It’s unlikely to change many minds because, like who won the presidential debate, facts mean little when it comes to perception and opinion.
But a new study by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation could give pause to those opposed to lifting the cap on charter schools based on the argument it hits traditional school districts in the area it most hurts – the budget.
According to the report, which was handed solely to the Boston Globe and was not available on the group’s website early Wednesday, the bottom line is simple and telling: 3.9 percent of the state’s public school students attend charters and charter schools account for 3.9 percent of state spending on education.
“While people can disagree, certainly, on the educational merits of charter schools, the data doesn’t show that charter schools have taken funding away from traditional public school districts in any way that’s disproportionate to the charter school attendance,” Eileen McAnneny, president of Massachusetts Taxpayers, told the Globe.
Certainly, it gets a little more complicated than that. Critics of the ballot question to lift the cap say districts struggle because money follows the students when they leave to go to charter schools, putting a hole in budgets that still have to support salaries and maintenance. But the study shows per-pupil spending at both charters and traditional school districts – both deemed public schools – have risen roughly the same over the past five years.
The report, though, does not say how traditional districts have been able to maintain the spending levels. A study by the watchdog Boston Municipal Research Bureau earlier this year showed the city diverted money from other departments to bolster school spending.
There are some spending disparities among districts most affected by charter growth. The taxpayers foundation study looked at eight of the state’s districts that comprise three-quarters of the growth in charter school enrollment over the last five years. Overall, the group found charter school spending increased by 11.8 percent while per-pupil spending in traditional districts rose 10.1 percent. But while Boston, for instance, had a slight difference (19.2 percent increase for charters vs. 18 percent for district schools), Springfield saw a yawning gap (12.3 percent increase for charters vs. 5.8 percent for district schools).
But no matter the numbers, it’s doubtful it will sway any of the partisans. The study, for instance, cites Marlborough, the home of the Advanced Math and Science Academy Charter School, as a typical district where charter school spending increased by 13.3 percent while the city’s school budget went up by nearly 26 percent.
But the Marlborough School Committee approved a resolution opposing Question 2, citing the argument of teachers’ unions and districts around the state that charter schools drained $450 million from traditional districts last year. That argument, though, fails to incorporate the money the state sends back to districts that lose students through a complicated reimbursement formula.
Marlborough Mayor Arthur Vigeant, chairman of the school committee, refused to sign the resolution.
“It is false that charter schools deprive district schools of funding; since [the math and science charter school] opened its door, state tax dollars make up a greater portion of Marlborough’s school budget than it did previously,” Vigeant said.
It is one more log on the fire.
JACK SULLIVAN
BEACON HILL
Gov. Charlie Baker signs legislation designating Billerica as the “Yankee Doodle Town.” (Lowell Sun)
MUNICIPAL MATTERS
Boston unveils its new Boston Planning & Development Agency, which replaces the often-reviled Boston Redevelopment Authority. (Boston Globe) A group of community activists, led by Boston icon and one-time mayoral finalist Mel King, issue a letter condemning the change and call for elected, neighborhood boards to have oversight of development and planning decisions. (Dorchester Reporter)
The Lowell City Council approves raises for its members and members of the school committee. (Lowell Sun)
Local lawmakers want the main branch of the Brockton Public Library to be named after the late state senator Thomas Kennedy, but the head of the board of trustees says “naming opportunities” at the library usually come with monetary donations. (The Enterprise)
Boston Mayor Marty Walsh could get called to testify in a lawsuit involving the failed IndyCar race, which could surface unpleasant details of one of his first-term fiascos, says Joe Battenfeld. (Boston Herald)
A report details how the tax collector in Hubbardston manipulated accounts to steal more than $500,000. (Telegram & Gazette)
Marshfield officials say residents are illegally putting their own stairs up on the newly built $2.7 million seawall despite seven sets of concrete stairs along the structure. (Patriot Ledger)
The Boston City Council may put a bullseye on the city’s exploding (in more than one way) population of Canada geese. (Boston Globe)
Andover is looking for its own poet laureate. (Eagle-Tribune)
WASHINGTON/NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL
The stalled federal budget may be on the move again as House Republicans go along with Democrats pressing for aid to Flint, Michigan. (Governing)
ELECTIONS
Hillary Clinton tries to ride the wave of her winning debate performance to regain momentum in the presidential race. (Boston Globe)
How big league has Trump stepped in it? Even the Herald’s Adriana Cohen thinks he just might want to lay off the “Miss Piggy” references and renewed discussion of former Miss Universe Alicia Machado’s weight. Meanwhile, the Herald editorial page wasn’t too impressed either by what it saw from Trump on Monday night — and in his post-debate spin, headlining its editorial “Whiner vs. wonk.”
