School Choice – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org A Journal of Opinion and Research About Education Policy Thu, 18 May 2023 20:40:33 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.2 https://www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/e-logo-1.png School Choice – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org 32 32 181792879 Choice Reconsidered https://www.educationnext.org/choice-reconsidered-rethink-school-choice-avoid-either-or-thinking-great-school-rethink-excerpt/ Wed, 31 May 2023 09:00:59 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716668 Rethink school choice to avoid either-or thinking and instead ask how expanding options might help meet the needs of students and families and empower educators.

The post Choice Reconsidered appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
A closeup of two hands weaving fabric on a loom
Educational choice has been woven into the fabric of American education from the nation’s earliest days.

Discussions of school choice frequently fall into familiar morality plays: Either you’re for empowering parents or supporting public education. The resulting debate manages to miss much of what matters. It ignores that all kinds of choices are hard-wired into American public education. It skips past the fact that the affluent already choose schools when purchasing homes, so the debate is really about the options available to everyone else.

Families want more options, but that fact doesn’t mean they dislike their local schools (much less, that they’re eager to flee them). In 2022, for instance, more than three-quarters of parents said that they were satisfied with their child’s experience in a public district school even as more than seven in ten endorsed education savings accounts, school vouchers, and charter schools. In short, parents overwhelmingly like both their child’s public school and school choice policies. They don’t see a tension here.

How can that be? How do we reconcile parent support for more choices with affection for their local public schools? It’s not hard, really. Parents want alternatives when it comes to scheduling, school safety, or instructional approach. They want to be able to protect their kids from bullies or from school practices they find troubling. At the same time, though, they also value schools as community anchors, they like their kid’s teachers, and they may live where they do precisely because they like the local schools.

Families can embrace options without wanting to abandon their local public schools. The notion that one is either for empowering parents or supporting public education is a misleading one. Real parents don’t think this way.

So, how does a Rethinker approach the school choice debate? It helps to start not with sweeping ideological claims but by asking how expanding options might work for students, meet the needs of families, and empower educators.

Choice Is Woven Into the Fabric of American Schooling

Amidst today’s partisan sniping, it can be easy to forget that educational choice has been woven into the fabric of American education from the nation’s earliest days. During the colonial era, it was presumed that most children would get only a rudimentary education and that only a tiny handful of affluent white families would choose to have their sons pursue more formal education (often to prepare for the ministry). Schools were routinely located in churches, and local church leaders were charged with choosing the schoolteacher. In that era, the notion that there was any tension between parental choice, the role of religion, and public provision would’ve been deemed an odd one!

In recent decades, as charter schools have grown to enroll more than 3 million students, the tapestry of options has grown to increasingly include scholarship (or voucher) programs, education savings accounts, microschools and learning pods, course choice options, hybrid homeschooling, and more.

Thinking More Expansively About Choice

Choice isn’t only an integral part of the American education landscape—it’s embedded in public schools themselves. From start to finish, schooling is a stew of choices made by parents, students, educators, system officials, and policymakers. Parents choose whether to send their children to pre-K, when to start kindergarten, or whether to opt their child out of sex education. Students choose groups and activities, which electives to take, and what book to read for a book report. Teachers choose where to apply for a job, which materials they use, and how to deliver instruction. District staff choose policies governing discipline, curricula, field trips, and attendance zones.

Outside of school, we take for granted that families will choose childcare providers, pediatricians, dentists, babysitters, and summer programs. Indeed, many such choices involve parents or guardians making decisions that are subsidized by government funds. And the choices they make will have big implications for a child’s health, well-being, upbringing, and education.

The same options that appeal to families can empower teachers and school leaders who feel stuck in unresponsive schools or systems. Educators, like parents, can value public education while wanting more opportunities to find or create learning environments where they’ll be free from entrenched rules, regulations, contract provisions, and customs.

The Lessons of Learning Pods

Book cover of The Great School RethinkLearning pods offer one intriguing way to rethink the boundary between schooling, tutoring, and study groups. A learning pod is a handful of students who study together, under the auspices of a tutor, outside of a traditional school setting (mostly to augment school-based instruction rather than replace it). Learning pods leapt into the public eye during the pandemic, as families caught up in remote learning sought to provide their kids an organized, intimate, and supportive environment.

Now, learning pods might be an artifact of Covid-19 and easy to see as a bit of a “that-was-then” time capsule. Fair enough. Even if that ultimately proves to be the case, though, there are some terrific takeaways here.

The tens of thousands of learning pods that emerged across the country were most commonly described as something akin to sustained, high-intensity tutoring. Kids got customized attention in a comfortable, face-to-face environment. While learning pods may have been largely a makeshift response, more than half of families and three-quarters of instructors said they preferred their pod experiences to prior experiences in school.

Researchers studying learning pods found that, by 3-to-1, parents said that their kids felt more “known, heard, and valued” than they had in school and that, by 2-to-1, children were more engaged in their learning. Contrasting the intimate pod experience with the “anonymity” of school, one parent explained, “There’s no getting lost in this. In the pod, there’s no sneaking by without getting your work done like there would be in school.”

So, are pods a good idea? It depends. It depends on what they’re used for and how they’re constructed. But it’s not hard to imagine them providing more intensive support or an alternative learning environment for students who are struggling in a conventional classroom. School systems could help interested parents find one another, connect with local resources, and locate a qualified instructor; such aid could be especially valuable for low-income or non-English speaking families, who might find the option appealing but struggle to organize or finance learning pods on their own.

Microschools and Charter Teachers

Microschools are really small schools which provide the occasion to radically rethink the teacher’s role and the contours of the schoolhouse. Microschools typically have a few dozen students (or even fewer), who usually attend in person. The schools employ one (or a handful) of teachers to lead instruction. Unlike most learning pods, microschools aren’t supplemental programs; they are a child’s school.

For students lost amidst the oft-impersonal rhythms of institutional life, the intimate scale can be reassuring. This kind of environment may be a better fit for students who struggle with discipline or behavior in a conventional classroom. It also can allow for more personalization, parent-teacher collaboration, or advanced learning than the standard schoolhouse allows.

At the same time, microschools pose a host of challenges. How do they handle infrastructure? Teacher absences? Coverage of a full curriculum? What would it look like for school or system leaders to have the ability to arrange for internal microschools? The answers are very much a work in progress.

One particular version of microschooling is the “charter teacher” model, which would enable teachers to get state-granted authorization to operate autonomous classrooms within traditional district schools. Charter teachers would have wide latitude to hire assistants, choose how many students to instruct, decide how many classes they’d teach, and determine their own instructional model. Teachers would agree to be held accountable for student outcomes and only teach students whose parents choose to enroll their child with that teacher.

For a sense of how this might work, consider the pediatric model. Pediatricians typically work in partnerships, have a significant say when it comes to scheduling and hiring support staff, and choose how many patients to serve. At the same time, of course, patients are free to choose their pediatric practice and their pediatrician. (In one sense, the “charter teacher” approach simply democratizes access to the “choose-your-teacher” machinations regularly employed by connected parents who know how to pressure principals and work the system). Teachers disenchanted by large bureaucracies would have new freedom, while more flexible or part-time options could draw former educators back into the profession.

The charter teacher model isn’t currently in use. Putting it into practice would require state officials to establish a process by which teachers could demonstrate professional mastery or a record of high student achievement. Qualified teachers could obtain small grants to launch their own practices, after which they’d be funded on a per pupil basis developed by the school district.

Hybrid Homeschooling

It may be hard to fathom today but, a half-century ago, homeschooling was illegal across most of the U.S. A series of legal and political battles in the 1970s and 1980s changed that. By 2020, more than three million children a year were being homeschooled, a number that increased dramatically during the Covid-19 pandemic. But just what does it mean to “homeschool” a child?

While the term “homeschooling” may bring to mind a picture of a parent and a child sitting at a kitchen table, the reality is that most homeschool families make extensive use of networks, online resources, tutors, and much else. Indeed, the difference between homeschooling and a learning pod (or a microschool) is often just a matter of degree.

In the wake of the pandemic, there was broad interest in education options that incorporate more of what homeschooling provides. In 2022, two-thirds of parents with children in special education said they’d like a school schedule which had their child learning at home at least one day a week (though just 15 percent of parents wanted to do full-time homeschooling). Among other parents, more than half said they’d like to have their child home at least one day a week. Oh, and just over half of teens said they’d like to learn at home at least one day a week.

In other words, lots of parents and students are interested in maintaining some of the parent-child interaction they experienced during the pandemic but don’t want to be “homeschoolers.” Hybrid homeschooling seeks to provide what those families are seeking, with students enrolling in school for part of the week and learning from home for the other part. More than 1,000 hybrid homeschools have emerged across the country in recent years. Many are private schools, others are charter schools, and a handful are part of traditional school districts.

Arrangements can play out in many ways. A hybrid homeschool might have students in the building four days a week, with different classes (or grades) of students learning from home on different days. It might have all students learning at home on Mondays or Wednesdays or on certain mornings or afternoons. Some schools are more prescriptive when it comes to curricula, while others leave more to parent discretion. For younger children, parents generally play a much larger instructional role, while there’s more independent study for older children.

The feasibility of such arrangements depends on the laws of a given state, but school and system leaders may find state policies and federal regulations more accommodating than they’d have thought. In Idaho, for instance, if homeschool students use district programming on even a part-time basis, they’re included in district attendance counts for state funding. This has, not surprisingly, made it easier for districts to support homeschool families. And Idaho is far from alone—at least a dozen states have similar arrangements, although the rules vary with regards to services, student eligibility, and how funding works.

The Possibilities of Course Choice

Another approach to educational choice is course choice. Course choice is a way to move new options into a student’s current school rather than to move a student to a new school.

While some families want to switch schools, I noted a bit earlier that more than 70 percent of parents consistently say they’re satisfied with their child’s school. Of course, this doesn’t mean those parents like everything about their school. Families may want students to stay with friends, familiar teachers, and established routines but also have access to alternative courses. Overall satisfaction with a school doesn’t necessarily reflect satisfaction with the arts program, math curriculum, reading instruction, Advanced Placement offerings, or what-have-you. Even pre-pandemic, parents who liked their school might have still grumbled about these things. Now, with so many students forcibly acclimated to a variety of remote learning options and providers, it seems only sensible that students should be able to take advantage of such options without changing schools.

The notion of “course choice” allows students to tap into instructional options that aren’t available at a student’s school. Course choice gives students the ability to take courses beyond those offered by their local school district. These courses may be offered by neighboring districts, state higher education institutions, virtual learning providers, or specialized tutoring services. Course choice laws typically specify that a portion of the student’s per pupil outlay can be used to pay the costs of enrollment.

Students may be able to access courses in chemistry, constitutional law, or AP calculus even if their school lacks a chemistry teacher, a constitutional law class, or an AP math program. This can be a solution for small schools dealing with staffing constraints, struggling to attract teachers in certain subjects or fields, or where only a tiny number of students want to enroll in a given class.

Course choice programs can come in many flavors. New Hampshire’s “Learn Everywhere” program allows high school students to earn a “certificate of credit” from any program recognized by the state board of education which can demonstrate that students have met the learning objectives.

Course choice allows students in a high school with a short-staffed science department to still study advanced physics. And it can make it possible for students to study robotics or Russian, even if their school lacks the requisite staff. If this all sounds pretty far removed from our heated debates about school choice, you’ve got the idea.

A monument depicting an anchor
Parents value schools as community anchors.

What about Bad Choices?

Parents may make bad choices, just as with day care or dentists. But we also reasonably presume that parents will make better choices when they have better information. So, how can we supply the kind of information that can help parents make good choices?

State tests and other academic assessments are one useful, consistent gauge. While such data is necessary, few parents or teachers think it’s sufficient. Thus, it’s crucial to consider other ways to ensure quality. There is an array of potential tools, including:

  • Professional, systematic ratings of customer satisfaction, something akin to the information reported by sources like J.D. Powers and Associates. These make it easy for consumers to draw on the judgments of other users.
  • Scientific evaluations by credible third parties, such as those offered by Consumer Reports. Such objective evaluations allow experts to put new educational offerings through their paces and then score them on relevant dimensions of performance, as well as price.
  • Expert evaluation of services like those provided by health inspectors (or, in schooling, the famous example of the British School Inspectorate). Such evaluation focuses on examining processes and hard-to-measure outcomes, drawing on informed, subjective judgment.
  • Reports reflecting user experiences—essentially, drawing on the wisdom of crowds. Online providers routinely allow users to offer detailed accounts of the good and bad they’ve experienced, and the public to readily view what they have to say. While these results aren’t systematic or scientific, they are very good at providing context and color.

Of course, even with terrific information, parents can still make bad choices about schooling. But that’s true of pretty much anyone involved in schools: Teachers can make bad choices when deciding how to support a struggling student or design an individualized education program. Administrators can make bad choices when assigning a student to a school or teacher.

Schooling is suffused with choices. We should certainly ask what happens when a parent makes a poor choice. But we must also question the consequences of restrictive policies which limit parents’ ability to find better educational options for their kids.

Rethinking School Choice

It’s odd that the discussion of school choice has so often taken the shape of heated argument, given the intuitive appeal of the idea that all parents (rich and poor alike) should have a say in their kids’ schooling.

Our familiar fights are both distracting and odd. Consider that in a field like healthcare, even those most passionate about universal, publicly funded coverage still believe that individuals should be free to choose their own doctor. In housing, even the most ardent champion of public housing thinks families should get to choose where they live. There’s no debate about whether families should have agency when it comes to such high-stakes decisions in health care or housing. The same logic should apply in schooling. It’s not selfish or risky for parents to want a say in who teaches their kids or where their kids go to school. It’s normal.

It’s downright weird that educational choice has focused so narrowly on students changing schools. After all, we live in an era when extraordinary options have become routinely available.

In the end, the real promise of choice isn’t just that it can help students escape struggling schools. It’s that it can help make room for parents and educators alike to rethink how they want schools to work.

Adapted with permission from Hess, F. M. (2023). The Great School Rethink. Harvard Education Press. 

The post Choice Reconsidered appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716668
“Year of School Choice” Promise Collides with Reality of Litigation-Caused Delays https://www.educationnext.org/year-of-school-choice-promise-collides-with-reality-of-litigation-caused-delays/ Tue, 28 Mar 2023 09:00:41 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716448 Parents, students wait as advocacy groups, unions exhaust court challenges

The post “Year of School Choice” Promise Collides with Reality of Litigation-Caused Delays appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Illustration
Ruth, Katie and Alexander Switzer (left to right) plan to benefit from West Virginia’s Hope scholarships after uncertainty and a delay resulting from litigation.

When the West Virginia legislature passed a law in 2021 that would give parents money to pay for private school tuition or other education-related expenses, it got Katie Switzer thinking.

Her oldest child, Alexander, had struggled in preschool. She didn’t think he was ready for kindergarten, even though he would be the right age based on West Virginia’s public school requirements. So she kept him home for a year and applied for the scholarship as soon as she had a chance, hoping a combination of some in-person schooling and working with her son at home would be the ideal fit.

She wanted a scholarship for her oldest daughter, Ruth, too. Ruth turned 5 after the state cutoff for entry into kindergarten. Ruth has apraxia of speech, which can make it hard for her to say what she wants and requires a speech pathologist with specialized skills to help her learn to form words. Switzer has been paying thousands of dollars out of pocket for that speech therapy. She hoped to use the scholarship for some of that therapy while Ruth would learn reading and other lessons at school.

So Switzer applied. She sorted out how to use the money to pay for the lessons she would teach the kids at home, specialized therapy a school couldn’t provide and a la carte classes at school. It was a good plan, she thought.

Until it wasn’t.

West Virginia’s law stood out as a major advancement for school choice when it passed, even in a legislative year school choice advocates generally considered full of victories. The state previously did not have any private school choice programs. Suddenly, it had an option with expansive eligibility for financial help. Essentially every student statewide could apply, and in the long term, it would include students already enrolled in private schools or being homeschooled, even if they had never attended public schools.

While private school enrollment nationwide did tick up with so many public schools closed during the early days of the health crisis, that followed decades of declining enrollment nationwide. Parents have more choice than ever among traditional public schools, charter schools, homeschooling, private schools, and newer models such as pods and microschools, which also took off during the pandemic and which some states have also recognized with legislation.

But was the big promise of school choice realized in West Virginia and other states that were part of the wave of new choice laws ushered in during the pandemic?

The reality is there’s a lag between passing a law and practically implementing it. In West Virginia and elsewhere, at least some of the programs created recently have faced time-consuming legal challenges that prevented students, and parents, from immediately using the choices or money provided.

In West Virginia, scholarships for Switzer’s kids and about 3,000 others who had signed up were delayed for months by a lawsuit. Broad access to Hope Scholarships in West Virginia was one reason the group Public Funds Public Schools sued, said Jessica Levin, the group’s director, who is also a senior attorney at the Education Law Center, another organization that works on public school funding issues. The suit said the new program would violate the state’s constitution in several ways.

“It’s a bold and illegal and very harmful move,” Levin said of West Virginia’s program. “It makes it all the more harmful to public school budgets.”

Public Funds Public Schools has also litigated, with some success, to delay school choice programs in  Nevada and Tennessee.

The group sometimes partners with teachers unions on amicus briefs and has represented parents who are teachers, including union leaders, as plaintiffs in some of its lawsuits.

One common element of the cases the group pursues: Public schools must enroll all students, Levin said, while private schools can choose to discriminate based on students’ disabilities, religion or sexual orientation.

“Public schools are cornerstones of democracy,” Levin said, and “every child has a right to public education that is adequately funded to make that right real.”

A lower court in West Virginia agreed with Public Funds Public Schools, putting the program on hold in July 2022. An appeals court declined to lift that hold until an appeal worked its way through the court system. But in October 2022, the state Supreme Court ruled three-to-two in favor of the Hope Scholarship program, reinstating the program.

“I’m so excited,” Switzer said.

Ruth and Alexander spent the fall 2022 term at a public charter school, full-time.

Now, Switzer said the children will use some of their $4,300 each—the amount they would have had for the whole school year had the program not been blocked in the fall—during this spring 2023 semester to attend a two-day-a-week homeschool co-op and use the rest of the money for speech therapy and dyslexia tutoring.

The West Virginia Treasurer’s Office, which oversees the administration of Hope, said all students originally eligible for the program at the start of the 2022-23 school year, about 3,215 children, were able to remain so.

Still, the delay in access to the money came at an actual and emotional cost, Switzer said.

“They both have relationships with teachers and kids in their classrooms, even if the school they attended hasn’t been perfect and couldn’t meet Ruth’s special needs,” she said. In addition, the family has spent $600 a month on Ruth’s specialized speech therapy and another $300 a month for dyslexia-specific tutoring.

“So not having Hope has been very expensive for us,” she said.

* * *

Since the onset of the pandemic, more than 20 states added new private school choice programs or expanded existing ones, mostly during the 2021 legislative session. A few more came along in 2022. But 2023 has seen a surge specifically in the kind of expansive programs that concern Levin’s group. That includes programs in Iowa, Utah and Arkansas. Over the last few years, some states expanded support for charter schools, too, adding financial support for charter school facilities, for example, or making it easier for charters to be authorized. And the surge in the number of kids attending charter schools earlier in the pandemic has held up, according to new data from the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools.

The sheer volume of legislation has been heralded as a sea change in the school choice landscape. In reality, however, said Michael Hartney, a fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and an assistant professor of political science at Boston College, states that moved the needle on private school choice over the last few years are ones “where they could have gotten things done before the pandemic.”

Overall, despite the gains, he said, “it’s symbolic,” given the relatively tiny share of American students who attend private schools using vouchers, or who use subsidies to pay for tutoring or supplies for homeschooling.

“The basic equilibrium to me seems pretty much unchanged.”

Still, the creation of a voucher program in West Virginia was notable. Teachers had descended on the state capitol repeatedly in 2018 and 2019 to demand better pay and benefits and to push back against proposals supporting charter schools and private school vouchers.

Teacher Wendy Peters, who was one of the plaintiffs in Public Funds Public Schools’ suit against the West Virginia scholarships, was president of her local union in Raleigh County, West Virginia, during those protests.

“It sounds good in theory: Let’s give someone some money,” she said. “I don’t think people realize how devastating it is for the public schools.”

Her son uses special education services, and she doubts any private school would accept him if she chose to use one of the scholarships. For other parents of children with disabilities, they may not realize that their access to special education could evaporate at a private school. “Who’s to say they’re not going to come right back” to public school, Peters said.

“If I took that $4,300 for myself, there is not a private school that would take my son,” she said.

* * *

At times, the pandemic was cited as the reason parents needed more schooling options—with teachers unions taking the blame for keeping school buildings closed and driving lawmakers to create choices outside of traditional public schools.

Yet some of the states that added vouchers or education savings accounts with the potential to encompass large numbers of students, or that made the largest expansions to existing choice options, are right-to-work states with limited union influence, Hartney noted. And in some cases, these same states forced schools to reopen for in-person classes, while also expanding choice.

The major national unions oppose private school choice. At its convention in July 2022, for instance, the American Federation of Teachers resolved to continue condemning “the diversion of public funds to discriminatory voucher programs that significantly reduce public financial support to our cherished public schools,” and said it would lobby against these policies.

In December, with the support of the national AFT and Public Funds Public Schools, the New Hampshire AFT  to block the Granite State’s new Education Freedom Accounts.

This expansive program, also created during what’s been called the choice wave in 2021, is in a much different place than West Virginia’s. New Hampshire’s new Education Freedom Accounts became law in June 2021. The legislature anticipated only a few dozen students would sign up during the 2021-22 school year, but by year’s end, it was more than 2,000 kids. More than 3,000 applied for the 2022-23 school year.

The program allows students to use the state portion of their per-student allocation — or $4,857 for the current school year — toward school tuition, tutoring, online schooling, educational supplies, internet access, and similar expenses. The program doesn’t require students to have attended a public school to access the money. The lawsuit says that the biggest beneficiary of the money in 2021 was Amazon, where parents spent nearly a fifth of their EFA dollars.

Parents can combine the money with another school choice program, a longstanding tax credit scholarship program, and newly created grants for all students in the state, including those attending public school, to pay for tutoring and other educational expenses because of disruption from the pandemic. This school year, more than 1,100 students are drawing funds from both EFAs and the tax credit scholarships.

For some parents who were essential workers as schools shifted to remote learning in the spring of 2020, in-person schooling was a necessity, and private schools were their only option in the early days of the Covid-19 crisis, said Kate Baker Demers, whose Children’s Scholarship Fund organization approves applications and distributes the New Hampshire tax credit scholarships and Education Freedom Account money.

“You have to bring your child somewhere if you drive a truck,” Demers said. “If schools were to shut down again, now we have a solution for those families.”

Only about a quarter of students who used one of the new Education Freedom Accounts last school year were “switchers,” or kids leaving their public schools for any reason, Demers said. One enterprising private Christian school leader in Laconia, N.H., encouraged existing students to apply for the grants, and all but two did.

The school choice momentum in New Hampshire has slowed. Lawmakers ended up putting an expansion of the program on hold in 2022. The Education Freedom Accounts were enacted in 2021 by tucking a provision into the state budget bill, rather than passing a standalone piece of legislation.

One 2022 proposal would have expanded eligibility to families at 500 percent of the federal poverty level. Another would have created a voucher that would have come from local school district budgets and would have been worth between $291 and $41,000 per student to use for the same kinds of education expenses as the Education Freedom Accounts.

What did pass was a bill sponsored by state Democrats calling for an audit of the program in 2023. Republican Governor Chris Sununu signed that legislation in July 2022.

The New Hampshire lawsuit says the EFA program violates state law because it is funded via transfers from the state’s Education Trust Fund. “The ETF statute enumerates its permissible uses, which do not include private education or vouchers, and states that the funds are not to be used for any other purpose,” Public Funds Public Schools said. In addition, the lawsuit charges that the accounts law violates a provision of the state constitution requiring all proceeds from the state-run lottery, which are deposited into the trust fund, be used to support public school districts.

* * *

In Indiana, a major expansion of school choice options, enacted in 2021, also took effect last school year, resulting in a surge of interest in private school vouchers in that state. Lawmakers added to the list of who is eligible for a private school choice, including children in foster care and more middle-class families.

The use of private school vouchers in Indiana had plateaued in recent years and actually declined during the 2020-21 school year. Then it jumped by almost 25 percent in 2021-22, after lawmakers expanded who is eligible for the money. Now, a family of four can have a household income of more than $147,000 and access vouchers.

Even as the share of students who can use public dollars for private school grows in Indiana, a report last year found that private school enrollment has declined as the state has created more voucher programs. In 2000, more than 134,000 or 12 percent of Indiana students, attended private schools. As of 2021, fewer than 61,000 or 5.4 percent, did so, Michael J. Hicks and Dagney Faulk of Ball State University found.

“I know much of the rhetoric about school choice claims it is designed to destroy public education,” Hicks wrote in The Herald-Times, based in Bloomington, Indiana. “If so, it has been a colossal failure. Since Indiana began its path to school choice, private school enrollment in the state plummeted by more than half.”

Could that change? Perhaps: Lawmakers this year are considering additional ways to expand access to school choice in the Hoosier state.

* * *

Lawmakers in Arizona also created another expansive choice option in 2022, in a state already awash in such programs.

Every student in the state can use an Empowerment Scholarship Account in Arizona under a law then-Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican, signed in July. That’s more than a million kids. The money can be used for private school tuition, homeschooling, tutoring and other educational services.

A group that forced a ballot referendum on another private school choice bill earlier in Ducey’s tenure, which voters rejected, attempted to do the same with the new law. Had they succeeded, the expansion would have been on a long hold until voters had a chance to weigh in, and that could have been its undoing.

But that petition drive failed to gather enough signatures to push the newest measure to voters.

Now that the far-reaching choice program is a reality, it’s not clear how many former public school parents are using the option, however, though it has proven popular with students already attending private schools. Only a relatively small number of Arizona students used the program until now: a little more than 13,000 students statewide, the Arizona Department of Education said.

The latest figures show about 45,000 Arizona students are using ESA money.

* * *

It’s not always lawsuits or petition drives that delay or alter the course of a choice program. In Ohio in 2020, state lawmakers put on hold plans for an expansion of the state’s EdChoice private school voucher program to students who attended hundreds of public schools considered to be poorly performing.

Parents whose schools were on the list the prior fall prior and who had counted on using a voucher for private school tuition sued the state over the delay. Ultimately, the state legislature changed the voucher program, and not all of the students originally identified as eligible for a voucher had the same option in the long run.

The changes did expand Ohio’s program significantly, but the eligibility rules were altered so that they were now based on  family income level rather than public school performance.

Now, a group of more than 200 school districts, including the state’s largest—Columbus City Schools—and parents are suing Ohio over its longstanding private school voucher program. The group, called Vouchers Hurt Ohio, says state spending on vouchers has increased to $350 million during the 2020-21 school year from $42 million in 2008.

In December 2022, a judge ruled the lawsuit can proceed.

More than 20 years ago, the U.S Supreme Court upheld Ohios voucher law, which at the time was limited to students in the Cleveland City school district. In the decision about the new lawsuit being allowed to move forward, the judge wrote that the state’s so-called EdChoice program has expanded and changed dramatically even since it went statewide in 2005. Far more families are eligible and there is no limit on how many students can use vouchers.

The suit could affect the more than 50,000 Ohio students who use the program, even as lawmakers hope to expand choice even further in the state.

* * *

Back in West Virginia, Katie Switzer was surprised by Ruth and Alexander’s experience full-time in a public charter school.

Despite the delay in Hope Scholarships, West Virginia did begin the 2022-23 school year with one new form of school choice: Four charter schools opened this school year, said Adam Kissel, chairman of the West Virginia Professional Charter School Board, after a state law allowing charters passed in 2019 survived legal challenges and the first group of schools were authorized to open in fall 2022.

One of those schools is West Virginia Academy in Monongalia County, where the Switzer family lives. Switzer became a regular presence at the school as a volunteer while her kids were enrolled.

There was a time when the scholarships were in legal limbo that she couldn’t picture moving Alexander out of the school. “He’s done really well here,” she said.

Things were more difficult for Ruth, who also has some challenges processing what she hears. After a whole day in a classroom with many people speaking at once, and her own words sometimes slow to form, “she’s exhausted,” Switzer said. Still, she said before the court made its decision, “I have to say she’s getting better every week,” and she felt her daughter had been given an opportunity to do well at the charter school.

Now, it’s time for a shift, no easy feat for many people, and especially young children. It’s one more cost of the Hope Scholarship delay, she said.

“We still have to go through a transition,” Switzer said, “and it’s hard on everyone.”

Nirvi Shah is education enterprise editor at USA Today. This story was produced with support from the Education Writers Association Reporting Fellowship program.

The post “Year of School Choice” Promise Collides with Reality of Litigation-Caused Delays appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716448
What Next for New York Charter Schools? https://www.educationnext.org/what-next-for-new-york-charter-schools/ Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:01:32 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715892 The era of explosive growth of network-run, “no excuses” charter schools is over. Tentatively emerging: “community-based” charter schools.

The post What Next for New York Charter Schools? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Re’Shawn Rogers, a 2012 graduate of Eastern Michigan University, is working to open a new charter school, Destine Prep, in Schenectady, New York.
Re’Shawn Rogers, a 2012 graduate of Eastern Michigan University, is working to open a new charter school, Destine Prep, in Schenectady, New York.

Few people in education policy get to see visible evidence of their work in real time and three dimensions. Not once, but whenever she wants it, Susie Miller Carello can stand on a subway platform in Harlem, and, for a few minutes on any given school day, watch the world she helped midwife pass before her eyes. “If you go to the subway station at 125th Street and Lenox from 7:15 to 7:30 in the morning, it’s filled with kiddos with school uniforms and backpacks,” she says. The kids in navy blue and white are en route to Harlem Village Academies. The bright orange polo shirts and ties or plaid jumpers belong to children who attend one of the four Success Academy schools in the neighborhood. Scholars in yellow and blue are on their way to Democracy Prep a few blocks up the street.

For a dozen years Carello served as executive director of the State University of New York’s Charter Schools Institute, the lead authorizer for well over half of the state’s 357 charter schools. The explosive growth of New York City’s charter sector happened first on her watch, and then under her nose. “The first time it happened, I had just hopped on the train in Times Square and noticed the moms and dads and the kids in the subway car,” she recalls. “And when I got off the train, I was like, ‘Oh my God, look at this! These are all our kids.’ And they’re going to these schools that are providing them much better options than they would’ve had 20 years ago.”

