The charter vs. non-charter school debate in Rhode Island was ignited this year by a three-year moratorium on new or expanded charters. The state is required to fund its established community schools, but it also has opted to support a multitude of alternative charter models. This moratorium should be heralded. Education inequities are inherent in charter schools overall. And the costs of this dual approach to public education are prohibitive. Charters drain resources from community schools whose overarching responsibility it is to educate all RI students. When students leave community schools to attend charters, the money follows the student.

Charter schools are neither required nor expected to accept all students in a community. Their missions vary. Nor are their classrooms accessible to all. Though lotteries may allow students to apply for admission, the result is a selective group of students — often with more motivation or with families who are more engaged with their children’s education. Charters are not required to take multilingual learners or students with inherent academic challenges, so greater success should be expected. When failure occurs, though, these students can and may be required to return to their community schools to complete their education. These non-charters accept all students. Teachers and staff must address the needs and way forward for each one, regardless of the resources available. And these educators and/or their schools may be held accountable for student failures.

Non-charter community schools often face serious challenges in poorly resourced districts. This dual approach to public education hinders their survival. Given the dwindling student population, the uncertainty of federal support, and the exit of RI students from public to charter schools, funding is inadequate to sustain the operation of partially-filled community schools. A classroom not filled to capacity still needs a teacher. A school with a few empty classrooms needs a custodian. School buses half-full need a driver. Fewer students mean fewer dollars to keep these schools open.

Charter schools are meant to be laboratories of innovation in academic policies, subject areas, and/or approaches to teaching and learning. Oversight is needed, though. What strings are attached? Who holds them accountable? Local school boards do not have that authority. And duplication of effort is a concern and an added cost.

Fortunately, the current moratorium on charter schools allows educators and policy makers to reexamine the way education funds are spent in Rhode Island. The primary goal must be to provide an equitable public education system for all students. That cannot be done by the expansion of charter schools. The cost is too great. Learn from them, but limit them. In a democracy, we cannot afford to infringe upon the mission of our purely public schools.

-Diana McGee

Bristol resident Diana McGee taught academically at-risk students at Bristol Community College in Fall River for 33 years. She has also served as an officer and/or director on several education union boards, statewide and nationally. She submitted this commentary in response to the Common Ground column on the same issue that ran in the July 30 issue of the Phoenix.