If the question of whether to allow more charter schools in Massachusetts applied only to Hampshire County, there wouldn’t be much of a debate. The waiting list for the region’s handful of existing charter schools is short and communities are rightly proud of their strong network of traditional public schools.
But Question 2 on Tuesday’s ballot doesn’t just apply to schools in our relatively affluent corner of the commonwealth. It also applies to underprivileged students in Holyoke, Springfield and Boston and other cities where struggling public schools have left families desperate for options — ones that public charter schools can provide.
The ballot measure would allow for the creation or expansion of up to 12 charter schools each year in Massachusetts. While that growth is theoretically possible anywhere, Question 2 is crafted to ensure new charter growth would occur largely in the most troubled districts.
For that reason, we urge voters to throw their neighbors an educational lifeline by voting yes on Question 2.
We did not reach this position easily or unanimously. Some members of the Gazette editorial board remain opposed to charter school expansion, agreeing with teachers unions and officials including Northampton Mayor David Narkewicz that more charter schools would drain precious funds and community support from traditional schools.
It’s a compelling argument, especially in a state that already shortchanges public schools by $2 billion or more each year. Because each student who departs for a charter school brings between $10,000 and $20,000 (depending on the district) in taxpayer funding with her or him, it’s harder for traditional schools to educate the children who remain — especially given that costs like heating, building maintenance and staffing remain largely unchanged.
Compounding the financial challenge is the state’s failure to adequately fund a reimbursement program that is supposed to cover a portion of the tuition dollars that follow charter students, Question 2 opponents correctly note. What they don’t often mention, however, is that another program that allows students from one public school to “choice-in” to another school has allowed many districts to make up at least some lost revenue.
As an article in Thursday’s Gazette by staff writer Chris Lindahl showed, for instance, Northampton sent $2.1 million to charter schools last year but brought in large sums from new students arriving via the choice program. After factoring in state reimbursement, the city ended up with a net shortfall of $895,000 — about $330 per remaining student.
That’s still a big deficit, one that has educators in Northampton and elsewhere scrambling to maintain quality education for the students who remain. But perhaps that scramble is necessary.
While Massachusetts boasts one of the nation’s strongest public school systems overall, failing traditional schools in poorer communities have left parents — who can’t afford the private school options available to richer families — begging for an alternative. And even in strong districts like Amherst and Northampton, some families reasonably seek an alternative for students who learn best in a nontraditional setting.
Statewide, there are nearly 33,000 students on charter school waiting lists, most from lower-income communities. The waiting list for admission to the Chinese Immersion charter school in Hadley stands at 116, for example, while the Sabis International Charter School in Springfield has 2,775 kids wanting in.
That long list exists for a reason, the same reason that originally gave rise to charter schools in Massachusetts. In 1993, the state’s highest court declared that public schools were failing low-income children. Since then, charters have sprung up to help fill that gap. But due to limits on the percentage of a given district’s budget that can go to charters, the option has largely disappeared in the communities that need it most.
Question 2 opponents fear that charter expansion would gut existing schools in small town and suburban districts, but that is highly unlikely. State education officials would approve new or expanded schools first in the lowest-performing districts. And charter schools would hardly gobble up traditional ones; charter school enrollment growth would be limited to 1 percent of the statewide student population each year.
Opponents have also warned that Question 2 would represent the first step in a profit-driven drive to privatize public education. Their concerns are understandable, given that Wal-Mart heirs and other wealthy out-of-state donors have pumped more than $20 million into the Question 2 campaign. Without a doubt, these interests see an opportunity to advance an agenda that could, if taken to its ideological extreme, bring us school vouchers and for-profit schools.
But Massachusetts already has a bulwark against such extremes. First and foremost, the state does not allow for-profit entities to run charter schools. Instead, educators, parents and others who want to found a charter school must submit to a rigorous authorization and oversight process by state public education officials. If they don’t provide a good education, the state can shut them down.
While the state’s existing 78 charter schools are all different, testing data and parent demand shows that they provide a largely successful alternative. With the option of offering longer school days, specialized curricula and teachers who don’t always follow the traditional path of certification and union membership, the charters offer a mix of flexibility and rigor.
Opponents of Question 2 warn that expanding charters will create a two-tiered system of educational haves and have-nots. We would be the first to agree that it would be better to adequately fund all public schools, paying teachers what they’re worth and providing other resources for innovation in districts of all economic stripes.
But today, a system of haves and have-nots is the reality, a system in which children who live in one zip code have fewer opportunities than ones who live in another. Charters provide a viable way to narrow that gap.