Dear Neighbors:
Today is National Cancer Survivors Day, a reminder of the ravages of an illness that has touched too many people we know and love. We marked at the State House to promote the passage of Senate Bill No. 2032, which I introduced to require insurance coverage of diagnostic breast imaging without the imposition of out-of-pocket costs. In this week’s letter, I will discuss a debate we had in the Senate last week about a bill to impose a moratorium on the approval of new charter schools.
A. The Bill
This past Thursday, the Senate debated Senate Bill 2787 (as amended), which would, for a period of three years, pause the approval of new charter schools excepting those which had received final State approval but had not yet opened. The Senate debated the bill for more than an hour. Both sides made strong arguments, leaving me with one of my most difficult votes this session.
B. Arguments In Support Of The Moratorium
Supporters of the moratorium note that the original purpose of charter schools was to provide models and ideas to improve district schools. Over time, however, the growth of charters has created the equivalent of an alternative school system. Under the current funding formula, charter growth has reduced both state and local funding for district schools, even as certain fixed costs (facilities, administration, etc.) remain. The moratorium can open a window to review and enact changes to the funding formula, such as those proposed by the Rhode Island Foundation’s Blue Ribbon Commission, which were summarized in my February 8 letter. These changes would direct resources to school districts that have been affected most by the growth of charters, possibly providing a sustainable way for charters to grow without compromising the budgets of school districts.
C. Arguments Against The Moratorium
Opponents of the moratorium emphasize the value of parent choice, particularly in school districts with low levels of student achievement. In these communities, charters can provide parents with an option to increase their child’s chances of academic success. In recent years, charter school lotteries have been oversubscribed by an overall ratio of more than 10:1. Moratorium opponents argue it is not fair to parents and children in low-performing school districts to miss the chance to choose a higher performing school. Finally, the moratorium as proposed would freeze the application of a charter school that had received preliminary approval, raising issues of fairness and possibly a legal challenge. (On the other hand, that school is subject to a legal challenge based on its possible status as a “network charter school” and its failure to obtain written approval from its host communities.)
D. My Analysis
I accept the premise that charter schools began to test new ideas and methods for our district schools. I believe our current funding system lacks the capacity to support both traditional school districts and a large array of charters; instead, the current system has caused hardships in school districts (including Providence). On the other hand, I am concerned that our school districts (including Providence) have not taken the opportunity to learn and improve from best practices in charters as intended, and continue to provide students with tragically inadequate outcomes.
Earlier this year, I introduced legislation to bring “shared accountability” reforms to the Providence Public Schools based upon the national best practices developed in the Senate Study Commission as described in my May 17 letter. The Commission described the reforms as a program of “shared accountability.” Unfortunately, Providence educators fiercely opposed the legislation in favor of the seniority-based current regime, which works well in industrial labor settings, but less so in professional ones in which educators should be rewarded for quality performance, and be held accountable for substandard work. Adequate resources and clear accountability are both necessary, and neither is sufficient.
E. Conclusion
When it came time to vote, I concluded the bill’s positive features outweighed its shortcomings. With that said, I believe it is essential during any moratorium period not only to resolve funding issues, but also to increase the effectiveness and accountability of the Providence Public Schools and the educators who work within them. I would like to see our discussion about resources be joined with one about reforms to support strong professional standards and improved student outcomes. I cast a difficult vote in favor of the moratorium based on this hope for the future.