Passions run high when the subject is charter schools.

It’s understandable, since the stakes — our children’s education — are so high. There are those who see charter schools as a solution to the problems in their community’s public schools. On the other side, there are those who see charter schools as a drain on the very resource public schools need — taxpayer money.

The Recorder explored the charter-school issue in a recent series of stories. We looked at how these schools fit into public education statewide and their place here in Franklin County.

This is an important question for several reasons. This fall, a statewide ballot question asks voters to lift the existing cap on the number of charter schools. It’s a topic we should all be thinking about. And here in western Massachusetts, with many of our rural school districts struggling with declining enrollments and rising costs, can we afford to have students and their tuition dollars leave these districts?

The stories made clear that one can’t have a conversation about charter schools without talking about money, because of the formula used to finance them. Under the existing setup, a child’s home district is responsible for the cost of charter-school education. The dollars follow the kid. In 2015-16, Mohawk Trail Regional School District paid out $800,000 to cover tuition costs for its students leaving for charter schools. Gill-Montague’s expense was even higher, about $856,000. At Frontier Regional and the Union 38 school district, it was a combined $756,000.

These are significant hits on school budgets, something that’s not lost on even those who support charter schools. “I appreciate that with declining populations and shrinking budgets, that all of that goes away as a loss,” Peter Garbus, Four Rivers Charter Public School principal, said. “I understand when you lose a student, you can’t just shut down a classroom, those numbers are so small.”

It doesn’t make much sense to us to increase the cap on charter schools, as the ballot question seeks, without addressing the money issue. We’d also agree with those critics of charter schools who think that attention has to be paid to where charter schools should be located. “When you have districts where you have chronically underperforming schools, then that is a major issue.” Mohawk Superintendent Michael Buoiniconti said. “But if you have a school district in a rural environment with mostly high performing schools, why would you (open the door to siphoning off those public school resources)?”

Before the state opens the door to creating more charter school opportunities, it should address the money question — and the question of whether opening the door wider to charter school education might particularly threaten rural school districts and the children who count on them. What’s good for the urban school districts near Boston might not be good for us here in the rural part of the Bay State.