IT SEEMS THAT the debate over charter schools is once again heating up in Massachusetts. Proposed legislation by Gov. Charlie Baker, a lawsuit on behalf of students denied charter seats, and an upcoming ballot question all seek to raise the cap on the number of charter schools in the state.
Recently, I had the opportunity to listen to Secretary of Education Jim Peyser speak to a group of superintendents in Western Mass. He outlined his philosophy regarding the steps he believes are necessary to strengthen public education in Massachusetts, including an enhanced role for charter schools.
I came away from that meeting impressed with the secretary as an individual. He is personable, articulate and, most importantly, appears to be a man of integrity. He is firm in his beliefs and does not shy away from or change his message even when speaking to a group of educators, many of whom he knows do not agree with his educational philosophy. There were portions of his philosophy, such as a focus on the school as the primary unit to concentrate educational reform efforts, with which I actually agree. However, his support and emphasis on the idea of “choice” and charter schools as a primary vehicle for positive change in public schools is, in my estimation, flawed.
The secretary and charter school advocates claim that the creation of more charter schools will help close the achievement gap. However, a look at student achievement data demonstrates that this assertion is not accurate. When taken in the aggregate, charter schools do not show appreciably better student performance than traditional public schools.
Additionally, by the very nature of the fact that parents have to take action to enroll their children in charter schools, those parents demonstrate an additional level of participation in their children’s education. Research has consistently demonstrated that parental involvement has a dramatic impact on student achievement. Consequently, an increase in the number of charter schools will mean a further decrease in those types of students and families in traditional public schools and a reduction in the number of high achieving, positive role model students. This can only serve to weaken the public school system in the affected community.
Secretary Peyser conceded that charter schools are often too small and lack the resources to effectively service students with special needs. Therefore, those students must stay in the district schools. Consequently, as currently organized, we are setting up a tiered educational system in our Commonwealth, where those students whose parents are actively involved in their education can avail themselves of this choice, leaving the rest, including students with substantial special needs, in the district public schools.
Policymakers who are charter school advocates espouse the idea that competition and a partnership between traditional public schools and charter schools will strengthen both entities. However, once again that idea is flawed. Educators know that healthy collaboration leads to greater improvement for teachers and schools. However, the only thing worse for a public school system than a charter school moving into the community is for more than one to move into the surrounding area. The fiscal impact on a school system can be dramatic.
Take a relatively small district such as Ludlow, with a student population of about 2,800. The Ludlow Public Schools are lucky in that we do not have a charter school in our town and lose few students (19) to charter schools in surrounding communities. However, even that small number of students has a big financial impact on our fiscal resources. In FY ’16, the state has assessed Ludlow $434,878 to pay local charter schools. We are reimbursed $122,467 according to the state formula, leaving a total cost to the town of $312,411 for charter school students. This is a large amount for a district such as ours and those funds could have a dramatic impact on improving educational services for all students rather than funneling that money into quasi-private schools.
The public schools in a community are answerable to a school committee of elected representative who are directly accountable to residents. Charters are not accountable to the community in which they reside and yet that community must hand over funds to support those schools. Where is the equity in that system?
The majority of charter schools are non-union entities and this is lauded by supporters as one of the benefits. However, when they are engaged in the process of school change, unions are not an impediment to educational reform. The greatest impediment to true educational reform is the plethora of ill-advised educational policies currently being created. Unions can and should be included in the change process rather than being seen as an obstacle. When this is done in a district the results can be powerful.
After all, unions are made up of teachers. These are the professionals who have the knowledge training and drive to change our schools. If we engage them in the process of change, afford them the flexibility to try new approaches, and give them the resources to accomplish this task, then we will not need to funnel money into a quasi-private schools to the detriment the public schools in our communities.
Some would argue the charter school movement believes district public schools aren’t worth saving and that traditional district systems must be torn down and rebuilt in this new charter model. Our public schools may not be perfect and change is most definitely needed. However, public schools are the bedrock upon which our democratic society rests and thus I believe they are worth the effort to save.
Todd Gazda is superintendent of the Ludlow Public Schools.
CommonWealth Voices is sponsored by The Boston Foundation.
