By Peter Demling

In Part 1 of this series, I looked at how a budget crisis caused by a systemic shortfall in state aid to public schools is being made worse by a fundamentally flawed charter school funding law, especially for school districts with low or declining enrollment.

<<Here’s a recap of the main points (click to unfold).>>

~ Many public school districts in our state are facing a protracted budget crisis where costs are rising at a faster rate than funding, primarily caused by a steady decrease over the years in the percent of funding provided by the state.

~ This crisis is especially acute in places with low or declining enrollment known as “minimum aid” or “hold harmless” communities, which are supposed to get a minimum amount of state aid to “hold them harmless” from expense increases; but in practice doesn’t come close to covering inflation.

~ When cities and towns are unable to make up for this shortfall through local business or property taxes they have no choice but to cut school budgets and other services, causing increasingly hostile levels of conflict between local governments, school committees and teachers unions.

~ The charter school funding law worsens this already difficult situation by charging public schools much more than they save when students attend charters, setting the annual cost per student at “the school’s budget divided by its number of students.”

~ But public schools are economies of scale that don’t realize per-pupil discount savings on expenses for each student that leaves. “Your savings is your budget divided by your enrollment” is the fundamentally flawed assumption in the design of the charter school funding law.

~ And public schools must pay this cost for any charter school student living in their district – even if the student never attended the public school in the first place and there are no “savings” to realize.

~ Last year the median charge for each charter student (the assumed savings for the public school) was $18,000. By contrast, the increase in state “minimum aid” to “hold harmless” communities for each additional student (the assumed cost) was $102.

~ This disparity in assumed savings of the charter law on the one hand, vs what minimum aid covers on the other, is difficult to overstate. When you subtract a student you lose $18,000; when you add a student you get $102. This is an imbalance in need of correction.

~ The charge to Amherst and Amherst-Pelham is currently $3.3M, or about 6% of the total budget. For “hold harmless” communities like Amherst, reforming charter school funding to even a mild degree is probably the most helpful thing we could do to improve the long-term health of our public schools.

In this Part 2, I’ll suggest what specifically can be done to improve this law, and share why I think a new approach is needed to help bring about these changes.

1. The “What” Is Easy
2. The “How” Is Hard
3. Be Simple; Be Practical; Be United
4. Taking Action

The “What” Is Easy

There is no shortage of simple and straightforward ways to improve this law. Here are my top six suggestions: 

ONE: Put a temporary pause on approving new charters and charter expansions until reasonable reform is achieved (e.g. until the State House and Senate pass a joint resolution stating so). Correcting the known imbalance before expanding further seems like a  reasonable place to start.

TWO: Reduce the cost percentage borne by public schools from 100% of “per-pupil net school spending” (total budget divided by number of students) – and don’t get hung up on the exact value to target. Not being able to objectively derive an optimally fair value with absolute precision doesn’t change the fact that 100% is far too high.

As evidenced by the active participation of “hold harmless” districts in the “school choice” program (see Part 1), the average cost to add one student (or the amount saved when subtracting one student) is at most $5K. The median state charter cost is $18K, so the portion borne by public schools should be no more than 28% ($5K / $18K).

However, given how far out of balance 100% currently is, any reduction in this value, even if still clearly inequitable, would bring meaningful and welcome relief to public schools.

THREE: Shift two-thirds of the cost from the public school to two new state budget lines. So, the funding split becomes:

1. One-third borne by the public school
2. One-third by the state, guaranteed
3. One-third by the state, subject to appropriation

Hold harmless school districts (and their state reps) expend significant time and energy every year advocating for state budget lines that are “subject to appropriation” (promised by law, but funding not guaranteed). This would ask charters to do the same for part of their funding.

A common objection to suggesting that the state pay a percent of charter tuition directly is that the state can’t afford to do so. State budget constraints are systemic and real, so I’m sympathetic to this concern.

However the solution can’t be to maintain a status quo that has public schools bearing such a clear and large cost/savings imbalance. The charter “reimbursement” line can be repurposed to seed the new lines. Then the state can decide, weighed in the balance of annual budget priorities, the degree to which it can appropriate the final 1/3rd.

FOUR: Do not charge public schools if the charter student never attended the public school; fund instead with state budget lines. This acknowledges that public schools do not realize any savings at all for charter students who happen to live in the area, but never attended their local public school.

FIVE: Remove the cost of items that charters don’t provide when calculating “per-student net school spending.” This would include things such as Preschool, intensive special education programs and the tuition and transportation for out-of-district placements.

SIX: Reduce the maximum percentage of a school’s budget that can go to charters (currently at 9%, and 18% for districts with the lowest MCAS scores). 

