Severing charter ties wrong move for D-12

As a resident of Cheyenne Mountain School District 12, and a stepdad to two students enrolled there, I was dismayed to see the district’s Blue Ribbon commission on facilities recommend dumping the Cheyenne Mountain Charter Academy in a cost-saving move. My stepkids don’t attend the school, but as someone who views CMCA as an invaluable district asset, I fear severing ties would deal a severe blow to D-12’s reputation for excellence, innovation and choice.

De-chartering would not spell the end of CMCA, it’s true. But I’m not sure either party would emerge unscathed. The longterm harm de-chartering would do D-12 could far outweigh whatever budgeting benefits it realizes in the short run.

Although the panelists attempted a costbenefit analysis of their other major recommendation — to close Canon Elementary and expand Broadmoor Elementary — it doesn’t appear from the report that the same rigor was applied to the de-chartering proposal. The district undoubtedly faces challenges. There are too many desks for too few kids. The panelists are right to argue that doing nothing is not an option. But fair-minded people will conclude that dechartering would be an injustice and a mistake.

Let’s concede for a moment that, due to quirks in the School Finance Act, the charter, through no fault of its own, is depriving the district of funds it might otherwise receive (the way some charter foes calculate it, students or funds that flow to a charter are chalked up as district “losses” — as if these schools, and these students, lack legitimacy). The most sensible response isn’t to punish a successful district school, simply because it has the word “charter” in its name. A better way is to get the governor and legislators to fix a flawed law.

The recommended course — of de-chartering a school not because it is failing but because it is succeeding — seems contrary to everything the district stands for. And consider for a moment the possible repercussions.

The narrowing of choice in the district might further deter young families from moving there, aggravating the problem. Choice increases competition and competition improves performance. Without a charter, D-12 would not only be a less competitive district, but it might be less appealing from a parent’s perspective. Moreover, the perception of an anti-charter, anti-schoolchoice bias in the district might make it harder to get voter approval for future bond measures or mill levy increases — especially since nearly 80 percent of district households don’t have school-age kids.

Finally, and perhaps most ominously, a precedent would be set in D-12 that school districts across the state might follow, doing severe harm to the charter school movement statewide. It’s an unfortunate reality that many school districts are resistant to granting charters because they fear the competition and view the schools as illegitimate upstarts. If a prestigious district such as D-12 succeeds in purging CMCA, many other districts may be emboldened to do likewise. Public education has made significant if fitful strides in recent times toward breaking down barriers to competition and broadening parental choice. This potentially marks a reversal of this trend. Beating a retreat from progress isn’t something we in the district, and we in the city of Colorado Springs, should want to be associated with.

D-12 increasingly depends on out-of-district students to bridge its enrollment gap. The answer for a shrinking district isn’t to purge even more students, simply because their parents believe CMCA best suits their needs, or to divide the district by pitting charter against non-charter, resident against non-resident. Why not take the opposite tack, by taking some of the things that are working so well in charters and applying them district-wide? If the trend favors charters, or a charter-like curriculum and learning culture, D-12 should follow the trend, not fight it. Perhaps underutilized elementary schools can be saved by converting them into actual or de-facto charter schools, making them even greater draws for out-of-district students. As long as high standards are maintained — and maintaining them would be key to this “magnet district” strategy — new students and money would flow into, not out of, D-12. In-district families would continue to have neighborhood schools and the school choices they have now, and if more out-of-district students benefit as a result, all the better.

District boundaries are artificialities anyway. The focus on dollars and cents, though important, shouldn’t distract from what matters most: what’s best for the students. It’s in everyone’s interest to see the greatest number of kids get the best education possible, irrespective of where their parents happen to live.

We can best keep the district healthy, in short, not by narrowing choices, excluding people or punishing a school for its successes, but by being inclusive — by embracing D-12’s role as a magnet district and by adopting charter-like innovations an increasing number of parents seem to want. The D-12 board should look beyond what the Blue Ribbon panel recommended, in search of bolder, and better, solutions.

Paige is executive director of the Institute for Civic Innovation and editor of a soon-to-be-launched Web site, Local Liberty Online. Write him at seanpaige@msn.com.