When people questioned the need for last year's charter schools amendment, citing the fact local school districts could approve good charter applications, I pointed out numerous times that local school districts often don't hold up their end of the bargain. A prime example is playing out in Atlanta right now.

Atlanta Public Schools historically has been pretty good about approving charter applications: A little less than 10 percent of APS students attend locally approved charters. But a feud between the district and its charters over pension-funding obligations is threatening to mar APS's track record.

Superintendent Erroll Davis has recommended the school board, in its meeting next Monday, deny the applications of two charter applicants. He makes it clear the quality of the respective applications is basically irrelevant:

"Regardless of whether or not a petition receives a positive or negative review from the charter review panel, recommendation for approval of any petition cannot be given, now or in the future, due to the still-unresolved court case regarding Unfunded Pension Liability payments. Right now, this financial burden is carried entirely by traditional schools. Until this court case is resolved, charter schools and traditional schools will continue to be funded at a markedly different rate that will only increase over time. In good conscience, I cannot recommend increasing the financial burden on traditional school students in order to create new schools that will not pay their share."

You can read some background about the pension funding fight here. Paying "their share" certainly sounds fair enough -- until you consider the real numbers.

According to an APS watchdog, the district funds its traditional schools at about 40 percent more per pupil than its charter schools. Even after accounting for the pension payments, that gap would fall to "only" about 29 percent.

So, traditional schools stand to keep receiving 29 percent more per pupil than charter schools. That does indeed represent a "markedly different rate" between the two, just not in the direction Davis would have you believe. In fact, given how much less APS spends on charter-school students than kids at traditional schools,  wouldn't it make sense to increase the charter school population, and use the savings to help address the pension deficit?

What's more, one of the charter applicants, Atlanta Classical Academy, would be located on the north side of the city (the other, Hinds Feet Montessori School of the Arts, would be on the south side, like every other APS charter school). During its latest redistricting process, APS grappled with how to address overcrowding in its Buckhead cluster of schools: Just three years from now, Buckhead's elementary and middle schools are projected to have almost one-third more students enrolled than twice as many students enrolled as they have seats available (see the chart atop this post by my colleague Maureen Downey). UPDATE at 3:24 p.m.: The person who provided the enrollment/overcrowding figures, Robert Stockwell, says he made an error in his original calculation; I've changed the preceding sentence to reflect his corrected figures.

Yet, there was vigorous disagreement within the community about how to address this overcrowding -- whether to build any schools, and if so where. Many parents were very vocal about not wanting to be moved out of their current school zone. So, in essence, the current "plan" to address overcrowding amounts to: We'll deal with that later.

Now there's a potential charter school that could alleviate some of the overcrowding, by drawing only those students who choose to attend it. And it would do so without any construction costs for APS -- and at a lower per-pupil funding than APS would otherwise spend on these students if they attended a new or existing traditional school. These are some of the reasons my wife and I signed the petition for Atlanta Classical Academy.

As school-choice opponents are fond of pointing out, APS can't turn these kids away. The district will have to accommodate them one way or another. Shouldn't APS be happy to have charter school applicants who can help address the overcrowding at a comparatively low cost and without antagonizing the community?

If Davis and his staff believe these charter applicants, or any future ones, are not of a high enough quality, then by all means the board should deny them. But if the applicants are of a high quality and would have been recommended for approval absent the pensions lawsuit, the board should maintain its good track record on charters and approve them.