Exclusive to AWildDuck . . .
High Performing Charter Schools Should Be Allowed to Expand America was founded on what was then the radical idea that a society could be a meritocracy in which ideas that succeed can flourish. The creation of charter public schools has spurred the kind of educational innovation that should be allowed to thrive not only through the expansion of charters, but also the extension of charter-like reforms to district schools. President Obama’s Race to the Top initiative provided incentives for states to enact various public school reforms, including removing restrictions on the growth of charters. Nearly 20 states responded by eliminating all caps on charter growth. But many states across the country still impose arbitrary caps. And many urban school districts bound by unyielding teachers’ union contracts have not been able to enact meaningful reforms. Massachusetts enacted a limited cap lift in 2010 – allowing charters to double the number of seats they offer in low performing districts and reserving new charters for operators that had a proven track record of success. Recently filed legislation in Massachusetts would allow charters to expand without limits in the state’s lowest performing school districts. This would provide parents in those districts with more public school choices and their children with high quality educational opportunities. Throughout their history, charters have attacked head-on the persistent achievement gap between rich and poor kids, particularly in urban areas. Their primary mission is to provide high quality educational options for disadvantaged families and they have historically concentrated in urban areas to attract children who are poor, minority and far behind where they should be academically. Charters generally provide hundreds of additional hours in the classroom, through longer school days and longer years. They establish a culture of excellence setting high standards for their teachers and students and providing the additional supports they need to succeed.
Academic Performance While charter performance from state-to-state varies, there is no doubt they have been a success in Massachusetts, which provides a good model of how strict oversight and high levels of accountability can breed success. Independent national organizations have rated Massachusetts charter system among the best in the nation and it shows in the academic results. Charter public schools in Massachusetts are proving that children from these urban communities can achieve at the same high level as children from affluent suburbs. The vast majority of charter public schools dramatically outperform their host district schools, and have lower dropout and truancy rates. Last year, 24 charters ranked first in the Commonwealth on various MCAS tests and academic improvement rankings. Many urban charter public schools with mostly low-income and minority students outscore even affluent suburban schools on MCAS. Charter schools also rank high in the state’s new academic accountability system, which ranks how well schools close race-and-income-based achievement gaps.
Lift the Cap Given their performance, it’s not surprising that demand for charter public schools across the country is through the roof. In Massachusetts, just over 29,000 students are enrolled in charters, but another 45,000 are on waitlists. Most of the waitlisted children – 35,000 – live in one of the state’s lowest performing districts. Given the track record of performance and the incredible demand for new seats, states should not place restrictions on charter growth. In Massachusetts, the recently filed legislation would eliminate charter caps in districts ranked in the bottom 10 percent statewide, which educate nearly one-third of all public school children. Seven-out-of-ten students in these districts are low-income, 60 percent are African-American and 63 percent come from families in which English isn’t the first language. The bill would also allow charters to open on an expedited basis in districts that have been placed into receivership, and require municipalities to make space in unused public buildings available to charters. Financial Impact Exaggerated Misinformation is the best tool charter opponents use against expansion. Money has long been at the core of opposition to charter public schools, but the financial impact on districts is grossly exaggerated. First of all, charter schools are public schools, so there is no loss of public education funding in those communities. It’s simply allocated to a different type of public school. States have different ways to fund charters, but the Massachusetts model seems fairest. It provides charters with the same amount of money the districts would have spent if the children had stayed in their classrooms. Since districts no longer educate these students, they no longer keep the funding. Massachusetts is unique in that it also provides some financial assistance to districts that lose students to charters – recognizing that not every penny that “follows the student” can be saved in district budgets. The state reimburses districts for funds lost to charters – districts get more than double their money back (225%) over the six-year period. Districts receive every penny back the first year, and then 25% in each of the next five years. It is the most generous reimbursement policy in the country. Enrollment Opponents try and dismiss this academic success by claiming charters “select” only the best students. But, charters are open to all students, and enrollment is determined by random lotteries. On a statewide basis, charters serve a far higher percentage of minority and poor children, and a similar percentage of special needs children. And while district schools serve more children who either cannot speak English or struggle with it, recent efforts to attract immigrant families are changing that. Three new charter schools in Massachusetts focus on teaching English-language learners and others have opened in neighborhoods with high immigrant populations. Private? No. Independent? Yes Recently, teachers unions and other charter opponents have accused
