Joseph Rogan: Charter schools not performing as planned in Pennsylvania; should we scrap them?
The Pennsylvania House of Representatives recently voted to “improve” charter schools. House Bill 530 requires academic performance measures and expects charter schools to implement truancy regulations. It also reduces lunch money payments by $27 million since cyber charter schools do not provide lunches.
Gov. Tom Wolf moved in a different direction. He axed the Philadelphia School Reform Commission chairman who approved new charters and installed a commissioner who opposed them. He proposed changes that would save districts $162 million, primarily by establishing a $5,950 base tuition rate, eliminating double-dipping that allowed charter schools to receive reimbursements for pension costs already funded by districts, partially resuming the state’s tuition reimbursements to districts, requiring annual audits and requiring charter schools to return money they do not spend on students.
Taken together, the Keystone Alliance for Public Charter Schools says the governor’s budget would “shut down charter schools across Pennsylvania.”
Since the House and the governor seem to be heading in opposite directions, maybe this is a good time to wonder whether and why we need charter schools at all.
In 1988, the American Federation of Teachers proposed charter schools to serve as “educational laboratories” to discover better teaching methods. Charter schools have had plenty of time, but have not developed new approaches to improve education. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools only lists methods commonly used in Traditional Public Schools (TPSs).
Innovation in teaching has been replaced by top-heavy management and anti-union sentiments that result in fewer job protections which silence teachers’ voices and cause high staff turnover. Instead of fostering collaboration, they have aggravated the antipathy toward TPSs.
In part, America’s greatness is due to our system of universal public education that is under attack today. The goal of the Independence Hall Tea Party Association, for example, is to “shut down public schools.” Instead of accepting responsibility to educate all children, it wants to educate only some.
School choice was based on the assumption that competitive market forces – including allowing parents to make decisions – will solve problems. Real choice has been reduced as private schools have closed or became too expensive. For anti-government types, charter schools are the next best thing. Privately operated, they are free from most of the rules and regulations that control TPSs, but are fully funded by their students’ districts. In Pennsylvania, 119,465 students attend charter schools: 84,373 in traditional schoolhouses and 35,092 in cyber schools. In 2012-13, they cost districts about $1.3 billion, according to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association.
Many districts are tasked with educating economically disadvantaged students, which creates serious challenges to understaffed and underfunded schools. For example, 80 percent of the students in our state’s largest district come from poverty – twice the state’s average. In 2012-13, Philadelphia spent $14,361 per pupil – a lot of money – but still $256 below the state’s average. Instead of helping Philadelphia, our previous governor cut more than $1,300 per student. Starving Philadelphia created deficits that necessitated program cuts, layoffs and increased class sizes. Not surprisingly, families moved their children. Now, more than 30 percent of the district’s budget – $750 million – is earmarked annually for charter schools.
Paying for charter schools requires that we take money from underfinanced districts, like Philadelphia. Moody’s Investors Service noted that charter schools even negatively affect districts’ credit ratings. Such financial problems put the ability of districts to provide quality universal public education in peril. This outcome begs the question: If we are having problems funding one system of public education, why do we think we can fund two?
Public schools accept all students, while many charter schools do not. The Washington Post reported that some use admission barriers, and therefore serve far fewer students with disabilities. In the 2013 national charter school study, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that 13 percent of TPS students in the nation are special education students, but charters only served 8 percent.
Furthermore, a 2014 analysis by The Notebook, a media outlet that covers education, found that Pennsylvania charter schools received $350 million for special education students, but spent only $156 million – a fact underscored by the U.S. Government Accounting Office. The National Center for Special Education in Charter Schools suggests the discrepancy undermines the sector’s overall credibility. Additionally, Public Citizens for Children and Youth reported that across the nation charter schools have fewer minority, low-income and English-as-a-second-language learners on their rosters.
Charter schools also expel students at a far higher rate. In the nation’s capital, for example, charter schools expelled 30 times more students than TPS schools over a three-year period. Furthermore, when a TPS school expels a student, it must still provide that student with an education – often at a higher cost. Charters can just move on.
Just as there are good TPSs, there are also good charter schools. On average, though, are charter schools better than traditional public schools? Since the 2009 CREDO report, charters have improved mainly because low-scoring schools closed and were removed from calibrations. If they were still operating, there would have been no gains. Joseph Rogan: Charter schools not performing as planned in Pennsylvania; should we scrap them? - Times Leader - timesleader.com:
