Letters to the Editors
How to opt out of recruiter calls
Don't equate charters and EMOs
Email this article to:
Letters to the Editors
How to opt out of recruiter calls
To the editors:
Parents of high school juniors and seniors should know that they can protect their child from unwanted calls and contacts by military recruiters.
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 requires that school districts automatically release the name, address, and phone number of juniors and seniors to military recruiters unless parents sign an “opt-out” or student exclusion form which states: “I, the undersigned, do not want my child’s name released to the armed forces recruiters by the School District of Philadelphia.”
The School District of Philadelphia issues this form every year in early October. That’s when families of all high school juniors and seniors should be receiving a copy from their high school – usually sent home with students for parent’s signature.
If you would like to prevent the School District from releasing your child’s personal information to military recruiters, be sure to fill out, sign, and return the opt-out form promptly to your child’s school.
If you do not receive this form by Oct. 10, you can call the Office of Accountability at 215- 400-4250 to request one.
Paula J. Paul
Don't equate charters and EMOs
To the editors:
After reading the guest opinion by Helen Gym, “Underfunding is only part of the District’s fiscal story” (Summer 2008), I feel that a distinction has to be clearly made: there are significant differences between charter schools and schools run by the District’s education management organizations (EMOs). Putting both into the same category when calling out the District on its spotty multiple-provider model is unfair.
Many charter schools that are part of the SRC’s reform movement are clearly doing better than some traditional public schools. My children’s 2007-08 National Charter School of the Year, MaST Charter, has made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in each year of its current charter.
As independent public schools, charters can manage their own instructional programs and faculty, and many have put into place innovative curriculum. EMO schools, on the other hand, have “thin management contracts” that allow the company only to pick its principal, with the rest of EMO staff still District employees. The EMOs, unlike charters, are put in the weaker, less autonomous position of having the responsibility but not the authority.
In making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), EMO schools finish third, traditional public schools finish second, and charters do the best. Charter schools should then not be guilty by association or categorized with EMOs.
Keep in mind that when traditional public schools fail, they stay open. Fear of closure keeps charter administrators, principals, and teachers on their game. For 32,000 Philadelphia students, including families like mine that are in both the charter school and traditional public school sectors, the option of school choice inclusive of charters has been a more effective educational model.
Karen D. Lash