At a State House rally against the Achievement First mayoral academy proposal last month, Cranston School Committee Chairwoman Andrea Iannazzi said that the primary reaction she was hearing from parents and teachers was confusion.

“People are confused because they thought they already beat this proposal,” she said.

It’s easy to see why.

At every public hearing, crowds packed the Rhode Island Department of Education building in Providence, and a meeting in City Council Chambers overflowed, necessitating a last minute move to Cranston East. The vast majority of speakers, and almost all of the speakers from Cranston, were opposed to the plan. When the Regents voted down the plan, those voices were validated. But imagine their surprise when a very similar application was introduced soon after – an application that impacted the same mob of angry parents and teachers who fought against the plan the first time around. During round two, it appears their voices fell on deaf ears.

We’re not big on conspiracy theories, but can you blame Cranston for thinking this was the plan all along? What changed? They still opposed the school.

And despite the merits of charter schools, they had good reason to doubt.

To say there will be no financial impact on Cranston is not entirely true. Yes, the money follows the child, but let’s say little Johnny decides to leave Eden Park Elementary. He’s a high performer, without any special education needs, so his per pupil expenditure is close to the $14,000 baseline. Eden Park loses that $14,000, but the only change to their school is the loss of little Johnny. It’s not enough to cut a classroom, lose a teacher, or save any significant dollars on materials.

Consider those small losses across the district, and you could be talking about large sums of money taken out of Cranston Public Schools and no real savings to make up for it. Supporters of the proposal point to the fair funding formula, and argue that the district will still see a net gain, but that formula was not predicated on an increase in charter schools. That extra money is proof that Cranston has been underfunded. Cranston is owed that money – and now we’re going to lose it, again?

It appears nothing can be done, now that this proposal has been approved, but let’s not forget some of the productive dialogue that came out of this debate. Time and again, charter school proponents spoke of the benefits of alternative education – longer school days, longer school years, smaller class sizes and an abundance of programs to choose from. As several members of the Board of Regents observed, those principles could be just as effective when applied to traditional public school education. Chairman Caruolo said the state is looking at the feasibility of doing just that.

Let’s see it.

This mayoral academy is going to happen, but that’s no reason to stop trying to reform and improve public schools across the state. Teachers and students are ready. No amount of charters can replace the public education this country relies on, so the state Department of Education and the Board of Regents should spend more time and resources on improving existing schools than soliciting new schools to come in.