Traditional public education advocates, concerned over the current state of our school systems, use the words "School Choice", "Charter Schools" and "Privatization" synonymously. Tying them together leads one to believe that public schools are being taken over by private companies. That is quite a leap. A study of the school choice movement in the Pittsburgh area makes three points absolutely clear. First, school choice is availed by more than half of the families in Pittsburgh and Allegheny County. Second, charter schools can offer students, who attend low achieving feeder schools, with a quality public school alternative. Third, privatization of public schools is currently not an issue in the Pittsburgh area. Let's try to clear this up with some definitions and examples of each type in Pittsburgh.
School Choice is when a family chooses to send their child to a school other than the local feeder school where they currently live. Examples of public school choice would be to:
One school choice option is a Charter School. Charter Schools are independent public schools funded through tuition payments from the school districts of their students. Charters receive the same subsidies district schools get from the state and federal governments for programs such as Title I, Special Education and Free/Reduced lunch. Thus they are funded through tax dollars. Charters are obligated to follow the rules and regulations of public schools as stated by the state and federal government. They take the same state mandated tests and are held accountable to the state standards. But because they have their own board of directors and are separate from the local public school district, they are freer to innovate and experiment with new school models. They must select their students through a lottery and are not allowed to get rid of students (as private schools can do.) Every five years they are reviewed and, if they are not doing a good job, their charters can be revoked.
"Privatization, or "contracting out," is part of a broad campaign that seeks to transfer many parts of our community life, including the delivery of education services, into the hands of private, for-profit corporations" (as stated by The National Education Association, America's largest teachers' union.) Edison Schools are an example of a charter school organization that is for profit. Thus some percentage of the school's funding is taken as profit by the company. Private charters represent about 12% of the total charters in the U.S., but have no current presence in the Pittsburgh area.
So let's take a look at whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County families avail themselves of school choice, charters or some type of privatization option.
There are approximately 190,000 K12 students in Allegheny County.
School Choice is when a family chooses to send their child to a school other than the local feeder school where they currently live. Examples of public school choice would be to:
- move to a different neighborhood to enroll in a specific public school;
- send your child to a public magnet school (e.g. Pittsburgh Sci-Tech High);
- send your child to a public non-profit charter school (e.g. Propel Schools);
- send your child to a publically funded for-profit charter school (Edison Schools).
- pay for your child to attend a private non-profit parochial school (e.g. Central Catholic High School);
- pay for your child to attend a private non-profit independent school (e.g. Shadyside Academy).
One school choice option is a Charter School. Charter Schools are independent public schools funded through tuition payments from the school districts of their students. Charters receive the same subsidies district schools get from the state and federal governments for programs such as Title I, Special Education and Free/Reduced lunch. Thus they are funded through tax dollars. Charters are obligated to follow the rules and regulations of public schools as stated by the state and federal government. They take the same state mandated tests and are held accountable to the state standards. But because they have their own board of directors and are separate from the local public school district, they are freer to innovate and experiment with new school models. They must select their students through a lottery and are not allowed to get rid of students (as private schools can do.) Every five years they are reviewed and, if they are not doing a good job, their charters can be revoked.
"Privatization, or "contracting out," is part of a broad campaign that seeks to transfer many parts of our community life, including the delivery of education services, into the hands of private, for-profit corporations" (as stated by The National Education Association, America's largest teachers' union.) Edison Schools are an example of a charter school organization that is for profit. Thus some percentage of the school's funding is taken as profit by the company. Private charters represent about 12% of the total charters in the U.S., but have no current presence in the Pittsburgh area.
So let's take a look at whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County families avail themselves of school choice, charters or some type of privatization option.
There are approximately 190,000 K12 students in Allegheny County.
- There are 43 public school districts in Allegheny County.
- 120,000 (63%) students attend public schools in the county outside of Pittsburgh.
- 25,000 (13%) students attend the Pittsburgh Public Schools.
- 6000 (3%) students attend public charter schools in Allegheny County.
- 39,000 (21%) students pay tuition to attend private/parochial schools in Allegheny County.
