Back To MCPSA News
Proposals to lift arbitrary enrollment caps on public charters schools have prompted the usual attacks to discount the incredible successes charters have achieved across the commonwealth.
Criticism can be a productive tool when rooted in fact and used to encourage needed improvements. Charters aren’t perfect; we acknowledge legitimate faults and work to address them.
But when criticism is based on misinformation, innuendo or outright lies, it only serves to inflame the debate and increase the divide that separates public charters and public district schools – a divide we have sought to bridge. Charters have always sought to help improve public schools at all levels.
So, here are some basic truths about public charter schools.
Charters are non-profit, tuition-free, independent public schools. They are not “private” or “corporate.” They have no “investors.” They are founded by local community leaders and parents who believe there should be a free, public alternative to the local school system. They are operated by public boards made up of local citizens, who receive no compensation.
Charters are independent of the local school committee and the district, but are approved and overseen by the state through a process considered by independent researchers as the toughest in the nation. The law creating charters clearly states they must be public in every way, and it prohibits for-profit charter schools.
Money has long been at the core of opposition to charters, but the financial impact on districts is grossly exaggerated. Since charter schools are public schools, there is no loss of public education funding in those communities. It’s simply allocated to a different type of public school. Charters receive the same amount of money the districts would have spent if the children had stayed in their classrooms. Since districts no longer educate these students, why should they be able to keep that funding?
Massachusetts also provides financial assistance to districts that lose students to charters – recognizing that not every penny that “follows the student” can be saved. Districts get more than double their money back (225 percent) over a six-year period. Districts receive every penny back the first year, and then 25 percent in each of the next five years. It is the most generous reimbursement policy in the country. This reimbursement has been fully funded almost every year, except during fiscal crises when cuts were made across the state budget.
Charters are celebrating 20 years of providing high quality educational options for families. Charters generally provide hundreds of additional hours in the classroom, through longer school days and longer years. They establish a culture of excellence setting high standards for their teachers and students, and providing the additional supports they need to succeed.
Almost every charter school outperforms district schools, has lower dropout and truancy rates, and higher graduation and college completion rates. Throughout their history, they have attacked head-on the persistent achievement gap between rich and poor kids.
Opponents try and dismiss charters’ academic success by claiming they “select” only the best students and “push out” those who can’t cut it. But, charters are open to all students, and enrollment is determined by random lotteries.
New data released this month by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education confirms claims of creaming are false.
On a statewide basis and in urban districts, charters serve a higher percentage of African American and Latino children, and nearly the same percentage of special needs children. Statewide, charters serve more children who either cannot speak English (ELL) or struggle with it. In urban districts, ELL enrollment has risen steadily – in Boston from 2 percent to 13.8 percent in just the last five years, while in other urban districts, ELL enrollment has risen from 7 percent to 12 percent.
Attrition rates statewide, which measure students who leave schools, are the same in charter and district schools. In Boston charters, attrition rates are five percentage points lower than the district.
The effort to lift the cap has taken several forms: legislation, including one filed by Gov. Baker; an initiative petition for the November 2016 ballot; and a lawsuit filed by parents whose children are among the 37,000 stranded on charter waiting lists.
Similar to the ballot initiative, the governor’s proposal would allow 12 new charters statewide each year above current caps with a preference given to the state’s lowest performing districts. The bill provides additional tools for districts to turn around under-performing schools.
These are measured approaches; not attempts to steamroll over districts. It would provide some relief from arbitrary caps in districts where highly successful charters should be allowed to expand, while also holding them to strict accountability standards.
Marc Kenen is executive director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association.
