One of the most interesting — and important — debates taking place in Albany these days is over the future of charter schools. And, while the decisions will ultimately be made in the state capital, the discussion has been joined by policymakers, educators and editorial writers across New York.

One of the questions currently being considered is whether the statewide cap of 100 charter schools should be lifted so that additional charters can be granted.

NYSUT says no. Significant changes in the law are necessary before NYSUT would support increasing the number of charters issued in New York state.

Charter schools are publicly funded schools that operate free from many regulations governing public education. NYSUT has always been open to the charter school concept. In fact, we represent members in some charter schools. If done properly, these schools could be effective laboratories for academic innovation and reform. This was one of the reasons the concept was first embraced in 1988 by American Federation of Teachers President Al Shanker.

Since the introduction of charter schools to New York in 1998, NYSUT has steadfastly insisted that these schools be held accountable for high standards, fiscal oversight and collective bargaining rights, and that they remain under the control of the Board of Regents. Because of the union's perseverance, state law now ensures that most teachers in charter schools are certified; that students are required to take Regents Exams and other state assessments; and that teachers in public schools that convert to charters continue to have collective-bargaining protections.

With almost 100 charter schools established in New York state, there are very few success stories. The United Federation of Teachers Elementary Charter School in Brooklyn , however, is one that shows great potential. The school is run by the UFT, NYSUT's largest affiliate. It opened in September with 150 students in kindergarten and first grade and will eventually add grades two through five. Early indications are that the school, with its staff 100 percent UFT members, is off to a good start.

But overall, the results around the state are not good, or shall we say mixed — at best. While some of the schools have succeeded in raising test scores, many others haven't lived up to their initial promise. And those that have shown some academic progress are doing no better than traditional public schools when data is accurately disaggregated. Even more significantly, following a state review of the original 21 charter schools, four have been shut down while another eight have been severely restricted.

In other words, most have failed.

Time to assess

Now, with the cap imposed by the state Legislature about to be met, charter school proponents are calling for the limits to be lifted. The problem is, they haven't earned that; they don't have a record that warrants expansion of this experiment. Not yet, anyway.

Nearing the limit imposed by the 1998 legislation provides us with a natural opportunity to assess the impact of charter schools. Are they serving their students and their families well? Are they living up to their commitment to the communities they serve? And, perhaps most importantly, how are they affecting the public school districts that are forced to support them?

This last question is one that deserves a straight answer. Sometimes lost in the debate over charter schools is the fact that the overwhelming majority of K-12 students in our state are still educated in traditional public schools. Meanwhile, charter schools drain several thousand dollars per student from the school district from which they come. And because school districts' fixed costs don't fall by much when a student leaves, budget shortfalls are created, property taxes increase, and programs and services in the traditional schools are jeopardized.

The result, too often, is that every time a charter school opens, the local district suffers. The school district's ability to properly educate the majority of the students and their families in that community is diminished.

As others see it

NYSUT is not alone in seeing the inequities — and dangers — inherent in the current charter school movement. Last year, the Buffalo school board — which witnessed charter schools siphon off more than $38 million from the local district — called for a charter school moratorium. In a commentary following that board's action, Buffalo News columnist Rod Watson wrote:

"We shouldn't let educational gamblers play with any more of the house's money — or its kids — until we find out what works."

Editorial boards in other parts of the state have echoed those sentiments as the effects of charter schools have emerged in community after community. Meanwhile, in the Albany Times Union earlier this fall, Tim Kremer of the New York State School Boards Association, weighed in:

"Independent charter schools may have their place ... but not at the expense of the students in the existing public schools. A moratorium on new charter schools will permit us as a state to pause, evaluate this new school system, and proceed in a way that will benefit all students."

NYSUT and the school boards association occasionally find themselves on different sides of an issue, but not this time. Kremer is right.

The Albany experience

Private citizens and taxpayers are also voicing their concerns about charter schools. Earlier this year, Albany residents voted in a non-binding referendum to overwhelmingly reject more charter schools. That vote, and what is currently happening in Albany , needs to be given serious consideration by state lawmakers as they decide what's next for charter schools. By the way, NYSUT believes citizens should be given the right to vote on allowing a new charter school into their community.

Albany — a city of fewer than 100,000 people — already has six charter schools, operating with, to be polite, various degrees of success (see related story). There are three more on the drawing board. This is clearly a saturation that is already having a negative economic and programmatic impact on a public school system struggling with the challenges faced by urban districts. Who suffers? It's the kids, of course. Their equipment goes unpurchased, their programs are cut, and their classes keep growing.

Gerald Reynolds, President Bush's chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, was in Albany recently and felt compelled to engage in some public school bashing while, at the same time, voicing support for new charter schools, completely ignoring the will of Albany's voters. The school, coincidentally, is run by the infamous former head of an anti-public-anything TAXPAC. I felt a need to respond to Reynolds' baffling and apparently uninformed remarks. Here are some excerpts from my response: "When you attack the district, the teachers and the parents of Albany 's public school students, you diminish the accomplishments of those students and you ignore the struggles of the thousands of families trying to help their children succeed.

"Unproven charter schools have been draining millions of dollars from Albany's public schools. It's hypocritical to continue to demand more from Albany's schools while at the same time providing ever-decreasing resources.

"We want to fix Albany's schools, and we know how to fix them. While the jury is still out on charter schools, we do have the formula for successful schools: small classes; well-equipped classrooms; well-trained teachers; safe schools; involved parents. We won't get there if charter schools continue to drain public schools of the funds needed to provide these services."

I haven't heard back from Chairman Reynolds yet, but it's my hope that he will convey to the president and to those with whom he's aligned himself that there is no evidence to declare charter schools a panacea for the problems of public education. Instead, the focus needs to be on strengthening free and universal public education. The traditional public school as we know it has a rich history of offering to open the door of opportunity — equally — to every one of our nation's children. That's where we need to concentrate our efforts.