And there are further options. The take-home is that it’s easy to see multiple ways to make the law more equitable for public schools. So what’s the problem?

The “How” Is Hard

In my view the main obstacle to reforming charter school funding is political inertia at the state level, reinforced by years of rhetoric that’s emphasized existential fights of ideology over practical efforts to improve the fairness of the funding law.

This fight reached a fever pitch in 2016 with a ballot question that would have greatly expanded the rate of charter school expansion in the state. It was well-funded, supported by Democrats and Republicans alike and the polls said it would pass. But school committees, teachers unions and residents united together in a grass-roots coalition, and in a surprising outcome soundly defeated it. 

Attempts to reform charter funding stagnated in the wake of the divisions created by that fight. Change proposals became toxic non-starters, and today the most common refrain from state reps is that it’s “too hard to figure out”, “there’s no appetite for it” and “it’s a political third-rail.”

I think this is habituated thinking that needs to be reset with prioritized intention. It’s never going to be easy. And while the best political path forward remains unclear, the essential first step to breaking the inertia is getting a critical mass of state reps to commit to making this a priority. 

So how do we make that happen?

Be Simple; Be Practical; Be United

I think the best way to achieve this is through a persistent and widespread call to state reps that’s simple, practical and united.

Simple because we don’t have the visibility into or experience with the state law-making process to know which specific changes are the most politically viable. There are many options to choose from; let state reps determine which have the best chance of success. Call on reps to prioritize reform, then let them get to work. 

Practical because the typical rhetoric opposing charter schools has been one of combative vilification, prosecuting the philosophical case against their continued existence. It has largely been a fire and brimstone fight, focused on the harmful ways in which some charters operate and their role in the national movement to privatize public schools.

But after years of fighting on these ideological grounds, the funding law is exactly the same. “Anti charter” rhetoric triggers “pro charter” defensive reactions, and nothing changes. It’s been an ineffective strategy. Better to focus on communicating the shortcomings of the funding law, appealing to a sense of practical fairness that state reps are more likely to be receptive to.

And United because when groups that don’t normally cooperate are speaking with one voice, it is powerful persuasion. With budget shortfalls increasing every year, conflict between local governments, school committees and teachers unions has grown increasingly hostile in communities statewide, with feelings that groups do not value or understand each other. This energy can be redirected in a more productive and unified direction.

Taking Action

Putting it all together, here are suggestions for specific actions we can each take starting right now, depending on our roles:

RESIDENTS: e-mail your state reps and ask them to make charter school funding a top priority. Don’t be one-and-done: repeat the request if you see them in-person, and keep on asking until reform is achieved. Be persistent, set calendar reminders, play the long game. And ask friends and family to do the same.

Your reps may say they’re already supportive, and that’s great. In Amherst we’re very fortunate to have strong and passionate leaders in Senator Jo Comerford and Representative Mindy Domb who have both been speaking out on the need to reform charter funding since before they took office.

But all state reps have an overflowing plate of concerns and responsibilities, with many other worthwhile causes demanding their attention. It’s our job then to make sure they hear a persistent and united call for them to personally make this a primary focus of their legislative efforts now.

LOCAL OFFICIALS: those serving in town government, school committees and teachers unions can amplify this call with a united declaration. A joint public meeting on a shared resolution to prioritize funding reform (short and simple so it can be broadly shared and understood), inviting state reps to participate, would attract press attention and make a lasting impression on those reps.

Reaching out to officials in other communities to do the same is just as important for generating the critical mass of motivated state reps needed to push things forward. State reps are most influenced by the people they represent. So this leverages the network effect to activate their constituencies to join the united call for change.

STATE REPS: start by understanding the cost/savings imbalance problem caused by the charter funding law (summarized at the top here, and in detail in Part 1). Help educate your colleagues, remembering you’re not asking people to be “anti charter”, but rather to improve the fairness of the funding law.

Then work to implement what you determine to be most politically viable and practically achievable – remembering that there’s value in simply starting to move in the right direction. Even a non-binding resolution stating the need to reform the law would be real progress.

---

Change is hard, and there’s no sugar-coating that trying to reform this law after years of inertia is a steep uphill climb that may end in failure despite our best and most sincere efforts.

But we’re in a pivotal window of time right now where the future sustainability of our public schools hangs in the balance, and I think this is our best shot to help them.

And I think they’re worth taking the shot.

An Amherst resident since 2008, Peter Demling served on the Amherst School Committee from 2017 to 2023 where he helped lead multiple state-level advocacy efforts in support of MA public schools. He now spends his free time meditating, roller-skating, and eating far too many Trader Joe’s “Snacky Clusters” after dinner.