(1) The state of Utah did just receive a $4 million federal grant. This grant is to provide start-up money for new charter schools during their first three years of operation. This is a continuation of federal charter school monies the state has received before - always for funding new charter schools.

Existing charter schools that have been open for more than three years do not receive any of this money.

(2) The article mentions charter schools with huge waiting lists. This makes us sound elitist and hard to get into. On the contrary, charter schools are required to hold a lottery each year for admitting new students and - by federal law - are not allowed to have waiting lists.

(3) It is true that charter schools are not bound by negotiated salary contracts for teachers and administrators. However, it is not necessarily true that we pay lower salaries. Union teacher salaries across the state vary widely as do charter school teacher salaries.

(4) Carbon District Superintendent David Armstrong's comment about charter schools not having transportation or administrative costs is ludicrous. Of course we have those costs! What we do not have (that district schools do have) is funding from the state for those expenses. By original charter school law, charter schools do not receive funds for transportation or administration.

Many of us have been very creative about finding ways to provide transportation to our students as needed. A few years ago the state began giving charter schools a small amount of administrative-cost funding. This is an issue we hope to make more progress on this year.

It is very expensive to be a school administration and the equivalent of a district office all rolled into one. Charter schools must provide all the same oversight, attend to all the state district-level meetings and file all the same accountability reports as traditional districts.

(5) The quote at the end of the article from Armstrong is absolutely not true. Charter schools most certainly do have to comply with all safe school and building code requirements.

I want to take issue with the general premise of the study that charter schools are noteworthy because they teach for less. Charter schools are noteworthy because, despite the disparity in funding that currently exists between district schools and charter schools, charters have opted to emphasize classroom instruction and students' educational opportunities over other items in their budgets.

Charter operators have managed to run their schools and comply with all special education, testing and other state and federal mandates without the top-heavy, expensive bureaucracy that exists in most districts.

It is my hope that we continue moving closer to parity in funding between district schools and charter schools. I believe most charter operators would rather have a bit more money per pupil, which would give them the ability to provide better facilities for their students, or better benefit packages for their teachers, or even smaller class sizes than we already provide. I know I want this for my school.

---

Sonia Woodbury is the executive director of City Academy, a charter school in Salt Lake City.