I’m a big supporter of the charter school movement, and especially of their poster-child KIPP. (See previous post for a description of KIPP’s impressive record of creating wildly successful urban public charter schools). So I wasn’t at all surprised to read in today’s Boston Globe that New York City, which already has four KIPP schools, plans to open five more by 2012; that Washington, which also has four, plans to open six more in the next three years; and that New Orleans with five plans to open five more by 2012. I was, however, surprised to learn that Boston does not have a single KIPP school nor does it have plans to welcome any in the near future.

At issue is the state’s cap on charter schools. KIPP CEO Richard Bath says: “Based on my experience today, if the state were to lift the cap, I have to believe Boston would have to be our top choice for our next city.” Not surprising since Boston is a city ripe with opportunity for KIPP. It’s an urban center with a pressing need for schools that can bridge the achievement gap; it’s chock full of excellent colleges from which talented educators could be culled; and as Barth noted, it has a state funding formula that would enable KIPP to offer teachers generous salaries.

According to the editorial, the problem is that the teacher’s union will surely be dead set against welcoming KIPP to Boston, Mayor Menino (who presumably wants to get re-elected) won’t want to upset the union, and Governor Patrick is willing to consider lifting the cap but only under certain restrictive conditions (i.e. that charters draw at least 80% of their students from populations that lag behind academically as opposed to their preferred policy of holding blind admissions lotteries.)

The Legislature’s Joint Committee on Education is holding a hearing on charter schools next week, and I sincerely hope the powers-that-be see the light, and put the needs of students in Boston ahead of their own political agendas. Is that really too much to ask?

Speaking of too much to ask, why do charter schools in D.C. have to beg, borrow, and steal just to get the money they need for adequate facilities? There’s an editorial in the Washington Post today about the disparities in funding between public schools and public charter schools when it comes to facilities. Why do children in charter schools have less than half the square footage per student than children in other public schools? Do students in one type of public school deserve more space than students in another? Seriously?!

According to the article,  city officials in D.C. refuse to give charter schools access to unused school buildings, so they often have to take over warehouses, retail spaces, the basements of churches, or buy/lease expensive commercial property instead. And if the D.C. Council’s current proposal is adopted, building funding for each charter school student will be about $2,800 - less than half that of public school students’ $5,829.

It’s time for city officials to realize that when you unfairly penalize charter schools, you unfairly penalize children. Period.

(Photo: Army.mil’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons)