put forth for refusing oversight of three virtual schools to transfer to Erskine College. The question remains whether the state board itself provides the support these schools need.

"Representatives from several of the schools said they would like to use Erskine's school of education for professional development. 'The opportunity for student teachers, professional development and continuing the promise to parents are the main reasons we’re highlighting,' a representative from Oceanside said."

"Most of the Public Charter School District's decisions Thursday were unanimous or near-unanimous. One board member, Beth Purcell, voted to let all nine schools leave for Erskine. 'All of our virtual schools serve a virtual tough demographic. I appreciate and applaud your passion for serving these students who would otherwise not be served,' Purcell said during a hearing for Odyssey Online."

"Purcell is the newest member of the board, appointed in the fall by S.C. Senate Pro Tem Hugh Leatherman. She previously worked as president of publicschooloptions.org, a Washington D.C.-based organization that advocates for the expansion of charter schools, including virtual schools."

Pointing out her background alone is somewhat disingenuous. What bias do other board members bring? 

What are their backgrounds, and why were they appointed to the Board? The governor makes most of these appointments. 

Interesting questions.

No comments: