Princeton Charter School’s (PCS) December 1 proposal to add 76 students next year has reignited a battle with Princeton Public Schools (PPS) over limited available resources, but it’s not a simple conflict.

Each side has expressed sincere respect for the other side, along with a strong sense of shared concerns and goals and a desire to work positively together. As both sides have pointed out, however, the state’s school funding formula may inevitably pit the two entities against each other. 

“They’re all our children. We live in a town that cares deeply about education and about all of our children whether they attend any one of the district schools or the Charter School,” stated PPS superintendent Steve Cochrane in a draft of comments he planned to present at last night’s School Board meeting (which took place after Town Topics went to press).

He continued, “On paper, the district schools and the Charter School may be separate, but in reality the relationships are deeply intertwined. We have families in Princeton with one child at Charter and another in a district school. We have staff from one institution with children at the other. And of course nearly all of the students who attend the Charter School eventually spend four years proudly attending Princeton High School (PHS).

“Bottom line: We don’t want to become divided in the way we talk with one another about the children we share. We want to maintain civil discourse that elucidates the facts about the impact of the PCS petition, that avoids disparagement of individuals or institutions, and that promotes the possibility for a creative resolution.”

The impact of that expansion, however, according to Mr. Cochrane’s planned comments to the Board, would be severe. “I stand in firm opposition to this proposed expansion of the PCS, not out of any ill will for the Charter School, but because the expansion would significantly undermine the quality of education we are able to provide to our students in this district, including those students from the Charter School who matriculate to PHS.”

Mr. Cochrane’s talking points continued to delineate for the Board the anticipated consequences of the proposed Charter School expansion for the district, including an annual drain of $1.2 million from the budget and no reduction in space or staff needs or other fixed costs.

The superintendent also disputed claims that the charter school can save taxpayers money by educating students more efficiently than the district. He cited in detail the greater diversity of students educated by the district. PPS enrolls a much larger percentage of students with special needs than the Charter School, and also students from disadvantaged backgrounds who may need particular interventions to achieve at their full potential.

Adding one more element to his commentary on the diversity of students educated by the district, Mr. Cochrane noted that high school students, with their breadth of academic, extracurricular, and athletic opportunities, “are inherently more expensive to educate.” (PCS includes just K-8.)

The charter school debate in Princeton is in some ways a reflection of an ongoing national debate that will be brought to the front pages early next year as President Donald Trump seeks confirmation of Betsy DeVos, a well-publicized charter school advocate, as his nominee for Secretary of Education. In other ways, however, Princeton is unusual with a charter school existing and thriving alongside such a strong public school system.

Mr. Cochrane’s final talking point in his proposed comments to the Board, was one of “hope for bold and creative ways of maximizing the resources in this community and the level of learning for all students.” He hinted at ideas for forging a closer alliance between PPS and PCS.

“Rather than expanding and furthering the separation that already exists, is there a way to bring the two institutions into closer alignment? What can we learn from each other?” he asked, suggesting ideas for joining students and staff from both schools under the same umbrella.

Noting a positive relationship between the two institutions over the years, PCS head Larry Patton asserted the need to talk with Mr. Cochrane and his colleagues and stated that they planned to get together at some point soon after the PPS Board had had a chance to determine its position on the Charter proposal. “The numbers are tricky,” Mr. Patton said, “and we respectfully disagree, but that doesn’t fit into a sound bite. That’s something we need to talk about.”

Mr. Patton also emphasized the importance of civil discourse, “keeping it from becoming exaggerated.” He added, “We’ve always had a good relationship with Steve. He’s been wonderful in working with us. I appreciate that.”

The Charter School application, which includes provisions for increasing the number of disadvantaged students admitted as well as bringing the numbers of students in kindergarten through third grades up to the level of the upper grades, will be decided on by the state commissioner of education, probably within the next three or four months.

PPS, which has the opportunity to file a formal response to the charter school application with the State Department of Education by February 1, was planning to form an ad hoc committee at last night’s Board meeting to provide information to the community and to prepare that response, according to Mr. Cochrane.

“As superintendent of the PPS, I will fight this petition from the Charter School to expand its enrollment,” Mr. Cochrane wrote, “but I would much rather use my energies to work with the educators at the Charter School and with other members of our community to find a creative path towards consolidation. I will continue to hold out hope for that possibility.”