Inquirer Editorial: Successful districts make a point on charters

What a surprise that the latest battle over charter schools in New Jersey is in the relatively affluent and highly regarded Cherry Hill School District.

Across America, resistance to charters has been largely viewed as coming from failing urban districts trying to avoid competition with privately run schools funded with public money.

There has been little sympathy for the urban districts, which are accused of trying to hold on to public funds even if it means fewer children can get out of a bad school and into a charter.

But to have suburban Cherry Hill argue that a proposed charter would wrongly take money from regular schools puts a different slant on that argument, which may generate more traction.

Cherry Hill officials are appealing the state Department of Education's approval of the Regis Academy Charter School, which is set to open next fall at the Solid Rock Worship Center, a nondenominational church. In addition to traditional classroom instruction, Regis students would learn how to operate a business and develop governmental and cultural organizations.

The K-8 school would enroll 450 students from Cherry Hill, Lawnside, Voorhees, and Somerdale. Those local school districts would be required to contribute funds from their state allocation to help cover the charter's costs.

Cherry Hill, among the largest districts in the state, would have to fork over $1.9 million a year. School officials say such a large loss in state funding would force Cherry Hill to lay off teachers and cut programs, unfairly hurting its noncharter students.

Cherry Hill further contends that a charter school is not needed there because the district already has good schools. Parents in Millburn similarly lobbied against plans to open two charter schools in that Essex County town that would emphasize the teaching of Mandarin Chinese.

These cases raise a fundamental question: Should taxpayers be forced to foot the bill for public-school children to get a boutique, private-school-style education?

It shouldn't be difficult for the Legislature, which first approved charter schools in 1995, to figure out the obvious answer: No. The state's charter-school law should be overhauled to make that clear. The Senate Education Committee heard testimony Thursday on a bill that would require a referendum in a district before a charter school could be approved. That's one way to address the problem.

Charters should be an option. But they shouldn't be allowed to crop up where they aren't needed and will take state funds from good schools. The state also needs to provide better oversight of charters, monitoring their academic performance, management, and financial practices.