“Un-credible” works just fine
Lisa and Patrick Mieritz are two wealthy property owners who live in School District 20. They are both very ardent opponents of parental choice in education. They claim that if parents are given choices of where to send their own children to school, then the local neighborhood school district will be harmed by a loss of education funds.
Like most liberal elites, the Mieritz’s do not hold themselves to the same standards that they expect other parents to follow. Although the Mieritz family lives in D20, they choice their children into the International Baccalaureate program in D11. It is OK if they exercise their right to choose for their children, because wealthy liberal families deserve benefits that other families do not.
The Mieritz’s are particularly opposed to charter schools. Charters are public schools that are run by business or community leaders through their own boards. Of the top five highest performing schools in Colorado, four are charters. Charters reflect the ultimate in parental involvement, as parents take the time to run these public schools.
Lisa Mieritz recently took out a full page ad in the Independent in which she continued her assault on charter schools. As always, Mieritz failed to back her argument with anything resembling facts. Mieritz tries to argue that it is more expensive to educate a child at a charter school than at a traditional neighborhood school. The facts belie this silly claim. By state law, charter schools only receive 95%-98% of the total per pupil operational funding (PPOR) as do traditional public schools. While traditional schools receive about $6,000 per student for PPOR from the state (with additional funding coming from local taxes), charters receive 2%-5% less than that. The 2%-5% goes to the home school district for administrative costs. In other words, the administration still receives $150-$300 per charter student directly into the school district’s administrative budget, even though the charter is footing the cost of educating the student.
Mieritz claims that it costs $1.2 million more to educate 250 charter students than it costs to educate the same number of traditional school students. False. Whether a student attends a traditional school in D11 or a D11 charter, the state still gives the district $6000 per student. The difference is that the charter only gets to keep 95% -98% of that money, and the district gets the rest.
Mieritz offers some very strange and bizarre arguments against charters. Read the following from her ad:
“The mechanism by which charter programs bankrupt schools districts is simply to eliminate the savings these districts earn from their economies of scale. Due to its great efficiency—achieved by spreading administration, supply, food-service, security, and other costs across many students—D-11, for instance, is able to ‘conserve’ about $3,100 per student of its $6,000 in per pupil funding. This $3,100 typically goes back into D-11 to increase programming and ‘choice’—music, sports, AP, IB and other district-wide programs.
Charter programs ‘cost’ taxpayers this savings—they ‘extinguish’ this savings. Charter programs take not only the full state’s $6,000 per-pupil-funding out of D-11, but also this $3,100 in per-pupil ‘scale-savings’, so that for every charter student, D-11 has $3,100 less to support D-11 programs than if that student had been a regular D-11 student.”
Mieritz loves the term, “economies of scale,” although she has no idea what that means. She claims that D11 “saves” money on traditional schools because it “saves” $3100 per student. What she means is that rather than spending the $6000 PPOR on the student, the district keeps $3100 for administration. That is not a good thing unless one is a bureaucracy-loving liberal such as Mieritz. Mieritz then falsely claims that the charters get the entire $6000 PPOR. She knows that this is a lie, as I pointed out above. What bothers Mieritz isn’t that charters take money away from other students, but that charters take money away from administrative salaries and perks. Look how Mieritz plays with the facts above. On one hand, she says that traditional schools “save” $3100 of their $6000 PPOR. She then claims that charters “take” the full $6000 plus an additional $3100 “savings” to make it seem as if they are costing over $9000. What?
Mieritz next argues that charters will hurt D11’s budget if they draw students TO the district. This argument is based on the fact that D11 is a declining enrollment district, and several years ago the board decided to make a budgetary decision that means that D11’s budget does not decline as quickly as the enrollment declines. The state authorized this budget trick to soften the financial blow to districts that are in decline.
Keep in mind that this budget decision was made by the board prior to 2003 when the reformers were elected. This highlights clearly that even Lyman Kaiser and Karen Teja, who led the charge for this budget decision, knew that D11 was losing students at an alarming rate long before the so-called “chaos” of the reform slate. This budget decision was a bad decision. Why not make the necessary cuts to the budget as the student population declines instead of delaying the budget decisions? Lyman’s board chose this route because the administration did not want to have to cut administrator positions. D11 big-wigs were certainly not going to cut positions for their friends and relatives, so they chose to take a delayed reduction in state funding, which is turning out to be a bad thing today.
Due to this short-sited budget decision, even if D11 adds students to its enrollment, the budget will decline slowly to its low enrollment point before increasing again down the road. Therefore, if the district turns around its enrollment, there will be a couple of years where the funding will not have caught up to the enrollment. In the mind of a Mieritz, it is better for the district to continue to decline than it is for charters to draw students back in because of a budgetary hiccup caused by a previous board. Regardless of the nature of this budget issue, it is not the fault of charters that it exists. Whether the enrollment in D11 increases because of charters or traditional schools, D11 will have the budget lag. Only a fool would argue that it is better for the student count to continue downward than to find a way to draw students back into the district.
Mieritz likes to claim that she is using D11 figures to boost her argument against charters. In an email exchange that I had with D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson, here was his opinion on the Mieritz’s and their “facts.”
-----Original Message-----From: Craig Cox [mailto:craigcox@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:20 PM
To: GUSTAFSON, GLENN
Subject: Work session
Glenn,
Just wondering if the data that the Mieritz's are going to be using to call for a closure of our charters was given to them by you or if you are getting ( or even believing) data that they bring forward. I know that you testified along side them at a state hearing, but they have a bad habit of scewing data. I just don't want to be making decisions based on data from someone who despises choice unless they are the ones making the choice. The definition of "loss" still doesn't cut it for me since we are talking about D11 schools and D11 students. Besides, now that we are moving towards site based budgeting, is it not true that every school that has students could be considered a "loss" to any other school that might have had a shot at those students?
If we are going to keep inviting the Mieritz's and providing them with a forum as if they are credible, maybe you can start inviting other opinions as well.
For the record, in my opinion, none of our charters has an inherent right to exist forever if they do not begin to perform. I just don't want the Mieritz's phony data to be a reason to close them.
Thanks
Craig
Subject:RE: Work session
Date:Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:26:25 -0600
From:"GUSTAFSON, GLENN"
To: "Craig Cox"
Craig,
Thanks for asking me directly, I really do appreciate it!
Let me set the record straight on some of these issues:
1. The DAAC Budget Committee, chaired by Wendy Chiado, presented a charge to the BOE last fall, and the BOE approved that charge, that included examination of the charter schools on district finances. I was opposed to the inclusion of this element in the charge.
2. Since the BOE did approve this charge, Becky Kluck and I prepared the following analysis that shows the economic impact on the approval of new charter schools on D-11 as a declining enrollment district (see attached). While I certainly agree that the money follows the students, this model, using CDE funding spreadsheets clearly shows that the unique nature of declining enrollment districts receiving approximately 25% PPR for new students and having to transfer 98% of PPR to the charter creating a short-term financial impact to the District. From my limited research, D-11 is hit hardest by this in the State of Colorado.
3. Lisa & Patrick took this information one step further by saying, in some twisted sort of logic, that the financial impact was my number plus a full PPR. The also extrapolated this to existing charters. Much to their frustration, I disagreed with this logic and refused to recognize it. At last Wednesday's BOE meeting, after a lengthy discussion on the phone, I informed Lisa and Patrick that if they distributed their latest "fact sheet", which I felt blasted me personally, I would refuse to talk to them without an Open Records Request.
4. While Lisa and I did testify at the Capitol on the same day last year on this issue, our testimony was totally different. I was asked to suggest a positive mechanism to help school districts impacted by charter schools. I suggested a mechanism, that while not accepted, became the seeds for additional resources in D-11. Lisa, on the other hand, was immediately dismissed as her solution was to eliminate charter schools. I didn't even know she was going to be there and, believe me, she came across as un-credible (is that a word?).
