EDITOR’S NOTE: The following explores the issue of lifting the cap on charter schools in Massachusetts. The initial comments from Marc Kenen, executive director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association, based in Haydenville, come in response to a March 24 Gazette guest column by Max Page and Eve Weinbaum, two University of Massachusetts professors.
In the interest of a fuller discussion, the Gazette invited Page and Weinbaum to respond to Kenen’s comments, then allowed him to answer.
Max Page and Eve Weinbaum base their recent column (“No reason to lift charter school cap”) on a false premise. They argue that charters have not approached the statewide cap and “that truth reveals the fundamental deceit of the charter crusade.”
Massachusetts imposes several different caps on the growth of public charter schools – more than any other state in the country. There is still room under the statewide cap of 72 Commonwealth charters, but that is not the focus of the campaign to lift the cap.
The cap that has effectively frozen charter growth in some of the largest, lowest-performing districts restricts the number of children who can enroll in charters in any single district. Currently, Boston, Lawrence, Fall River, Holyoke, Randolph and Chelsea have no more room. In addition, smaller, rural districts like Greenfield are capped. Springfield and other large urban districts have room for one to two more charters depending on the size of the proposed schools. Parents in these districts do not have equal access to high quality public schools as parents do in Amherst, Northampton or other towns in the Pioneer Valley.
To say that caps are not limiting enrollment is an attempt to mislead the public on this issue.
The use of the words “private” and “charter school corporations” is also a misleading tactic being used to oppose charters. Our schools are public schools, overseen by public boards of trustees and the public state Department and Board of Elementary and Secondary Education. By design, we operate independent of the local school system and outside the control of the local school committee, but we are subject to the same laws and regulations as traditional districts. The law is specific in structuring us as public schools.
The professors are welcome to oppose lifting the cap, but they should stick to the facts in presenting their arguments.
— MARC KENEN
Marc Kenen’s letter proves our point. He says the cap on charter schools has “frozen charter growth” – but he doesn’t explain that he’s only talking about Commonwealth charter schools. Especially in low-scoring school districts, there is no limit to the number of Horace Mann charter schools that could be created immediately, including converting existing schools to Horace Mann charters. It’s just not true that the current cap prevents Boston, Springfield, or anywhere from creating new charter schools.
The only cap that bothers Kenen is the cap on Commonwealth charters – paid for with taxpayers’ money but run privately, non-union, without budgetary restrictions, and with opportunities for profit-taking by a range of investors. Commonwealth charters take our money but don’t involve school committees, unions, or towns in their decisions. They suspend high numbers of children with special needs, English language learners, and students whose test scores don’t make the school look good.
Kenen disdainfully claims that only charters are “high quality public schools.” Not only is this insulting to hard-working teachers and students, it ignores the fact that his organization has undermined public schools by diverting funds to charters. The struggling Holyoke school system was forced to pay almost $10 million and Boston lost $120 million to charter schools this year.
It is untrue that charter schools are subject to the same regulations as public schools. Teachers in Commonwealth charter schools do not even have to hold a teaching license. And they can be fired at will if the school CEO disapproves of their hairstyle or their political views.
Evidence clearly shows that overall, charter schools do not produce better results than real public schools. If Kenen cares deeply about low-income communities, he and his friends should spend their money on anti-poverty programs and good jobs instead of lifting the charter cap.
— MAX PAGE
and EVE WEINBAUM
My letter clearly states that I am referring to Commonwealth charters, and there is no more room for new ones in Boston and the other communities I mentioned. That’s a fact.
Horace Mann charters are district schools with charter-like autonomies. They are proposed by districts and approved by the state. There is room for more of them, but it is up to the districts to propose new ones.
Districts have not historically proposed very many: there are only 10 across the state. We agree there should be more, but Horace Mann charters are not the focus of our efforts to lift the cap, and creating new Horace Mann charters should not come at the expense of new Commonwealth charters.
The law is clear, as I state in the original letter, that Commonwealth charters are public schools, open to all children, and subject to the same laws as traditional public schools. They are not run by private entities; they are run by public trustees subject to all open meeting, ethics and financial disclosure laws.
To say there is “profit-taking” by a “range of investors” is a joke. Charters are non-profit. There have no “investors.” The funds they receive are the same as the district spends per child – adjusted to reflect the actual cost of the children who leave the district for the charter. Districts lose money when they lose students: should they keep it, if they no longer have the students?
Charters have lower attrition rates than district schools, so there is no concrete evidence whatsoever of charters pushing children out. Some charters – not all – use out-of-school suspensions as a way to maintain order in the classrooms, so children can concentrate on learning. Most children are suspended only once. Suspensions in charters have not led to high dropout rates. In fact, charter dropout rates are miniscule, and far lower than district dropout rates.
My letter clearly states that parents do not have equal access to high quality public schools. There are many good public schools in urban districts across the state but most children in those districts are being educated in underperforming schools. There just aren’t enough high quality options.
Charters have longer school days and years, intensive tutoring programs, rigorous academic programs and close partnerships with parents. The academic results are striking. If you read the research about our charters here in Massachusetts, it shows we are doing more to close race-and-income-based achievement gaps than any group of public schools in the country. Our schools are being held up as models for other states to replicate.
— MARC KENEN