AFT Ed has a thoughtful post responding to Urban Choice Charter School founder John Bliss' piece in the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle on whether or not his charter school is draining the local school district. I encourage you to read it, because it shows a level of sympathetic nuance that was absent for many years in the talking points of opponents of school choice. The words "drain" and "siphon" were historically used for a reason (they are effective in influencing the public debate.)

The thing I like about Ed's post (which read to me like a 'let's cut the crap on both sides and have a real discussion here' kind of post) is that rather than pounding home the tired and true black/white arguments, he shows that oftentimes the gray area can actually be more interesting. He makes some solid points. A couple of random thoughts:

1. Technically, any money that passes through a district to another entity (that could have otherwise been spent by a district on educating district kids even though it never really belonged to the district) could be considered "draining." I think the thing that frustrates many charter school operators is the suggestion that the cost of educating their kids here-and-now is repeatedly considered "draining," while other things like out-of-control health care costs, wasteful district spending and even outright corruption also are "draining" funds from district classrooms, but are merely considered part of the cost of doing business in public education.

2. Further complicating the debate (or making it more interesting, depending on your threshold for playing the devil's advocate) are questions about whether charter schools (and vouchers where they are available) SHOULD drain local school districts. This gets at the whole argument that if local districts don't feel any pain when they lose a family or two, it isn't REALLY a competitive situation. This part of the discussion throws some people, especially when they weigh whether it is best to starve a failing district or invest more in it. The latter suggestion obviously bugs people who believe strongly that incentives and disincentives matter. (Ed suggests that charter operators are guided by incentives, by his argument, to take easier to educate kids. So clearly incentives can matter, causing many people to scratch their heads at the idea of rewarding failure with more resources.)

3. Ed's look at the economics of running a charter school seem right on to me in some respects. This is interesting in that it exposes a split between some of charterdom's loudest supporters (who insist that charters can work miracles on the cheap) and the people who actually run charters (who aren't in the habit of turning away a single dime, if they can get their hands on it, to better help their kids.) On issues of the economies of scale, for example, most charter school operators I know try desperately to make sure their enrollment in the fall matches their projections from the previous spring, because just one or two fewer students can impact their overall school budget significantly.

4. Remember that all of these discussions take place amid a backdrop of public education's seeming inability on its own to create significant numbers of dynamic new schools that push the academic envelope under existing statutory, managerial and labor arrangements. I mention this because I do happen to know many charter school supporters who see the points that Ed is making quite clearly, but are nonetheless tipped to support charter school experimentation because they really believe that something has to budge and this is the most palatable way to help the budging.

5. As some pointed out this week, if the finances of local districts are your only hang-up with public charter schools, there have been ample opportunities in New York State to get behind "hold harmless" bills that have been written and supported by charter school supporters. Also, Eliot Spitzer is a fan of impact aid, no? It would seem that all of this would fit nicely in one massive CFE settlement...