I completely disagree with Wesley Blixt’s assertion that charter schools are responsible for the difficulties facing our public school systems and with his statements against the proposed charter school ballot initiative that would permit a limited expansion of charter schools in the state. (My Turn “The Charter Problem, May 7).
To begin with, charter schools are capped at a percentage of each school district’s enrollment. However, demand for charter schools outstrips supply. Holyoke, Springfield, Lawrence and Boston have all hit their caps. That has led to a push by some charter school advocates to find new ways to give public school students more choices, particularly in low-performing school districts.
Currently, a low-performing district cannot have more than 18 percent of its school budget allocated to charter schools, and other districts cannot allocate more than 9 percent. There are 34,000 students on the waiting list for charter schools in Massachusetts. The problem is particularly acute in Boston, which has a 12,000-student waiting list but also elsewhere, including in Springfield, which has 4,000 students on the waiting list.
The charter school ballot initiative would allow the state the flexibility to approve up to 12 new charters in the Commonwealth’s lowest performing districts regardless of current arbitrary enrollment caps. All applications would still have to go through the state’s rigorous approval process, which is ranked as the toughest in the nation.
Contrary to Mr. Blixt’s assertion, our local school districts do not lose money to charter schools; they lose children. Parents finally have the choice of selecting the public school that best suits the needs of their kids. When their child applies to a charter school (and manages to be selected via the open public lottery process) the funds dedicated to educate those children is redirected to the charter school. School districts then get extra money from the state for six years after those children leave the district school. Mr. Blixt leaves unanswered the question of why districts should keep that money when they are no longer educating those children.
Blixt states that charter schools are approved over the objection of “communities.” If that were the case, why do charters fill up as fast as they are approved? The answer is because the demand is high and the waiting lists are long.
Who is objecting (besides local school districts, school committees and teachers unions) to allowing parents the choice of school for their children?
School districts across the state, including Greenfield, already have two-tiered educational systems. Whether your child is enrolled in a top tier school depends on what neighborhood you live in: charter schools provide parents with equal access to a high quality public education. They are eliminating the two-tiered system.
I also don’t understand Blixt’s statement about early education. Charter schools have absolutely nothing to do with funding for early education; it’s funding comes separately from K-12 education. This baseless concern is a red herring.
Blixt cites a study by the Annenberg Institute for School Reform that stated “60 percent of charter schools in Massachusetts don’t have a single parent on their boards of trustees.” He did not mention that the Annenberg study was funded and conducted by anti-charter groups, including teachers unions, and is deeply flawed. The fact is that parents are represented on many charter school boards in Massachusetts and are essential partners in the determination of charter school policy.
The Massachusetts Teacher’s Association (MTA) opposes any lift of the cap on charter schools. A statewide campaign to defeat the ballot initiative by charter school opponents is underway, which accounts for Mr. Blixt’s “letter” appearing in duplicate in the Daily Hampshire Gazette and the Berkshire Eagle, the only difference being the different signatories to each letter. On May 14, the MTA approved $9.2 million to fight the limited charter school cap lift. Combined with contributions from other unions, the charter school opponents’ war chest now totals over $10 million to eliminate school choice for free public education.
In her testimony against the bill, MTA President Barbara Madeloni said: “Despite how it is framed, this harmful piece of legislation is not about allowing fair access to high-quality public schools. Rather, it is about restricting access to many students by putting public resources in private hands.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Massachusetts General Law states that “charter schools shall be open to all students, on a space available basis, and shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, creed, sex, ethnicity, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, age, ancestry, athletic performance, special need, or proficiency in the English language or a foreign language, and academic achievement.”
Charter schools are not private schools. They are free public schools. Public education dollars are being spent to educate public school students in the public charter. Should a school district be able to override a parent’s educational choices? Should the Greenfield School District have denied Wesley Blixt’s son from attending Deerfield Academy?
Public education and public-education reform share a long and common history. Today’s charter schools satisfy and serve their primary constituents (students, teachers and parents) by providing exciting and viable education in an inclusive, individual manner.
Shelburne resident John Bos has served as facilitator of annual strategic planning retreats for the Mary Lyon Foundation, the Gill-Montague Regional School District, the Foundation for Educational Excellence in Northfield and the Holliston (Mass.) Education Foundation. In 2000 he served as facilitator for the NEASC accreditation process for Mohawk Regional High School. He has served on the board of the Four Rivers Educational Foundation since the charter school’s inception in 2003. He invites dialogue at: john01370@gmail.com