(29th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Karen Beck Pooley is a Professor of Practice of Political Science at Lehigh University, where she directs the Environmental Policy Master’s Program.  She also serves as a Senior Associate at czb LLC (an urban planning and neighborhood development consulting firm), and is a member of the Bethlehem Area School District (BASD) School Board and BASD Proud Parents.

Gadfly:

Here are some replies to your invitation for conversation focused on the bullet points in your previous “Charter School perspective” post:

• “[Charter schools] educate 7% of all public school students and do so with 15% less taxpayer funding than traditional school districts.”

I’m unclear where these numbers come from.  (I’ve seen similar statements made – sometimes stating 15%, sometimes 25%…)  In the Bethlehem Area School District, local taxpayers will pay nearly $31 million this school year in support of “school choice.”  That’s the tuition bill we’ve budgeted given the number of students living within the district slated to attend charters.  The district would spend well below that if those students returned to our schools – most could be accommodated in existing classrooms staffed by existing teachers where furniture and electricity is already waiting (all those fixed costs the district is already paying even in these students’ absence).

And this upcoming year is hardly an outlier – taxpayers have spent over $20 million on school choice for the last five years, funding school choice to the tune of $132.5 million.

School Year	Charter Tuition
2015-2016	$21,622,269
2016-2017	$23,320,498
2017-2018	$27,115,979
2018-2019	$29,688,464
2019-2020*	$30,751,221
Combined	$132,498,431
*Estimated figure.

This year was the first in a long time the district was able to balance its budget with a 0% tax increase.  Gaps during these prior years, which ended up requiring tax increases, were all well below these charter school tuition figures. In other words, local school taxes would have held steady or even declined during this stretch if not for the burden of funding “school choice.”

• We should consider why “these students want to leave” traditional schools: “The regular public school is either failing, unsafe, not meeting the educational needs of the student, or all the above.”

In considering why students leave local public schools for charters, it’s important to consider the way public schools have been portrayed, and how these portrayals often differ dramatically from what’s going on in actual classrooms.  (If you’re curious about what kind of education students receive in BASD, please don’t hesitate to visit one of our schools!)  In our area just a few years ago, there was this controversy prompted by a mailer went out to attract students to a new local charter:  https://www.lehighvalleylive.com/bethlehem/2016/08/why_worry_about_this_type_of_s.html.

• “The truth is Pennsylvania’s charter schools are serving a higher percentage of minority and low-income student populations and working with less financial support.”

Concerning findings about charters’ role in resegregating students (https://www.apnews.com/e9c25534dfd44851a5e56bd57454b4f5).  Also, other findings from the report quoted above (Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes’ Charter School Performance in Pennsylvania 2019) include:

The latest study shows that overall, students in Pennsylvania charter schools showed similar growth in reading compared to students at traditional public schools while lagging behind in math and losing the equivalent of about 30 days of learning time…

“The evidence shows that Pennsylvania has substantial numbers of under-performing charter schools,” the report authors wrote. “To be clear, the proportion of sub-par charter schools has declined since our 2011 Pennsylvania study. However, with nearly one-quarter of the schools lagging in reading and one-third in math, the collective impact on students’ academic careers and later life outcomes remains of deep concern.”

The study found “overwhelmingly negative” results from cyber charter schools which require “urgent attention” from education leaders and lawmakers, the report said.

(https://www.post-gazette.com/news/education/2019/06/04/Pennsylvania-charter-schools-cyber-students-CREDO/stories/201906040110.)

• Charter schools are not private: “the sponsoring school district has oversight.”
• The charters are not easy to get from the sponsoring school district, and they are subject to evaluation and withdrawal at any time.

Let’s be clear how much “oversight” a school district and local school board has. . . . Once a charter is approved, that charter (and charter school) is not reviewed again for five years.  (That means a charter school would be reviewed just twice as a student moves from kindergarten to high school graduation.)  Our district takes these reviews seriously – going over materials provided by the charter school; sending a contingent of administrators, educators, and board members to visit the charters to see programming in action; and debating what we’re seeing at multiple public meetings.

What we can do with all this is incredibly limited:  when we see problems, our only recourse is to propose adjustments to the school’s charter or propose rescinding it entirely.  That decision, though, will inevitably get kicked over to the Commonwealth’s Charter Appeals Board (CAB).  Looking at that board, the 5 current members were all appointed by Governor Corbett and are all serving long past the end-date of their initial term.  (These terms ended as recently as June 2018 and as far back as June 2015).  What’s more, 3 of these 5 members have direct ties to charter schools – as a teacher, parent, or spouse of an administrator.  The member filling CAB’s “school board member” position was voted off his local school board.  As a result, none are directly affiliated with or bringing the perspective of traditional public schools to Charter Appeals Board deliberations, which is why districts’ requests are typically denied.

And this is only for brick-and-mortar charters.  Cyber charters, which have an abysmal record with student success, are reviewed by Pennsylvania’s Department of Education (not by the districts).  Most of these schools have not been reviewed for well over five years and are technically operating with expired charters (https://www.inquirer.com/news/cyber-charter-schools-pennsylvania-20190114.html).

Karen

(28th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Jeff Piccola, “Your View by a former state senator: Why Pennsylvania needs its 180-plus charter schools.” Morning Call, August 28, 2019.

James Hanak, “Why it can be misleading to call charter schools ‘privately run’.” Morning Call, August 31, 2019.

Kevin Duffy, “Lehigh Valley Academy reveals plans for 3-story school in Bethlehem Township.” Morning Call, August 27, 2019.

Gadfly keeps thinking stories about charter schools have run their course.

Fooled again.

Gadfly has already told you that he hopes to visit our Charter Arts soon.

And finally he has access to statements from the charter school perspective.

In the third article linked above we have the latest on Lehigh Valley Academy’s building plans — which at some point, as Gadfly understands it, will have to get Bethlehem Area School District approval. LVA enrolls the most BASD students who attend charter schools.

You are aware that in Gadville we always want to know both sides of an issue.

Here are key points from the first two articles linked above that we should put alongside all that we have heard that is anti-charter, or at least all that we have heard about the budget aspects of charter schools:

• “[Charter schools] educate 7% of all public school students and do so with 15% less taxpayer funding than traditional school districts.”
• We should consider why “these students want to leave” traditional schools: “The regular public school is either failing, unsafe, not meeting the educational needs of the student, or all the above.”
• “The truth is Pennsylvania’s charter schools are serving a higher percentage of minority and low-income student populations and working with less financial support.”
• “The solution is and always has been educational choice.”
• The governor should be focusing on the bigger picture: “He continues to neglect the issues in our major cities.”
• The ills the governor wants to correct “rarely occur and, if they do, the charter school is shut down because those things are already provided for in the Charter School Law.”
• The governor should hold traditional schools accountable instead of “giving them more money and rewarding them for failure.”
• “Charter schools generally get students who are already performing at a low level because of the failing district school they came from.”
• The governor is trying to eliminate “teachers’ unions and the school board associations.”
• Charter schools are not private: “the sponsoring school district has oversight.”
• The charters are not easy to get from the sponsoring school district, and they are subject to evaluation and withdrawal at any time.
• “The local school district has complete control over whether to continue to provide funding for a charter school.”
• “All charter schools are public schools. They are just different kinds of public schools.”
• Charter schools are “accountable” to outside entities in ways that private schools are not.

We now have some specific counterpoint, and Gadfly invites conversation focused on these bullet points.

———–

Jeff Piccola, “Your View by a former state senator: Why Pennsylvania needs its 180-plus charter schools.” Morning Call, August 28, 2019.

The headline in the print edition was “Pennsylvania charter schools provide a needed alternative.”

Gov. Wolf recently proposed a series of so-called reforms to the Charter School Law. He asserted that Pennsylvania’s Charter School Law is one of the worst in the nation.

If you look at the law from the perspective of high cost and failing school districts, he may be right. Charter schools, which are public schools, educate 7% of all public school students and do so with 15% less taxpayer funding than traditional school districts.

The question is: Why do these students want to leave? The answer is simple and can be simply stated by every parent who chooses to send their child to a charter school. The regular public school is either failing, unsafe, not meeting the educational needs of the student, or all the above.

Even many of our so-called “good” school districts are not meeting the needs of all their students. The truth is Pennsylvania’s charter schools are serving a higher percentage of minority and low-income student populations and working with less financial support.

The solution is and always has been educational choice. Unfortunately, until the late 1990s, the only alternatives to traditional school districts were expensive private or parochial schools, or home schooling.

These laws unleashed a tremendous wave of entrepreneurial effort that has resulted in over 180 charter schools in Pennsylvania . . . . The demand for choice in education is great. Over 135,000 students attend a charter school in Pennsylvania.

The governor says he is wants to limit enrollment in charter schools as well as put a moratorium on new cybercharter schools. However, while the governor’s sole focus is on charter schools, he continues to neglect the issues in our major cities.

Due to their abysmal performance as well as several other issues such as safety, these districts are experiencing a mass exodus of students whose families are opting for charter schools instead.

The governor also wants to hold charter schools to the same transparency, conflict of interest and discrimination standards that supposedly apply to all traditional public schools. I have been in and around charter schools for over 20 years, and the things the governor alleges rarely occur and, if they do, the charter school is shut down because those things are already provided for in the Charter School Law.

Incidentally, that is the great thing about charter schools. They are market driven and if they are not meeting the needs of the families they support, they go out of business, as they are being held accountable by parents, school districts and the Pennsylvania Department of Education. A traditional public school operating under the same low standards simply cites the lack of money as the cause for their issues and ask you, the taxpayer, to pay more in taxes while blaming their financial woes on charter schools.

The question that needs to be asked is what is this governor willing to do to hold the traditional public schools accountable. They educate 93% of public school students in the state, and have a disastrous record with regard to accountability. He is giving them more money and rewarding them for failure.

One thing you must remember is charter schools generally get students who are already performing at a low level because of the failing district school they came from. What you must look at is the academic growth of each student, each year, and note their progress toward achieving at the proper grade level.

The governor attacks charter schools and makes allegations about deficiencies in the law in order to set up a straw man so he can severely limit or eliminate charter schools. His political friends in the teachers’ unions and the school board associations hate charter schools because they hate competition.

James Hanak, “Why it can be misleading to call charter schools ‘privately run’.” Morning Call, August 31, 2019.

Charter schools are public schools that not only receive public funding, but these same schools are not truly private as a true “private school” would be.

Private schools are totally independent of the public school system when it comes to the running of that school — even though private schools may receive some funding from the state for curriculum and busing (for example).

A private school has its own board of directors that make all the financial decisions of the private school. The state has the authority to see that private schools are not acting illegally but the running of the school is left up to the private school board.

A charter school board of directors has the authority to run the day-to-day operations of a charter school. The local school district, however, has oversight responsibilities for the charter school. The local school district evaluates the application for a charter and grants the charter to the school. The initial charter and each renewal lists the charter school’s board of directors.

The charter that is granted by the school district is not easy to obtain. Those who create the charter application must demonstrate they have the expertise and the community support to run a fully accredited public school.

At any time, the school district may evaluate the charter school’s annual report or ask for additional reports/information from the charter school that can be used to evaluate whether the charter school is functioning properly. At any time, the school district may revoke the original charter or any renewal of the charter.

The local school district has complete control over whether to continue to provide funding for a charter school. Because the local school district has the authority to oversee the operation(s) of the charter, forcing it to fulfill the terms of the charter, stop doing anything that might be illegal and shut the charter school down if necessary, the charter school is not a “private” school.

All charter schools are public schools. They are just different kinds of public schools. Instead of being accountable to the general public through a publicly elected school board, they are accountable to their own independent school board, the local school district school board and to the parents of their school who can “vote” with their feet if the charter school is not meeting their family needs. This is very different from being a “privately run” school.

Kevin Duffy, “Lehigh Valley Academy reveals plans for 3-story school in Bethlehem Township.” Morning Call, August 27, 2019.

Here’s what seems to be the rub at our local level: money.

Plans for the size and scope of a proposed new Lehigh Valley Academy Regional Charter School in Bethlehem Township have begun to take shape.