charters of “privatizing” public education. But, charters are public
schools; they are founded by local citizens and are overseen by local
public boards. They operate independent of local school districts,
report directly to the state department of education, and are not
required to collectively bargain with teachers unions. They are not
“private” in any way. The unions are confusing “private” with
“non-union.” Opponents also claim that charters are “not accountable to anyone,”
simply because they do not report to local districts or local school
boards. But that’s the point. Charters are designed to be independent of
the local bureaucracy. No aspect of education reform has been more successful than charters. In a meritocracy, they have earned the right to expand and meet more of the overwhelming demand for schools that provide a world-class education to the neediest children. Marc Kenen is the Executive Director of the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association. |
Confessions of a Charter School Skeptic
Questioning the charter school movement in America feels like a touchy
business. There are powerful forces in play within our governments and
communities. There are powerful people channeling impressive sums of
private money to fund their progress. There are powerful emotions in the
hearts of parents who sincerely and appropriately want what is best for
their children.
I
think there are two main areas of discussion regarding charter schools.
The first is the relatively straightforward matter of education
consumption that parents confront every school year in every community
in the nation: “Where shall I sent little Adam or Amanda so they receive
the best possible education choices in a safe environment that nurtures
their talents and self image and enables their best possible future?”
It’s
natural for any parent to conclude that we will want our kids to receive
an ideal education. We may define “ideal” in any number of ways,
according to our beliefs, preferences, prejudices, desires and fears. If
a nearby charter school represents that ideal option (or at least the
best available one), we will move heaven and earth to get Adam or Amanda
enrolled. We feel it’s our responsibility and our right to do so.
If
freedom of choice were there only issue raised by charter schools, this
critique might end here and now. Charter schools would simply thrive or
fail based on their ability to provide an attractive option. But the
second area of discussion is far less straightforward. For me it raises
darker concerns about how we model the future of our society and even
the motivations of some of the individuals who advocate most strongly in
favor of the Charter option.
“Old
School” Nostalgia
Public education has for generations been a foundation of the American
way of life. It’s been our way of preparing young people for the
workforce, for military service, for participation in the political and
cultural affairs of our nation. In a nation of immigrants, public
schools have been a primary engine for acculturation and assimilation of
new arrivals. They have been the places where our traditions of
meritocracy, fair play and social equality have been inculcated and
reinforced. They have been the places where the ambitions and
intellectual contributions our young people have been identified, honed
and brought to the surface.
The
old public schools were far from flawless. In too many corners of the
country they were manipulated to help institutionalize unfair social
practices and outright discrimination. They have too frequently
perpetuated inertia and apathy that lowered educational quality
standards in some communities and harmed America’s academic
competitiveness on the world stage.
No
wonder the charter school concept had immediate appeal when the idea was
first floated by Prof. Ray
Budde of U. Mass. Amherst
in
1988. The idea was to operate autonomous, publicly funded schools, which
were freed of certain procedural burdens and oriented toward student
performance outcomes. For concerned, motivated parents in
underperforming districts, this option was a godsend, an affordable
chance for their children to escape mediocrity and even danger at some
public schools.
I
write this from Arizona, a state that has since been a leader in charter
school creation. According to the Arizona Charter Schools Association,
our state “is home to 535 charter schools that enroll 142,368
students in the 2012-13 school year. Fully at least 25 percent of the
state's public schools are charter schools, and 13.5 percent of all
public-school students are enrolled in charter schools — the highest
percentage for any state, and second only to Washington D.C.”
