Letter to the editor: Wolf’s charter fee-for-service model robs students | TribLIVE.com
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Wolf’s charter fee-for-service model robs students

Imagine your house was robbed, and you called the police to report the incident. Yet, before the police step in to solve the case, you must pay a substantial fee for their help in recovering your stolen property. Sounds backwards, right?

Well, that’s the same logic at play in Gov. Tom Wolf’s latest “fee-for-service” proposal aimed at charter schools described in “Gov. Wolf announces new fees for Pennsylvania charter schools.”

Wolf wants charter schools to pay a fee to get funding issues resolved when a school district refuses to transfer the proper per-student funds to the family’s chosen school. In other words, charters are punished for school districts’ misbehavior.

That’s backwards and will hurt charter students by incentivizing districts to cut or dispute funding meant to follow a student to his or her school of choice. Instead, the governor should require that school districts pay for their own violation of state law.

Bleeding charter schools dry through fees and restricting students’ access to quality schools with red tape is politics at its worst. This sort of favoritism exacerbates the rivalry between schools that should be working together to educate our children.

Marc LeBlond


The writer is a senior policy analyst with the Commonwealth Foundation.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.