LVA’s sketch plan presentation to the township Planning Commission on Monday calls for a three-story, 200,000-square-foot building with 476 parking spaces and enough parking for 35 buses, said Terry DeGroot of Terraform Engineering.

 

(25th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

This article, though targeted at Allentown’s charter school controversies, reflects the Governor’s response to problems we’ve followed here on Gadfly from discussions with our BASD boss Dr. Roy.

Jacqueline Palochko, “Gov. Tom Wolf calls for charter school changes that could ease Allentown schools deficit.” Morning Call, August 14, 2019.

Gov. Tom Wolf called Tuesday for changes in the special education and cybercharter funding formulas that, if adopted by a reluctant Legislature, would save Allentown and other financially strapped school districts millions.

Calling the charter school law “flawed” and “outdated,” Wolf told reporters in Allentown he also is instructing the state Department of Education to develop new regulations that would allow districts to limit student enrollment at charters that do not provide a “high-quality” education, and to boost oversight over charter school management companies.

Democrat Wolf’s call for changes in reimbursement formulas dictating how much public school districts must pay charter and cyberschools for students would save districts like Allentown, now facing a $6 million deficit, millions.

But passage in the Republican-controlled state Legislature, which created the charter school system, is far from guaranteed.

Ana Meyers, the executive director of the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, called Wolf’s proposals “blatant attacks on charter schools.” Meyers also claimed that Wolf could be abusing his authority through executive order and regulatory action.

At Harrison-Morton Middle School, Wolf said he wants a “level playing field” for all charter and public schools.

Besides proposing a legislative change in the areas of special education funding and cyber charter tuition payments, Wolf is also asking the state Department of Education to develop regulations to:

Allow districts to limit student enrollment at charters that do not provide a high-quality, equitable education to students.

Require transparent charter school admission and enrollment policies that do not discriminate based on intellectual or athletic ability, race, gender or disability.

Ramp up oversight of charter school management companies.

Establish a clear process that requires charters to accurately document their costs and prevent charters from over-charging districts for educational services.

Bethlehem Area Superintendent Joseph Roy, a vocal critic of charters, began his comments with: “Can I get an amen?” Roy called charter school and traditional public school funding a “separate and unequal system.”

(24th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Gadfly has been following charter school news because of the budget impact on our Bethlehem Area School District taxes. See the “Charter school” link on the Gadfly sidebar.

Of special interest will be LVA’s request to the BASD for permission to build.

Sarah M. Wojcik and Jacqueline Palochko, “Lehigh Valley Academy prepares to make new school pitch in Bethlehem Township.” Morning Call, August 12, 2019.

The Lehigh Valley Academy Regional Charter School is moving forward with plans to build a school in Bethlehem Township, filing sketch plans with the township last week.

The school, which comes with a preliminary $50 million price tag and would house kindergarten through 12th grade, was originally planned for Hanover Township, Northampton County, but Lehigh Valley Academy nixed that plan because of “insurmountable zoning issues.” It won’t face that problem at the 58.7-acre Bethlehem Township tract along Hecktown Road, north of Route 22. That’s because the land, owned by the estate of Fred Jaindl, is zoned agricultural and a school is among the permitted uses.

Because LVA is a regional charter school, it needs permission of both Bethlehem Area and Saucon Valley school districts. As of last week, LVA had not filed a formal request with Bethlehem Area, Superintendent Joseph Roy said. Most of LVA’s 1,700 students come from the Bethlehem region.

The sketch plans on file in Bethlehem Township indicate the building could support 1,950 students. The plans show athletic fields at the rear of the building, behind a 326-space parking lot and bus dropoff area. Two parking lots, each with 75 spaces, are in front of the building.

 

(23rd in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Hardly a week goes by it seems without some dire charter school news.

New report shows overwhelmingly negative results for PA’s cyber charter students

But last post in this series I promised that there was some action you can take if, indeed, you see the problem with charter schools that has certainly been evident in our series here.

Contacting our representatives and signing petitions:

PA Republicans pass massive charter school & school voucher expansion

CALL TO ACTION –   Act now to push for necessary change to the Charter Appeals Board (CAB)!

