Charter schools will be allowed to operate
outside of the state regulations that
govern traditional public schools. Depending on the decision of the governing
body, individuals without traditional credentials
may be allowed to teach at charter schools.
BALLENGEE: I think there are several benefits to
this greater flexibility. First, charter schools can
be more flexible in their response to community
needs as they pertain to education, like the charter
school that just opened in South Carolina that spe-
cializes in the education of dyslexic students. Second, I think
we greatly undervalue experimentation in education, and
experimentation cannot really be done in the traditional public
school system given the layers of rules and regulations they
must follow. Instead of competition, I think charter schools
should be thought of as a relief valve, not only for the families
who choose to send their kids to a charter school but also for
the traditional public school system. Charters can serve as a
laboratory for experimentation on a smaller scale. BALLENGEE: There is a lot of underutilized
teaching talent in West Virginia due to the cre-
dentialism required to teach in the traditional
public school system, and the flexibility given to
charter schools in hiring and firing practices can be
valuable in utilizing this resource. Let’s use West Virginia as
an example. There are unemployed mining engineers, chemists,
chemical engineers, et cetera, in our communities because of
the industries that once populated our state. There is no reason
why these folks can’t teach STEM to students, but they’re not
allowed to do so in traditional public schools unless they go
through an expensive, lengthy certification process. These
professionals are an underutilized resource in West Virginia,
and charter schools can help West Virginia come closer to an
equilibrium for STEM education.
LEE: If allowing charter schools to operate outside
of the state laws and regulations that govern tradi-
tional public schools will be a benefit to students,
then why are we putting those restraints on our
public schools in the first place? We have the oppor-
tunity to innovate and have shown success with our innovation
zones in which the actual experts—educators—get together
and decide which changes need to be made and which restric-
tions they want to move away from, but the state stopped the
funding. Innovation zones are a way schools can, with 80
percent of the vote of the faculty, decide which waivers they
want, which things they want to ask for relief from and which
innovations they want to pursue. It’s been successful in com-
munity schools as well as alternative education settings for
elementary schools. Innovation zones have changed the way
we do mentoring in West Virginia because the experts decide
what changes need to be made for their students.
LEE: Teaching is a very difficult profession. Not
everyone can teach. Even if you have mastery of
a subject area, it doesn’t mean you can convey
that knowledge to students. Just like any other
profession, it takes special characteristics to be
successful as a teacher, and saying anyone can teach shows
a lack of respect for the profession. I would say it is difficult
for those who may be in a different subject matter to have the
knowledge and pedagogy to succeed in the classroom. We
have various methods of certification in West Virginia other
than the traditional route, and many people who pursue these
find that the biggest hindrance is in classroom management.
Obviously, someone coming from outside of the classroom who
has never gone through the pedagogy required by an institution
of higher education is not going to have the skills needed to
manage a classroom. It may sound simple, but it is extremely
important in order for the kids to learn.
Ninety percent of the state and federal
funding allotted to each student would
follow them to their charter school.
BALLENGEE: Saying that charter schools divert
funds from cash-strapped school districts implies
that taxpayer money belongs to a school dis-
trict—or rather, the school district is entitled to
a certain portion of taxpayer money—instead of the
actual child society wishes to be educated. We don’t educate a
child in order to have a public school system; we have a public
school system in order to educate a child—and to the extent
that it doesn’t perform or satisfy the family, we are morally
obligated to find alternative means of education.
LEE: When that funding is taken away from
public schools, we are still going to have to pro-
vide the public school education for the students
who are not attending the charter school. Charter
schools take away funding that is much needed in
public schools and in many cases is not adequate to begin with.
WWW.WVEXECUTIVE.COM
FALL 2019
37