Spend the money where it's needed most

by  Hugh Bailey

For all the well-deserved skepticism they attract, it would be pointless to deny that some Connecticut students are well-served by charter schools. The appeal is simple: Even if they can't help everyone, providing opportunity to at least some young people in need is worth doing.

It would be nice if it were that simple. It's not.

The question is not whether a system can be devised to help a small group in need. That's not all that hard. We could, for instance, pay to send a group of kids every year to school in some rich suburb down the coast. The question instead is whether a limited amount of money is being used to its most productive ends. Just as clearly, that is not happening. And here charter schools are part of the problem.

Proponents argue that their schools outperform host districts while spending less money. Every student in a disadvantaged district deserves a good education, and this is a step in that direction.

But the arguments don't hold up.

Straight comparisons are impossible because, despite pulling students from the same cities, they don't serve the same population. In Bridgeport, the numbers show that students in the traditional public school system are poorer, more likely to have learning disabilities and less likely to speak English than those in charters. A telling statistic is the number of different languages spoken in the homes of students who attend a particular school. At most charters, that number is two -- English and Spanish (and not uncommonly, the answer is one). At Cesar Batalla Elementary School in Bridgeport, just to take one example, the state-reported number is 20.

Twenty different languages at one elementary school. Try to imagine the resources required to teach with that as a starting point and it becomes clear why comparing per-pupil spending across institutions is almost meaningless. Then try to guess why standardized test scores might lag in those schools.

Per-pupil spending is high on the charter-school talking points. It's true that charter school students appear to receive less funding than they would in the regular public schools. However, host districts pick up transportation, special education and other costs. Then consider that the public schools are serving a needier population in almost every regard, and the per-pupil spending suddenly looks skewed in the other direction.

There's also the aspect that can't be ignored, and that's the national education reform movement, which often appears to be more about breaking unions and boosting profits than improving education. Connecticut advocates swear up and down those aren't the goals here. But the methods and language are the same as reformers around the country. Suspicions should be expected.

One of the best predictors of student achievement is wealth. The richer your parents, the better chance you have. But even in low-performing district there will still be a range of test scores. If some schools have students who are less poor, less likely to have learning disabilities and more likely to speak English as a first language, test scores will inevitably be higher. There's nothing magical about it.

Our public schools are segregated based on town lines and parental wherewithal. Any system that further separates the neediest from the rest can't be considered successful.

The governor last year pushed hard for and eventually signed a law that is very kind to charter schools. Now, with the budget situation deteriorating by the week, some of those funding gains have already been put off with further cuts possible.

A better idea would be to send that money where it's needed most -- struggling inner-city public schools of the noncharter variety.

Read more: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Hugh-Bailey-Spend-the-money-where-it-s-needed-4395579.php#ixzz2P3gfOXFp