5. While I am angry with Lisa and Patrick for their continuing crusade against charters and their twisted logic for doing so, I didn't empower them. The BOE, the DAAC and the DAAC Budget Committee allowed this to happen!
I really appreciate your asking me straight up! You know that I support charter schools as a healthy and innovative choice and reform in public education. Our charters would back that statement up. I ignore, as much as I can, of what Lisa and Patrick say. They aren't credible enough to warrant much of my time and while they are parents, they are neither taxpayers or policy makers in D-11. However, there is a shred of truth to the point that there is a short term impact to the District given our declining enrollment situation. As each child takes 98% of the PPR, we are left with fewer kids to cover the overhead cost of the District.
Hope this helps!
Glenn
Yes, “un-credible” works just fine when it comes to the Mieritz’s and their “facts.” As Glenn pointed out, they use “some twisted sort of logic” in their efforts to defeat parental choice, unless they are the ones making the choice.
When parents choose to keep their students out of their home district altogether by home schooling or permitting them out of the district, the district looses the entire $6000 PPOR. Based on D11 data that is actually true, Lisa, there are 10,000 students who live within D11 but do not attend its schools at all. That equates to a loss of $60,000,000. That is real money. People like the Mieritz’s will continue to drive families away from D11 by fighting against the very type of competition that will force the district to improve. If D11 had its own TCA or Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy, students would be drawn back to their home district. The budget would begin to increase as the student enrollment increased, and the quality of the school would help to push other D11 schools in a positive direction.
Wealthy liberals like the Mieritz’s seek only to protect their wealthy friends in administration. Their concern for students is non-existent. They want the privilege of choice to be left to wealthy families such as their own, and they will invent any tall tale to advance their anti-choice agenda. Charter schools are not hurting D11's budget; poor performing schools are driving families away from their neighborhood schools. THAT is hurting D11's budget, and until the apologists for mediocrity, such as the Mieritz's, begin to acknowledge that fact, D11's budget will continue to suffer losses year after year.
Un-credible, indeed.
Like most liberal elites, the Mieritz’s do not hold themselves to the same standards that they expect other parents to follow. Although the Mieritz family lives in D20, they choice their children into the International Baccalaureate program in D11. It is OK if they exercise their right to choose for their children, because wealthy liberal families deserve benefits that other families do not.
The Mieritz’s are particularly opposed to charter schools. Charters are public schools that are run by business or community leaders through their own boards. Of the top five highest performing schools in Colorado, four are charters. Charters reflect the ultimate in parental involvement, as parents take the time to run these public schools.
Lisa Mieritz recently took out a full page ad in the Independent in which she continued her assault on charter schools. As always, Mieritz failed to back her argument with anything resembling facts. Mieritz tries to argue that it is more expensive to educate a child at a charter school than at a traditional neighborhood school. The facts belie this silly claim. By state law, charter schools only receive 95%-98% of the total per pupil operational funding (PPOR) as do traditional public schools. While traditional schools receive about $6,000 per student for PPOR from the state (with additional funding coming from local taxes), charters receive 2%-5% less than that. The 2%-5% goes to the home school district for administrative costs. In other words, the administration still receives $150-$300 per charter student directly into the school district’s administrative budget, even though the charter is footing the cost of educating the student.
Mieritz claims that it costs $1.2 million more to educate 250 charter students than it costs to educate the same number of traditional school students. False. Whether a student attends a traditional school in D11 or a D11 charter, the state still gives the district $6000 per student. The difference is that the charter only gets to keep 95% -98% of that money, and the district gets the rest.
Mieritz offers some very strange and bizarre arguments against charters. Read the following from her ad:
“The mechanism by which charter programs bankrupt schools districts is simply to eliminate the savings these districts earn from their economies of scale. Due to its great efficiency—achieved by spreading administration, supply, food-service, security, and other costs across many students—D-11, for instance, is able to ‘conserve’ about $3,100 per student of its $6,000 in per pupil funding. This $3,100 typically goes back into D-11 to increase programming and ‘choice’—music, sports, AP, IB and other district-wide programs.
