MTA on Charter Schools

The MTA supports district-based charter schools (called Horace Mann charter schools), but opposes lifting the cap on the number of Commonwealth charter schools. The cap is currently set at 9 percent of the district budget. Here are some key objections to the state’s Commonwealth charter school system – referred to, below, as charter schools, unless otherwise noted.

1. Charter schools drain money from the regular public schools, forcing the regular public schools to cut services for their students, such as increasing class sizes, eliminating courses or raising fees.

Charter schools divert funds from the regular public schools. As a result, many children in the regular public schools experience larger class sizes, reduced course offerings and higher fees.

The funding formula was slightly improved in 2004, but those changes did not solve the fundamental problem: Opening any new school in a district is expensive, and should never be forced on a community unless the taxpayers and voters in that community feel they need it and can afford it.

2. Local taxpayers and elected officials have no say over whether a charter school is located in their community, and no oversight over these schools once they are operating.

In most states, a charter school may only open if approved by local elected officials. That’s not the case in Massachusetts. During the recent fiscal crisis, hundreds of local residents and officials testified against the opening of new charter schools. Many more testified against them than in favor. Despite the will of the voters, the BOE voted to open costly new charter schools, forcing districts to eliminate innovative and successful programs in their own schools. If the state wants to license a new school against the wishes of a local district, the state should pay for it.

3. Recent national studies have shown that average charter school performance is lagging. In addition, charter schools enroll far fewer special needs and students and English language learners than their sending districts.

The Bush administration’s U.S. Department of Education, a staunch supporter of charter schools, commissioned a national study which found that fourth graders in traditional public schools did significantly better in reading and math than comparable children attending charter schools. (“Study of Test Scores Finds Charter Schools Lagging,” Aug, 23, 2006, The New York Times) This was the second large-scale U.S. DOE study since 2004 to reach this conclusion.

The Massachusetts Department of Education subsequently released its own study which purported to show that charter schools often outperform public schools. Unlike the federal study, however, the state study did not compare similar students, but instead compared test scores of the sending districts to the charter schools, even though their populations are very different – an apples to oranges comparison. The Mass. DOE has acknowledged that charter schools enroll far fewer special needs students and English language learners than do the districts to which they are being compared.

4. The MTA supports Horace Mann charter schools since they provide districts with another opportunity to innovate without draining funds from the regular public schools.

They operate within the existing school system and don’t take limited resources away from the school budget.

They are staffed by licensed teachers. (Commonwealth charter school teachers do have to pass the teacher test but do not have to be licensed by the state or to have received training in effective teaching and classroom management strategies.)

They do not operate under the “for-profit” model. (Many Commonwealth charter schools are run by for-profit companies, meaning that some of our public tax dollars are going to shareholders rather than to direct services for children.)

They are accountable to the communities they serve because they must answer to the locally elected school committee.