Arithmetic on charters

If charter schools were the drain on district schools that critics insist they are — they’ve built an entire campaign around that claim — one would assume that simple mathematical fact would start to show up in the numbers, as in, how much districts spend educating each pupil.

Instead there is growing evidence that undermines that claim.

Last month the Manhattan Institute released a report that concluded charter schools are not a net drain on district schools. While districts do “lose” funds when a student enrolls in a charter school, local spending and continuing reimbursements have ensured overall per-pupil expenditures have gone up.

Now the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation is out with a report that it politely says “clarifies misconceptions” about charter school funding.

Of the nearly $12.7 billion spent on public education in Massachusetts, the report notes, 3.9 percent is directed to charter schools mirroring the 3.9 percent of public school students who are enrolled in charters.

For the vast majority of Massachusetts school districts, charter school attendance is low enough that it has “very little impact” on the budget. And in the districts with the largest share of charter school students, charter spending has remained proportional to enrollment.

Taken together the reports undermine the fear-mongering on which opponents of an expansion of charter schools have based their campaign. They’ve particularly unnerved many suburban parents who fret about the negative impact of charters on school spending, when the data suggests that just isn’t the case. Meanwhile it’s families in cities, who ought to be able to choose a quality school for their children, who suffer from the current limits on expansion.

Critics of charter expansion wail that Mass. Taxpayers is “inherently partisan” which is silly — this report analyzes, but doesn’t advocate. More telling is the subtle acknowledgment that to opponents, charter schools are a partisan issue, not an educational issue.