The population analysis is striking when it
is reviewed using the filter of poverty as measured by eligibility for the Federal Free/Reduced lunch program (PDE, Division of Food and Nutrition, Building Data Report, Oct. 2012). 57,000 public school students (30% of the total) in Allegheny County live in poverty as defined by their eligibility for the lunch program. Of those students in poverty, 33,000 attend schools that have more than 60% poverty. These students are concentrated in the poorest neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, these are the lowest achieving schools in the county.
So who attends Charter Schools? Pittsburgh charter school poverty statistics (Free/Reduced Lunch) demonstrate vividly which students choose charter schools.
| Charter Schools in Pittsburgh Area | Poverty |
| CITY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL | 66% |
| ACADEMY CHARTER SCHOOL | 86% |
| MANCHESTER ACADEMIC CS | 83% |
| NORTHSIDE URBAN PATHWAYS CS | 86% |
| CAREER CONNECTIONS CHARTER HS | 83% |
| PROPEL ANDREW STREET HS | 83% |
| PROPEL BRADDOCK HILLS ES | 79% |
| PROPEL BRADDOCK HILLS HS | 69% |
| PROPEL CS - PITCAIRN | 57% |
| PROPEL EAST | 67% |
| PROPEL HOMESTEAD | 91% |
| PROPEL MCKEESPORT | 87% |
| PROPEL MONTOUR | 70% |
| PROPEL NORTHSIDE | 82% |
| URBAN LEAGUE ES | 86% |
On average the poverty rate at Pittsburgh area charter schools is 78%.
Are you beginning to get the idea about "School Choice" in Pittsburgh? The suburbanites made their choice, they left the city, moved as far out as their income would take them and paid for their education through their property taxes or for tuition to private or parochial schools. The charter school and magnet school "choice" is really a class-based urban education issue. And privatization is a non-issue in Pittsburgh.
So let's get back to the original premise... Is Choice the Problem? It is a hypocritical notion that educators do not believe in school choice. Americans believe deeply in choice in all sectors. Most Americans with families make decisions about schools for their children based on finding the best schools they can afford. Educators, like most middle class Americans, choose to move near schools that have lots of resources and high achievement. Within the city, middle/upper class Pittsburghers move to wealthier neighborhoods (Squirrel Hill, Shadyside) or take advantage of PPS magnet schools (CAPA, IB program at Obama HS, Engineering at Allderdice HS, Sci-Tech HS.) In the county, middle/upper class Pittsburghers, with the financial resources, choose a school district outside of Pittsburgh by buying or renting in a wealthy community (Mt. Lebanon, Upper St. Clair, Peters Township, North Allegheny). Lower income families don't have the option to move. Their choices are limited.
Are Charters the problem? In the City of Pittsburgh limits, approximately 50% of the students use school choice to either attend a magnet school, a charter school or pay tuition to a private school. The remaining students have limited or no choice. 69% of Pittsburgh Public School students live in poverty as defined by the federal free/reduced lunch standards. They do not have the resources to "choose" a school by paying tuition or moving to a wealthier community. Charter Schools provide a public school option that empowers poor families to have a choice. It is currently the most progressive method of providing a choice option for poor families in the urban core. Without this choice they have no other option than to attend their local school, no matter its quality. The charter schools that Pittsburgh has authorized are all non-profit, 501(c)(3) organizations. City Charter High School, Manchester Academic Charter, Urban Pathways, Propel Schools, the Urban League Charter, the Environmental Charter School are quite successful from both a student achievement and parental perspective. They all have large waiting lists. What is sad, is that the Pittsburgh Public Schools used a similar choice methodology with good results when they created the Magnet Schools as a strategy to integrate the districts in the early 1980's. Why the District did not continue that successful strategy is beyond me.
Is Privatization the problem? It may become a problem at some point, but it is not currently a Pittsburgh problem. I happen to agree with public school advocates and the unions about privatization. I have no interest in for-profit companies running our schools. Their number one priority is return on investment, not the education of our children. And their student achievement results are not better than non-profit charters. So I understand why they would speak out on the topic.
Bottom line... Charter schools take dollars away from the chartering district. Thus "public school advocates and teacher unions" choose to side with the traditional delivery model (an education monopoly by neighborhood) rather than with the students who want to choose a better education. To attack charter schools is an attempt to deny choice to poor, less fortunate citizens in order to maintain the status quo in our existing institutions.
