Debate: Are charter schools eroding support for public schools?

NEA Today, Nov 1999 by Vitiellio, Linda, Page, Linda

Are charter schools eroding support for public schools?

yes

Yes, charter schools erode support for public education. Our experience in the Commonwealth of Massachusettsespecially in my home town of Somerville-is that charter schools siphon off much needed financial support, skim the most able students, and are totally unaccountable to the communities they serve.

Charter schools in my state have been labled "successful" though they are still in their infancy. That notion of success is based on a number of myths.

Myth 1: Charter schools foster innovation and non-charter schools do not.

Reality: Public schools have long offered innovative programs not yet available In many charter schools. Among these programs: ESL/bilingual education, special needs programs, HIV/AIDS education, dropout prevention programs, career education, conflict resolution, and much more.

The Massachusetts charter school law, its supporters say, will improve all schools, because charter schools will share their programs with non-charter public schools.

But the Somerville charter school, run by the for-profit company, SABIS International, uses a copyrighted curriculum that SABIS refuses to share with the public schools unless it is purchased from SABIS. Haven't the taxpayers already paid for it?

Myth 2: Charter schools provide much needed competition.

Reality: In Massachusetts, charter schools receive funds based on the average cost per student, rather than the per-pupil cost specific to the grade level and program of the student.

Special, bilingual, and vocational education programs are factored in the average, along with the less expensive regular education costs. As a result, the student "average" is quite high.

The bottom line: A regular education third grade charter school student in Somerville costs the taxpayer $2,000 more than the third grade student enrolled in the Somerville public schools.

Myth 3: Charter schools fill a need, are accountable, and provide parents with a choice.

Reality: The Massachusetts law allows no local approval of Commonwealth Charter Schools. The decision on whether to grant a charter and where the school will be located is made entirely by the State Board of Education.

The law only requires notice and a public hearing, which doesn't even have to take place in the community where the charter school will be located.

In Somerville, the mayor Board of Aldermen, School Committee, Parent Teachers Association, and the Somerville Teachers Association all went on record opposed to the granting of a forprofit charter school.

Despite this community sentiment, the charter was granted, though fewer than 20 parents applied for the charter. The only thing "public" about the Massachusetts Commonwealth charter schools is that they use public money.

In my opinion, charter schools are not just eroding support for public schools, they are destroying them.

no

Blaming charter schools for the erosion of support for public education is like blaming yesterday's rain for the carving of the Grand Canyon. It has taken a number of years for public confidence in our public schools to be where it is today. Charter schools, in their relatively short history. can hardly be blamed for the erosion. But they can reasonably be viewed as one response to already eroded support for public education.

As a public school teacher for over 20 years, I believe in public education. My involvement in our NEA local affiliate's charter school effort came about because I wanted to take an active part in improving public schools.

The cry for reform in public education has been growing for a number of years. Whether the outcry is deserved or not is another debate. But if not charter schools, then something else would have come along to respond to public dissatisfaction.

Charter schools. at their best, provide a response to criticism and, in an era of choice, a viable alternative to existing schools. Charter schools don't take away from public schools. Rather, they are a forum that strengthens our reform efforts. I admit that not all charter schools are performing this function well, but I believe that we professional educators should take the lead in applauding and encouraging this kind of reform movement.

What do we have to fear about an effort that, even at its worst, should challenge us to examine ourselves and what we are doing to improve education?

Our public teachers as a whole are doing an outstanding job. It's too bad that years of criticism have driven some of us to a defensive posture and discouraged leadership and risk-taking.

The only way that charter schools can erode public school support is if we as public educators foster the notion that the two kinds of schools cannot exist together. Then students and parents will have to choose one over the other for the wrong reasons.

In my district, the public and charter schools are supporting each other. The public school actually refers students to the charter school if that school seems to be a better match, and vice versa. We now see each other as partners.