Feed on
Posts
Comments

First Things First

Last week, Chris Korsmo, of Washington state’s League of Education Voters crafted a powerful and personal commentary for the Seattle Times confronting the argument that people ought to “finish” the effort to eliminate poverty before they insist on dramatic improvements in the schools we give our poor children.

You see it all the time.  Last month, even the traditionally astute Jon Stewart on the Daily Show, repeated the line of argument with Michelle Rhee, asking how we can demand so much education reform, when we know that poverty is really the real problem.  As Stewart offered, “It seems like education can only be put in place once the soil is fertile.”

Can you imagine any other problem faced by the poor, for which otherwise intelligent liberals would say it is wrong to try to fix it before we eliminate poverty?  According to this line of reasoning, we shouldn’t work to alleviate or end homelessness, hunger, violence, obesity, or substance abuse until poverty is gone — ridiculous.  Like education, poverty is correlated with, and exacerbates, each of these problems. Yet we work to reduce them in the face of continuing income inequality.

No one says, “Stop! You are just helping people ignore the real problem of poverty by criticizing our health, housing, or criminal justice systems.”  For some reason, reasonable people repeat the absurd argument when it comes to education.

What do you suppose makes so many people leave their brain behind when it comes to arguing against efforts to give more poor kids a good education?

A new report, Searching for Excellence: A Five-City, Cross-State Comparison of Charter School Qualityby researchers at Public Impact and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines charter school performance in five cities, Albany, Chicago, Cleveland, Denver, and Indianapolis and finds that overall the charter sector in these cities outperformed their local district schools. They also found, though, that charter performance varied widely among schools. They found that while some charters are performing terribly, others are significantly outperforming their district peers and with similar numbers of students in poverty.

One_Million_Lives_Logo_WebAs Bryan Hassel, co-director of Public Impact, notes in response to his colleagues’ findings, the good news in the report is its finding that charter authorizers can do something to make quality rather than variability the norm. The study found that authorizers in the five cities studied could dramatically improve access to quality schools within just five years by closing their lowest performing schools and significantly expanding or replicating their most successful ones. The study found that in Cleveland, for example, “the policy of closure and aggressive replication of high-performing schools would, Public Impact estimates, result in charter schools vastly outperforming the district schools in five years. Moreover, this policy would put Cleveland’s charters on track to perform on par with the state average by year five.

In Cleveland, the policy of closure and aggressive replication of high-performing schools would, Public Impact estimates, result in charter schools vastly outperforming the district schools in five years. Moreover, this policy would put Cleveland’s charters on track to perform on par with the state average by year five.

This report’s findings provide yet more support for NACSA’s One Million Lives campaign, a multi-pronged effort to provide better schools to one million children by closing failing charter schools and opening many more great ones. While we know that many charter schools perform at the highest levels, we also know that many others perform at the lowest levels.  As Searching for Excellence reaffirms, charter school authorizers can dramatically improve quality by aggressively encouraging their highest performing schools to expand and replicate and by just as aggressively closing their lowest performers.

 

climbingIt may still be cold and drizzly in Washington this time of year, but that doesn’t seem to have stopped everybody from rolling up their sleeves. That is good, because as people launch a charter sector, there is a great deal of important work to do in the next few months.

I was making the rounds this week to meet with many of the key stakeholders in Washington’s new charter effort. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) works with the entities that grant charters (a.k.a. authorizers). We have established standards of quality charter school authorizing, which we use to help all authorizers that want to implement strong practices. That includes independent charter boards like Washington’s new commission as well as school districts. The standards that NACSA promotes address all the issues that come up during the lifecycle of charter schools. They are designed to ensure that strong charter applications are approved, while weak applicants — that are unlikely to succeed — are denied.

Washington’s law explicitly references NACSA’s national standards for authorizer practices, and it charges the state commission and school districts that want to serve as authorizers with implementing these strong practices. That is a great start in policy, and it looks like people are now gearing up to do just that.
Washington has experienced a long and bitterly-contested political struggle to pass a charter school law. After a fight like that, there can be lingering animosity and distrust. But hopefully people on both sides will get past those feelings and focus on the current challenge, which is to figure out how to do the technical work of creating a rigorous charter school system. Fortunately, there should be common ground when it comes to the next phase. Those who had been opposed to passing the law certainly do not want bad charters to be approved, and those behind the initiative are just as interested in making sure the charter that open are high quality schools. The best option for all parties at this stage, regardless of their previous work, is to no longer treat this as a political exercise.

