Massachusetts Needs To Embrace School Choice
On Martin Luther King Jr. day, Gov. Deval Patrick signed into law a bill that has been hailed as the most significant step in education reform the state has taken since 1993’s comprehensive Education Reform Act. In addition to giving superintendents new powers to overhaul failing schools, the law raises the cap on charter school spending from the current 9 percent to 18 percent in low performing districts.
Last month, the New York Times reported that charter schools have become “the hot cause” among many prominent young hedge fund managers in New York. Since 2002, the number of charters in New York has increased from 17 to 99. Mayor Michael Bloomberg has made expanding the number of high-quality charter schools in New York City a signature issue for his third term.
Bay State View
Contrast New York City’s embrace of charter schools with the situation in Massachusetts where growth has stagnated and the policy environment has evolved from grudging toleration to outright hostility. More than 150 communities are at or near their charter cap. The state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE) receives fewer applications each year. This is despite the fact that demand is extremely high: in 2008-09, almost as many students were on waiting lists (24,066) as were enrolled (26,384).
In a 2008 article in the Boston Globe, James Peyser, former chairman of the Massachusetts Board of Education, warned of a “brain drain” of talented school reformers to other states, citing several charter school founders who had already decamped. From their perspective, why set up shop in Massachusetts when places like New York appear to be so sincere about appreciating the benefits of charter schools?
Charter schools serving predominantly poor and minority students regularly rank at the very top in MCAS scores, outpacing not only their sending districts but also schools in wealthy suburbs. Despite some recent failures (such as the Robert M. Hughes Academy in Springfield and the Lowell Community Charter Public School), Massachusetts charter school performance has also been fairly strong in the aggregate. A 2006 report for the DESE found that during the 2001-2005 period, 90 percent of charter schools performed as well as or better than their sending districts, and in most of these years, 30 percent outperformed the districts by a substantial margin.
Critics complain that charter schools take away funding from district schools, but, to quote Salem State college economist Ken Ardon, “It is difficult to imagine schemes to limit a student’s ability to move from one district to another or to require the state to pay for a student’s education at both the new and old districts, yet those are precisely the proposals that reappear in the debate over charter schools.” Ardon estimates that in fiscal year 2008, charter schools spent, on average, only 68 percent per pupil of what district schools spent ($9,277 vs. $13,530), not counting facilities expenses.
The question of charter schools is essentially an institutional one: How do we want to structure our public school system? To have independently chartered as well as traditional district schools gives parents choices for their children. Charter schools also bring increased accountability to public education, because unlike traditional district schools, they are subject to a regular, five-year renewal process and possible closure if they do not meet the terms of their charter.
As a Worcester Telegram & Gazette editorial in December pointed out, the news that the failing charter schools in Springfield and Lowell may be shut down is best understood as evidence for, not against, the charter school model.
Roberta Schaefer is the president and CEO of The Research Bureau; Stephen Eide serves as a research associate. Schaefer can be reached at rschaefer@wrrb.org.
WBJ Web Partners
Most Recent
Most Recent
0 Comments