Disclosure first: I’m pro-charter, so take with the usual grain(s?) of salt.
Many BMGers have heard the debate references to charter schools recently and wondered:
“What exactly is being debated here? After all, each candidate says he supports charters.”
Not exactly.
My purpose here is not to redo the BMG debate of whether charters are good for kids, or whether they are the antichrist.
Instead, I just want to clarify what’s being discussed.
To “support charters,” one would expect it would include:
a. No crazy changes to strip them of funding (bills proposed each year by anti-charter forces)
b. Yes to more charters…at least to more charters in the worst inner-city school districts where charters have long parent waiting lists.
Gabs and Reilly support these. Does Patrick?
From his website:
I will support charter schools (especially Horace Mann charters) by developing funding mechanisms that do not disadvantage district schools and measuring charter schools in part by whether they are producing innovative ideas that can be imported into district schools.
Whatever one’s position, pro or con, it may be difficult to unwind that statement. Among the insiders, charter leaders perceive this as a strong anti-charter position, while charter opponents are pleased with it. But why? It sounds generally pro-charter on its face.
1. Normal charter schools are called “Commonwealth” charters – tuition free, random lottery admission, free to hire/fire/reward teachers as they see fit, etc. Horace Mann charters are unionized, less flexible, and as a result, few people in Massachusetts (or anywhere in USA) want to start them. There are only a couple Horace Mann charters in the whole state.
Politically, however, the existence of Horace Manns allow a candidate to say “I support charters” and still oppose what many voters would think of as a charter school, the “Commonwealth” truly autonomous type.
2. Many charter opponents say “I oppose charter schools because of their funding.” Reasonable claim with which I disagree. They have introduced several bills to cut charter funding, arguing that because the taxpayer money follows the students from the district, the district is unfairly disadvantaged. Fine.
Usually, however, when someone promises to “fix” the funding mechanism, it almost exclusively means by shifting large sums from charters back to districts, irrespective of where the kids are actually educated. There was a bill in the last session to do precisely this, a poison-pill anti-charter funding mechanism (from the superintendents association).
3. So why the hard-to-follow language?
It could be that because charters enjoy popular support, it makes sense to say “support” while winking at the sophisticated charter opponents. Neutralizes the issue for election.
Or it could be that Patrick is genuinely conflicted on this issue. He has visited some of the superstar charter schools which almost all-black and Hispanic student enrollment. Part of him MUST want more of these, given his personal experience in fleeing Chicago Public Schools.
The hard to understand language is because it is a hard to understand issue.
<
p>
LIFT THE CAP = Eliminate any limits on the numbers and placement of charter schools. Expand opportunities to open charter schools. This is the position of the lobbying group for the charter school industry, Gabrieli, Reilly, Healey, and Silbert, who won’t mention this on her website.
<
p>
REFORM = The funding and governance structure is very controversial. It’s not easy to explain why (there are lots of posts that get into details). The Feds just released a study that standalone charters perform much worse than charters associated with an existing K-12 school district (called Horace Mann charters in Massachusetts). Should we encourage district-based charters and discourage standalones? How do we pay for them? Right now, standalone charters are paid directly out of the local aid accounts for cities and towns. The superintendents would reduce the cost to the sending district to $5,000 (same rules as school choice) and have the state pick up the rest of the cost for a state program. The charter industry is against that proposal. Standalone charters in Massachusetts are not accountable to taxpayers in local communities. Standalones could be organized in the manner of regional-vocational school districts, funded through a combination of state aid and local assessments. That seems reasonable to me.
<
p>
The “Lift the Cap” people generally don’t want any reform, because they like the way things are.
<
p>
MORATORIUM = Stop issuing new charters until there is REFORM.
<
p>
ELIMINATE CHARTERS = The polar extreme of LIFT THE CAP.
<
p>
When Gabrieli said, “Lift the cap, the money follows the kid,” he was clearly using a sound bite that aligns with LIFT THE CAP. He should understand the complexity, as he is an investor in for-profit charters. Patrick, who is the REFORM category, has the task of explaining something very complicated in 60 seconds. He did a pretty good job of it, but he did note ” The formula works in theory, but in real life, there are real tensions between real families and that is not community building and that is not advancing ed reform.”
<
p>
The details are simple. The rules are so skewed to the standalone charters, there is a high level of pain and rancor in the sending communities.
Unfortunately there aren’t many programs that poor black kids from bad neighborhoods can utilize to get sent to elite prep schools anymore. The only viable and comparable option is a good charter school. Give people the choice!!!!
You never heard of METCO? Or don’t you want those kids in YOUR town?