Charter programs ‘cost’ taxpayers this savings—they ‘extinguish’ this savings. Charter programs take not only the full state’s $6,000 per-pupil-funding out of D-11, but also this $3,100 in per-pupil ‘scale-savings’, so that for every charter student, D-11 has $3,100 less to support D-11 programs than if that student had been a regular D-11 student.”
Mieritz loves the term, “economies of scale,” although she has no idea what that means. She claims that D11 “saves” money on traditional schools because it “saves” $3100 per student. What she means is that rather than spending the $6000 PPOR on the student, the district keeps $3100 for administration. That is not a good thing unless one is a bureaucracy-loving liberal such as Mieritz. Mieritz then falsely claims that the charters get the entire $6000 PPOR. She knows that this is a lie, as I pointed out above. What bothers Mieritz isn’t that charters take money away from other students, but that charters take money away from administrative salaries and perks. Look how Mieritz plays with the facts above. On one hand, she says that traditional schools “save” $3100 of their $6000 PPOR. She then claims that charters “take” the full $6000 plus an additional $3100 “savings” to make it seem as if they are costing over $9000. What?
Mieritz next argues that charters will hurt D11’s budget if they draw students TO the district. This argument is based on the fact that D11 is a declining enrollment district, and several years ago the board decided to make a budgetary decision that means that D11’s budget does not decline as quickly as the enrollment declines. The state authorized this budget trick to soften the financial blow to districts that are in decline.
Keep in mind that this budget decision was made by the board prior to 2003 when the reformers were elected. This highlights clearly that even Lyman Kaiser and Karen Teja, who led the charge for this budget decision, knew that D11 was losing students at an alarming rate long before the so-called “chaos” of the reform slate. This budget decision was a bad decision. Why not make the necessary cuts to the budget as the student population declines instead of delaying the budget decisions? Lyman’s board chose this route because the administration did not want to have to cut administrator positions. D11 big-wigs were certainly not going to cut positions for their friends and relatives, so they chose to take a delayed reduction in state funding, which is turning out to be a bad thing today.
Due to this short-sited budget decision, even if D11 adds students to its enrollment, the budget will decline slowly to its low enrollment point before increasing again down the road. Therefore, if the district turns around its enrollment, there will be a couple of years where the funding will not have caught up to the enrollment. In the mind of a Mieritz, it is better for the district to continue to decline than it is for charters to draw students back in because of a budgetary hiccup caused by a previous board. Regardless of the nature of this budget issue, it is not the fault of charters that it exists. Whether the enrollment in D11 increases because of charters or traditional schools, D11 will have the budget lag. Only a fool would argue that it is better for the student count to continue downward than to find a way to draw students back into the district.
Mieritz likes to claim that she is using D11 figures to boost her argument against charters. In an email exchange that I had with D11 CFO Glenn Gustafson, here was his opinion on the Mieritz’s and their “facts.”
-----Original Message-----From: Craig Cox [mailto:craigcox@adelphia.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 06, 2006 11:20 PM
To: GUSTAFSON, GLENN
Subject: Work session
Glenn,
Just wondering if the data that the Mieritz's are going to be using to call for a closure of our charters was given to them by you or if you are getting ( or even believing) data that they bring forward. I know that you testified along side them at a state hearing, but they have a bad habit of scewing data. I just don't want to be making decisions based on data from someone who despises choice unless they are the ones making the choice. The definition of "loss" still doesn't cut it for me since we are talking about D11 schools and D11 students. Besides, now that we are moving towards site based budgeting, is it not true that every school that has students could be considered a "loss" to any other school that might have had a shot at those students?
If we are going to keep inviting the Mieritz's and providing them with a forum as if they are credible, maybe you can start inviting other opinions as well.
For the record, in my opinion, none of our charters has an inherent right to exist forever if they do not begin to perform. I just don't want the Mieritz's phony data to be a reason to close them.