My conversations with people throughout the system, from all sorts of perspectives, were all appropriately focused on how to do this work. The timeframes of the initiative require people to put systems in place very quickly. There is no time for the initiative’s backers to gloat or its opponents to sulk. The State Board is moving ahead with a host of necessary rules. They are preparing to review district’s applications to serve as authorizers, and establishing parameters for the calendar and funding authorizers’ work. If anyone drags their feet on putting rigorous systems in place, and the state and districts move ahead unprepared when the first charter applications arrive, the most likely outcome is the inappropriate approval of weak applications that will become bad schools.

The Commissioners themselves have been appointed, and they will be meeting in early April to begin their own work. Those interested in helping people who want to pen their own schools are networking nationally to identify the best practices and the most important resources that can help. And to a person, people were focused on how to do this right.

UPDATE: Check out this new op-ed from Robin Lake of the Center on Reinventing Public Education on how Washington’s new charter commission can learn from the experience of other states.

Hello from a chilly St. Paul, Minnesota!  Earlier this week, the House Education Committee chose to incorporate into an omnibus bill, HF 998, legislation that would create a closure provision for charter schools performing in the lowest 25% of all public schools in the state.  The authorizer would still have the ability to keep the school open, but must justify why they are doing so.  The bill provides an exemption for AECs (referred to as Alternative Learning Centers in Minnesota).  Charter School Partners Executive Director, Al Fan, spoke out in support of the bill that would provide a red flag on schools that were performing poorly.  NACSA’s Alex Medler, testified about the importance of holding authorizers accountable for closing failing schools and making it easier to make the hard decision of closure.  Thank you, Charter School Partners, for inviting NACSA to St. Paul and we look forward to visiting again!

Statehouse

How can we improve our ability to  judge the quality of charter schools that serve high proportions of extremely at-risk kids?

This article from the MinnPost does a good job of describing this complicated and difficult issue.

HIGH SCHOOL MOMS

Catrina a student at Denver’s Florence Crittenton High School, a school for teen moms, with her son at the zoo. Credit: The Denver Post via TLC

I’m in Minnesota to talk with policymakers about accountability for schools that do badly on state tests.  Part of that challenge is figuring out how to address this issue for schools that serve extremely at-risk populations–not just students who are low-income or behind-grade-level, but students with specialized challenges such as teen pregnancy, juvenile incarceration, and drug addiction.  States have various names for these schools, but a common factor is a large proportion of young people (some not so young) who would not do well on a state test in any school. The challenge is to find a way to hold these schools to high standards of achievement while taking account of their unique challenges.

I have two main observations:

1. Doing a better job of understanding these schools is key to applying accountability to many schools that will claim they deserve flexibility that is intended for such schools (even if they aren’t really an AEC); and

2. Collectively, we don’t agree on what we expect of such schools, so the idea that we could have consensus on what they must do to be successful is premature.

What do you think?

 

Last week we released the second edition of NACSA’s Index of Essential Practices.  Based on NACSA’s Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing, the Index is a road map for quality authorizing, articulating a set of practices for authorizers that can significantly improve the quality of their work.

The 2012 Index is a great starting point for those interested in using policy to promote quality charter schools in their state and in their community.  It provides a snapshot of self-reported authorizer practices in states across the country and can be used to identify where new authorizer policy—or policy implementation— may be desired.

To date, twelve states and the District of Columbia have endorsed national industry standards of quality charter school authorizing—such as NACSA’s Principles & Standards—and require all authorizers to meet these standards.   This year alone, more than a dozen states are considering legislation to change how authorizing takes place and half of those are specifically referencing authorizer standards.  Policy makers are recognizing the vital role authorizers play in creating a strong charter school sector and are making their states places where strong authorizers can flourish.

The Index is perhaps even more relevant this year, as our One Million Lives Campaign and the recent CREDO study have brought to the fore the connection between quality authorizing and quality charter schools. Broader public awareness and transparency around authorizer practice, in combination with our new practice tools, human capital programs, consultative work and advocacy, are putting us on track to meet the goals of our strategic plan. If we want to give a million more children the chance to attend a great school, we need skilled authorizers committed to quality and a policy environment focused on excellence. The Index is one important tool to help get us there.

All states will benefit from establishing standards for authorizer practices.  A strong reference to authorizer standards is a reasonable amendment to just about any piece of legislation affecting charter schools.  Once these references are in place, a variety of long-term strategies of assistance and communication can follow.  Eventually this will help produce a charter sector where strong applications are approved, weak ones are denied, schools enjoy the autonomy they need to innovate and succeed, and failing schools are closed.

