Letters: Editorial misread charter report

IN ITS January 27 editorial, the Daily News opposes the expansion of charter schools and cites a report by Public Citizens for Children and Youth to conclude that "many [charter schools] fall below the performance of district schools."

But a fair interpretation of the data that PCCY cites would lead to the opposite conclusion.

The PCCY report shows that 28 of the 40 charters analyzed - schools run by operators applying for new charters - perform better than the district average in reading. Similarly, 29 of the 40 charters outperform the district average in math. If PCCY's report is accurate, the sentence should read, "most of these charters rise above the performance of district schools."

The PCCY report goes on to shine a spotlight on four high-performing charter operators that have collectively applied for seven schools. They all meet the state definition of academic success (scoring above 70 on the School Performance Profile) and serve a higher share of low-income students than the District.

It's morally outrageous to deny the thousands of families on wait lists the opportunity to attend schools that clearly outperform the District. And it's bad public policy to protect an inexcusable status quo rather than scale-up what is working.

The Daily News is right to point out that Pennsylvania needs to fix some critical flaws in the way that all public schools get funded. But the District also needs to be more aggressive in right-sizing to offset the stranded costs from its declining student population. From 2007 to 2011, the District's audited statements show that it increased staffing nearly 5 percent as its enrollment plunged by 12 percent.

The question of the 40 charter-school applications should not be whether to spend public funds on charter or district schools. The question should be how to invest strategically in expanding schools of both types that work.

Jonathan Cetel

Executive Director

PennCAN

In your editorial "Ignorance about Charters Doom District," you echoed PCCY's assertion that, if all 40 of the current charter applications were approved by the School Reform Commission, the School District would spend $1 billion on charter schools. And that's true - approving all 40 applications would indeed increase the amount the District pays charter schools each year to $1 billion, or 42 percent of the budget.

But, the Daily News fails to point out that that's 42 percent of the budget being used to educate 51 percent of the kids. By contrast, the District would be left with the remaining 58 percent of the budget to educate only 49 percent of the kids. If I told you I could pay 51 percent of your mortgage at 42 percent of the cost, you'd probably think that was a pretty good deal.

Finally, that number is only a purposeful distraction anyway; no credible advocate locally or in Harrisburg has called on the district to approve all 40 schools. If we are going to debate charter-school financing, let's start with the truth: Though there are legitimate "stranded costs" associated with charters, in fact charters are educating more students for less money than the District.

Mike Wang

Executive Director

Philadelphia School Advocacy Partners

Protection by election

Your recent editorial questions whether an elected school board in Philadelphia would be better for our schools.

The answer is yes, and not just for its taxing authority.

The School District of Philadelphia flounders in debt without a clear vision for schools or our children because of the absolute lack of responsibility from district officials, former Gov. Tom Corbett and the School Reform Commission that his administration oversaw.

Under our current unfortunate structure, no one is taking ultimate responsibility for our kids. The SRC blames the city and the state. The city blames the state. And around and around it goes.

I have reintroduced legislation (H.B. 195) that would create the elected school board that this paper, school advocates and other elected officials support. The unpaid school board would consist of one member elected from each city-council district and one at-large, nonvoting member appointed by Philadelphia's mayor. School board members would serve two-year terms, limited to 10 years. The SRC would be disbanded under my bill.

The blame game that our children are being forced to suffer through must end. It ends with an elected board that assumes ultimate responsibility and can provide a clear, unbiased funding and education plan for our schools and our children.

Philadelphians have not had the opportunity to elect their own school board since the 1960s. It's time we say "yes" to let them do it.

Rep. Mike O'Brien

175th District

Philadelphia