Massachusetts has a handful of charter schools, but most poor people have to send their kids to whatever school the local government chooses to supply them. Rich people here get to choose a school, of course. A ballot question would gradually raise the cap on charter schools, enabling some additional poor families to behave like the rich.
If you haven’t seen a unionized schoolteacher working past 2:50 pm you haven’t been to Massachusetts lately. Public school teachers, whose total compensation is at least double the market-clearing wage (as demonstrated by what private and charter schools pay), turn out to various evening events educating citizens regarding the damage that will be inflicted on their children if more charter schools are allowed. See saveourpublicschoolsma.com:
In 2017, charter schools will siphon off more than $450 million in funds that would otherwise stay in public schools. if Question 2 passes, that amount can increase by $100 million a year.
[the site notes that “Save Our Public Schools is a grassroots organization of families, parents, educators and students” but I have never seen anyone other that a union schoolteacher working at one of the events]
Most voters send their children to government-run schools. Most voters live in towns where government-run schools are, in fact, the only option for families that can’t afford, or don’t want to afford, a private school. The unionized teachers fighting this measure stick to one message: when a child switches to a charter school, the local public school will receive less funding and this lack of funding will result in a lower quality education for your children. The evening events explain the complex way in which even a district with no charter schools available might receive less money from the state.
I’ll be interested to see what happens, but if this works I think it will be the blueprint for the rest of the country. As long as the majority of kids are in public school, unionized teachers need only say “public school kids will do worse due to having less funding” and any initiative relating to charter schools will die.
From my (rich and charter school-free) suburb’s mailing list:
The Happy Valley Committee has weighed in with a clear and convincing argument for why we should vote “No on Question 2”. I will certainly follow their lead- voting no on 2!
———————————————
I am no fan of the “Common Core” Curriculum, and feel that we have yet to develop adequate reforms to ensure our schools remain competitive and beneficial, especially for students who are less privileged (by virtue of economics, race, native language, etc).
That being said, I agree with the School Committee: Question #2, if passed, would pull money away from our public schools and there would be a worrisome lack of accountability for the use of that money. This is deeply concerning.
As I see it; Question #2, even though well-intended, is not a recipe for reform but an abandonment of our responsibility to ensure that everyone has an equal opportunity for a good education.
So, I will be voting “No” on Question #2.
[In other words, the “reform” process started 50+ years ago needs a little more time. Maybe we will catch up to the world leaders if we save the budget from predation by charter schools, except that our suburb has never had one!]
——————————
I too am voting no. I understand and agree that children need the best possible education. I am a former teacher.
If #2 had come with funding it would be a different story. But I cannot vote for charter schools that decrease the overall budget for inner city public schools (schools that already are suffering from inadequate budgets) in order to allow for more charter schools.
I volunteer in a class in a public school in Roxbury that has awesome teachers and interested students and definitely needs more resources.
[She’s writing about the Boston Public Schools, which the U.S. Census Bureau says has the highest per-pupil spending of any large school district in the U.S. (and therefore perhaps the highest in the world?). Note that the headline $20,502/student number for 2013 doesn’t include capital expenses such as actually building schools.]
The [officials who run a high school jointly with another town] Committee also voted unanimously in early October to oppose question 2 after a long, good discussion about equity and finances.
The Committee concluded that while the concept of Charters was not necessarily at issue, the funding, fundamental lack of local control over the governance of MA Charters, selective nature for admission and retention of students, and impact of outside (out-of-state) corporate interests in this campaign were all of great concern.
[Charter schools in Massachusetts are regulated by the state, apparently, so a local committee like this would lose influence.]
Voting “no” on that question would leave the funding with the public schools, for newer equipment, more supplies, and fewer children per classroom. Opportunity to provide more attention to a struggling or special needs child, as well as to provide supplemental and thought provoking materials for the curious child. Let’s work to improve the neighborhood schools so every child can receive a good education, with the proper $$ and materials available to the teachers.
[I.e., if we work together we can reverse the 50-year process that left us where we are today.]
I do have to admire the optimism of the Millionaires for Obama regarding this issue. If the world’s most lavishly funded government hasn’t accomplished something after 50 or 100 years then surely it hasn’t been given a fair chance.
Full post, including comments 