The issues here, as we have seen, are the quality of charter school education in general and unfair funding that has direct impact on our tax bills.

Gadfly urges your personal action here.

Thanks to Karen Beck Pooley and to BASD Proud Parents for keeping us informed.

(22nd in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

There is something we can do if we are concerned about the impact of charter schools on our Bethlehem Area School District budget particularly.

That will come in the next post in this series.

But first let me clean out the mail bag on this issue — with thanks.

Here’s more to think about.

Sarah Hall, “Reform sought as cyber charter school costs top $42M in NEPA districts.” The Citizens’ Voice, April 7, 2019.

• Cyber charter schools are privately operated, publicly funded schools authorized by the state and paid for by school districts. Advocates say cyber schools provide options for families seeking choice for their children’s educations. Children learn virtually on charter school-provided computers, at no cost to the families. The cost comes to the districts instead. Bills in the state House and Senate would allow districts with their own cyber programs to stop paying tuition to cyber charter schools. If a student decided to attend the cyber charter school, the family would be responsible for the tuition.

“A call to action from Pennsylvania’s urban school superintendents.” April 11, 2019.

• It’s also time to stop kicking the can down the road on charter funding reform. Pennsylvania’s charter law needs an overhaul, including setting the bar higher for charter operators. It’s not about district schools versus charter schools. It’s about high-quality schools, period. The state’s charter funding model needs to reflect that.
• One example is the chronic underperformance of cyber charter schools, which are costly to taxpayers and fail to deliver for students. Thirteen of the state’s 14 cyber charter schools are on the list of the lowest performing schools in Pennsylvania. School district-operated cyber charters perform better at a fraction of the cost.

Stop the Charter School Expansion Bills!

• Last week Republican members of the House Education Committee advanced two charter school expansion bills that deliver the charter school industry’s wish list. We anticipate that the House will vote on these bills in early June.
• By a party-line vote of 14 to 10, committee members passed House Bills 356 and 357. These bills strip communities of the ability to plan and exercise appropriate fiscal and academic oversight over their public education systems. These bills also weaken accountability, allow for the unfettered expansion of even the lowest performing charter schools, and fail to protect taxpayers and students from failing schools.
• By a party-line vote of 14 to 10, committee members passed House Bills 356 and 357. These bills strip communities of the ability to plan and exercise appropriate fiscal and academic oversight over their public education systems. These bills also weaken accountability, allow for the unfettered expansion of even the lowest performing charter schools, and fail to protect taxpayers and students from failing schools.

(21st in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Gadfly no sooner re-awakens the charter school thread than an essay by our Dr. Roy and Allentown superintendent Thomas Parker appeared!

Thomas Parker and Joseph Roy, “Why tighter controls are needed for charter schools.” Morning Call, June 1, 2019.

Our message to the General Assembly is clear: The need to overhaul Pennsylvania’s charter school law is real and urgent. School districts need better tools to hold charter school operators accountable to families and taxpayers.

The commonwealth has an ethical and moral responsibility to its public school students to ensure charter schools are held to the same state academic standards as district schools. It also has a fiscal responsibility to taxpayers to ensure funds invested in charters are a good investment and are safeguarded against misuse. Current charter law falls woefully short on these fronts and many others.

(20th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Last time Gadfly weighed in on charter schools was two months ago, reporting on a great meeting with Dr. Roy.

Where o’ where did those last two months go?  Let him try to catch up a bit here.

First, let’s remember what triggered this information gathering: concern about the size of the charter school line in the BASD budget and thus the impact on our taxes. As reported several posts back in this thread: “Approximately 2100 BASD students attend charter schools (12 different ones but 50% at one particular charter school), about 13% of the total student population, at a cost of 29 million in charter tuition this year, which is roughly 10% of the budget.”

The BASD budget

Theresa O’Brien, “District in the black; no tax hike likely.” Bethlehem Press, May 21, 2019.

The good news. The tentative 2019-20 BASD budget “includes no increase in the tax millage for the first time in several years, and uses only $1.6 million from the general fund balance to make up a shortfall.”