At a different moment, both politically and in education reform, Carello might have lots of company taking in the view from that subway platform. For some politicians, philanthropists, and other members of New York’s elite, the city’s charter sector has been an object of civic pride. That’s so particularly in neighborhoods like Harlem, the South Bronx, and downtown Brooklyn, where educational failure stretches back decades. Those neighborhoods have large concentrations of charter schools, including dozens run by the largest and most well-established charter management organizations in the country: KIPP, Success Academy, Uncommon Schools, and Achievement First, among others. A visitor might look at the passing parade of school uniforms and smile at the sight of disadvantaged children put on the “path to possible,” as one charter advocacy group’s slogan puts it, by energetic reform efforts backed by philanthropy and effective public policy. Over the last 20 years, New York City charters have launched tens of thousands of low-income Black and brown children to college and beyond.

Susie Miller Carello directed State University of New York’s Charter Schools Institute for 12 years.

In recent years, though, those cheering on the charter sector have seen their numbers dwindle. With few exceptions, the bipartisanship that ushered in the heyday of the education-reform movement has badly eroded. That means diminished political support for charter schools and minimal appetite to thwart the will of the powerful teachers union in deep-blue New York City. In March 2019, the city reached a state-imposed cap on the number of charter schools permitted to operate. Less closely examined or well understood is the resistance that has risen from within the education-reform movement itself. Charter schools, particularly those run by networks with resources sufficient to staff energetic recruitment efforts, have long relied disproportionately on young, recent college graduates to staff their classrooms. But the energy, idealism, and agenda of those recruits has changed. To the founding generation of New York’s highest-performing charter schools, strict classroom management, academic rigor, and high expectations were the hallmarks of well-run schools and conditions necessary for student achievement. But that same school culture can register as abusive and harmful, even grounded in white supremacy, to younger staffers steeped in the argot of social justice and committed to “anti-racism.” This clash of ideals happens largely over the heads of parents, who continue to swell charter-school waitlists and whose vision of a good school never seems to change much: safety, solid academics, character education, and a fair shot at college and upward mobility, whether their children attend a school that’s part of a large network or a single-site “mom and pop” charter school.

New York is emblematic of charter schools nationwide and indicative of the growing pains in the sector, buffeted by changing ideals and priorities, including from within the sector itself.

* * *

Emily Kim decides to found the Zeta Charter School network after working for several years as general counsel at Success Academy, another large New York-based network of charter schools.
Emily Kim decides to found the Zeta Charter School network after working for several years as general counsel at Success Academy, another large New York-based network of charter schools.

After disgorging students onto the platform in Harlem, the 2 train rumbles north to 241st street in the Bronx, where other high-performing charter networks like Icahn Charter Schools and Bronx Classical opened schools in neighborhoods long beset by educational failure. But to catch a glimpse of an up-to-the-minute symbol of the state’s charter sector, you need to leave the City entirely and travel 150 miles up the Hudson River to New York’s capital region. There you will find Re’Shawn Rogers, one of the state’s newest charter-school pioneers.

There is still “cap space” to create new charter schools in New York state outside of the five boroughs of New York City. Thus, in September of 2021, Carello and her staff recommended to the SUNY board of trustees that they approve Rogers’ application to launch Destine Preparatory Charter School the following fall with 116 students in kindergarten and 1st grade and to enroll 435 children up to and including 5th grade over the next five years. The school’s name is meant to invoke “Destiny,” but there’s a Destiny Prep in Jacksonville, Florida. Rogers didn’t want to risk copyright infringement or bad press, so “destiny” became “destine.” The shortened name is meant to invoke the great things the school’s students are destined to achieve.

On a Saturday morning in May 2022, Rogers is expecting about half a dozen families for an information session in a nondescript office building in between Union College and a riverside casino in Schenectady. The place once grandly called itself “the city that lights and hauls the world,” a reference to General Electric, which was headquartered here, and the American Locomotive Company, which went out of business in 1969. The city has been losing population for nearly 100 years. A demographic mix of 65,000 people call Schenectady home today, nearly one third fewer than at the city’s 1930 peak. The poverty rate is 20 percent, roughly double the national average.

The first person to arrive for the information session is Osei, a bright, energetic, and chatty five-year-old boy, who bounds into the third-floor conference room several strides ahead of his father and announces boisterously, “I’m here to meet my new school!” Almost immediately his attention is captured by a pile of donuts on the conference table. Without breaking stride, he marches around the table and grabs one, which his dad orders him to put down. When Rogers asks the child to say his name again, perhaps to redirect his attention from the treats, the little boy reaches for a pen and paper and insists on writing it out, first and last name. He pushes the paper across the table to Rogers. “Now I get a donut,” Osei says, making an announcement, not asking permission. His father, Harry Rolle, smiles and relents. “You worked up an appetite writing.”

“Good job, buddy,” Rogers smiles warmly at the child. “Hard work gets rewards. I’m in the same bucket as you.”

Rogers has been working hard on the launch of Destine Prep for two years; his reward is only now coming into focus as the school moves from two years of planning and authorization to meetings with prospective students and their parents. Charter-school applications are mind-numbingly detailed, running hundreds of pages. Would-be school founders must document a demonstrated need for a new school, describe their academic model in detail, and show community support in the form of a strong local board of directors. Then there is the nuts-and-bolts work of real estate, contracts, construction management, hiring staff, fundraising, and persuading families to take a chance on a school that exists only as a PowerPoint presentation.

“I helped scale up Success Academy, but we had extraordinary resources, seemingly unlimited support, and [Success founder] Eva Moskowitz busting through barriers,” remarks Emily Kim, who founded the Zeta Charter School network after several years as general counsel at Success. “I know exactly what needs to be done because I’ve done it so many times. When I think about independent charter schools, given all the challenges school founders face, I don’t know how they overcome these massive obstacles solo.”

When no other families arrive for the information session, Rogers gamely launches into his presentation with Destine’s operations manager, Mashoma Brydie, who joins the meeting via Zoom. Much of Rogers’s talk could have come straight from a pitch for a no-excuses charter school two decades ago: Destine will offer an extended school day and year; kids are expected to be in school every day; and learning doesn’t stop over the summer. Rogers believes in “logical consequences” for behavior management and stresses he’s “big on communicating” with parents. Osei starts running laps around the table and trying to get his father’s attention as Rogers finishes his presentation. The mission of Destine Prep is to develop students in grades K–5 to become FUTURE CHANGE MAKERS (the PowerPoint slide renders this in all caps) through “rigorous academics, social and emotional learning, and affirmation of their identities.”

* * *

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona watches as President Joe Biden speaks to students in a classroom during a visit to Luis Muñoz Marin Elementary School in Philadelphia, Friday, March 11, 2022.
President Joseph Biden’s Department of Education proposed new tough regulations on the federal Charter School Program, dismaying charter-school advocates and pleasing critics of the schools.

There was a time, fast receding into memory, when big-city charter schools were media darlings, lionized in movies like Waiting For Superman, and the subject of fawning coverage on 60 Minutes. They were the flagships of a fast-growing education-reform movement, luring the best and brightest new graduates of elite universities away from law schools and investment banks and into Teach For America, and from there to inner-city classrooms aspirationally named Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, or Michigan instead of Room 222. Tightly run charter schools were celebrated as a rebuke to district-run dropout factories, which had relegated generations of low-income students to second-class citizenship. Charters bristled with do-gooder energy and dubbed themselves “no-excuses” schools, in the belief that the Black-white achievement gap was evidence of low expectations and indifference, not poverty and certainly not race. When students failed, it proved merely that adults had failed them. And there must be no excuses for adult failures. Period.

At the federal level, charter schools had patrons and champions from across the political spectrum. Bill Clinton was an early charter-school supporter; so was George W. Bush. The number of U.S. students in charters more than doubled from 2009 to 2018, to 3.3 million from 1.6 million, with most of those gains coming during the eight years of the Obama presidency. In the years since, bipartisan support for charter schools has significantly weakened. Earlier this year, President Biden’s Department of Education proposed new regulations on the $440 million federal Charter School Program. Progressives cheered the move to rein in money “squandered on unneeded, mismanaged schools and the operators.” Conservatives complained the move was “designed to bring the boisterous, popular charter school sector to heel.”

No single event heralded the change in the weather. In 2011, the biggest and most well-established urban charter network, KIPP, released a study showing that one third of its earliest cohorts of students had graduated from college—four times the rate for low-income Black and brown children at large, but less than half of the figure its founders believed they could achieve. The report led to significant changes in KIPP’s program and pedagogy. As the decade wore on, a palpable reform fatigue set in as some Americans soured on the standards, testing, and accountability regime that had come to dominate public education at large. Antagonists like Diane Ravitch hammered relentlessly at charter schools, questioning their results, attacking their “harsh disciplinary policies,” and turning “no excuses” from a rallying cry to an epithet. When widespread protests over racial discrimination inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement broke out on college campuses in 2015, charter critics adopted the protesters’ language. Teaching “taxonomy moves” common to no-excuses teachers represented “carceral pedagogy” aimed at “controlling Black bodies.” Students marching through school hallways in tightly supervised straight lines was “practice for prison.” White-led charter schools were said to echo power structures in society at large.

The charter sector has largely accepted the criticism as sincere and tried to adjust to it rather than rejecting it outright. That’s somewhat puzzling, given that there was ample material with which to construct a defense. First, college-preparatory no-excuses schools had lost little of their luster among parents for whom high expectations, tight classroom management, and school uniforms were reassuring signs of safe, well-run schools and an antidote to chaotic inner-city classrooms. Internal measures of parent satisfaction and “net promoter” scores (e.g. “How likely are you to recommend your child’s school to a friend or family member?”) remained consistently strong. Even more pertinently, the schools delivered measurable results. A 2017 study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes examined charter schools across 24 states, New York City, and Washington, D.C., and found that attending an urban charter school run by a larger network of schools was associated with improved educational outcomes.

That was precisely the point of nearly two decades of education policy. As the authors of the Stanford report observed, “we would expect that only charter organizations with a demonstrated track record of success would be allowed to open multiple schools.” The report concluded, “it is reasonable to expect current policies to result in continued improvement. However, there is still room for charter school authorizers to accelerate the rate of improvement by ensuring only the finest of charter school organizations are given the privilege of expanding their services to multiple schools.”

Written only five years ago, that language already feels anachronistic. New York has gone in a different direction, functionally denying high-performing charter management organizations the privilege of expanding their services to meet the demand. The sector itself now responds to different sets of impulses and metrics than in its days of heady and explosive growth.

* * *

Aasimah Navlakhi was promoted to chief executive officer of BES after Linda Brown stepped down in 2018.
Aasimah Navlakhi was promoted to chief executive officer of BES after Linda Brown stepped down in 2018.

When charter schooling’s old guard talked about the importance of their schools and movement being “led by people who look like the people we serve” and mused about the day their students would come back to teach in the schools they once attended, they were imagining Re’Shawn Rogers. He was a charter-school student in his native Detroit and worked as a teacher for several years after graduating from Eastern Michigan University in 2012, rising to be humanities dean at Achievement First’s Aspire Elementary school in Brooklyn’s East New York neighborhood.

As a child he struggled in school. “I didn’t really learn how to read until middle school,” Rogers says. During those years, his family moved from Detroit to Lansing, Michigan, where Rogers attended a diverse public school and got involved with its theatre and band programs. For high school, he moved back to Detroit and attended one of the city’s first charters, operated by Detroit Community Schools. “My teachers were just great and met us wherever we were,” he recalls. “For the first time I started to feel successful. I got into AP classes and stuff that I never would have imagined in elementary school.”

His dream was to open a charter school back home in the Detroit area, but in the summer of 2020, he was accepted as a fellow at BES, a Boston-based leadership-development program (the initials originally stood for “Building Excellent Schools”) that identifies and supports emerging school leaders. It was BES that encouraged him to consider applying for a charter in upstate New York, which was terra incognita to Rogers. “I created this huge spreadsheet of anyone who was doing anything important in the Capital region and started calling them,” he says. “‘Did you go to school here? What was your experience like? What do you think about a new school?’” His initial impulse was to apply to SUNY to open a school in Albany, but neighboring Schenectady hadn’t had a charter school in 15 years, since International Charter School was closed due to poor academic performance and financial stress.

As a BES fellow, and with both financial and technical support and advice from the organization, Rogers began working on the application for what would become Destine Prep at a tumultuous time in the charter-school movement and the nation. The Covid-19 pandemic had closed schools for the last several months of the school year and put much of the country on lockdown; the May 2020 death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police ignited profound anger among many. The summer when Rogers began his BES fellowship brought to a boil tensions that had long simmered in charter-school networks and the broader education-reform movement.

Seemingly overnight, social media accounts such as Uncommon Truth, Survivors of Success Academy, BnB@DP (Black and Brown at Democracy Prep) and dozens of others began springing up with students and staff posting accounts of perceived racist slights and abusive practices in their schools. KIPP, a national network of more than 240 schools serving more than 100,000 students, announced it would retire its famous “Work Hard. Be Nice.” slogan. CEO Richard Barth explained that the trademark phrase “ignores the significant effort required to dismantle systemic racism, places value on being compliant and submissive, [and] supports the illusion of meritocracy.”

“As a white man, I did not do enough as we built KIPP to fully understand how systemic and interpersonal racism, and specifically anti-Blackness, impacts you and your families—both inside of KIPP and beyond,” co-founder Dave Levin wrote in a plaintive letter to KIPP alumni. “It is clear that I, and others, came up short in fully acknowledging the ways in which the school and organizational culture we built and how some of our practices perpetuated white supremacy and anti-Blackness.”

KIPP was the most visible example of the culture clash between veteran figures in the charter-school movement and younger staff and alumni more attuned to current thinking about social justice. However, few organizations are more emblematic of the shift in values and mindset than BES, which was also transforming itself in response to activism and heightened racial consciousness.

“The big networks—KIPP, IDEA, Uncommon, Green Dot, Achievement First, and more—build from within,” wrote Richard Whitmire in his 2016 book about early charter schools, The Founders, in an admiring chapter about BES. “It’s a winning formula, but it skips over another promising glide path: potential charter leaders who come from outside that pipeline—school pioneers who could build networks every bit as successful as KIPP and Achievement First.”

For nearly two decades under its founder Linda Brown and chief academic officer Sue Walsh, BES had operated as a kind of boot camp for school leaders who would visit top charter schools across the country like Newark’s North Star Academy; Brooke Charter Schools in Boston; and Purpose Prep and Nashville Classical in Tennessee. Brown routinely plastered the word “urgency” in office windows and around the walls at Fellows’ training sessions, which sometimes began at 5:30 in the morning. “If you’re going to start a school, you’re going to be showing up at your office at 5:30 in the morning,” explains Walsh, “because your teachers are showing up at 6:30 and your kids are showing up at seven.”

BES fellows have founded more than 200 schools in 50 U.S. cities, educating more than 63,000 students. In 2018, Brown stepped down from the organization she founded. Aasimah Navlakhi was promoted from chief of staff to chief executive officer; she had initially joined BES as communications director four years earlier. She began her tenure with a listening tour, meeting with past and present BES fellows. “These conversations illuminated a gap between BES’s stated mission and lived values,” said Navlakhi in an interview posted on the organization’s website. She responded by launching an effort to “evaluate our programs and internal operations through a DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] lens.” It concluded with a commitment to make BES “an actively anti-racist organization.”

“I felt in my gut that this path forward was the only way that we could support leaders to truly transform education for the students in their communities,” Navlakhi said. The organization soon rebranded itself, keeping the acronym BES but changing its name from “Building Excellent Schools” to “Build. Excel. Sustain.” Walsh followed Brown out the door. “The seminal moment for me was when we were given readings as a staff that ‘urgency’ was racist,” Walsh told me.

Interviewed jointly, both Brown and Walsh make a point of praising Navlakhi’s “commitment to equity and humanity.” But Walsh adds, “What we did not expect was the clear rejection and denigration of our work and our intentions, which are manifest in so many strong schools that are the platform on which the work of BES sits.”

“It’s become clear they’ve shifted from the primacy of academic excellence to the primacy of anti-racism,” observes Ed Kirby, an ed-reform fixture who was intimately involved in the design and launch of BES, and authored its “core principles,” which guided its work for two decades. “I’m not going to get into judging them and their new direction. But the place is completely unrecognizable to me,” he says. For her part, Navlakhi says she sees no tension in BES’ evolution. “In quality schools, academic excellence and anti-racism reinforce one another,” she says. “Promoting anti-racism and a community-centered approach creates an environment that respects students and families and, in turn, contributes to academic success.”

Some New York charter-school leaders are worried, however, that these shifts in emphasis will adversely affect students. Stephanie Saroki de Garcia, who runs the Brilla charter school network in the South Bronx, describes what she sees as competing priorities of charter-school parents versus staff “who have gone to elite colleges” and see schools as vehicles to promote societal change. “I think it’s going to have a real impact on academic outcomes for underserved kids, and the opposite of the intended effect. Kids are not getting what they need academically,” she says. “Even in my own child’s charter school, half of their professional development is on racial equity. How are they learning how to be excellent teachers? It’s really worrisome.” Saroki de Garcia has occasionally faced pushback from her own staff over Brilla’s classical curriculum and school culture. “Our response has always been, ‘Look, we’re here because the state has given us permission to teach kids a set of academic standards, and that’s Job One.’ If we don’t do that well, we shouldn’t be in business,” she says.

The transformation of BES stunned Brown. Walsh suggests that current voices in education reform “don’t have enough grounding in bad schools.” This last point comes up frequently in conversations with charter-school veterans: as the movement has grown and evolved, younger staffers have either forgotten or never knew the conditions to which no-excuses charters were created as an antidote.

“The numbers certainly show that parents prefer order and safety over chaos. It also shows in high school and college matriculation,” observes Lester Long, a 2004 BES fellow and the founder of Classical Charter Schools, a network of four schools in the South Bronx. “Deep learning can’t happen in fearful environments, either of other students in a too-chaotic school or of the teacher in a too-strict one. Ultimately, great teachers and schools find that balance.” Long also points out that “no excuses” was too poorly defined, but it was “a shorthand form of deep respect for Black and brown students. The key point was ‘I know you can do this. I believe in you.’ There were disappointing exceptions, but the original meaning and intent was one of empowerment,” says Long, whose schools were frequently visited by BES fellows prior to the change in leadership, but not since.

For Re’Shawn Rogers, meanwhile, the die was cast when there was an opening to become the interim principal at his school, but Achievement First turned him down. “We had a number of meetings with [co-CEOs] Doug [McCurry] and Dacia [Toll] about equity and just having more Black people in positions of senior leadership within the network,” Rogers says. But he didn’t see that happening for himself. “My overall feeling was that there was not a place for me as evident by the lack of senior leadership that looked like me or thought like me.”

* * *

James Merriman, head of the New York Charter Center, an advocacy group, says charter schools fought to get a foothold in New York City and benefited from Mayor Bloomberg’s offer of space.
James Merriman, head of the New York Charter Center, an advocacy group, says charter schools fought to get a foothold in New York City and benefited from Mayor Bloomberg’s offer of space.

In hindsight, New York was an unlikely locus of charter-school dynamism. “There was never a moment where there was great political enthusiasm for charters in New York,” notes James Merriman, the longtime head of the New York Charter Center, an advocacy organization. “It was just not in the DNA of New York, New York,” a Democratic stronghold and a stalwart union town. In 1999, Governor George Pataki approved a pay raise for state lawmakers in a political bargain that led to passage of the law authorizing charter schools. In New York City, a few years later, charter-school operators lucked into a pair of staunch allies in Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his schools chancellor Joel Klein, who raised millions of philanthropic dollars and lured the most successful charter management organizations with the promise of rent-free “co-located” space alongside traditional schools in buildings owned and run by the city’s Department of Education. The availability of facilities for start-up charter schools was “more than a shot in the arm,” Merriman recalls. “It was life itself.”

Bloomberg’s last day as mayor was December 31, 2013, but he remains a player in the city and in education reform. In April 2022, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a pair of $100 million dollar gifts, one each for Harlem Children’s Zone and Success Academy. In Schenectady, Re’Shawn Rogers is operating on a much smaller scale. He and his school have received grants totaling $100,000 from BES, another $50,000 from the Albany’s Brighter Choice Foundation, and $70,000 from the Schenectady Foundation. “I had to work for that myself, so I’m very proud of that,” Rogers tells me over sandwiches and coffee at a downtown Schenectady pub. He’s equally pleased to have secured a deal that folds construction costs for his new school into the monthly rent for the space, which also offers room to expand as he enrolls more students in the next five years. And there’s another thing he’s proud of, now that he’s left a big charter management organization to open his own school: “It’s become important to me to make sure I see people of color in positions of power, and now I have the opportunity to put people in those positions.” A lot of his friends who are leading and starting schools are people of color, he adds, “so it’s starting to become more normalized to me.”

After lunch, we walk a few blocks to his school. Destine Prep is wallboard, insulation, and ductwork—a construction site, not an elementary school. It seems inconceivable that more than 100 kindergarteners and 1st graders will march up the stairs and into classrooms in less than two months. Rogers is unfazed. Like those early charter-school founders, he does not suffer from a lack of confidence.

In 1999, Governor George Pataki struck a political bargain that led to the state’s charter-school law.
In 1999, Governor George Pataki struck a political bargain that led to the state’s charter-school law.

But it’s all different now. The mission and vision of charter schools, the politics, the concerns of activists and advocates, and the deliverables demanded by philanthropists have all shifted over time. So have the values and ideals of the young people who still flock to this work, albeit in fewer numbers than in its halcyon days. Carello left SUNY over the summer to join the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. New York’s charter-school cap remains in place, but lobbyists and advocates suggest things might be different under Governor Kathy Hochul and New York City mayor Eric Adams, who sometimes sounds more favorably disposed to charter schools than the staunch enemy he replaced, Bill de Blasio. When charter advocates nowadays pitch lawmakers on lifting the cap, conversation is more likely than not to mention creating opportunities for more community-based charter schools like Destine Prep, rather than giving more charters to the big networks.

The one thing that hasn’t changed in 25 years are the parents. On an unseasonably chilly Saturday afternoon in June, Mashoma Brydie welcomes parents to a community center in Schenectady. Two dozen kindergarten and 1st graders are scheduled to be fitted for school uniforms for the school year that’s now just two months away. One of the first to arrive is Christine Lawson, whose grandson Jayceon will start kindergarten this fall.

If Re’Shawn Rogers is the school leader that charter trailblazers imagined would one day lead their movement, Lawson is the matriarch of the archetypal family charters were built to serve. Her own mother worked for the New York City Board of Education, but Lawson wanted something better for her five children, who today range from 18 to 45 years of age. So she cobbled together a mix of public, private, and Catholic schools in Brooklyn and the Bronx for them. All five graduated, which she suggests was no mean feat “during the drug era” in New York City. One went on to earn a degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Jayceon’s mom Whitney is also at the uniform fitting, but when it comes to schools, Lawson is clearly the decision maker in the family.

Her youngest son is about to graduate from Schenectady High School, but Lawson’s grandson will not be setting foot in the city’s schools. “Public school? Nah,” she says, then quickly adds she has nothing against them. The teachers in her son’s school “go hard for the kids,” but public schools “believe in social promotion” and don’t have high enough standards. “You’re just not walking out of high school with everything you need. I know that for a fact,” Lawson tells me. She’s certain Destine Prep will offer a “deeper level” of attention for her grandson. “It’s a brand-new school, but I trust them. I just trust them,” she explains. “We need more attentive people and hard-working teachers, and they’re in charter schools.” She learned about Destine Prep via a Facebook post. If she hadn’t, she would have “done her homework” on other options for her grandson. Even now, her daughter is still considering moving back to New York City. “If she goes back, then I’m gonna follow her, and we’re going to choose a Catholic school” for Jayceon.

She joins a handful of other families in front of a long table, covered with an array of neatly folded sky-blue Destine Prep uniform shirts and khaki pants. Lawson smiles, sighs, and says to no one in particular, “There’s just something about a charter school.”

Robert Pondiscio is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is author of How The Other Half Learns: Equality, Excellence, and the Battle Over School Choice.

This article appeared in the Winter 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Pondiscio, R. (2023). What Next for New York Charter Schools? The era of explosive growth of network-run, “no excuses” charter schools is over. Tentatively emerging: “community-based” charter schools. Education Next, 23(1), 36-44.

The post What Next for New York Charter Schools? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715892
Mission is Everything https://www.educationnext.org/mission-is-everything/ Tue, 27 Sep 2022 09:00:14 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715855 The most celebrated word has been “every.” The most polarizing? “College.”

The post Mission is Everything appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Blackstone Valley Prep cofounder Jeremy Chiappetta, right, with a student
Blackstone Valley Prep cofounder Jeremy Chiappetta, right, with a student

When I recently decided to step down from leading Blackstone Valley Prep, an organization I cofounded and helped develop over 13 years, I was flooded with emotion. BVP is a highly acclaimed and intentionally diverse K–12 public charter-school network in Rhode Island that serves more than 2,200 students. To help process my thoughts and feelings about leaving, I turned to journaling, which helped shape an open letter to my school community.

Many people reached out to me about this letter and my upcoming departure. Several of them asked me to expand on a particular paragraph—my musings on mission:

Mission is everything. BVP needs to better articulate its mission to ensure that families know what they are signing up for and that BVP is delivering on the promise of that mission. BVP’s current mission is focused on college success, in large part because of a founding belief that college readiness is truly a path to accessing the American dream. Many people in the BVP community, however, want something else entirely. While that may be perfectly fine, BVP’s efforts should be to either find them a school that offers what it is that they are actually seeking, or BVP should revisit its mission and reinvent itself accordingly.

The importance of articulating a clear and ambitious mission seems obvious. Mission statements set the foundation for strategic plans and help guide the work of the staff. In a healthy organization, every employee should be able to look at their daily work and know that their time was spent in direct support of the mission.

The mission at Blackstone Valley Prep has been the same since 2010: to prepare every scholar for success in college and the world beyond. Each year since, I have led professional-development workshops with incoming staff where we reflect deeply on our mission statement. We discuss the words and phrases that resonate the most and the elements that might ring hollow to some. By the end of the session, everyone is expected to be able to recite the mission and be ready to explain it in their own words.

Over the years, every word in our mission statement has been affirmed by some and challenged by others. I have observed that the most celebrated word has been “every,” while the most polarizing word has been “college.”

I understand both sentiments. “Every” epitomizes aspiration. The idea that a school would aim to serve “almost every” or just “some” students is the antithesis of what we, as educators, are called to do. I cannot imagine walking into a classroom and celebrating a teacher who was doing an excellent job with “most” of the students while ignoring others. Even so, “every” has its detractors. Should every school seek to excel at teaching every field of study? Is every school equipped to serve every type of learner? If one school does not have the expertise or resources to serve a certain population, but another school nearby has both, why not match the learner with the better-equipped school? Are these not the very reasons that different types of schools exist? (Think Career and Technical Education schools or those that specialize in serving students with severe disabilities.)

“College” is also aspirational. The data on lifetime outcomes are clear: college graduates, on average, earn more, are more engaged in society, and live longer than those without postsecondary degrees. One of my greatest motivations in joining BVP was to address the not-so-soft “bigotry of low expectations” displayed by too many schools that counsel young people, especially low-income and BIPOC students, away from college.

My heart sinks whenever friends and colleagues recount that they told their own guidance counselors they wanted to attend a particular highly selective college only to be redirected to a less-distinguished institution. I myself had such an experience with a college counselor—I shared that I wanted to go to Prestigious University and was instead pointed to a small local college. That was all the motivation I needed. At that moment, I resolved to attend a school ranked at least as high as PU. For many students, however, that counselor downgrade is not a motivation but a permanent deflation. Yet, over the past several years at BVP, there have always been at least a few new teachers (every one of whom has at least a bachelor’s degree) who question whether college should be in our mission.

What is most perplexing to me, however, is that despite how clearly we communicate our mission, several young people each year tell us they have no desire to attend a two- or four-year college. I understand that a kindergartener may have little or no conception of college, but it baffles me that we have high school students who do not want college in their future. Why would students attend a high school that is focused on college—where classrooms are named for teachers’ college alma maters and which offers more than a dozen AP courses each year—if they have no desire to attend college?

At BVP, we are committed to serving the students who are in front of us, which may include counseling them on options such as non-degree pathways or careers in the military. But the question is, should every school be expected to serve everyone? Should a pre-nursing or pre-culinary high school serve students who have no desire to become nurses or chefs? Should a school designed for pregnant or parenting teens enroll students who are neither? And should BVP serve students who don’t want to go to college? If the answer to this last question is yes, should BVP change its mission accordingly?

As a strong believer in school choice, I am proud that BVP recently added a “high school transition counselor” who focuses on helping every 8th grader find their “best match” high school, including, for example, an acclaimed CTE school with specialized programs and an arts-themed school with a portfolio admissions process. What we are learning from this work is underscoring something we have known for a long time: no school is perfect for everyone, and there are not nearly enough great choices for our kids, especially those who live in certain zip codes. My greatest hope for the K–12 system is that we continue to attract and retain innovators, educators, and entrepreneurs who will do whatever it takes to ensure every child has a choice and an opportunity-filled life. I wish BVP well as it continues to wrestle with these crucial questions.

This article appeared in the Winter 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Chiappetta, J. (2023). Mission Is Everything: The most celebrated word has been “every.” The most polarizing? “College.” Education Next, 23(1), 83-84

The post Mission is Everything appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715855
New Biden Rules Would Slow Charter Growth https://www.educationnext.org/new-biden-rules-would-slow-charter-growth-parents-governors-register-objections/ Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:00:39 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715328 Parents, governors register objections to proposed changes

The post New Biden Rules Would Slow Charter Growth appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona watches as President Joe Biden speaks to students in a classroom during a visit to Luis Muñoz Marin Elementary School in Philadelphia, Friday, March 11, 2022.
Education Secretary Miguel Cardona watches as President Joe Biden speaks to students in a classroom during a visit to Luis Muñoz Marin Elementary School in Philadelphia, Friday, March 11, 2022.

Applying for a federal grant to support the creation of new charter schools is about to get a lot harder. That’s the upshot of draft regulations for the Charter Schools Program that the Biden administration released for public comment in March. It is an unfortunate proposal at a time when new research confirms that charter schools are an asset not only to their students but also to the broader communities in which they operate (see “The Bigger Picture of Charter School Results,” features, this issue).

For nearly three decades, Congress has provided funds to assist charter schools with start-up expenses such as staffing, professional development, facility improvements, and community engagement events. The bulk of the money goes first to state education departments who, in turn, award grants of up to $500,000 to charter schools preparing to open, replicate, or expand. When Congress last renewed the program in 2015, it permitted successful charter management organizations to apply directly to the U.S. Department of Education for comparable support.

The program is modest by federal budget standards—Congress authorized $440 million for it this year—but over time it has been a major driver of the charter sector’s expansion. What’s more, the states, none of which wants to leave federal money on the table, often design and implement their charter school programs according to the criteria Congress uses to select grant applicants.

That’s one reason the administration’s recent proposal is so troubling. Among other new requirements, the regulation would force applicants to submit a detailed “community impact analysis” demonstrating that the number of schools they propose to open or expand “does not exceed the number of public schools needed to accommodate the demand in the community.” The language says nothing about the quality of available schools. It would effectively prevent charter schools from opening with federal support in the growing number of areas with flat or declining enrollment—often places where high-quality options are scarcest.

The regulation would also require applicants to collaborate with a traditional public school or district on “an activity that would be beneficial to all partners in the collaboration”—a nice-sounding concept that would effectively give districts veto power over charter expansion. Applicants would even need to provide “a letter from each partnering traditional public school or school district demonstrating commitment to participate in the proposed charter-traditional collaboration.” Charter entrepreneurs unable to find a willing partner would be out of luck.

The entire proposal seems to reflect the view, heavily promoted by teachers unions and their political allies, that charter schools are a drain on school districts’ resources to be tolerated, if at all, as pockets of innovation within expanding systems. That same perspective has informed key revisions to state charter-school laws in recent years, including California’s 2019 move to allow districts to reject charter school applications based not on the proposal’s quality but on its impact on their finances. The result was a dramatic slowing of charter growth nationally in the years leading up to the pandemic—just as charter opponents intended.

Yet the research case for the charter sector’s expansion continues to strengthen. In this issue, Doug Harris and Feng Chen of Tulane University offer the most comprehensive analysis to date of how charter schools affect the combined outcomes of both charter and traditional public-school students in the school districts in which they are located. Looking nationwide and comparing districts with a substantial charter presence to those without charter schools, they find substantial gains in both test scores and high-school graduation rates. A January 2022 study by David Griffith for the Fordham Institute, “Still Rising: Charter School Enrollment and Student Achievement at the Metropolitan Level,” similarly found greater charter enrollment associated with increased math achievement by Black, Hispanic, and low-income students.

If Biden administration rule makers are not swayed by these findings, the reality underlying them is persuasive to many of the families who have chosen to enroll their children at charter schools. Despite an oddly short window for public comment, more than 25,800 members of the public, many of them charter parents, weighed in on the proposed rule before the April 18 deadline. A group of 17 Republican governors wrote to education secretary Miguel Cardona to register their objections to the proposed changes. When a similarly tone-deaf draft rule on civics-education grants prompted an uproar last year, the administration backed down and replaced the rule with something more sensible. Here’s hoping that pattern prevails again.

— Martin R. West

This article appeared in the Summer 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

West, M.R. (2022). New Biden Rules Would Slow Charter Growth: Parents, governors protest. Education Next, 22(3), 5.

The post New Biden Rules Would Slow Charter Growth appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715328
The Bigger Picture of Charter School Results https://www.educationnext.org/bigger-picture-charter-school-results-national-analysis-system-level-effects-test-scores-graduation-rates/ Mon, 18 Apr 2022 09:00:59 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715256 A National Analysis of System-Level Effects on Test Scores and Graduation Rates

The post The Bigger Picture of Charter School Results appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Parents and schoolchildren demonstrate their support for charter schools and protest the racial achievement gap in New York City.
Parents and schoolchildren demonstrate their support for charter schools and protest the racial achievement gap in New York City. An estimated 25,000 people attended the rally.

Charter schools now represent 7 percent of national school enrollment. In a growing number of cities, this number is well above 40 percent. This represents one of the most dramatic shifts in the structure of U.S. schooling in the past half century. An entire sector of publicly funded, privately run schools has emerged from scratch that now rivals private schools in its size and scope.

We have learned a great deal from the charter-school experience. Most prior research has focused on how well charter schools serve the students who attend them. These “participant effects” are, on average, small and positive for test scores—more positive in urban areas and in schools using a “No Excuses” approach to instruction and discipline. The results have also generally improved over time, perhaps because charter schools and their partners have had more time to learn from experience.

But charter schools could have broader effects on schooling systems as a whole. Other studies have examined the effects of charter schools on nearby traditional public schools. Sometimes called “competitive effects,” these influences actually reflect a range of ways in which nearby traditional public schools might respond to charter schools. The competitive effects documented in past research, too, are typically small and positive.

Another potential effect of competition is that traditional public schools might be forced to close. Charter schools draw enrollment from traditional public schools. The loss of students can make the traditional public schools less viable, financially and academically. Closures are painful, to be sure. However, a growing body of research suggests that if the schools that close are among the lowest performing, then students benefit academically because they end up in better schools. We know little, however, about the effect of charter schools on the closure of other schools.

More generally, we are not aware of any studies that capture the net or systemwide effects of charter schools including all of these mechanisms. Prior research therefore gives us only a partial picture. We decided to address this issue. Instead of focusing on one particular mechanism—participant or competitive effects—we try to estimate the net effect of almost all the potential mechanisms. Instead of focusing on particular cities or states, we take a national look. And, instead of focusing on test scores alone, we consider both scores and high-school graduation rates. In short, we aim to provide a bigger picture of charter school effects.

National Data and Analysis

We included essentially all school districts in the United States during the years 1995–2016. During this period, 608 of the nation’s approximately 12,000 districts had at least one charter school. Sixty-one percent of these districts have 10 percent or more charter enrollment, and 39 percent of these districts have 20 percent or more charter enrollment. (The number of districts in each group is smaller for the sample we use to study graduation rates.) The remaining, no-charter districts serve as a potential comparison group.

These data come from the National Longitudinal School Database, or NLSD, which we created at REACH, the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice. The NLSD combines a wide variety of school and district data sources, including test-score data from the Stanford Education Data Archive, high-school graduation data from the federal Common Core of Data, and demographic data from the Common Core of Data and the U.S. Census.

While these data are not unusual, our approach to the analysis is in one key respect: We focus on system-level outcomes, which are an average of the outcomes of traditional public schools and charter schools located within districts’ geographic boundaries, weighted by school enrollment. This approach has two key advantages. First, it allows us to capture system-level results, which reflect the outcomes of all students (excluding private schools and home education). Second, one of the main concerns in studies of charter schools is that they might select or “cream-skim” the best students and inflate their outcomes. However, this type of selection is largely irrelevant in a district-level analysis of the total effects of charter schools. All students are counted in the analysis regardless of which type of school they attended. This is really an analysis of “systems” instead of “districts.”

We analyze these data using a method called difference-in-differences that compares a control group of districts with a treatment group. In this case, the control includes only districts that have no charter schools. The treatment group includes only “charter-heavy” districts, which we initially define as those that eventually reach at least 10 percent charter enrollment share. We then compare the trends over time in each group to see whether they diverge after charter schools open.

A key challenge in understanding any effect of charter schools is separating their impact on student outcomes from the impact of other policies aimed at improving schools that were adopted at roughly the same time. For example, states might adopt charter schools as part of a larger education agenda—which might include changes in school funding, investments in school facilities, or school accountability—that also affects student outcomes. Our matching method helps address this by focusing the comparison on districts that are otherwise similar and therefore are similarly likely to experience additional policies. If a state institutes new policies for low-performing schools, for example, the analysis will account for this by comparing districts that initially had similar performance levels.

It is also possible that non-policy factors could change at the same time that charter schools open. For example, demographics of a district might change, and, since outcomes are correlated with demographics, the results might change for reasons that have nothing to do with charter schools. To account for this, we sometimes control for demographics. We also test directly for demographic shifts that coincide with charter entry.

Yet another problem is that charter schools might intentionally seek to open in locations where the performance of traditional public schools is expected to decline. In that case, it might appear that charter schools are having a more negative impact than they actually are. The matching partially addresses this as well. In addition, we carry out “placebo” analyses in which we look for “effects” of opening high-school charter schools on elementary outcomes, which should not exist.

Districts with Greater Shares of Charter Enrollment Improve Test Scores and Graduation Rates (Figure 1)

Average Effects on Test Scores and High-School Graduation

Though we examine a number of factors, we focus here on comparing districts with charter enrollment of 10 percent or more to no-charter districts, while controlling for other district characteristics including race/ethnicity, free-lunch eligibility, and urbanicity.

Figure 1 shows the effects on elementary- and middle-school test scores in math and reading up to six years after charter schools open. The first bar indicates that, when enough charters open to reach at least a 10 percent enrollment share, math test scores increase by 0.15 standard deviations, or approximately 6 percentage points. For reading scores, the increase is 0.08 standard deviations (the equivalent of 3 percentage points).

The right side of Figure 1 also shows a 2.8 percentage point increase in high-school graduation rates over an eight-year period when comparing districts without charter schools to districts with at least 10 percent charter enrollment.

Additional analysis reinforces our conclusion that these effects are the result of charter schools. To test the robustness of our estimates to different analytic choices, we alter the matching method, vary the control variables, fix the number of years after charters enter at five years, and address the staggered nature of charter-school openings. The results vary somewhat across our methods, but the general picture is the same. In fact, with graduation, the effects often appear considerably larger when we estimate them in other ways. The estimates in Figure 1 might therefore be conservative.

The analyses also generally pass the usual tests that give us confidence that estimates reflect causal effects. The comparison and treatment groups were on the same trajectories before charter schools opened. The placebo estimates reinforce our findings by confirming that the expansion of charter high schools is unrelated to outcomes of elementary-school students.

We also used an entirely different method. Rather than compare charter-heavy districts to no-charter districts, we compare each charter-heavy district to itself as charter enrollment changes. This “fixed effects” approach makes somewhat different assumptions than our main analysis, but this, too, yields very similar results.

Diminishing Returns to Charter Enrollment (Figure 2)

Diminishing Returns

The 10 percent charter enrollment share threshold is arbitrary, and there are reasons to expect that the effects would be different if we picked other thresholds. For example, some have argued that having too many charter schools may reduce the performance of traditional public schools.

We find that increased charter enrollment share is generally associated with larger effects in the lower ranges of charter enrollment. Figure 2 shows that the improvement is especially pronounced once the threshold reaches 10 percent. When we raise the threshold above 15 percent, the effects continue to be positive, but they do not get larger.

New Orleans is an extreme case with the highest charter enrollment of any district. It has also been one of the more successful and well-documented examples of improved student outcomes. To test whether New Orleans might be driving the results, we dropped it from the analysis. The results are essentially unchanged when we do this. As in the prior analyses, this pattern holds when we use other comparison groups and other methods.

Do Charter Effects Vary by Student and District Characteristics?

The 10 percent charter enrollment threshold yields a positive effect on math scores for almost all of the subgroups we examine. In particular, our results show that the increase in math scores for districts with charter schools is larger in metropolitan areas. This is consistent with prior research, though, again, that research had focused on particular mechanisms, such as participant effects, not the broader systemwide effects.

More novel is our analysis by grade level and initial achievement level. Here, we consider high initial achievement as the top 50 percent of math scores nationwide and low initial achievement as the bottom 50 percent of math scores. We find some evidence of larger effects in middle schools and where initial (pre-charter) achievement was low. This is consistent with the theory that it is easier to improve when outcomes are low to start.

Our analysis includes not only average test scores, but also scores by student race/ethnicity and family income. We find evidence of improvements for every group as well. We see positive and statistically significant effects on math scores for low-income, higher-income, white, Black, and Hispanic students.

Students at New York City’s Bushwick Ascend Charter School
Students at New York City’s Bushwick Ascend Charter School, which recently scrapped its strict code of discipline and conduct.

What Mechanisms Explain the Total Effects?

What exactly about charter schools leads to these effects? Prior studies have focused on whether charter schools are more effective than nearby traditional public schools or whether charter schools induce traditional public schools to improve through competition.

One key contribution of the present study is focusing attention on the net effects of all of these methods, including a third possible mechanism: how charter schools might replace low-performing traditional public schools. To analyze this, we use the same methods described above, but here we are interested in whether the opening of charter schools led any traditional public schools to close or be taken over. We find that higher charter enrollment share does increase the likelihood of closure or takeover of traditional public schools.

To further understand this, we used school-level measures of achievement growth from Stanford Education Data Archive. These measures are created by calculating the change in achievement between cohorts and years (for example, the change in scores between 3rd graders in 2010 and 4th graders in the same school in 2011). Prior research suggests that these growth measures are similar to “value-added” measures that more accurately capture what schools contribute to student learning.

We find that traditional public schools that close as charter schools open have lower-than-average achievement growth. We also find that charter schools tend to locate near relatively low-performing traditional public schools. This may partly explain why charter schools tend to be slightly higher performing than the schools their students would otherwise attend.

We also examined the effects of charter schools on private-school closures, but we find no evidence of such effects. This is important, too, given the possibility that students might switch from private to charter schools. We might also expect competition between schools when there are more charter schools; more schools mean more competition for students and funding. Indeed, we find that traditional public school performance rises with the charter enrollment share, though only slightly. This evidence may reflect correlation more than causation, but it is consistent with prior research that has examined charter entry more rigorously in specific locations.

Putting this research together with prior research, it does seem clear that multiple mechanisms play a role in explaining how charter schools improve student outcomes.

Implications

This study continues a general trend. Charter results continue to improve in studies using rigorous designs of charter effectiveness—including one recent study of voting—as well as more descriptive studies. The fact that we see find systemwide gains in high-school graduation rates on a national scale is significant, given how important graduation is for long-term life outcomes.

There is still much we do not know. While our work advances understanding of the system-level effects, we still know little about some indirect effects of charter schools. Some recent research finds that charter schools attract more high-performing teachers to the profession, some of whom end up in traditional public schools.

On the other hand, critics also point out that charter entry might be accompanied by increases in average student funding. This happened in New Orleans and may also have occurred in other locations where traditional public schools are funded mainly by local property-tax revenue and charter schools are funded separately by state funds. Relatively little research has examined this topic.

Another legitimate concern is about how charter schools operate and how they might affect other outcomes. In New Orleans, we found, for example, that the intense charter-school focus on test scores took schools’ attention away from the city’s centuries-long traditions in the arts. Whether this has happened on a national scale is less clear.

Charter schools may also have contributed to weakened ties between parents and schools, and among families within neighborhoods. School choice generally means that students have longer commutes to school, which can make it more difficult for parents to make it to parent-teacher conferences, attend sporting and other afterschool events, or pick up their children when they are sick. Choice may also weaken neighborhood ties as students living across the street walk to different bus stops and attend schools that are not in their neighborhoods and often on opposite sides of the city.

The bigger picture, as it turns out, is even bigger than it might appear. Still, this study is an important step forward.

Douglas N. Harris is director of REACH, the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice. He is chair of the department of economics at Tulane University, where he also holds the Schlieder Foundation Chair in Public Education. Feng Chen is a PhD student in economics at Tulane University. A more technical version of this paper is available at reachcentered.org.

The post The Bigger Picture of Charter School Results appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715256
In Omicron’s Wake https://www.educationnext.org/in-omicrons-wake-more-options-may-help-repairing-pandemics-harm-to-children/ Wed, 02 Feb 2022 10:00:22 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714613 More options may help in repairing the pandemic's harm to children.

The post In Omicron’s Wake appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
A man adjusts a boy's face mask as they arrive at Jordan Community Public School in Rogers Park on the North Side, Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2022 in Chicago. Students returned to in-person learning Wednesday after a week away while the Chicago Public Schools district and the Chicago Teachers Union negotiated stronger COVID-19 protections.
A man adjusts a boy’s face mask as they arrive at Jordan Community Public School in Rogers Park on the North Side, Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2022 in Chicago. Students returned to in-person learning Wednesday after a week away while the Chicago Public Schools district and the Chicago Teachers Union negotiated stronger Covid-19 protections.

As this issue of Education Next goes to press, the nationwide spike in Covid-19 cases caused mainly by the Omicron variant has begun to abate. In Massachusetts and other Northeast states, where Omicron first took hold in the United States, total cases and cases among students and staff at schools have both dropped precipitously. Yes, hospitalization rates remain high and, in many places, hospitals are dangerously close to capacity. This pandemic has defied expectations too often to permit confident assertions about its future. It seems possible, however, that we’re entering a new stage in the way school systems are responding to the pandemic—one that, with the 2022 midterm elections looming, will lead to a gradual loosening of restrictions even in the most vigilant of blue states.

Though we may have reached a turning point in the pandemic’s impact on education, the latest spike in the disease has already wrought another spate of disruption. As Omicron surged, the Chicago Teachers Union demonstrated once again who runs the public schools in the nation’s third-largest city by forcing a four-day closure over the objections of the city’s mayor and school superintendent. On the national front, the tracking service Burbio reported that, over the first three weeks of January, more than 5,700 K–12 schools closed or went virtual each week, on average. But these shutdowns differed from those that kept many schools fully remote throughout the 2020–21 school year. The 2022 closures were driven mostly by staff shortages rather than false hopes of containing the virus’s spread. A growing number of jurisdictions are now deemphasizing or discontinuing contact tracing in schools, noting the low number of positive cases such efforts identify and the burden they place on school staff.

Unlike many other viral diseases, Covid-19 spares most children from the worst of its physical harm. Yet our collective failure to adjust to this reality has forced children to endure serious damage to their learning. Mounting data on students’ educational progress make this clear. State test results from spring 2021 revealed a massive setback in the development of students’ literacy and numeracy. High school graduation rates, after climbing steadily for more than a decade, fell markedly in 2021 despite an easing of degree requirements. Students’ nonacademic development has also suffered. The American Academy of Pediatrics has gone so far as to declare a national emergency in children’s mental health.

As school systems struggled to respond to the pandemic over the past two years, some families took matters into their own hands. In this issue, Daniel Hamlin and Education Next senior editor Paul E. Peterson take stock of recent developments in the world of homeschooling (see “Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold?features, this issue). Hamlin and Peterson note that “even cautious estimates indicate a doubling of the practice during the pandemic,” with as many as 6 percent of U.S. children learning at home without simultaneously being enrolled in a public or private school, as of June 2021. What it means for students to be homeschooled is also changing, the authors note, with more families assembling a blend of online experiences, participation in informal cooperatives, and perhaps a course or two at a formal school to round out their child’s education.

This growth in homeschooling has been accompanied—and in some cases aided—by an expansion of policies promoting parental choice. At least 18 states created or expanded private-school choice programs amid the pandemic in 2021 (see “School Choice Advances in the States,” features, Fall 2021). Republican leaders in other states now seek to increase this number. Texas Governor Greg Abbott has said that “this upcoming session . . . you’re going to see a stronger, swifter, more powerful movement advocating school choice than you’ve ever seen in the history of the state of Texas.” Glenn Youngkin, the newly elected governor of Virginia, has proposed expanding the number of charter schools in the commonwealth from fewer than 10 to about 200.

A pandemic that takes the lives of more than five million people worldwide, robs millions more of the joy of social interaction, and disrupts education for months on end does not have a silver lining. If, however, the response to Covid-19 leads policymakers to provide families with more options for meeting students’ needs, that change will be a part of its legacy for us all to make the most of as we seek to repair the pandemic’s harm to our nation’s children and truly build back better.

Martin R. West

This article appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

West, M.R. (2022). In Omicron’s Wake. Education Next, 22(2), 5.

The post In Omicron’s Wake appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714613
Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? https://www.educationnext.org/homeschooling-skyrocketed-during-pandemic-what-does-future-hold-online-neighborhood-pods-cooperatives/ Tue, 01 Feb 2022 10:00:04 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714528 It may be less of an either-or option, as homeschooling is combined with online experiences, neighborhood pods, cooperatives, or joint undertakings with public and private schools

The post Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Caprice Corona assists her three children during a music lesson at home.
Caprice Corona assists her three children during a music lesson at home.

As folk wisdom has it, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. And research shows that children are generally shaped more by life at home than by studies at school. College enrollment, for instance, is better predicted by family-background characteristics than the amount of money a school district spends on a child’s education. Some parents have a specific vision for their child’s schooling that leads them to keep it entirely under their own direction. Even Horace Mann, the father of the American public school, who favored compulsory schooling for others, had his own children educated at home.

Homeschooling is generally understood to mean that a child’s education takes place exclusively at home—but homeschooling is a continuum, not an all-or-nothing choice. In a sense, everyone is “home-schooled,” and the ways that families combine learning at home with attending school are many. Parents may decide to home-school one year but not the next. They may teach some subjects at home but send their child to school for others, or they may teach all subjects at home but enroll their child in a school’s sports or drama programs. Especially during the Covid-19 pandemic, the concept of homeschooling has become ambiguous, as parents mix home, school, and online instruction, adjusting often to the twists and turns of school closures and public health concerns.

Valerie Bryant helps her daughter with homework.
Valerie Bryant helps her daughter with homework.

Improving public understanding of the growing and changing nature of homeschooling was the purpose of a virtual conference hosted in spring 2021 by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at the Harvard Kennedy School. The conference examined issues in homeschooling through multiple lenses, including research, expert analysis, and the experiences of parents. The event drew more than 2,000 registrants, many of them home-schooling parents. Their participation made clear that homeschoolers today constitute a diverse group of families with many different educational objectives, making it difficult to generalize about the practice. The conference did not uncover convincing evidence that homeschooling is preferable to public or private schools in terms of children’s academic outcomes and social experiences, but neither did it find credible evidence that homeschooling is a worse option. Whether homeschooling does or does not deliver for families seems to depend on individual needs and the reasons that families adopt the practice.

Homeschooling Growth

The interest drawn by the conference is striking in light of where homeschooling stood only a few decades ago. In the early 1970s, the education mainstream in the United States frowned upon the practice and considered it a fringe movement. At the time, it was estimated that about 10,000 to 15,000 children were being homeschooled nationally. Only three states explicitly allowed parents to home-school. Elsewhere, the removal of students from the schoolhouse could be treated as a criminal violation of the state’s compulsory-education law, and parents were sometimes jailed for that very reason.

Despite advocating for compulsory education, Horace Mann homeschooled his children.
Despite advocating for compulsory education, Horace Mann homeschooled his children.

To fight for the right to home-school, a coalition of home-schooling advocates coalesced in the 1980s. Over the next 10 years, they would radically change the legal framework and trajectory of homeschooling. The coalition included left-leaning acolytes of John Holt, a former elementary school teacher who became disillusioned with the oppressive routines and rigid structures that he felt characterized formal schooling. Holt coined the term “unschooling,” the practice of keeping children out of school and, instead of designing a specific home curriculum, giving them considerable freedom to decide what to learn and how to learn it. Holt’s approach was an extension of the educational philosophy of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the 18th-century French philosopher who theorized that the best education was one determined solely by children themselves.

The largest element in the coalition of home-schooling advocates consisted of devout Christian families who bemoaned what they viewed as moral decay in public schools. Only by homeschooling, they held, could they ensure that their children would be educated in a manner consistent with their religious beliefs and values. In 1983, Michael Farris founded the Home School Legal Defense Association to protect homeschoolers from compulsory-education laws. Dues-paying members were promised free legal defense if a government body threatened parents with prosecution. This offer proved to be a powerful organizing tool, and the association now reports a membership of over 100,000. With the backing of an organized grassroots constituency, the association and other advocacy groups persuaded legislatures in all 50 states to craft a legal framework for those who wanted to educate their children at home. Once that legal context was in place, homeschooling took off. By the early 2000s, the number of homeschoolers had surpassed one million nationwide, according to the National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.

French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought children should direct their education.
French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau thought children should direct their education.

At the conference, Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute, a pro-homeschooling research organization, estimated the number of home-schooled children in 2019 at 3 million. Official estimates provided by the U.S. Department of Education prior to the pandemic hovered at 3 percent of all school-age children, which amounts to fewer than 2 million students. The difference between these estimates stems in part from the challenges of getting a full and accurate count of the number of children who are being educated primarily at home. Many school districts are not obligated to report to the state the number of home-schooled students in their district. Instead, the U.S. Department of Education bases its estimate on a questionnaire that it mails to a nationally representative sample of parents every few years. However, better than a third of those surveyed in 2019 did not return the questionnaire, which introduces the possibility of undercounting if home-schooling parents returned the questionnaire at lower rates than other parents. The U.S. Census Bureau, in a pilot survey administered after schools closed in response to the spread of Covid-19 in spring 2020, found that 5.4 percent of households with school-aged children had “at least one child [who was being] homeschooled.” The survey was repeated in early October 2020, when many schools remained closed, and found that the percentage had burgeoned to 11.1 percent.

Michael Farris, a home-schooling advocate and an appellate litigator, is the board chairman and founding president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.
Michael Farris, a home-schooling advocate and an appellate litigator, is the board chairman and founding president of the Home School Legal Defense Association.

Separately, the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance, in cooperation with Education Next, asked a representative sample of parents on three occasions over the course of the pandemic to identify the type of school their child attended—public, private, charter, or homeschool. The question resembled the one used by the U.S. Department of Education. The survey was conducted while many schools were closed to in-person learning—in May 2020, November 2020, and June 2021. According to the parents responding, 6 percent of the children were being home-schooled in May, 8 percent in November, and 9 percent the following June. Wondering whether these percentages were overestimates, the survey team asked those saying they were home-schooling in June 2021 to clarify by checking one of the following two items:

  • Child is enrolled in a school with a physical location but is learning remotely at home
  • Child is not enrolled in a school with a physical location

The researchers found that when they deducted from the home-schooling count all those who indicated the child was enrolled in a school, the share of students in the home-school sector in June 2021 fell from 9 percent to 6 percent. When their prior two estimates were adjusted downward accordingly, homeschooling was 4 percent in spring 2020 and 6 percent in fall 2020. The 6 percent estimate is twice the percentage estimated by the U.S. Department of Education in 2019 but only about half that estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau during the pandemic. Clearly, homeschooling is on the rise. Even cautious estimates indicate a doubling of the practice during the pandemic, and the actual shift could be greater.

Was the surge in homeschooling a temporary phenomenon induced by the pandemic, or will it become a permanent part of the education landscape? In a national poll conducted by EdChoice in 2021, 60 percent of parents held more favorable views toward homeschooling as a result of the pandemic. Market researchers are reporting significant, if unofficial, drops in school enrollments during the 2021–22 school year. Early reports say that some home-schooling newcomers are enjoying the flexibility, personalization, and efficient use of time that homeschooling allows. Families are also taking advantage of opportunities to combine homeschooling with part-time virtual learning, college coursework, neighborhood pods, and informal cooperatives, which are lessening the teaching demands on parents who home-school. But the 2021 Education Next survey revealed that many parents were finding education at home to be an exhausting undertaking and looked forward to a return to normal operations. Nearly a third reported they had “to reduce the number of hours [they] work[ed] in order to help with school work this year.” An even higher percentage said they had to rearrange their work schedule. A quarter of the 9 percent of those calling themselves homeschoolers said they did not plan to continue the practice.

Regulating Homeschooling

Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute says that 3 million children were home-schooled in 2019.
Brian Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute says that 3 million children were home-schooled in 2019.

Homeschooling is now universally permitted in the United States, and the pandemic has likely solidified public acceptance of its practice. But some critics still call for regulatory safeguards to protect home-schooled children from abuse and to ensure they receive an adequate education. They point out that, among industrialized countries, the United States has the least-restrictive regulatory framework for homeschooling. Japan, Sweden, and Germany all but prohibit the practice, and many other European countries impose tight restrictions on it, such as requiring parents to hold educator certification or mandating that students take exams to demonstrate academic progress. In the United States, by contrast, 11 states do not require parents to notify authorities that they are home-schooling, according to the Coalition for Responsible Home Education, and many states that do require notification have few other restrictions. A small number of states mandate testing of home-schooled children or that certain subjects be taught by trained educators.

Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet, who elsewhere has called for a presumptive ban on homeschooling, argued at the conference that regulatory authorities should screen prospective home-schooling parents and perform regular home visits. She asserts that there is “a significant subset of [home-schooled] children suffering from abuse and neglect.” High-profile cases of a horrifying nature help to make her point. In 2018, one such instance captured the nation’s attention when two parents who claimed to be home-schooling in California were found guilty of abusing, torturing, and imprisoning their 13 children for several years. Proponents of broader restrictions on homeschooling claimed that the permissive regulatory framework for homeschooling in California was what allowed these parents’ heinous acts to go unseen for several years. Citing these instances, critics of homeschooling are asking for state intervention. For example, a law proposed to the Iowa legislature in 2019 would have required school districts to conduct “quarterly home visits to check on the health and safety of children . . . receiving . . . private instruction.”

Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet has called for the screening of home-schooling parents and home visits.
Harvard Law School professor Elizabeth Bartholet has called for the screening of home-schooling parents and home visits.

The Home School Legal Defense Association vigorously—and usually successfully—opposes these kinds of laws. At the conference, Mike Donnelly, the organization’s senior legal counsel, argued that parents have a constitutional right to direct the education of their children. State courts have largely agreed with this principle, and the U.S. Supreme Court, though not ruling on compulsory-education laws in general, found in Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) that compelling Amish children to attend school beyond the age of 14 violated the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Donnelly also said that mandating home visits by social workers or requiring that physicians sign off on home-schooled children’s well being would be intrusive and impractical and would violate the constitutional rights of home-schoolers. He rejected the idea that child abuse is more prevalent in home-school households than elsewhere, and said that, if it occurs, other laws protecting children from abuse come into play. Economist Angela Dills of Western Carolina University said she found no clear evidence of an increase in reported incidents of abuse in states that relaxed bans on homeschooling. Charol Shakeshaft, an expert on sexual abuse in schools, said that her research suggests “it is highly unlikely that there’s higher incidence of sexual abuse of kids in the home-schooling world than in the public-school world.”

Mike Donnelly, legal counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, fights laws curtailing the rights of homeschoolers.
Mike Donnelly, legal counsel for the Home School Legal Defense Association, fights laws curtailing the rights of homeschoolers.

Effects on Student Learning

Many critics of homeschooling are more worried about ineffective or misguided instruction than about child abuse. They maintain that homeschoolers should be required to use standard educational materials and that their children should have to take statewide tests to measure academic progress. But many home-schooling families do not trust government officials to decide what can and cannot be taught, viewing such regulations as antithetical to the purpose of homeschooling. So far, they have succeeded, with the help of the potent Home School Legal Defense Association, in forestalling efforts to regulate curricular content.

What does the research evidence say about the academic progress of homeschoolers? Speaking at the PEPG conference, Robert Kunzman of Indiana University, who has synthesized the literature on homeschooling, said the “the data are mixed and inconclusive.” Research is underdeveloped in part because scholars cannot directly compare representative homeschoolers with peers attending school. Random assignment of students to homeschooling would be infeasible, unethical, and likely illegal. Statistical studies that attempt to adjust for differences between the background of homeschoolers and other students are often flawed because homeschoolers differ from other students in ways not captured by standard demographic variables. These studies tend to find homeschoolers performing better in literacy than in math, perhaps indicating that parents are better equipped to teach in that domain. Jennifer Jolly and Christian Wilkens, in their conference presentation, reported that college students who have been home-schooled are as likely to persist in their postsecondary education as other students. Still, studies of exam performance and college persistence do not include homeschoolers who never take an exam or go to college, making it difficult to generalize to the home-schooling community as a whole. As Kunzman observed, the only thing one can conclude for certain is that the data are too limited to sustain any strong conclusions about home-schooling learning outcomes.

Homeschooling Diversification

Beneath the debate over academic performance lies suspicion of homeschoolers, both in the mainstream media and in the academic community. They are often portrayed as a homogeneous group of southern, rural, white families who adhere to fundamentalist religious and cultural values. Sarah Grady, the director of the U.S. Department of Education survey of homeschoolers, finds some support for this stereotype. Homeschooling is more prevalent in towns and rural areas than in cities and suburbs, present more often in the South and West than in the Northeast and Midwest, more likely to be practiced by those of lower-income backgrounds, more frequently found among white families than Black or Asian families, and more likely to occur in two-parent households with multiple children. These patterns are just tendencies, however, not extreme differences across social groups. The U.S. Department of Education surveys show that homeschooling can be found in all demographic groups. Better-educated parents are just as likely to home-school as less-educated ones, and Hispanic parents are nearly as likely to do so as white parents. Time is eroding the stereotypical face of the home-schooling family—as is the pandemic.

What’s more, families choose to home-school for a variety of reasons. Even though fostering religious and moral instruction remains a common rationale, many parents cite other motivations. Nearly one third of families home-school to support a child with special needs or mental-health challenges, according to the National Center for Education Statistics. Other parents believe they have particularly gifted children who will prosper under more intensive academic instruction. Indeed, almost three quarters of home-schooling families cite dissatisfaction with academic instruction at schools as an important reason for their decision. Safety and bullying issues at schools are also frequently named as contributing factors. There are many niche areas as well. Parents of children who train intensively in the performing arts or athletics may opt for homeschooling because of the scheduling flexibility and personalization that it offers. Some Native American homeschoolers want to maintain ancestral language and traditions. And then there are the “unschoolers,” who take a different approach altogether.

Reasons for homeschooling are multiplying, but the biggest change in recent years is the way in which home education is being conducted. The availability of online content is revolutionizing the practice. Access to sophisticated instructional material lowers barriers that previously discouraged parents from homeschooling. A parent confident in her ability to teach grammar, spelling, and literature but not in her mastery of long division, algebra, and calculus can now ask her child to turn to Khan Academy or other free or low-cost instruction for help. Homeschoolers are increasingly teaming up as well. Home-school cooperatives, through which families pool expertise and resources to deliver instruction, have grown; 43 percent of homeschoolers participated in such groups in 2019, up from about one third in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Education survey. Another trend is the use of hybrid models, in which home-schooled children also attend public and private schools or even local universities part-time.

Despite this diversity of home-schooling approaches, critics warn that many home-schooling families are insular, promoting religious fundamentalism, intolerance, and anti-democratic sentiments. Research casts considerable doubt on such claims. With few exceptions, studies find no systematic differences in the opportunities for social experience available to home-schooled children and public-school children. Any differences that do turn up are typically in the homeschoolers’ favor. Data from the U.S. Department of Education survey suggest that home-schooled children participate in an array of activities that involve interacting with other children and that they are more likely to go to libraries and museums and attend other cultural activities than their peers in public schools (see “Homeschool Happens Everywhere,” features, Fall 2020). Homeschooling may even strengthen familial bonds by ensuring a level of attentiveness from parents that fosters positive social development. It could also, as some have found, end up shielding children from negative peer or social influences that undermine healthy social development.

Jennifer Panditaratne of Broward County, Florida, works with her husband to help their children with home-schooling assignments throughout the day.
Jennifer Panditaratne of Broward County, Florida, works with her husband to help their children with home-schooling assignments throughout the day.

Homeschooled Adults

While there is little evidence that home-schooled children are worse off academically or socially in childhood, it’s possible that a lack of exposure to mainstream norms and institutions could make home-schooled children ill equipped to navigate higher education and careers as adults. According to Jolly and Wilkens, there is little evidence that home-schooled children end up doing poorly in life. College grades, persistence rates, and graduation rates are generally no different for those who were home-schooled than for those educated in other ways. Trends in employment and income for former homeschoolers also indicate that they tend to do as well as others. Adults who were home-schooled as children are as well integrated socially as their traditionally schooled counterparts, and they navigate their careers just as successfully.

Researchers nonetheless caution that studies of homeschooling are limited by the data available to them. As mentioned, states often do not have thorough records of the practice. Some home-schooling families are not keen to participate in studies and research surveys. Research findings may be biased because of non-participation by these families. Complicating matters further, it is difficult to generalize about homeschooling because it embodies a diversity of groups, rationales, and ways of carrying out home education. Few analyses draw distinctions among homeschoolers, often treating them as a uniform group despite substantial heterogeneity in the population. Claims about homeschooling should be tempered until we have more-complete data on this rapidly growing and changing practice.

The Future of Homeschooling

Our conference found no convincing evidence that homeschooling is either preferable to or worse than the education a student receives at a public or private school. The success of homeschooling seems to depend largely on the individual child and parents. If so, it may make sense to allow families to decide whether homeschooling is right for them.

It remains to be seen whether the growth of homeschooling experienced during the pandemic will persist. If homeschooling does hold onto its current share of the school-age population, homeschooling will have become the most rapidly growing educational sector at a time when charter-school growth has slowed and private-school enrollments are at risk of further decline. The meaning of homeschooling could also change dramatically in the coming years. It may be less of an either-or question, as homeschooling is combined with more-formal learning contexts, whether they be online experiences, neighborhood pods, cooperatives, or joint undertakings with public and private schools. Eric Wearne of Kennesaw State University says that “homeschooling is growing, but everyone should be prepared for it to look a lot stranger in the coming years.” If Wearne’s assessment is correct, homeschoolers, once thought of as traditionalists holding onto the past, may be an advance guard moving toward a new educational future.

Daniel Hamlin is assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Oklahoma. Paul E. Peterson is the Henry Lee Shattuck Professor of Government at Harvard University, director of Harvard’s Program on Education Policy and Governance, and senior editor of Education Next.

This article appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Hamlin, D., and Peterson, P.E. (2022). Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? Education Next, 22(2), 18-24.

For more, please see “The Top 20 Education Next Articles of 2022.”

The post Homeschooling Skyrocketed During the Pandemic, but What Does the Future Hold? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714528
“This Is the Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time” https://www.educationnext.org/this-is-the-civil-rights-issue-of-our-time-philanthropist-bill-oberndorf/ Wed, 26 Jan 2022 10:00:13 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714378 Philanthropist of the Year Bill Oberndorf explains a state-based strategy for advancing school choice

The post “This Is the Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time” appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Bill Oberndorf has committed his resources to expanding opportunities for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. He chairs the American Federation for Children, which funds scholarships for low-income students to attend private schools and supports pro-school-choice political candidates at the state level. In 2021, Oberndorf was named the Simon-DeVos Philanthropist of the Year by the Philanthropy Roundtable, a national association of philanthropists. Education Next senior editor Paul Peterson recently spoke with Oberndorf about the state of school choice in America.

Paul Peterson: Why did you de-cide to focus much of your philanthropy on helping disadvantaged children attend private school?

Photo of Bill Oberndorf
Bill Oberndorf

Bill Oberndorf: I felt extremely fortunate that I was able to attend a wonderful private school in Cleveland, and only because my grandparents set aside and saved money for the education of my brothers and me. I felt that every kid who wants to work hard in school, whose parents want something better for them, should have access to the kind of education that best fits the needs of that child. I feel that this is the civil-rights issue of our time.

The idea of private-school choice through government-funded vouchers was proposed by Milton Friedman in the 1950s. Seventy years later, we have only a few such programs in this country. Why has it been so difficult to build public support for this idea?

I remember talking to Milton Friedman about this shortly before he died. He said, “Well, we’re just about right on schedule. It takes decades for ideas to take root before they really can flourish.” So Milton was not deterred. The opposition has come from the teachers unions, which are such a powerful force and funding source for the Democratic Party that this has created major obstacles along the way.

But the good news is that now there are private-school choice programs in 22 states. And 45 states plus D.C. have charter-school programs.

Yes, but in recent years it seemed like progress was stalling out. In 2016 in Massachusetts, for example, a ballot initiative to expand charter schools was defeated, even though charter schools in Massachusetts seemed to be doing very well. There were also divisions within the school-choice movement, and the energy seemed to be disappearing. How were you assessing the state of school choice at that time?

The charter-school movement had scaled up to around 3 million students enrolled, and suddenly, for the first time, that sector was feeling the kind of union opposition that the private-school choice movement had felt all along. This did create a lull, but since then, some important things have happened that have helped change the overall trajectory of the advocacy and implementation of private-school and charter-school choice.

What’s happened, of course, is the Covid-19 pandemic, and the shutting down of district schools across the country, with private schools remaining open in many places. Do you think that’s critical to what seems to be a turning of public opinion today?

Yes. The tide went out because of Covid, and many people who never had been touched by the impact of union power suddenly felt that impact. The other factor was that because so much remote instruction was going on, parents actually saw for the first time the quality of the teaching in their kids’ classrooms, and they didn’t like what they saw. This was a real eye-opener, and it has caused the acceptance and popularity of education choice to skyrocket.

Over the last school year, a lot of people moved away from the standard district-run school, either to the private sector, to charter schools, or to homeschooling, which has exploded. Is this people voting with their feet against what was happening during the pandemic?

Absolutely. And at the American Federation for Children, which is now the largest school-choice organization in the country, we start with funding state legislative races and directly backing candidates. You referenced the ballot initiative losing in Massachusetts. There has never been a ballot initiative that’s passed, because it’s too easy to knock them off. Instead, we look at states where we feel that, over a three- to five-year period, we can change the legislative composition to be favorable to choice and where we can help elect a governor who is receptive to signing such legislation.

In 2020 we backed 390 state legislators and won 337 of those seats, concentrated in 13 states. And what resulted in 2021 was the passage of legislation funding 150,000 new private-school seats, at about $6,000 dollars apiece—almost $900 million of government money. And, as you mentioned, there were also increases in homeschooling and in charter enrollment. This shift is having a big political influence too, in how people vote once they see how their children are benefiting from these programs.

What do you see as the main driver here?

I think it’s the culmination of a lot of frustration that parents have had over the years—and particularly the kind of parents we try to help, low-income parents, and this is changing how they are voting.

Governor Doug Ducey from Arizona told me he got 44 percent of the Hispanic vote the last time he ran. He said, “That’s only because of this issue of school choice. That’s the only reason I got that kind of percentage.” And when Ron DeSantis’s opponent, Tallahassee mayor Andrew Gillum, said, “We’re going to end the school-choice programs in Florida,” DeSantis ended up getting 18 percent of the Black female vote in the gubernatorial election. That was 70,000 votes, and he won by 30,000 votes. So this is changing outcomes, with people who are simply tired of seeing what’s happening to their children, who are subject to sending their kids to schools that none of us would ever let our kids go to.

Are political leaders talking to one another from state to state? Is this what’s moving the conversation?

Yes, I think school choice is finally gaining traction in a way we’ve never seen before. And in this next election cycle, the federation will have 550 different state legislative races to invest in if we are able to raise the funds to do so. Governors understand the implications of school choice, and politicians of color are understanding it is good for their constituents. So we don’t view this as a Republican issue or a Democratic issue. About 20 percent of the money we give to candidates every year goes to Democrats. We’d like it to be a lot higher than that.

And I think that, with what happened in the wake of George Floyd’s murder and the riots in the summer of 2020, you cannot have a real conversation about systemic racism if you do not talk about K–12 and the outcomes for these kids. It is what’s holding back students of color in this country. It’s an inconvenient truth. If we do not talk about this, I don’t think we will be able to make substantial progress moving forward.

This is an edited excerpt from an Education Exchange podcast, which can be heard at educationnext.org.

This article appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Education Next. (2022). “This Is the Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time” Philanthropist of the Year Bill Oberndorf explains a state-based strategy for advancing school choice. Education Next, 22(2), 79-80.

The post “This Is the Civil-Rights Issue of Our Time” appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714378
Choice, Flexibility, Accountability Drive School Improvement https://www.educationnext.org/choice-flexibility-accountability-drive-school-improvement-what-explains-charter-success/ Tue, 25 Jan 2022 10:00:37 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49714517 One kind of public school is improving faster than another kind. What explains charter success?

The post Choice, Flexibility, Accountability Drive School Improvement appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

IllustrationFor years, media attention to charter schools has focused on the horse race: which schools are better, charter schools or district schools?

What if one were to tweak this question and ask instead: which type of school shows greater capacity for improvement, and what can educators and policymakers learn from the answer?

For some time, research has indicated that charter schools, on average, provide a superior education to students living in poverty, Black students, and Hispanic students. Now, research also shows charter schools are improving at a faster rate than district schools.

For our most disadvantaged students, charter schools are not only out in front, but they are also widening their lead.

That is great news for the children enrolled in charter schools, but no consolation to those who are not. To accelerate the achievement of all children in all types of schools, it may help to take a closer look at why one group of public schools (charter) is improving faster than another (district).

The answer is twofold:

  • The combination of choice and flexibility provides charter schools with the incentive and the ability to implement practices that lead to better results.
  • The charter sector has taken decisive actions based on those results, closing low-performing schools and replicating those that are succeeding.

These two factors work in tandem and reinforce each other to drive improvement; one without the other would not likely produce the same level of progress.

States began enacting charter-school laws 30 years ago, in part to create a “laboratory” for learning about effective innovation and improvement that could be transferred to other public schools. Three decades in, that knowledge is available and, if we do learn from it and apply it throughout public education, it can be used to accelerate learning for all children.

Academic Gains Greater for Charter-School Students (Figure 1)

Performance Data

M. Danish Shakeel and Paul Peterson recently published research examining the changes in student performance at charter and district schools on the National Assessment of Educational Progress from 2005 to 2017 (see “Charter Schools Show Steeper Upward Trend in Student Achievement than District Schools,” research, Winter 2021).

Controlling for differences in students’ background characteristics, they found that student cohorts in the charter sector made greater gains than did those in the district sector (see Figure 1). “The difference in the trends in the two sectors amounts to nearly an additional half-year’s worth of learning,” the authors wrote. “The biggest gains are for African Americans and for students of low socioeconomic status attending charter schools.”

In 2013, Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, known as CREDO, reached a similar conclusion related to research the center had done four years earlier. “When compared to the 2009 results, the 2013 findings indicate overall improvement in learning gains for students at charter schools relative to their traditional public school peers in both reading and math,” the center reported.

Here too, the differences were most pronounced for low-income students:

“Compared to the learning gains of TPS [traditional public school] students in poverty, charter students in poverty learn significantly more in math,” the report said. “Moreover, this difference in performance has widened.” In 2009, charter students in poverty had an advantage of about 7 more days of learning in math each year than their TPS peers. In 2013, the edge was 22 additional days.

Patrick Baude and colleagues found similar results in a study of Texas charter-school performance from 2001 to 2011. “Charter school mathematics and reading value-added increased substantially relative to traditional public schools,” the researchers wrote. “This improvement is notable because there is evidence that traditional public schools were also improving on average.”

What explains the difference in these improvement rates? And what can policymakers and K–12 educators learn from this information?

The Role of Choice

Throughout the year, the principals and boards of charter schools focus on one particular set of data: the enrollment numbers for the coming school year. In the winter and spring, they look at the number of applicants and the grades to which they are applying. If demand is low, they are compelled to find ways to attract more students. In the summer, after lotteries have occurred, they project how many students will show up when school opens. In the fall, they compare actual enrollment and attendance to earlier projections.

Of course, principals at district schools also pay attention to enrollment, but not as often or in the same ways. For charters, the issue of enrollment spells constant pressure to improve.

That’s because a charter school’s enrollment has an immediate and significant impact on the school’s budget and the services it can provide. A school expecting 500 students that enrolls 490 may lose funding for that year that’s roughly equivalent to a full-time teaching position.

A district school that experiences the same enrollment shortfall would likely experience no impact at all. The district will shield that school from the revenue loss for that year and perhaps for years to come. (Those funds must come from somewhere, of course, and they come at the expense of other schools that are not losing enrollment.)

In a high-performing charter school, the incentive to achieve enrollment projections creates an organizational mentality focused on continuous improvement in every sphere: academics, culture, extracurriculars, teachers’ job satisfaction, communication with parents, and more. While some charter schools (often those that are struggling) spend big money on marketing campaigns, high-performing schools know that the most powerful marketing is parent word-of-mouth. If a school is delivering for students and families, others will learn about it and apply. If it is not delivering, people will hear about that, too.

The Power of Flexibility

Choice drives the quest for improvement in the charter sector, but choice itself does not improve teaching and learning. Rather, it is flexibility that enables charter schools to improve in ways that are less available to district schools.

One way that charters have tapped into their flexibility is by lengthening the school day and school year. Using data from the 2007–08 school year, the National Center on Time and Learning observed, “Charters, as opposed to traditional public schools, are more likely to extend their school year, offer longer days, and operate a year-round school calendar.” That year, the typical charter-school day was nearly 15 minutes longer than a day at its traditional public-school counterpart. While 23.5 percent of charter schools reported a longer school year than the conventional 180 days, 16.7 percent of traditional public schools did so. Ten percent of charter schools offered a significantly longer year of 187 days or more.

Fast forward to the National Center on Time and Learning’s 2012 report “Mapping the Field: A Report on Expanded-Time Schools in America.” Noting that the first serious proposal for expanding school time had appeared nearly 30 years earlier in the landmark report A Nation at Risk, the center’s publication underscored that “no movement ensued on the part of traditional public schools to break from the conventional calendar and/or schedule. The one notable exception to this adherence to school-time norms came from the emerging group of independent public schools known as charter schools.” Charter founders, the center’s report observed, had “crafted their schools—which had been established to be deliberately unlike the conventional—on a platform of a longer school day and/or year.”

Charter schools, which made up just 5 percent of public schools nationwide at the time of the center’s study, constituted 60 percent of all expanded-time schools.

The center also observed that it was much more common for start-up schools to adopt an expanded-time schedule than it was for an existing school to convert to the model. Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) of the expanded-time schools they identified were start-ups.

In 2015, the center’s findings on charter schools and time were even more pronounced. “The average charter school day has grown markedly over the last decade, with particular growth in the upper quartile,” the center noted in a review of research and practice.

Research indicates that more time in school generally leads to improved learning outcomes. Citing a meta-analysis of 15 studies, the National Center on Time and Learning found that additional time in school “can have a meaningfully positive impact on student proficiency and, indeed, upon a child’s entire educational experience. Such enhancement can be especially consequential for economically disadvantaged students. . . . For these millions of students, more time in school can be a path to equity.”

Of course, if extra time in school is to have this positive effect, a strong academic program is essential. As in all schools, academic excellence in charter schools is dependent on strong teachers. Research suggests that the workforce in charter schools differs from that of district schools in several important ways.

In 2012, roughly midway through the 2005–2017 timeframe studied by Shakeel and Peterson, the National Conference of State Legislatures reported that teaching looked different in charter schools in several areas:

Demographics. “Charter school teachers are more diverse; there are almost twice as many black and Hispanic teachers in these schools.” Further, “some data indicate charter school teachers are more likely to have graduated from a competitive or selective college.”

Licensure. “Fourteen states [out of 41 states with charter-school laws at that time] require only a certain percentage of charter teachers in each school to be licensed, varying between 30 percent and 90 percent. Four states and the District of Columbia have no requirement for licensure.”

Turnover. “Involuntary attrition is significantly higher in charter schools due to the lack of barriers to teacher dismissal and to a school’s possible instability.”

Collective Bargaining. “Twenty states and the District of Columbia exempt charter schools from collective bargaining agreements and only Iowa holds all charter schools to all existing school district collective bargaining agreements.”

While these teacher variables—demographics, licensure, turnover, and collective bargaining—could explain charter schools’ performance relative to district schools at any given point in time, they do not speak directly to the faster rate of charter-school improvement over time. A 2020 study by Matthew Steinberg and Haisheng Yang does. They first review prior evidence indicating that charter-school teachers improve with experience at a faster clip than district-school teachers. In their own study of Pennsylvania schools, they find that this is particularly the case for charter schools that are part of charter management organizations, whose teachers “improve more rapidly than teachers in its traditional public schools or standalone charters.”

In Charter Sector, Low-Performing Schools Are Closed (Figure 2)

Decisive Action

Imagine a city with 100 schools where, every year, the three or four lowest-performing schools in the city close and a handful of new schools open. The quality of the new additions ranges from weak to excellent, but in the aggregate, they are average. Over time, replacing the three or four lowest-performing schools with average schools will lead to improvement. Replacing them with above-average schools would lead to even faster improvement.

This scenario has not happened often among district schools, despite bold public policies like the No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top. With few exceptions, districts have resisted closing schools, even those that have persistently failed to educate children satisfactorily.

The charter sector, though, has embraced this scenario, annually closing 3 to 4 percent of its lowest performers for years. Over time, the sector has opened not only average schools, but a greater number of excellent schools—those run by charter management organizations.

According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, from 2005–06 to 2017–18, the charter sector closed between 3.1 percent and 3.7 percent of its schools every year but two, with an average of 185 closures per year (see Figure 2).

Throughout that time, I led the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, which advocated for charter-school quality and accountability. In 2012, in our “One Million Lives” campaign, we called on public officials and authorizers to close a thousand low-performing charter schools by 2017 and to open two thousand new, high-quality charter schools. The goal was ambitious, since the sector had never closed 200 schools per year even once. Yet the campaign was widely embraced by the charter community, including advocates in states with many charter schools like Texas, California, Arizona, and Ohio.

In 2013, the Texas Charter School Association successfully advocated for the passage of a state law that raised performance standards for charter schools and provided for the closing of schools that failed to meet those standards for three successive years. The legislation also raised the cap on the number of charter schools allowed in the state and streamlined the renewal and replication process for successful schools. The Texas reform law embodied the charter philosophy: growing the number of high-quality schools and closing those that persistently failed to deliver for kids. During the two years leading up to the law’s passage, two charter schools had closed in Texas. In the two years following, 20 charters closed.

California’s state charter-school association also publicly pushed for high standards and the closure of charter schools that persistently failed to deliver results. Beginning in 2011, the association annually identified charter schools it recommended for nonrenewal. “We have too many persistently underperforming charters, and we need to come up with constructive suggestions to make sure there is sufficient accountability in the movement,” said Jed Wallace, president of the association.

In Arizona, DeAnna Rowe became the executive director of the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools in 2007. With over 500 schools throughout the state, Rowe said in an interview that the board had until then taken a “let a thousand flowers bloom” approach. “It was the right strategy at the time to launch and grow school choice for Arizona families, but at some point, you need to weed the garden.” The board improved its application process, a step that led to stronger start-ups and fewer closures. It also created a school-evaluation framework using guidance from the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, and used the framework to give greater latitude to well-performing schools and create improvement plans for lesser performers. The documentation that was created along the way “provided stronger evidence to close schools if it was necessary,” Rowe said.

Ohio focused on accountability and transparency. In 2015, the state enacted a law that required authorizers to be evaluated and certified by the state, made it easier to close failing charter schools, and prevented closed charter schools from gaming the system by transferring to another authorizer. Another much-needed weeding process followed. In the three years that followed, the number of charter schools in the state declined 14 percent, from 373 schools to 322. A 2020 study by Stéphane Lavertu subsequently found that students in grades 4 to 8 in Ohio’s brick-and-mortar charter schools made significant gains on state math and English Language Arts exams when compared to district students of similar backgrounds. Consistent with prior research, Black students made particularly strong progress. With accountability measures in place, the state has more recently turned its attention to supporting the replication of high-performing charter schools, allocating up to $1,750 per pupil for the creation of schools serving high-poverty communities.

By 2017, the goal of the One Million Lives Campaign was achieved, with a total of 1,080 failing schools shut down.

An Increase in Schools Managed by CMOs (Figure 3)

Smart Replication

The charter sector’s willingness to shutter poorly performing schools is matched by its commitment to replicating schools that excel, best illustrated by the work of the Charter School Growth Fund. The fund has invested more than $420 million in about 250 charter-school networks since 2010. Those cash infusions have helped open more than 625 new schools, and the charter-network segment of the sector has grown to serve 517,000 students in 2020–21 from about 140,000 in 2010.

Kevin Hall, chief executive officer of the growth fund, noted that “it wasn’t clear in the 2005–2010 timeframe that this idea would work at all. If you looked at school districts, you wouldn’t say that growing makes sense. There was not very much evidence.”

Since then, the number of CMO schools, the number of students served, and the quality of those schools have all increased. While freestanding charter schools still comprise the majority of charters and serve the most students, the proportion of charter schools that are part of a CMO nearly tripled (to 29 percent from 11 percent) between 2007 and 2019, and the proportion of charter-school students they enroll has more than tripled (to 30 percent from 9 percent), according to data from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (see Figure 3).

Rapid growth in the CMO segment has contributed to accelerated improvement in the charter sector overall, because CMO schools, on average, are delivering strong results. In 2017, CREDO studied academic performance by school-management type and concluded that “on the whole, . . . attending a charter school that is part of a larger network of schools is associated with improved educational outcomes for students” and that “research work has shown steady and consistent, even if gradual, improvement in charter school network performance.” CREDO also noted that nonprofit operators notched “significantly higher student academic gains” than did for-profits.

In reading, students attending a freestanding charter school were found to experience the equivalent of an additional 6 days of growth per school year, relative to traditional public schools, while students in CMO schools (nonprofit and for-profit), experienced an additional 17 days of growth.

Yet, 15 years ago, it was not at all clear that expanding and replicating charter schools would lead to high-quality outcomes. “In K–12 as a whole, scale does not necessarily translate into being better,” Kevin Hall said.

So why did it happen? The answer lies in “smart replication.”

Photo of Kevin Hall
Kevin Hall, chief executive of the Charter School Growth Fund.

“We sort of obsess on School One,” said Hall, “and then, ‘Is School Two as good or better than School One?’” What’s more, copying successful methods and approaches is not enough on its own. School operators “have to know why,” he said. “Why are they getting good results? What are they doing? Then there is a virtuous cycle. Can they attract talent, build their own talent? Do they codify what they’re doing so they can get better? All of those things happen in our
best performers.”

Hall and Ebony Lee, a partner at the Charter School Growth Fund, emphasize four key factors for charter-school success: talent, high expectations for students and the school team, high levels of support, and a forward-looking focus on what happens with students after they graduate.

Some large and influential charter authorizers, including the State University of New York, have also supported smart replication. Susie Miller Carello, executive director of the SUNY Charter School Institute, said her organization has tripled the number of schools under its umbrella over the past 10 years, keeping its focus on accountability and devoting time to learning about successful approaches to scaling.

“We went from ‘one good school at a time’ to ‘one good school as a proof point’ and being willing to support the replication of that school,” Carello said. “We talked with venture capitalists about how they determine if there is a good company they want to take on. We talked about the markers of being able to scale. You have a good program; can you convey it with fidelity to the next one or the next three? So now we give multiple charters at a time. We are venture bureaucrats.”

The charter sector’s approach to accountability and replication has had its critics, including some in the charter community itself. Some believe that authorizers have overemphasized standardized tests that define student success too narrowly and inhibit truly innovative educational models. There has been a backlash against “no excuses” models that produce high test scores but often rely on strict disciplinary systems in doing so. Companies that run virtual charter schools doubled down on this argument, maintaining that parent demand, not test scores, is the only valid measure of school quality.

Others have faulted wealthy donors for fixating on growing a relatively small number of charter networks that are disproportionately led by white founders from elite universities and from outside the communities their schools serve. Civic leaders in more than one city focused on recruiting brand-name national networks to their city rather than supporting local educators. Nonprofit organizations, variously referred to as “harbormasters” and “quarterbacks,” were launched with the purpose of saturating the market in cities picked by philanthropists with charter networks that were also selected by philanthropists.

In recent years, after the period studied by Shakeel and Peterson, the charter community has reassessed its approach on these fronts, supporting a broader definition of school quality and investing in new schools that emerge from the communities they serve. The Charter School Growth Fund has been a leader on both fronts. Still, it is worth noting that the fast pace of improvement captured by Shakeel and Peterson predates these changes. Indeed, Baude’s Texas study specifically noted the positive results from schools that focused on test scores: “Our evidence suggests that the increasing share of charter schools adhering to a No Excuses philosophy contributes to observed improvements in the sector.”

While it remains to be seen whether the new, evolved charter sector will deliver the same level of results as the old, “the whole charter premise is working,” Kevin Hall said. “High performers are replicating and, methodically, low performers are closing. It’s not perfect, but over time, this is what is happening.”

* * *

The system has its flaws. Charter performance remains weak in some states, and some schools cream-skim students. Cases of financial malfeasance are still too common, and almost all virtual charter schools have delivered substandard results. Most charter-school advocates recognize these problems and are pushing for improvement, as they have done for years.

In the summer of 2005, the newly established National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, led by its founding president Nelson Smith, convened leading charter advocates from across the country at a conference on Mackinac Island in Michigan. There, the alliance released a task-force statement that read:

If chartering is to thrive, and to play a central role in delivering public education, we must elevate quality to the highest priority. We must look inward at our schools, our authorizers, our state associations, and our own beliefs and habits of mind, so that nothing—nothing—gets in the way of pursuing higher student achievement.

For the next 12 years, the period studied by Shakeel and Peterson, the charter-school community heeded this call. As a result, charter-school performance improved because of choice, flexibility, and the sector’s commitment to taking decisive action based on results. During this time, under a Republican president and a Democrat, in red states and blue, these ideas were the dominant themes in all public education. The district sector often resisted them, the charter sector often embraced them, and charter schools showed the faster improvement.

More recently, though, some of these ideas, such as no-excuses models and the closure of failing schools, have been falling out of favor. Indeed, some former advocates of these concepts have turned their attention to other strategies. Public officials, education advocates, and educators of all stripes would do well to remember the lessons learned from research on charter schools: students receive a better education when we provide families with choices, when schools have the flexibility to implement proven practices, and when our system of public education opens more schools with a track record of strong results while closing those that persistently fail.

Greg Richmond is the superintendent of schools for the Archdiocese of Chicago and the founder and former chief executive of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

This article appeared in the Spring 2022 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Richmond, G. (2022). Choice, Flexibility, Accountability Drive School Improvement: One kind of public school is improving faster than another kind. What explains charter success? Education Next, 22(2), 36-43.

The post Choice, Flexibility, Accountability Drive School Improvement appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49714517