The Boston Foundation is deeply committed to civic leadership, and essential to our work is the exchange of informed opinions. We are proud to partner on a platform that engages such a broad range of demographic and ideological viewpoints.
We continue to hear that there’s not enough money for schools. How then, can we hope to sustain a dual system with only one stream of financial support? Better to invest all of the funds in the system that serve all of the children, all of the time, the truly public schools that are the foundation of our democracy.
Charter schools began life as a test bed for experiments in education. Successful experiments were to serve as examples for public schools. There was always a doubtful element to this idea: the experimental schools were populated by self-selection rather than random assignment. Classes were composed of students from engaged families, and special needs kids, including English language learners, were largely excluded.
In other cases, Charters have pushed difficult students out of their schools, back into the regular districts. In Massachusetts, the enrollment differences between public schools and charter schools have been dramatic, leaving public schools with the kids most likely to be struggling, while charters drew down the resources needed for these at risk populations.
http://www.citizensforpublicschools.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Charters+and+special+needs+-+cps22.pdf
As a result, comparison of charter schools with traditional public school performance appear to suggest that charter schools outperform public schools–when in fact the only valid conclusion is that they serve different students.
There are precious few examples of charters serving their original intent–providing workable examples of innovative educational practices for the public schools. Meantime, charters have morphed from an educational experiment into a political movement, led by an assortment of for-profit charter operators and well funded advocacy groups such as the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. Parents are enjoined to think of schools as a consumer choice rather than a public good. The banner of experiment in the name of better schools has been hauled down to be replaced by one emblazoned with the word “Choice!”. But for every choice, something is lost: in public education, the idea of school choice for some replaces the idea of choice schools for everyone.
The latest is that over $21.7 million of out-of-state money from the most
ruthless capitalists who have ever walked the Earth — Eli Broad, the Walton
family of Walmart, Wall Street hedge fund managers, etc. — is pouring into
Massachusetts to pass Question 2.
Read this well-researched article here for that $21.7 million figure:
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/ma-question-2-funding-hits-21-7-million/
These money-motivated plutocrats who are pouring in this money obviously …
— do not live in Massachusetts,
— have no children, grandchildren, or other relatives that attend public
schools in Massachusetts
— have never given a sh#% about the education of middle or lower income until
recently, when they realized they could make a buck off privatizing
Massachusetts schools via the expansion of privately-run charter schools,.
They want to these corporate charter schools to replace truly public schools
— the ones that, for generations, have been accountable and transparent to
the public via democratically elected school boards, and which are mandated to
educate ALL of the public… including those hardest or most difficult to
educate … special ed., English Language Learners, homeless kids, foster care
kids, kids with difficult behavior arising from distressed home lives.
Are proponents of Question 2 seriously making the argument that out-of-state
billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers are pumping in all this money
because those folks care so much about the education of kids in Massachusetts?
You really think they are NOT seeking a big money return on these ($21.7
million campaign donations?
Does that pass the smell test?
Can you provide an example of JUST ONE TIME in the past where they poured in
this kind of cash to something … no strings attached, and with no expectations
of return?
If, as Q 2 supporters like Marty Walz claim, the most ruthless capitalists that
have ever walked the Earth are now kicking in this kind of cash to pass
Question 2 merely because they care about children’s education —
… and if they are not about their profiting through the privatization of
public schools brought about by the expansion of privately-run charter schools,
… then I’m sure one of you Q 2 supporters could google and find a past example
where they have done something similar .. .again out of generosity… with no
expectation of an eventual monetary return…
Something like …
“Well, back in 2000-something, or 1900-something, these same folks donated
$20 million to the (INSERT CHARITABLE CAUSE HERE). Here’s the link that proves
this.”
No, I didn’t think so. When this was brought up in a debate, Mary Walz
refused to address it, saying, “We need to talk about the kids, not the
adults.” Well, keeping money-motivated scum from raping and
pillaging Massachusetts public schools IS CARING ABOUT THE KIDS, Marty!
So the real question is:
To whom do the schools of Massachusetts belong? The citizens and parents who
pay the taxes there?
