Charter school issue to get a lot of attention in state

There are two very different sides to this issue. But no matter how you view charter schools, this issue comes down to money.

Essentially, no local funds (property taxes) would be used to fund these state charter schools; they would be funded totally by the state. But critics say that would take money away from traditional public schools.

Supporters of the charter school amendment say the measure is needed because so many traditional public schools are failing in the state. Although there are several variations of charter schools, in this format a charter school would be created by petition from local parents or other interested groups. Those charter schools are designed to have more administrative leeway than traditional public schools — less rules — by agreeing to meet high standards.

Supporters say that it’s unfair for students who live in an area where there are weak public schools to be locked into an underperforming school. Parents should have the choice of forming a charter school, they say, even if the local school board objects.

But opponents of the measure argue several points. First, they say there is already a way for parents to create a charter school by working through the local school boards. A number of charter schools in the state have already been created that way. Critics say that by giving the state the power to impose charter schools on a community, control over education is being taken away from local school boards and made a state function. In effect, the state would be creating a parallel public school system.

The biggest complaint, however, is that by having the state create charter schools and fund them with state money, there will be less money to fund traditional public schools. The pie of education funding is only so big critics point out, and if dollars are diverted by the state to charter schools the size of the pie shrinks, thus hurting all traditional schools.

This is a very divisive issue in the state. The governor strongly supports the constitutional amendment, but the state school superintendent opposes the measure. That has created a huge rift within the state’s leadership (all Republican) we’ve not seen before.

While money is the key issue in this debate, there are other concerns as well. Critics point out that many charter schools are run via management contracts with private education companies. They worry that these firms will take shortcuts in education in order to maximize profits and that these firms will have an undue lobbying influence in state government.

And critics also suggest that some charter schools are nothing more than a way to segregate students based on race or demographics. While charter schools have to take all students who apply if there is space, some charter schools in the state have become mostly segregated schools for white students in communities that are largely black.

But supporters of charter schools point to various studies they claim show charter schools outperform traditional public schools. And supporters dismiss the claim of state power over local school boards as being overblown. What is more local than parents, they ask?

Still, there is the issue of figuring out who is really accountable for the academic and financial performance of these schools. Without the oversight of a local school board, who would make sure these schools perform? Furthermore, who would make sure those state dollars are being spent as they should be by the private firms that operate charter schools?

Accountability is the really big issue in this proposed amendment. Parents who petition for a charter school will eventually fall away as their children graduate. Is the state really going to have to set up a new layer of bureaucracy to oversee charter schools around the state?

The idea of a “charter” school has a lot of cachet with voters. The idea of a parent-run school is popular among the state’s most conservative communities where criticism of traditional public schools is strong. And although these state sponsored charter schools are really public schools funded with public tax dollars, the word “charter” itself gives the impression that these are semi-private schools. They aren’t, but many voters look at charter schools in that light. (A recent study suggested that public charter schools get a large number of private school students because of that image.)

This is one of those issues where there are two sides arguing very different points. Both sides are passionate in their beliefs about what is best for education in the state and for many voters, figuring out who is right will be difficult. Both supporters and critics have valid points in their arguments.

In the coming weeks, voters will be hearing a lot from both sides as the November elections approach.

The best advice for voters studying this issue: Follow the money. In the end, everything in politics is about the money.

Mike Buffington is co-publisher of the Barrow Journal. He can be reached at mike@mainstreetnews.com.