Thanks
Craig
Subject:RE: Work session
Date:Wed, 7 Jun 2006 14:26:25 -0600
From:"GUSTAFSON, GLENN"
To: "Craig Cox"
Craig,
Thanks for asking me directly, I really do appreciate it!
Let me set the record straight on some of these issues:
1. The DAAC Budget Committee, chaired by Wendy Chiado, presented a charge to the BOE last fall, and the BOE approved that charge, that included examination of the charter schools on district finances. I was opposed to the inclusion of this element in the charge.
2. Since the BOE did approve this charge, Becky Kluck and I prepared the following analysis that shows the economic impact on the approval of new charter schools on D-11 as a declining enrollment district (see attached). While I certainly agree that the money follows the students, this model, using CDE funding spreadsheets clearly shows that the unique nature of declining enrollment districts receiving approximately 25% PPR for new students and having to transfer 98% of PPR to the charter creating a short-term financial impact to the District. From my limited research, D-11 is hit hardest by this in the State of Colorado.
3. Lisa & Patrick took this information one step further by saying, in some twisted sort of logic, that the financial impact was my number plus a full PPR. The also extrapolated this to existing charters. Much to their frustration, I disagreed with this logic and refused to recognize it. At last Wednesday's BOE meeting, after a lengthy discussion on the phone, I informed Lisa and Patrick that if they distributed their latest "fact sheet", which I felt blasted me personally, I would refuse to talk to them without an Open Records Request.
4. While Lisa and I did testify at the Capitol on the same day last year on this issue, our testimony was totally different. I was asked to suggest a positive mechanism to help school districts impacted by charter schools. I suggested a mechanism, that while not accepted, became the seeds for additional resources in D-11. Lisa, on the other hand, was immediately dismissed as her solution was to eliminate charter schools. I didn't even know she was going to be there and, believe me, she came across as un-credible (is that a word?).
5. While I am angry with Lisa and Patrick for their continuing crusade against charters and their twisted logic for doing so, I didn't empower them. The BOE, the DAAC and the DAAC Budget Committee allowed this to happen!
I really appreciate your asking me straight up! You know that I support charter schools as a healthy and innovative choice and reform in public education. Our charters would back that statement up. I ignore, as much as I can, of what Lisa and Patrick say. They aren't credible enough to warrant much of my time and while they are parents, they are neither taxpayers or policy makers in D-11. However, there is a shred of truth to the point that there is a short term impact to the District given our declining enrollment situation. As each child takes 98% of the PPR, we are left with fewer kids to cover the overhead cost of the District.
Hope this helps!
Glenn
Yes, “un-credible” works just fine when it comes to the Mieritz’s and their “facts.” As Glenn pointed out, they use “some twisted sort of logic” in their efforts to defeat parental choice, unless they are the ones making the choice.
When parents choose to keep their students out of their home district altogether by home schooling or permitting them out of the district, the district looses the entire $6000 PPOR. Based on D11 data that is actually true, Lisa, there are 10,000 students who live within D11 but do not attend its schools at all. That equates to a loss of $60,000,000. That is real money. People like the Mieritz’s will continue to drive families away from D11 by fighting against the very type of competition that will force the district to improve. If D11 had its own TCA or Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy, students would be drawn back to their home district. The budget would begin to increase as the student enrollment increased, and the quality of the school would help to push other D11 schools in a positive direction.
Wealthy liberals like the Mieritz’s seek only to protect their wealthy friends in administration. Their concern for students is non-existent. They want the privilege of choice to be left to wealthy families such as their own, and they will invent any tall tale to advance their anti-choice agenda. Charter schools are not hurting D11's budget; poor performing schools are driving families away from their neighborhood schools. THAT is hurting D11's budget, and until the apologists for mediocrity, such as the Mieritz's, begin to acknowledge that fact, D11's budget will continue to suffer losses year after year.
Un-credible, indeed.
posted by Craig Cox | 5:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home