Board member Dean Donaher commended those involved in the process for bringing in a zero-tax-increase budget without losing any programs and while “maintaining momentum” on strategic initiatives of achieving grade-level reading proficiency, delivering personalized learning and growth, and meeting students’ social and emotional needs.

Well, relative good news. If the charter school chunk were less, then there would be more money in the system for education needs and maybe no need to draw from the general fund balance. But at least looks like no tax increase. And, if I remember correctly, Dr. Roy said charter school attendance was leveling off.

Lehigh Valley Academy

Lehigh Valley Academy is the charter school to keep an eye on. 50% of the BASD students going to charter schools go to LVA. Several posts back in this series, Gadfly profiled LVA.

Jacqueline Palochko, “Lehigh Valley Academy now looking in Bethlehem Township to put its $50 million school.” Morning Call, May 30, 2019.

Also as reported earlier, LVA is planning on a new building at substantial cost. This morning’s paper indicates that the proposed site of that building has now changed from what Gadfly reported earlier. LVA rents now, and owning its own building would be more economical. LVA will have to seek permission from both the Bethlehem Area and Saucon Valley school boards to change locations because it is a regional charter school.

Other charter schools

There seem to be no especial administrative or educational quality issues with the three Bethlehem charter schools — the kind that characterize many school districts and charter schools. But there are enough such issues in the Lehigh Valley to keep us continually conscious of a nagging bad side to charter schools. These are the kinds of things we don’t want happening here.

Innovative Arts, Catasauqua:

Sarah Wojcik, “Innovative Arts Academy Charter School makes argument to stay open while Catasauqua blasts school’s poor academic scores.” Morning Call, May 22, 2019.

Allentown School District:

Jacqueline Palochko, “Allentown school board to try again to borrow $10 million to avert financial crisis.” Morning Call, May 1, 2019.

A week after a deadlocked school board left the Allentown School District in budgetary limbo, a new attempt will be made Tuesday to borrow $10 million to avert a financial mess. . . . costs weighing on the district are charter school tuition.”

Ok, there’s a catch-up on some of the factual context. Gadfly will return shortly to catch up on some more substantive issues suggested by followers Dr. Roy, Karen Beck Pooley, and BASD Proud Parents.

High-five to all concerned for tending the budget nicely!

Take the “Connecting Bethlehem” survey

(19th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Gadfly promised a report on his March 28 meeting on the charter school issue with BASD Superintendent Dr. Joseph Roy and hastens to get to it this morning before his notes go stone cold.

It was a great meeting. Dr. Roy is a warm individual and especially “warm” over the issue of charter schools. He was extremely gracious and overflowed with information.

Not wanting to eat up too much of a busy man’s time, Gadfly told Dr. Roy that the focus of his visit was narrowly on why our students are going to charter schools, but Dr. Roy thought it important to start at the beginning — with the privatization movement itself.

More on this basic and wider issue in subsequent posts, but, as promised, let’s focus here on that question of why our local students are going to charter schools.

BASD doesn’t have surveys, but here are some of the reasons, in no particular order, that Dr. Roy has gathered from interactions with parents of charter school students.

A range of local reasons from the very practical to the highly academic.

• full-day kindergarten: not an issue now because BASD offers it, but this was attractive to some parents because of work situations
• transportation: BASD does not bus everybody but is required to do so for charter schools
• uniforms: conventional in some cultures
• cachet (good SAT word): a private school education without the cost
• bullying: need for a change of scene
• the academic program: such as LVA’s IB curriculum

Gadfly will reach out to Lehigh Valley Academy in particular, the school that enrolls the most BASD students, to see what they can tell us about why parents are choosing charter schools.

But Gadfly would like to hear from charter school families themselves. Gadfly doesn’t know any. Is there no one among Gadfly followers with charter school experience that could help fill in the picture for us with personal motivations?

And look soon for more on the general charter school movement from my conversation with Dr. Roy.

Take the “Connecting Bethlehem” survey

(17th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Timely to our discussion is the showing of the “Backpack full of Cash” documentary this Thursday, March 21, 6:30pm – 8:00pm at NITSCHMANN MIDDLE SCHOOL, sponsored by Bethlehem Proud Parents – Free!

