Published: Thursday, October 13, 2011; Last Updated: Thu. Oct 13, 2011, 9:59am
http://www.pottsmerc.com/articles/2011/10/13/news/doc4e972b785f932860816808.txt?viewmode=fullstory
By Evan Brandt ebrandt@pottsmerc.com
To be certain, it is the state legislators who will have to decide what to keep and what to change from the education reform agenda released this week by Gov. Tom Corbett that features tax-funded vouchers to pay for non-traditional public schools as its centerpiece.
But two distinct sides of the debate released timely studies this week that not only support their position on these issues, but seem to be an attempt to influence that legislative debate by influencing public opinion.
The Commonwealth Foundation, a self-described “free-market think tank,” released a “comprehensive report” on Pennsylvania cyber-schools that “conclusively found that these public school alternatives save children’s education while saving taxpayers millions of dollars.”
“If Pennsylvania education is really about finding what is best for children, then one-size fits all, brick and mortar with its skyrocketing costs and stagnating results just isn’t going to get it done,” Nate Benfield, director of policy analysis for the Commonwealth Foundation and co-author of the report said in a prepared release.
Two days later, the Pennsylvania School Boards Association issued its own release trumpeting its latest “white paper, titled ‘Raising achievement in underperforming public schools.’”
If there was any doubt that the title is aimed at the primary rationale given for allowing school vouchers for private and charter schools, PSBA Executive Director John Gentzel quickly dispelled it.
“In reality, vouchers only pull a small number of students from struggling schools and leave the rest in a building that is still underperforming and now also underfunded because tax dollars have been siphoned to the private, parochial or public school where the student moves,” Gentzel said.
Anticipating this argument, the Commonwealth Foundation report “found that contrary to those who support only the traditional public school model, cyber schools do not drain resources from public schools, as districts retain about 25 percent of funding for a cyber school student it no longer has to educate.”
It should be noted that cyber-schools are only one type of charter school, which can also be housed in a “brick and mortar building.” Cyber schools educated children at home over the Internet with computers.
The PSBA paper and release, on the other hand, seemed aimed at vouchers which could be used not only at various types of charter schools, but also at parochial and private schools — or even better-performing public schools.
“A voucher program could potentially cost more than $1 billion, creating an expensive entitlement program the state cannot afford, for a relatively few students, without doing anything to address the real problem of why the schools are underperforming,” Gentzel said.
This argument is countered in the Commonwealth Foundation’s “Policy Points on Charter School Funding,” issued Monday.
It notes that charter school funding currently “represents less than 4 percent of tax dollars on public education” — exceeding $944 million.
“In comparison, school districts spent $2.8 billion on construction and debt payments, $1.4 billion on administration, $600 million on business and central office support and $2.1 billion on facilities operations,” the talking points memo noted.
Of course, these lobbying arms of different philosophies were not the only ones to offer their opinions.
However, when we asked our readers on Facebook Tuesday what they thought of Corbett’s proposals, their responses seemed to fall into the same two camps.
“The Pennsylvania School Board Association is nothing more than a pro-spending, tax-payer funded lobbying group,” wrote Connor Kurtz, a resident of Douglassville and candidate for the Daniel Boone School Board.
“I’m not surprised that PSBA is opposed to the governor’s reform plan. PSBA has repeatedly stood in the way of any meaningful school reform–including fighting against the elimination of tax-hiking loopholes that school boards use to raise property taxes year after year,” Kurtz wrote.
“PSBA is part of the problem when it comes to school reform. Governor Corbett’s proposal has the potential to monumentally improve education for children who attend failing schools while preserving education for children who attend schools that are performing well,” he wrote.
Patty Fetterman of Pottstown, on the other hand, thinks the problem is the unequal way the state funds education.
“Why don’t they look for ways to equalize/redistribute money between school districts?” she wrote. “The school districts near where I work (Malvern, Bryn Mawr) have A TON of money and low income districts have nothing. I don’t understand what the voucher system is and how it will improve education for all. They should also merge districts to eliminate administrative costs,” she posted.
“Sooo… if all the children flee from my (low income) public school district and my kids stay, what fate will they have? Probably a charter school (aka Corbett’s BFF and huge election donor) hmmm… is that equity?” Fetterman asked.
She was referring to Vahan Gureghian, who operates the state’s largest charter school in Chester, and who is a major player in both Montgomery County Republican politics and Corbett’s election campaign.
“Corbett is pushing charters because his biggest contributors runs a charter,” agreed Jim Prendergast of Lower Pottsgrove.
Gureghian made headlines in Pottstown this spring when he authored a letter indicating an interest in opening a charter school here. His letter also noted that if enabling legislation is enacted, his company would consider taking over all elementary public education in Pottstown.
Pottstown Schools Superintendent Reed Lindley also made headlines when, in the wake of that letter, it was revealed he and several administrators had met private with Gureghian, state Sen. John Rafferty, R-44th Dist. and the primary senate sponsor of a bill to enact vouchers in Pennsylvania.
But for other readers, the politics of the matter were less important than the policy and its impacts.
“How about PA’s overpaid government comes up with an equal way to fund education in PA!, posted Carleen Parsons Markoski of Pottstown. “Stop raping the taxpayers and the elderly with property taxes. I also feel PA needs to find new ways to fund education and provide equality for all school districts.”
And others were completely in Corbett’s camp.
Debra Rutkowski of Royersford posted, “Love the idea! Do it! I have to pay for more and more things for (FREE) public school anyway to get a break on education and send my kids to a school I want them in would be awesome.”
Jennifer Schorr's Blog 