By Andrew Flamang and Joe Williams
(SouthCoast Today, October 26th, 2011)
Andrew Flamang is New England director of Democrats for Education Reform, and Joe Williams is the advocacy organization’s national executive director.
At least once a year, opponents gather to make their case against charter public schools at a Statehouse hearing, but their arguments repeatedly gain little traction. One reason is that even though the relevant issues change over time, the anti-charter arguments are the same as they were more than a decade ago. Another is the undeniable success that Massachusetts charters consistently demonstrate.
This year, data on charter public schools’ head-turning performance is becoming available in the aftermath of opponents’ latest gathering.
Compared to the school districts they come from, between 11 and 13 percent more charter students scored “proficient” or “advanced” on English, math and science MCAS exams. Fifteen charter public schools ranked first in the entire commonwealth on at least one exam.
The differences are even more stark among low-income students. Charter public school pupils who qualified for free or reduced-price lunches outscored low-income students in the districts they came from by between 15 and 18 points on the three tests. Since MCAS is graded on a 200-280 scale, 15 points is a very significant difference.
In New Bedford, Global Learning Charter Public School scored in the top quartile statewide based on the percentage of students who scored “advanced” or “proficient” on the 2011 MCAS 10th-grade math test. Twenty-one percent more of the school’s low-income students scored “advanced” or “proficient” in English than their low-income district counterparts; the gap is 8 percent in math.
Back at the Statehouse, anyone who has attended a charter public school hearing knows it never takes long for opponents to get to their real problem with charters: money.
But the funding news is as bad as the academic performance data for charter opponents. The idea behind the charter public school funding formula is for taxpayer dollars to follow the student when s/he transfers from a district to a charter public school. The reality is that charters only get part of what districts spend.
In fiscal 2008, Massachusetts school districts spent more than $13,500 per student, but charters received less than $10,000 for each student who transferred. Some of that covers expenses charter public schools don’t incur, but district spending from revenue sources like grants, revolving funds and school lunches isn’t passed on to charters.
Capital funding is also inequitable. In fiscal 2009, the commonwealth gave charter public schools an $893 per student facilities payment. Municipalities and the Massachusetts School Building Authority spent an average of $1,420 on facilities for each district school student.
For years, school districts were fully or partially reimbursed for three years after students chose to transfer to a charter public school. Last year, the reimbursement period doubled to six years. By the end of that time, districts will have collected a total of two-and-one-quarter years of funding for students they long ago stopped educating.
The unchanging district response is that reimbursements don’t cover fixed costs like utilities and maintenance. If it’s true that costs don’t go down when students leave, would it not follow that districts shouldn’t receive more aid when enrollments rise?
At the most recent gathering of opponents, Salem School Committee Member Brendan Walsh took the lead on this year’s top talking point: that charter public schools should be required to gain approval from local voters or the local school committee. One only need look at Walsh’s hometown to see why that would be a bad idea.
Across all grades, about 20 percent more Salem Academy Charter School students scored advanced or proficient on MCAS English and math exams than in the city’s district schools. For low-income students, the gap was 30 percent in English and 20 percent in math. Yet what are the chances the school would even exist if it had to be approved by the Salem School Committee?
Opponents’ arguments against charter public schools never change. Unfortunately for those opponents, neither does the overwhelming evidence that Massachusetts charter public schools are an undeniable success.