As Yogi Berra once said: “You can observe a lot, just by watching.” I’ve been a reporter for 30 years, and have covered nearly every kind of story – except for education.
Now that I am doing some writing and editing for the Ohio Education Gadfly, I’ll be looking at education a lot.
There is an old bit of journalism advice that says, to find a story, follow the money.
Looking over the intense debate about funding charter schools, here is what I found.
Beleaguered charter operators in Ohio must sometimes feel as if they are being attacked on all sides. In many cases, they are.
The latest assault comes from critics who charge that charter schools are taking state money away from traditional district schools and making them more, not less, reliant on local property taxes. (See “Schools lose state funds”.) This is a clever ploy in a state where the Ohio Supreme Court has ordered legislators, on four separate occasions, to be less dependent on local taxes in order to reduce funding inequities between the state’s rich and poor districts. It also may be a strong emotional argument for the state’s large urban school districts which are seeing a decline in both their local property values and home ownership rates. They are witness to a declining tax-base at a time when they are seeing increases in insurance costs for employees, rising fuel costs for transportation of students, and escalating costs in employee benefits.
No doubt some urban districts are hurting and calls for new levies are doubtless just around the corner, but the argument that charter schools are the cause of their pain just doesn’t happen to have any merit.
It is true that, when a student abandons his or her low-performing neighborhood school and chooses a charter school instead, the child’s state and some of the federal money walks out the door, too. But the traditional school no longer has to educate that student. Hence, per-pupil funding, the way the state primarily figures a child’s best chance at a good education, actually goes up in the district that the child exited. District money stays in the district when a child goes to a charter school. That’s not good for charter schools but it’s financially advantageous to districts—and they know it, which is part of the reason they fight so hard to keep the charters on short rations. Still, it’s a fact that few people in Ohio fully appreciate. When children attend a charter school, the district keeps the non-state money that local taxpayers pay for their education.
As a result of local dollars staying in district coffers, charter schools educate students at a lower per-pupil rate than do traditional schools, and districts have more per pupil funding for the children who stay behind. Charter schools are public schools doing the public’s business, while providing a choice that many parents clearly want. Good charter schools also see themselves as the R&D department of the education business, but right now it is research on a shoestring.
Charters receive no state money for facilities, are limited in their growth and must fight off legal challenges to their very existence. Charters have a distance still to go in meeting state and federal testing standards, but at the same time many are exploring creative approaches, such as conducting schooling on-line, focusing directly on more science and math, and dealing with some of the state’s most ill-prepared students.
For these reasons, they need more economic parity, not less, and this is a mantra that too few hear or share.
Give parents a chance to make a fair choice, because as Yogi also said, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll wind up someplace else.”
For extra credit, check out the following:
State ex rel. Ohio Congress of Parents & Teachers v. State Bd. of Edn. (2004)