Two views on charter schools

This post is the first in a new Beacon feature, Counterpoint, a dialogue between liberal Rick Dollinger and conservative Geoff Rosenberger.

Rick: Geoff, let’s start with an old argument that has new data and evolving questions—charter schools, both as a concept and here in Rochester. I know you’re a fan.

Geoff: You’re right. I am. I don’t like monopolies, which is what traditional K-12 district schools are. Sure, you can move to a different school district if you have enough money and aren’t happy with your child’s school. But many people don’t. And, even if you do have the resources, you love your house, you love your neighbors and you live 10 minutes from work. Why should you be forced to give that all up just because you aren’t happy with your child’s school?

Rick: I get the dissatisfaction by parents when schools are not teaching their children. But it is more than just the type of school. As you know, it is a host of other systemic problems—poverty most significantly. How do charter schools solve or even deal with that incredibly difficult problem?

Geoff: Actually, the vast majority of charter schools, at least in New York, primarily enroll students from lower-income backgrounds. New York encourages that. I doubt an application for a Pittsford- or Penfield-domiciled charter school would receive approval. The academic challenges stemming from poverty, as you note, are real and plague charter and urban district schools alike. Homelessness and hunger occupy both their classrooms.

But charter schools aren’t one-size-fits-all. Each one is different and employs its own pedagogy. Some are strict and emphasize discipline, others less so. Some are single sex, some are coed. Some focus on science or the arts, some are more generalist in terms of their curriculum. Some emphasize college prep, others on alternate career pathways. But one of the recurring themes among charters is a longer school day and, sometimes, a longer school year.

Rick: Geoff, right on the nose. Longer school days, longer school years are proven—to the best I know—to improve student outcomes in every grade. In addition, the wrap-around programs—after-school tutoring or organized activities—attain the same goal of increased student investment in their education.

The public schools in our region—especially in the suburban districts—are working to make that a reality, as I understand.

But, a central question: Is there “longitudinal data”— historical review of charter school students’ success after they graduate or move on—that shows charter schools get over the “poverty hurdle” and their graduates can get into college and post-graduate success?

Geoff: Rick, charter schools are public schools! It’s a common misperception that they aren’t. 

Your outcomes question is very appropriate—we should be asking that question about every aspect of government! Given that: A) New York State only first approved charter schools in 1998, B) It took a few years after that legislative approval for the first charter schools to open, and C) Most charter schools only open with one or two grades, adding additional grades each year, the vast majority of charter school students are either still in school or are in the very early stages of their careers. So, it’s still too early to measure “post-graduate success.” However, if you look at the standardized English Language Arts and Math exams that New York State administers to 3rd through 8th grade public-school students annually, traditionally three quarters of New York’s charter schools outperform their local home school district counterparts.

But your question does touch a nerve! Longitudinal K-12 academic outcomes data is hard to come by in New York because the standardized ELA and math exams administered annually to 3rd through 8th grade students are modified every few years by just enough to render the new version’s results non-comparable to those from prior years. So, while you can compare your home district to the New York State average each year or to other local school districts with similar poverty metrics, it’s difficult to know if statewide educational outcomes as a whole are getting better or worse over time. One has to wonder if that’s not by design.

Rick: Geoff—that argument—how to get good “achievement data” for schools, whether charter or otherwise—misses the point. As you know, some charter schools in Rochester have proven records of success. Others did not and closed.

But, the big question, from my point of view—we have 20 years of charter school data in New York, which means that some students from charter schools in school districts which have high concentrations of poverty (like Rochester) have graduated from high school and, presumably, college.

Is the graduation rate of those students markedly higher than the regular public schools? Even if Rochester does not have it, is there national data that proves that point? Don’t we need that to settle this argument?  

Do we even have data from the Urban-Suburban Program in Monroe County in which students voluntarily shift school districts in an effort to broaden educational opportunity?

Geoff: Rick, you’ve highlighted one of the things I like most about charter schools—the lousy ones get closed! Unlike underperforming district schools that are allowed to muddle on year after year, charter schools either produce positive student outcomes or New York State pulls their charter. In fact, 56 New York State charters, or 13.7 percent of the total, have closed over the years. (See the New York State Charter School Fact Sheet.) As you noted, several of those schools operated in Rochester. And that’s as it should be. If a school doesn’t produce, it shouldn’t exist.

Ah, graduation rates. A simple metric that, unfortunately, tells us little today. Look to our community colleges and all the courses taught there that are essentially high school remediation courses. Students are awarded diplomas certifying mastery of material that was never really mastered. So, community colleges must re-teach that material in order to prepare those high school diploma holders for college level work. And now, New York State is doing away with Regents diplomas in lieu of five separate “pathways” to graduation. It will get worse. Sadly, a high school education and a high school diploma are no longer one and the same.

All of that said, SUNY-chartered high schools posted an 84 percent 2024 high school graduation rate, while at Board of Regents chartered high schools, it was 80.4 percent. That’s below the 88 percent New York statewide average but well above the graduation rates of the comparable urban school districts in which most charters operate. The Rochester City School District’s 2024 graduation rate was 63 percent. The Buffalo City School District graduated 74 percent of its students. Syracuse and Albany both had 73 percent graduation rates, while New York City performed better, with an 83 percent graduation rate. So, on an apples-to-apples basis, charter school graduation rates are materially above those of their local district counterparts. And they get those improved outcomes while spending only a fraction of the taxpayer dollars that district schools do on a per-pupil basis. Charters produce more despite having dramatically fewer financial resources.

Rick: The data looks really good and confirms that an available alternative is something every community should examine seriously. But why hasn’t your party—the GOP—fielded a “charter school slate” in the city to give parents a real chance to examine charter school reform and let the voters decide?

The argument, as I see it, never gets beyond the data: we need a real debate and the data suggests it is warranted.

That said, I am still not sure I buy the concept.

Geoff: Well, setting aside the reality that the GOP has zero clout within Rochester’s city limits, the city’s parents have already voted. The RCSD’s 2025-2026 budget book shows that 30 percent of the city’s K-12 public school students already attend charter schools. That number will continue to grow as Rochester’s newer charter schools continue to add grades with each successive school year. That’s a pretty respectable sample size! It’s no longer about campaign promises. It’s happening in real time.

Rick: Geoff: I get it—people vote with their feet. If they can’t move out to the suburbs, they walk to the nearest charter school. So be it.

You and I were raised outside the public schools—in the Catholic grammar schools long ago. We had the same core curriculum as the public schools, learned the same basics and, heck, we turned out OK, I guess.

Let’s leave the debate there: parents will decide the future of charter schools when deciding the best interests of their children. I leave it to the parents. We all should let them decide on the best way to educate their children.

Richard Dollinger is a retired Court of Claims judge and a former state senator who lives in Brighton. Geoff Rosenberger is retired co-founder of Clover Capital Management Inc.

The Beacon welcomes comments and letters from readers who adhere to our comment policy including use of their full, real name. See “Leave a Reply” below to discuss on this post. Comments of a general nature may be submitted to the Letters page by emailing [email protected].