The Arizona Republic editorial board, saying Donald Trump is neither conservative nor qualified, endorses Hillary Clinton, the first Democrat the paper has ever endorsed.
Scientific polls suggest voters think Hillary Clinton prevailed in her debate with Donald Trump. (WBUR) Gov. Charlie Baker and Lt. Gov. Karyn Polito both say neither Clinton nor Trump won the debate. (Telegram & Gazette) A Lowell Sun editorial calls the presidential debate a lost opportunity for Trump, but says he can build on his performance. A Berkshire Eagle editorial says Trump’s stance on climate change is a disqualifier.
With the presidential race tightening over the last month, New Hampshire is emerging as a potential key state in the Electoral College sweepstakes. (Boston Globe)
House Speaker Robert DeLeo, campaigning in Worcester for Rep. Daniel Donahue, says he won’t release an ethics report on Donahue’s rival, former representative John Fresolo. (Telegram & Gazette)
How meaningless are opt-in online polls? The margin of error is plus or minus 100.
Gov. Charlie Baker’s toughest foe in a hypothetical 2018 match-up? Joe Kennedy III, according to the recent UMass/WBZ poll. (Boston Globe)
BUSINESS/ECONOMY
A proposed park in place of its current IMAX cinema could help broker a compromise between the New England Aquarium and developer Don Chiofaro over his proposed development project. (Boston Globe) Take the deal, Don, says Shirley Leung. (Boston Globe)
EDUCATION
The University of Massachusetts plans to spend $2.5 billion on capital projects across its five campuses over the next five years. (Boston Herald)
Jack Schneider proposes a more holistic approach to evaluating the performance of schools. (CommonWealth)
The state appears poised to pull back from plans to have student test scores figure prominently in the evaluation of teachers. (Boston Globe)
The Framingham School Committee revealed it voted in May not to renew the contract of Superintendent Stacy Scott, who is on leave. The committee gave no reason for the decision. (MetroWest Daily News)
The Boston Globe Magazine talks to a district and charter teacher about Question 2 and the pros and cons of charter schools. (Boston Globe)
HEALTH/HEALTH CARE
The state Health Policy Commission warns that health care costs are likely to rise if Boston Children’s Hospital goes ahead with a planned $1 billion expansion. (Boston Globe) The commission raised its concerns in a letter to the the Department of Public Health, which must rule on the hospital expansion. (State House News)
TRANSPORTATION
While a third bridge going to the Cape still looms as a possibility, officials from the Cape Cod Canal Transportation Study group will discuss two new — and cheaper — alternatives to alleviate traffic. (Cape Cod Times)
ENERGY/ENVIRONMENT
The owners of the Pilgrim nuclear power plant are bracing for a comprehensive inspection by officials from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to determine the struggling plant’s safety and ability to maintain operations. (Cape Cod Times)
CASINOS
A federal judge has ruled in favor of the Mashpee Wampanoag, allowing the tribe to be a party in the suit brought by East Taunton residents trying to block the planned casino. (Cape Cod Times)
CRIMINAL JUSTICE/COURTS
Investigators are looking closer at the case of the 22-year-old Vermont man found floating at sea 100 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard who says his mother didn’t make it into the lifeboat after their fishing vessel sank. He was once a suspect in his grandfather’s still-unsolved 2013 murder. (Boston Herald)
A 46-year-old Canton man who, as a teen in 1986, lured a classmate into the woods and beat him to death with a baseball bat because he wanted to see how it felt to kill someone, was denied parole. (Patriot Ledger)
MEDIA
Google Docs played a key role in NPR’s real-time fact-checking on the debate. (Nieman Journalism Lab)
PASSINGS
Former Israeli prime minister and president Shimon Peres, the last connection to the country’s generation of founding leaders, died Wednesday at age 93. (Haaretz)
“A new study by the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation” but the link is to a Boston Globe article with no link to the “study.” Go on the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s website and the “study” is no where to be found.” How come? Then the public would be able to take a closer look at the “charter school math” and find it doesn’t add up? At least CommonWealth acknowledged the report was still unavailable to the public and provided only to The Boston Globe.
Guess who funded the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s charter schools funding “report.” At the very bottom of the first page is: “This report was made possible by a grant from The Boston Foundation.” No kidding. The pro-charter schools The Boston Foundation financed this “report.” The Boston Globe’s reporter failed to mention that one little fact. VOTE NO on Question 2.
Here’s another pro-charter school report commissioned by pro-charter schools The Boston Foundation, “Charter School Demand and Effectiveness: A Boston Update.” It was done by a “team of researchers from MIT’s School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative” with financial assistance from the pro-charter schools NewSchools Venture Fund. The Boston Foundation report was a joke. It didn’t look at charter schools forced to close during the period studied for being “poor academic performers” and other charter schools that “failed to provide adequate records” for the analysis. So how valid were the results if underperforming charter schools and some self-excluded charters weren’t included? VOTE NO on Question 2.
In other words, The Boston Foundation is behind some of the most ridiculous reports cheerleading charter schools, downplaying their impact on public schools’ financial stability and receiving incredible amounts of publicity. This new report from the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is no exception. Here’s another one, “The True Cost of Boston’s Charter Schools,” from the Boston Municipal Research Bureau. The public deserves to know who’s financing these charter schools reports. There’s a pro-charter schools agenda with The Boston Foundation. VOTE NO on Question 2.
OK. All I did was take a brief…very brief look at the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s charter schools funding “study,” find out it was financed by a grant from The Boston Foundation…a pro-charter schools “study” funding machine, and then I came across on page 2: “Foundation Budget (Chapter 70) – the State’s Education Funding Formula: The education formula the state uses to establish spending requirements by district is often called the Chapter 70 formula…refers to the chapter of Massachusetts General Laws that laid out the funding formula included in the state’s 1993 comprehensive education reform law…the basic tenets of Chapter 70 have remained the same: To ensure an appropriate level of education spending for all students in the state; and To determine a fair and predictable way for the state and municipal government to share these education costs. The extent to which the Chapter 70 formula has achieved these goals is subject to debate…” Guess what the “debate” is? There is no “debate.”
The Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s charter schools funding “study” tries to pretend there’s a “debate” on the state’s Foundation Budget when in fact, a report released one year ago determined the state’s public education funding falls more than $1 billion short. That report was issued by the Foundation Budget Review Commission as required by the 1993 Education Reform Act. That’s the law charter school proponents always point to when it comes to charter schools but totally ignore the funding components to local school districts. Fun fact, I used “Find” to see if the Foundation Budget Review Commission was even mentioned in this report and it wasn’t…not once. So local public school districts are underfunded by the state by more than $1 billion then charter schools come along draining funds from those already underfunded school districts and the “study” doesn’t even acknowledge the first fact while going through incredible lengths to prove the second fact isn’t a fact. VOTE NO on Question 2.
The Foundation Budget Review Commission was set up as required by the 1993 Education Reform Act to “determine the educational programs and services necessary to achieve the commonwealth’s educational goals” and to “review the way foundation budgets are calculated and to make recommendations for potential changes in those calculations as the commission deems appropriate.” But the state legislature didn’t appropriate any money or assign any staff for the Commission to carry out its tasks. Even so, the Commission identified three areas in need of immediate funding: English language learners, low income, and special education. Also, identified as a priority is high-quality preschool as an effective practice that increases the school readiness of students, “especially high need students.” How about the state legislature do its job and address the funding shortfall in those areas? VOTE NO on Question 2.
“The bottom line is simple and telling: 3.9 percent of the state’s public school students attend charters and charter schools account for 3.9 percent of state spending on education.” Exactly how “simple and telling” is that 3.9 percent? In general charter schools student demographics are not reflective of the sending districts. Charter schools end up receiving lower cost students while receiving a check from taxpayers as though those students represented the average student in the sending district. That’s one of the biggest issues facing public schools districts. Charter schools have a lower population of higher cost students and leave the public schools districts with more higher cost students but less money. How come there isn’t an independent analysis explaining that “simple and telling fact?” Because then a real fact on charter schools impact on local public school districts would break through the pro-charter fog The Boston Foundation creates with all its crazy pro-charter schools studies? VOTE NO on Question 2.
I just read the Boston Herald’s article, “Question 2 ‘misconception’ Report: ‘No Evidence’ charters take away public funds,” that didn’t mention pro-charter schools The Boston Foundation as the puppet master behind the report…the nonprofit that financed the report with a “grant.” What are the chances The Boston Globe, CommonWealth Magazine and the Boston Herald all didn’t acknowledge where the money came from to produce the report? Especially since The Boston Foundation is known for commissioning and/or financing pro-charter schools studies and reports that ignore facts, cherry pick facts and come up with such a narrow focus pro-charter schools results are assured. VOTE NO on Question 2.
From what I can see, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation’s report doesn’t name who actually prepared the report…no researcher was listed. The MTF spends a lot of energy describing itself on page one: “widely recognized,” “state’s premier public policy organization,” “record of high quality award winning research and non-partisan analysis,” “broad credibility,” and “provide accurate, unbiased research with balanced, thoughtful recommendations.” Wouldn’t you like to know who actually did this report? Someone with a PhD or simply an undergraduate student? And usually The Boston Foundation has its name plastered all over the cover of the reports it commissions and finances but that’s not the case here. It I hadn’t been carefully going through the report then I would have missed: “This report was made possible by a grant from The Boston Foundation.” But that should have said “This pro-charter schools report was made possible by a grant from pro-charter schools The Boston Foundation.” VOTE NO on Question 2.