Anna Smith is a life-long Southside resident and Director of the Community Action Development Corporation of Bethlehem, a non-profit dedicated to improving the quality of life in south Bethlehem by fostering economic opportunity, promoting community development, and empowering residents to actively participate in the decision-making process regarding the future of our diverse community.

Gadfly:

When discussing the concept of school choice, I think it’s important to ask “what is the role of public education in our society?” Scholars typically cite three primary goals of public education in a democratic society—1. Prepare individual students with skills necessary to succeed in our society (individual economic opportunity); 2. Prepare students to fill positions in the US job market (vocational training); and 3. Prepare students to be full participants in our democracy (education for active citizenship). Most schools try to balance these three aims as they design policies and curriculum, and throughout US history, there has been tension among the proponents of each approach. However, I doubt many would propose wholly eliminating any of these aims.

The concept of school choice allows individuals to privilege the first goal—individual pursuit of human capital for future personal gain—at the expense of the third goal (and potentially the second). Universal public education that integrates children of ALL races, ethnicities, incomes, abilities, religions, etc., in preparation for participation in a diverse society is antithetical to the concept of school choice in a society where major inequities exist in funding and resources across these demographic lines. If we allow individuals to act solely in their self-interest, many (if not most) students who already have access to more resources are going choose other options (private schools, charters) as a way to escape from underfunded public schools, creating both a vicious cycle of underfunding and a segregated system where marginalized students become further marginalized and isolated. When we center the question on the societal goals of free, universal public education, school choice just doesn’t make sense. Are we willing to give up the lofty goals of a society in which equal opportunity for success and civic participation is guaranteed to all? While we’re far from that reality, the more we expand opportunities for school choice, the more we concede that our society was set up to be unequal, and we abandon all aspirations toward meritocracy.

Many people like the idea of school choice, but I think it is worth exploring what that really means, and if it actually allows us to sustain a diverse democracy. Is making it easier to acting solely in one’s own interest good for our society as a whole?

Anna

(15th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

Gadfly:

I like school choice, too. I don’t like school choice that can be made at the expense of our public schools, which is what our current system amounts to. The system we have now essentially amounts to a Catch 22 for public schools. People pull their kids and put them in charters because they are unhappy about the quality of their education, which diverts more funding from public schools, which lowers the quality of education further, which results in the loss of more students to charters. This cycle goes round and round, with educational quality in public schools going down as it does. If something is broken we should fix it instead of continuing to divert resources to alternatives. The current system does just that.

Josh Popichak

(13th in a series on Education and Charter Schools)

John Marquette is a retired librarian/archivist, author, historian, and a resident of Bethlehem. His current project is focused on the restoration of the interior of the Archibald Johnston Mansion in Housenick Park. 

Gadfly:

Putting aside the merits of charter schools for a moment, I’m concerned about the proposed Jaindl Boulevard location for Lehigh Valley Academy. It’s not a question of neighborhoods, it’s one of geology. More specifically, it’s about the risk of sinkholes on the 31 acres under consideration.

Pick any excavating contractor out of the phone directory or Google and ask how often they are called to either of the Hanovers, Bethlehem, Palmer, or Forks townships to remediate sinkholes. The geological formation under the rich topsoil is karst — porous limestone. When disturbed, and more importantly, saturated with water, it dissolves and collapses. Buildings built atop them or near them follow. A property I’m associated with on Bath Pike (less than a mile from the school’s site) just spent nearly $15,000 to obtain a site study and fill in a hole. *

Former farmlands and meadows in the Lehigh Valley are at their highest and best use when left more or less alone. Developing them poses risks of creating sinkholes, and the risks for the charter school end up being borne by the taxpayers in the Bethlehem Area School District, either for sinkhole insurance or for remediation of new holes.

The Morning Call covered Parkland’s problems with a sinkhole at a middle school right before the beginning of this academic year. It is costly. We have brownfield properties available on the South Side ready for a school, if the new owners cooperate. Why not ask them?

