An estimated 50 people, mostly from Arlington and Lexington, heard a discussion Tuesday, June 28, about keeping the number charter schools in the state as is.
The meeting in Lexington was organized by Save Our Public Schools, a community group that opposes increasing charters — the subject of a November ballot question.
Arlington’s School Committee member Paul Schlichtman, who moderated a panel, summed up his central point June 29: “In Town Meeting, we make appropriations as small as $100. Charter school payments, however, are taken out of our local-aid account without any vote of Town Meeting.
“We don’t vote to approve the charter school, we don’t get to have a say on how much we pay, we just get the money garnished out of our Chapter 70 allocation. The current law provides for a two tier system in which charter schools get more generous funding without any worries about state or local appropriations. Until we reform the funding of charter schools, we can’t afford to raise the cap.”
Discussing issues related to charters and the ballot question were Mary Ann Stewart, the parent representative on state Board of Education; Lexington School Committee member Alessandro Alessandrini and Malden parent Amanda Ceide.
A statewide referendum vote is due to take place Nov. 8, during the presidential and state elections. The ballot question asks to approve or reject as many as 12 new charter schools every year beyond the cap, with priority given to low-performing school districts.
Charter schools, available under the Education Reform Act of 1993, aim to be innovative and operate outside many union rules. They are funded by tuition payments from public school district as well as from state and federal money. State law caps the number of charters at 120; 85 operate in the state.
Ceide said her child was briefly at the Mystic Valley Regional Charter School in Malden. She said she had to take him out of school because of frequent suspensions and because services for his individual education plan were not provided.
This charter drew several comments and questions, including references to its Olympic-size swimming pool and rugby field, maintained while Malden public schools has cut critical programs.
Stewart, a former Lexington School Committee member, described the process that leads to the birth of charters. That includes, she said, the fact that the impact on local communities is not one of the factors the state board is legally bound to consider.
She also discussed some data about the conditions of charters, including the numbers up for renewal and process.
Alessandrini called the charter effort creating private schools with public money.
Among other points, charters:
• Generally do not take on the most difficult students, including English language learners special-education students;
• Suspend or otherwise harshly discipline students who they believe will not do well on testing;
• Will see no changes under the ballot question, but the cost of managing them will mean substantially more staffing at the state agency;
• Are inaccurately tracked, according to State Auditor Suzanne Bump, whose 2014 audit shows the lack of transparency and required data about charters, indicating the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is not doing its job.
Read the release about the audit here >>
Sept. 16, 2015: First charter school targets town, drawing school leaders’ opposition
N.Y. Times, June 29, 2016: A Sea of Charter Schools in Detroit Leaves Students Adrift
This announcement was published Tuesday, June 21, 2016, and updated June 29, to add a summary.
