Massachusetts School Committees Urge Voters to Reject Question 2
The Massachusetts Association of School Committees (MASC) today urged voters to vote No on Question 2, which would erase the limits on charter school expansion.
By an overwhelming show of hands, delegates to MASC’s annual conference passed a resolution saying, “[T]he possibility of the expansion of Commonwealth charter schools in Massachusetts poses a threat to the ability of public school districts to provide services to the children of the Commonwealth.”
“The people elected to govern Massachusetts public schools overwhelmingly agree that Question 2 will harm children across the state, and especially the most vulnerable children in our urban areas,” said MASC President Jake Oliveira of Ludlow after the vote.
He noted that School Committees in all of the state’s 10 biggest cities and in more than 90 percent of urban districts have already passed their own resolutions opposed to Question 2. They are among 207 school committees that have passed No on 2 resolutions, mostly by unanimous votes.
“Question 2 would not only take significant revenue from our schools, but will undermine our ability to give public school children, including kids in economic despair and emotional need, the education to lift them up,” said Framingham School Committee member Beverly Hugo, vice president of MASC.
MASC delegates passed the Question 2 resolution on the first day of their annual conference in Hyannis.
In addition to urging voters to reject Question 2, the resolution proposes far-reaching reforms in the charter school system in Massachusetts:
· A requirement that charter schools enroll a representative cross section of students who live in the school districts from which they draw;
· Accurate reporting of students who leave charters and return to their home district schools;
· Requiring the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education to report accurate data on enrollment of students with learning disabilities, physical disabilities, economic disadvantage, emotional disability and status as racial and linguistic minorities;
· Separate state funding for charter schools that are not approved by the community, rather than using funds earmarked for that community;
· Full funding for the state mitigation program that is intended to offset temporarily the loss of state money when students attend charter schools. This program has been funded at slightly over 50 percent for the past three years.
“It is our job to provide the best possible education for every child in our district,” said Oliveira. “That’s why we propose these reforms. Charter schools should not harm the education of other children.”
