I pulled this comment by Joanne Seddon from a recent post on education. As always, I have no way of confirming the identity of commenters: 

My concerns for the children of Camden are too many to list in one post. Two that, perhaps you could clear up, are these; When the intent is to provide the best education for our kids, how can the state and its charter schools justify those attrition rates of black males ( and every special needs and or discipline challenged child) ? Traditionally, it has been my experience that when the charters do not allocate the funds needed to address the needs of those students, those kids are returned to the public schools. If this trend is not changed, the remaining public schools will become virtual “alternative ” schools that will be so overwhelmed without the resources of the experienced, veteran teachers that were pushed out of the system, without the proper funding, the supplies and the needed programs that educational success for the students will be compromised, at best.

The second concern is that those funds I spoke about will most definitely not be allocated because I believe charters are FOR PROFIT…for profit of the political backers who are financially invested in them. If I am wrongly perceiving this issue, please prove it.

This issue of “for-profit” schools is an interesting one. In general (I believe there is one exception), all the charters in Camden are legally considered non-profits. And the new chains entering the city certainly are. But, asked if someone was making money off of schools at the recent education forum, and Education Law Center’s David Sciarra pointed out that there is money to be made in the supplemental contracts surrounding new schools. There is certainly a long tradition of insurance, construction and other contracts being political and opportunity for graft in Camden, and the lack of financial oversight required in the Urban Hope Act likely will exacerbate these problems. 


  • On the subject of so-called non profit charter/renaissance schools in Camden:

    I’ve heard that while the salaries of the teachers are lower at these institutions, the “profit” is in the high salaries at the top of the organization. Or is it in the benefits? Or both? On top of this, there is less oversight??? Meanwhile, the education reformers’ greed trumps student’s needs.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *