For more than 15 years, since charter public schools first opened, district angst has been focused on money.
Under intense lobbying by districts, school committees and others, several governors, legislative leaders, and independent groups have studied alternative ways to fund charters. But, they have all reached the same conclusion: the current formula is the most equitable.
Simply put, funds are reallocated because districts are no longer responsible for educating children who switch to charters. And the state provides transitional financial assistance to districts for six years after funds are reallocated — giving districts more than double their money back over that period.
The Gloucester School Committee's proposal to change the charter funding formula would create a separate and unequal way to fund charters.
Right now, charter funding is tied to how much districts receive from the state through the local school aid (Chapter 70) formula — putting both types of public schools on equal footing. If Chapter 70 funding is cut, the impact is the same for districts and charters.
Separating charters into a their own line item in the state budget makes them sitting ducks for budget shenanigans by charter opponents. One reason the original legislation tied district and charter funding together was to prevent opponents from choking off charter funding.
Since the charter formula is so complicated, it leads many to believe it is unfair to districts. But a recent analysis by Ball State University showed that charters do not even get a dollar-for-dollar amount from districts. Rather, charters currently receive a portion of what districts actually spend on children in their schools.
Facilities are another inequity. Charters are not eligible for the same generous state assistance to finance their facilities that districts receive from the Massachusetts School Building Authority. Rather, charters must seek private financing from banks and other financial institutions, then pay the "mortgages" out of the operating funds they receive.
For districts to cry foul is unjustified. In Gloucester last year, the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School cost the district nothing. Every dollar GCA received was reimbursed by the state — even though the district educated fewer students.
The city will continue to receive reimbursements for GCA's first class of fifth graders until they reach the 10th grade. That's akin to having a family continue to pay Gloucester property taxes six years after they've moved to Salem. It's the most generous reimbursement program in the country, and something districts neglect to mention when arguing about charter financing.
The School Committee's recent actions are just the latest salvos in a tired effort to prevent parents from choosing where to educate their children.
In addition to the funding resolution, the committee voted to prohibit charter school students from participating in any citywide after-school programs — in effect punishing Gloucester children who attend the charter school.
The committee keeps moving Gloucester in the wrong direction. Come fall, close to 200 children will attend the Gloucester Community Arts Charter School. These children live in the community, their parents pay taxes, and they should have the option of attending the public school of their choice.
The efforts by charter opponents to wage a war already lost should end. Instead a spirit of cooperation should begin — which other districts have found to be advantageous for all public schoolchildren.
Marc Kenen is executive director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association.
