Massachusetts public schools have been #1 in the country for years. They are known nationally and internationally for their excellence. We in Massachusetts value education and understand how it can impact the future. That being said, there are still many students and schools in great need, and we must do better by them. But the schools that need help will not be improved by diverting their funding to support more charter schools. The answer is not to allow more charter schools to cherry-pick the best students and drain precious resources from struggling schools and districts. The pro-charter school crowd has used ballot question initiatives as its tool of choice to expand the number of charters. I urge you to ask the candidates for Attorney General where they stand on charters because it is the Attorney General who has the authority to determine which questions legally qualify to get on the ballot, and perhaps more importantly, the authority as to how to address lawsuits threatening the cap.
Six years ago, voters in Massachusetts overwhelmingly rejected lifting the cap on charter schools (Question 2 in that election). This rejection of charter schools occurred despite the strong support by Charlie Baker, one of the most popular governors in the country, and despite millions of dollars spent by pro-charter school organizations to sway the electorate. Much of that money came in from pro-charter organizations outside Massachusetts.
Although voters overwhelmingly rejected charter school expansion in 2016, the pro-charter crowd has not gone away. They are merely biding their time and planning for their next opportunity to expand charters in Massachusetts. And now they are getting behind Andrea Campbell, a candidate for Attorney General. Campbell is a charter school supporter, and the charter crowd was all in for her when she ran for mayor of Boston last year. They provided volunteers and funding for her campaign.
Campbell’s charter school supporters understand that having a sympathetic AG will greatly increase their chances for success in their next ballot question effort. With Campbell now in the race for AG, they are at it again, and have gone as far as to commission a recent poll through Mass Inc. As this poll was funded by her supporters, it is not surprising that the results show Campbell with a significant lead in the race for AG.
Voters in Massachusetts are sophisticated and engaged and saw through the arguments from the pro-charter crowd in 2016. They understand that charter schools hand-pick their students by admitting the students most likely to succeed, and consequently, are less expensive to educate. They know charter schools leave behind underperforming students, English language learners, and students with disabilities. Furthermore, voters know that state funding follows these students to charter schools, leaving struggling school districts underfunded in their efforts to educate their remaining student populations. In 2022, the Commonwealth needs an AG who is in tune with the Massachusetts voters in opposing charter school expansion.
I would hope that whoever becomes AG takes seriously their obligation to rule only on the legality of the ballot question and set aside their personal preferences on the merits.
In the Metro West town where I lived prior to retirement on the Cape, I asked each new candidate running for school board about their stand on the apparent failure of our local carter and public schools provide to me with a working list of Dissemination of Best Practices. They all looked at me as if I asked them what was the capital of Mongolia. (it’s Ulaanbaatar). In fact, no one had the slightest idea of what I talking about. In short, the stated objective of any Charter School is to provide innovative models for replication and best practices to other public schools in the district where the charter school is located.The objective of a Charter is NOT to give parents a choice of schools. That is what private schools are for. Sadly, the public and even many running for school boards are ignorant of this fact. In my case, I asked the administration of our local charter school for a list of best practices that were conceived of, developed, and implemented into the public school. Each time, my request was answered with an invitation to tour the school, meet the students and faculty. Never, not once was I ever provided a list of best practices. This is not to place the blame entirely on the Charter School. Where was the school board on this? Where was the public school on this? The replies I received from a few people with knowledge of the subject boiled down to the fact that the three groups were not keen on cooperating. If that is the case, close down the damn charter for failure to meet its stated objective. But that was met with resistance born of ignorance and selfishness. I gave up, retired, moved to the Cape.
One more note about Charter Schools. I learned that the Sackler Family (the ones who gave the US our opioid crisis) and other wealthy individuals were staunch supporters of Charter Schools, and I wondered why? Surely their children would never set foot in a public or charter school. Why the interest in Charter Schools?
As with all things, follow the money to find the truth. Charter schools, like the one in my Metro West town, operated in private buildings that were equipped with materials and facilities and possibly a labor force that was all property of or under contract with a private entity. This private entity then charged rents to the public for use of the Charter School. By law, children must attend school. This makes investing in Charter Schools a recession proof cash cow for wealthy investors. Want to send Johnny to school? Pay us! Johnny wants a computer? Pay us! Johnny wants a Latin teacher? Pay us! We own the school, the computer, and the Latin teacher.
In an ideal world charters would be for innovative small learning communities that maintain district level admission standards and union contracts. The BTU already runs some magnet charter schools in this fashion, other small innovation schools like Snowden International or the EMK Healthcare high school fulfill this role. Expanding vocational schools, ideally one in every district, will also decrease their waitlists and increase their utility for students who are not college bound to get into good living wage careers.
Also it seems this issue is totally irrelevant to the AG portfolio. It may have been relevant when Andrea ran for Mayor, and certainly seemed to be a factor for my friends in the BTU who backed other candidates, but it does not seem relevant for this role.
Her stances on criminal justice reform, minority and women rights, and corporate accountability are far more important. I think she walks the walk on those issues and is a credible choice for the office. I certainly won’t be basing my own vote on the charter issue, which seems unlikely to be affected by this office one way or the other.
AG may have to rule on any ballot question in this regard, and of course is responsible for making sure charters follow relevant laws.
Fair point, but I don’t see how her past support of charters is relevant to how she would rule on the ballot question. She’s running for a different role now, it may have been relevant when she was a city councilor and a mayoral candidate, but to use this as a litmus test is a little silly. I would be more curious who Dennis Naughton is for and why.
I definitely recall hearing that charters were for experimentation and innovation, with the best practices being adopted by the regular public schools.
Yes, and it is a condition of the Charter. Not that anyone seems to care. Again, in my years at my Metro West town, no one was ever able to tell me of one “best practice” that found its way to the public school.
Charter Schools were sold on the promise that they would be a “skunk works” for the academic community, a “Formula One” testing ground for innovation that would find it way to the general public. As it stands, they are simply publicly funded “Private Schools” for well connected and in reality, drain the public schools of needed funding.
I am 100% against Charters for this reason. If they did indeed deliver a benefit to the general population, I would be for them without hesitation.