Or a bunch of money-motivated out-of-state billionaires and Wall Street hedge
fund managers who are trying to buy them via Question 2, and the expansions of
privately-managed charter schools which they control, or also profit from their
on-line and digital learning products that will be sold to these charter school
chains?
If you believe the former, THEN FOR GOD’S SAKE, VOTE “NO” ON QUESTION 2.
Send them a message: Massachusetts schools are NOT FOR SALE!!!
During the last days leading up to Tuesday, November 8, as you see or listen to the slick and expensive Madison Avenue-level TV/radio commercials promoting “YES” on Question 2 promulgating such lies as …
“Question 2 will add more money to public schools (LIE: it won’t. In fact it will do just the opposite.
or
“Question 2 won’t take money away from existing public schools (LIE: it will… a lot of money, in fact.)
… or when view the slick mailers you find in your mailbox, or when listen to robo-calls, think about this following post about EXACLY WHO is paying for those ads:
The latest is that over $21.7 million of out-of-state money from the most ruthless capitalists who have ever walked the Earth — Eli Broad, the Walton family of Walmart, Wall Street hedge fund managers, etc. — is pouring into Massachusetts to pass Question 2.
Read this well-researched article here for that $21.7 million figure:
https://deutsch29.wordpress.com/2016/10/05/ma-question-2-funding-hits-21-7-million/
These profit-minded plutocrats who are pouring in this money obviously …
— do not live in Massachusetts,
— have no children, grandchildren, or other relatives that attend public schools in Massachusetts
— have never given a sh#% about the education of middle or lower income until recently, when they realized they could make a buck off privatizing Massachusetts schools via the expansion of privately-run charter schools,.
They want to these corporate charter schools to replace truly public schools— the ones that, for generations, have been accountable and transparent to the public via democratically elected school boards, and which are mandated to educate ALL of the public… including those hardest or most difficult to educate … special ed., English Language Learners, homeless kids, foster care
kids, kids with difficult behavior arising from distressed home lives.
Are proponents of Question 2 seriously making the argument that out-of-state billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers are pumping in all this money because those folks care so much about the education of kids in Massachusetts?
You really think they are NOT seeking a big money return on these ($21.7 million campaign donations?
Does that pass the smell test?
Can you provide an example of JUST ONE TIME in the past where they poured in this kind of cash to something … no strings attached, and with no expectations of return?
If, as Q 2 supporters like Marty Walz claim, the most ruthless capitalists that have ever walked the Earth are now kicking in this kind of cash to pass Question 2 merely because they care about children’s education —
… and if they are not about their profiting through the privatization of public schools brought about by the expansion of privately-run charter schools,
… then I’m sure one of you Q 2 supporters could google and find a past example where they have done something similar .. .again out of generosity… with no expectation of an eventual monetary return…
Something like …
“Well, back in 2000-something, or 1900-something, these same folks donated $20 million to the (INSERT CHARITABLE CAUSE HERE). Here’s the link that proves this.”
No, I didn’t think so. When this was brought up in a debate, Mary Walz refused to address it, saying, “We need to talk about the kids, not the adults.” Well, keeping money-motivated scum from raping and pillaging Massachusetts public schools IS CARING ABOUT THE KIDS, Marty! (By the way, those are many of the same folks who raped and pillaged the housing/mortgage industry a decade ago … go watch the film THE BIG SHORT to get up to speed on that … they’ve just moved on to new place to plunder.)
So the real question is:
To whom do the schools of Massachusetts belong? The citizens and parents who pay the taxes there?
Or a bunch of money-motivated out-of-state billionaires and Wall Street hedge fund managers who are trying to buy them via Question 2, and the expansion of privately-managed charter schools which they control, or also profit from their on-line and digital learning products that will be sold to these charter school chains?
If you believe the former, THEN FOR GOD’S SAKE, VOTE “NO” ON QUESTION 2.
Send them a message: Massachusetts schools are NOT FOR SALE!!!
Oh and go watch the John Oliver charter school video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_htSPGAY7I
Oh and listen to this dissection of a “YES on 2” radio ad:
http://wrsi.com/monte/dissecting-the-great-schools-massachusetts-ad-on-question-2/