I would like to respond to the “My Turn” by Nancy Grossman in the Recorder on Sept. 14. I previously wrote about how almost all the resistance to charter schools focuses on the financial problems they cause for regular public schools, and I called for an effort to bring about funding that allows both types of schools to flourish on their own terms.
So I liked that Ms. Grossman at least raised the issue in her piece by suggesting, “If Massachusetts truly wants an auxiliary school system, then separate the funding for neighborhood-based and charter schools.”
But it’s hard to believe that she is offering this as a serious proposal, because of the biased way she goes on: “Raise taxes to pay for the added schools with their own millions in overhead costs and leave district budgets alone.”
Of course, if the district is not educating all of the students, its budget should eventually change, and it should adapt to the new situation. Also, I don’t know who wrote the headline, “Do the math: charter school financing doesn’t add up,” but it could have read, “Do the math: regular public school financing doesn’t add up.”
This would have had the implication that the problem lies with the regular public schools rather than with charter schools.
If a new business moves into town and a business that has already been there begins to have financial difficulties, that business can’t usually resort to attempts to outlaw the new business. Instead, we expect the threatened business to evaluate itself and to change in order to keep its customers.
There is a reason why taxpaying parents are choosing to send their students to charter schools and thus change what their taxes are paying for.
Did the school board in Amherst consider starting a Chinese immersion program? Did the school board in Greenfield consider starting an expeditionary learning based school? Did either of these school boards do any research to see what other aspects of the local charter schools were attractive to a significant segment of their constituents so that these parents were choosing to withdraw their students?
It appears not. Instead, they are trying to remain monopolistic with all the attendant problems that causes.
Maybe there are problems that need looking at in the way towns are trying to fulfill their obligations to educate all students.
Maybe there is a problem with the way parents and students have been forced by these monopolistic school systems to accept the education offered or pay huge sums to send their students to private schools.
Maybe school boards should be tasked with finding out what kind of schools their diverse constituents want and should be offering more diverse choices in educational approaches.
One approach does not fit all. I bet you could have two or three different schools in the Greenfield High School building, each with its own spaces, principal and style.
Maybe they could even get along well enough to share the dining facility, the auditorium, the gym and some other facilities. It might even cost less than what is being “lost” to charter schools.
But would a public school board allow different schools with different missions to function independently as long as they were attracting parents and students and fulfilling their mission statements?
I don’t know the answer to this question or what other solutions might be possible, but obviously the regular public school system is failing to meet the needs and desires of parents and students or there would not be waiting lists and pressure for more charter schools.
John Guenther is retired teacher who lives in Greenfield