The state has a great interactive map of sinkhole locations on its Department of Conservation and Natural Resources website (http://www.gis.dcnr.state.pa.us/mobilemaps/index.aspx)

John

* I can show you the paperwork from the excavators with our estimates. The geology is very well known. Somebody is going to make a lot of money on the land deal, and you and I apparently will be footing the bill.

(10th in a series on Education)

Stephen C. Antalics Jr. of Bethlehem is a retired scientist and entrepreneur. He is also Gadfly #1.

Note from Stephen as present context for his 2015 article: The process of using real estate taxes to fund the state’s public school systems creates a difficulty for districts with a low real estate average, for these poorer districts must now share their meagre funds with the charter schools, thereby depriving already burdened students of higher qualified teachers and needed supplies like text books, etc. So, the real estate values also determine the quality of education. The plan below is a radical approach.

“Is it time for radical change in public education?” Morning Call, September 15, 2015.

“Sen. Lloyd Smucker, a Republican and chairman of the state Senate Education Committee, is proposing legislation [this is 2015] that could put poorly performing school districts under state control.”

“Sen. Andrew Dinniman, a Democrat and minority chairman of the Education Committee, noted that the majority of the schools that fail are in poor urban areas. Poverty becomes the common denominator among poorly performing schools.”

“Many school districts derive a high proportion of school revenue from real estate taxes. It follows that those communities with high property values have necessary revenues to invest to make their district superior.”

“This is quite clearly supported by the fact that school districts in the most affluent communities are rated among the best in performance and those in poverty areas are among the lowest. Is it fair that intelligent children living in poverty-stricken districts be deprived of an education equal in quality afforded to children in affluent districts?”

“The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment is a standardized test administered to public schools to determine the quality of the education in all districts. Can such a standardized test work when the districts are far from standardized — i.e., standardized being equal opportunity afforded to each student? It appears that the PSSAs measure more learning opportunity rather than student ability.”

“One radical approach could be for the state to take over all school districts. Each district could receive 100 percent of necessary funds from state income and sales taxes. This would eliminate the need for personal school real estate taxes, thereby ending possible foreclosures on homes of poverty-level families or seniors on fixed incomes.”

“Clearly, the state’s system of public education, by allowing a class system founded on affluence, is not working. Is it time for a radical change? Nothing might be lost but there is much to gain — better educated children.”

Stephen

(9th in a series on Education)

John Marquette is a retired librarian/archivist, author, historian, and a resident of Bethlehem. His current project is focused on the restoration of the interior of the Archibald Johnston Mansion in Housenick Park. 

Data from a Pennsylvania Department Education report
2018-2019 Building Data Report

Bethlehem Area School District has 57.92 percent of its students enrolled in the Federal Free and Reduced Price Lunch Program. The program is a measure of area wealth/poverty some agencies and granting institutions use to apportion funds for educational need.

I have ranked BASD’s three tiers (elementary, middle, and high) by ascending percentage of participation so you see the degree of participation by each school’s catchment area. It’s a good indicator of household income.

Fun fact: Liberty and Freedom are about the same.

Allentown School District has 100 percent of its students enrolled in the program.

To the west of us (and note that Bethlehem is classified as a Northampton County school, entitling residents to NCC resident tuition):

• Parkland School District, which is partly in the city of Allentown, has 24.59 percent enrolled in the program.
• Salisbury School District, which abuts Fountain Hill/BASD to the east and Parkland to the west, has 41.17 percent in the program.
• East Penn School District (Emmaus) has 25.71 percent in the program.
• The wealth winner is Southern Lehigh School District, with 19.02 percent in the program.

To the question of charter schools: if the superintendents of each of the districts I cited answered the same questions as Dr. Roy (THANK YOU FOR YOUR PROMPTNESS, DR. ROY!!!), what differences would we see in terms of students leaving their districts for charters?

I am a Southern Lehigh graduate (1973) and am proud of the great public education I received. As a resident of Bethlehem, I’m proud of the effort the teachers and administrators make to turn out great graduates. I appreciate their dedication and understand they have challenges far different from what they may have found in classrooms 50 years ago.

John