Full
disclosure: I am also married to a middle school math teacher in the
Tucson public schools (Tucson Unified School District), who is dedicated
beyond reason and who delivers top student test performance year after
year. She and I and a number of her colleagues have had thoughtful
discussions about how the rapidly expanding charter school movement may
be creating both intended and unintended consequences.
Bright Flight
One
troubling unintended consequence is micro-economic in nature. When a
large, diverse, urban school district loses student population to
competing charter schools, the district budgets can become distorted, to
the detriment of remaining students. As noted above, motivated parents
make individual decisions to move students to charter schools for
generally sound reasons. When this happens in large proportion, it
amounts to what I call “bright flight” – the departure of the most
educationally motivated families first.
A
consequence of bright flight is that the school buildings and
administrative infrastructure remain, along with their many fixed costs.
Payrolls must inevitably be cut. Students who stay behind experience
cutbacks in services, including elimination of non-core subjects such as
arts, music, shop, phys. ed., sports teams and extra-curricular
activities.
I
wrote
an essay about this issue in 2010, in which I compared the
over-schooling of some communities to the over-storing of America. Too
much capacity chasing too few consumers is a formula for collapse –
which may be healthy, but certainly painful too.
Districts are eventually forced to close and consolidate school
buildings – as in Tucson Unified, where 11 schools were designated for
closure by the board last December. In a large district, fewer buildings
means more remaining
students travel greater distances by bus, further diverting funds out of
the classrooms.
The
shifts can be demoralizing for teachers and students left behind, who
can sense that structural financial issues are overwhelming the mission
to educate.
Changing the structure of our public educational system through the
widespread implementation of charter schools brings other potential
consequences that may amount in some respects to social engineering.
This could be a good thing if we agree on the objectives and have
confidence in the means.
But
strangely our national debate has not confronted the vision or motives
of education reform advocates very vigorously. One might infer that
there is a power play afoot, driven by ideology. Philanthropies run by
Gates, Waltons, Broads and others have poured billions of dollars into
support of the education reform movement over the past several years,
including many charter school operations, and the Race To The Top
competition. So it’s not unfair to press them on why and what they hope
to accomplish. Even where hearts are pure, methods may be suspect.
Charter America?
I
harbor another, theoretical, concern – that charter schools might be
somewhat self-segregating, by class, ethnicity, or belief. Students who
attend them may miss a chance to be exposed to people with differing
backgrounds. Already we see charter schools that advertise their points
of difference on television. One is focused on sports excellence;
another on music and theatre; a third on science and math; a fourth
promises Christian values; one other promises “no bullying”! I worry
this may be culturally regressive – not by design, but in practice. Is
the demise of the community school socially, culturally, politically
desirable? Is it good for businesses that hope to hire graduates one
day? We have yet to confront this as a reasoned public debate.
Of
course, some critics have suggested that charter schools are disruptive
to unions – threatening disintegration of their power base. Many will
shed no tears over this, but once again, we need to ask ourselves if how
this change best serves our public school students. Unions are sometimes
justly accused of obstructionism, but some union leaders have also been
staunch advocates of charter schools.
Education reform in general – and charter schools in particular – bring
consequences for our fundamental conception of America. What kind of
society are we striving to be? How do we want to prepare our young
people to participate in it? What is the proper role for power and
influence in our educational system? How can we best define merit for
students, teachers, schools, and our nation’s competitiveness?
I
would stipulate that these addressing these questions may be
fundamentally different from the very personal debate we individually
face for and against sending ones’ own child to a charter school. I
leave this discussion with food for thought: If we truly had a handle on
our institutions of public education, would the charter choice even be
necessary? In addition to being the product, son, brother and husband of talented public school teachers, James Tenser is an retail industry analyst. A former journalist and author, Mr. Tenser pens his own Blog, tenserstirades.com. He is a frequent commentator at RetailWire.com and Chief Analyst at The Center for Advancing Retail Technology. |
||||||||