In the upcoming election, Massachusetts voters will have the chance to vote yes or no on Question 2, which would permit the creation or expansion of up to 12 charter schools in Massachusetts each year. This ballot measure has raised discussion of the potential merits and drawbacks of charter schools and has sparked debate about how America ought to structure its education system. According to an Oct. 18 Boston Globe article, opponents of Question 2 argue that charter schools drain money from traditional public schools, but supporters dispute this claim and advocate for parents' right to have more choices for their children's education. What do you think of Question 2, and how would you describe charter schools' effect on the American education system?

Prof. Lawrence Neil Bailis (Heller)

Proponents remind us that research shows Massachusetts has many of the best charter schools in the country, schools that help students in failing school districts get ahead. Opponents tell us that per-pupil funding follows students who leave traditional public schools and go to charter schools, thus hurting the traditional schools. They are both right. Families in poorly performing school districts need more choices in how their children are educated; almost 33,000 children are currently on waiting lists to get into charter schools. They cannot afford to wait for the long, slow process of improving traditional schools to bear fruit. A yes vote majority for Question 2 will give more families opportunities for a brighter future now. We should vote yes. However, as the Hippocratic oath for doctors teaches us, “above all, do no harm,” and opponents argue that current funding formulas leave traditional schools worse off when students leave for charter schools. Therefore passage of Question 2 should be accompanied by changes to provide more support to traditional public schools so that no one in these schools is worse off when students leave them to seek the innovative quality programming that characterizes Massachusetts public charter schools.

Prof. Lawrence Neil Bailis (Heller) is an associate professor at the Heller School for Social Policy and Management who teaches courses advocacy, protest and community organization.

Prof. Marya Levenson (ED)

When looking at strong charter school test results, the fact is that aside from schools such as Excel and Brooke Charter Schools and Codman Academy, most charters do not serve the same range of students as regular public schools. Not only are there fewer English language learners and students with serious disabilities, there is also a significant drop-out rate in too many charter schools. Regular public schools must educate all students, including drop-outs from charter schools. Lifting the cap may may bring weaker charter schools to Massachusetts. Currently, Massachusetts has a competitive process to open charter schools. In states without a cap, the quality of charter schools ranges from terrible (including several which suddenly close during the year) to very good. Waltham students who attend charter schools will cost the district $301,431 in 2016-17 ― funds that could provide more teachers and resources. Some charter school boards also have private boards which do not need to share their budget or finances with parents or others in the public. That may be why 180 elected school committees oppose Question 2.

Prof. Marya Levenson (ED) is the director of the Education program.

Allie Hecht ’17

As a prospective public school educator, it is hard for me to answer that question. However, through my experience of student teaching thus far, I have recently learned that there are many teachers against Question 2. The passing of Question 2 would not close any charter schools nor would it put an end to the expansion. Instead, it proposes a potential financial problem for public schools. Charter schools are funded by state and federal grants, along with tuition payments paid by the district that the student would have attended. That being said, public school districts are seeing programs cut because the funding is going to the charter schools. It is unfair to the students, educators and the community. According to the FY17 chart, $451,338,729 will be lost to charter schools, and this is after state reimbursements. This number is preposterous and leads me to my conclusion that I am against Question 2.

Allie Hecht ’17 is an Education Undergraduate Departmental Representative.

Mark Gimelstein ’17

Just as we desperately needed Uber and Lyft to compete with atrocious taxicab monopolies, we desperately need competition in education today. Overall, public education in the United States is bad, and increased funding hasn’t done anything to alleviate the problem. Indeed, since 1970, federal data has shown that while public spending per pupil on education has nearly tripled, math, reading and science scores have remained stagnant. Meanwhile, thanks to teachers’ union rules, focusing on merit and performance for teachers has been displaced by seniority, connections and, most of all, tenure, in determining which teachers keep and lose their jobs. This system is untenable and disproportionately hurts minorities and the poor. Massachusetts deserves a chance to uplift itself through charter schools. Why? Because these schools have, on average, given students better math and reading scores than public schools, as per the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Because researchers have found that charter school students are more likely to graduate high school, matriculate and earn higher future incomes, escaping the scourge of poverty. If prioritizing student performance and success for a change hurts public schools, maybe we should re-examine if they belong in the business of education in the first place.

Mark Gimelstein ’17 is the president of Brandeis Conservatives. He is also a columnist for the Justice.