 

Index_Practices_2012_thumbnail

This week NACSA released the second edition of its Index of Essential Practices.  The Index articulates a set of practices for authorizers that can significantly improve the quality of their work—and in turn the quality of the charter schools in their portfolios. The 2012 Index also includes data on individual authorizer practices as reported in NACSA’s annual survey.

Derived from the five domains of effective authorizing outlined in NACSA’s Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing, the 12 essential practices of charter school authorizing are grounded in three Core Principles that guide this work:

• Maintain high expectations for student achievement and school performance
• Protect school autonomy
• Protect student and public interests

These Core Principles should inform and guide authorizers’ work in the five fundamental domains of authorizer responsibility:

• Agency commitment and capacity
• Application process and decision making
• Performance contracting
• Ongoing oversight and evaluation
• Revocation and renewal decision making

Drawing from each of these five domains, NACSA created a 12-point Index of specific practices recommended for all authorizers:

12EssentialPractices

Click on the image to enlarge it.

1. Sign a contract with each school.
2. Have established, documented criteria for the evaluation of charter applications.
3. Publish application timelines and materials.
4. Interview all charter applicants.
5. Use expert panels that include external members to review charter applications.
6. Grant charters with five-year terms only.
7. Require and/or examine annual, independent financial audits of its charter schools.
8. Have established renewal criteria.
9. Have established revocation criteria.
10. Provide an annual report to each school on its performance.
11. Have staff assigned to authorizing within the organization or by contract.
12. Have a published and available mission for quality authorizing.

 

This video shows the relationship between NACSA’s Core Principles, the five domains of authorizer responsibility, and the 12 essential practices.

Continue Reading »

Check out the new op-ed from Al Fan of Charter School Partners and NACSA’s Alex Medler on the need for greater accountability for the state’s charter schools.

“A bi-partisan bill is making its way through the Minnesota legislature to close the state’s persistently lowest performing charter schools. The effort is not led by charter school opponents but by charter supporters, who believe that the charter sector holds tremendous promise to help close the nation’s and Minnesota’s appalling achievement gap…
…Closing chronically low-performing charters and providing solid educational options for all Minnesota children is the right thing to do. Let’s have the courage to move forward with this bold initiative as a public service to Minnesota’s least-served children.

Read the whole piece here.

 

Greetings from Nashville! Earlier this week, the House Education Committee passed HB 0702, legislation that would create the State Charter School Panel, an independent charter board.  The Panel would serve as an appellate body that could review (and, when warranted, authorize) charter school applications if they were improperly denied by local education agencies.  The Panel would follow NACSA’s Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing and would encourage LEAs across the state to do the same.  Rep. White, the House author of HB 0702, spoke to the importance of setting high standards for authorizers and charter schools, as with this bill “we will challenge not only LEAs across the state, but we will challenge the charter applicant to meet the highest standards.”

Dr. Alex Medler, NACSA’s Vice President of Policy and Advocacy, testified on the role of quality authorizing in charter school oversight and the goals of NACSA’s One Million Lives campaign.  The committee hearing coincided with the Tennessee Charter Schools Association’s annual “Day on the Hill” and students and parents packed the hearing room to show their support for quality charter schools.

We thank Rep. White and the Tennessee Charter Schools Association for inviting NACSA to participate in this hearing and look forward to our next visit to Nashville!

 

An op-ed in the Sunday Fort Wayne’s Journal Gazette, by NACSA’s President and CEO, Greg Richmond, warns people to beware of charter schools that engage in authorizer shopping.  This is a serious problem for those trying to close down failing charter schools in Indiana, and nationally.

“Authorizer shopping” occurs when failing charter schools try to avoid closure. They leave an authorizer that is likely to close them. They switch to a new authorizer with standards that are so low that the school no longer risks closure. We should not allow bad schools to do this and authorizers should be discouraged from being complicit in the act.

Because of state policies, in most cases the authorizer that loses the school can complain, but they are essentially powerless to stop authorizer shopping from happening.  In other cases, the first authorizer actually forces a charter school with unacceptable results to find a second authorizer rather than acting to close these schools themselves. The first authorizer might actually downplay the severity of the school’s problems to help smooth the transition to an unknowing recipient.

The authorizers that kick failing schools out of their portfolio without closing them — just like those who take them on — are complicit in this problem. The authorizers that help their failing schools to shop elsewhere are basically saying, “This school isn’t good enough for our kids, but it is good enough for somebody else’s.”   Because of their complicity, kids will suffer.

Continue Reading »

The Fort Wayne, IN Journal Gazette, published an op-ed over the weekend by NACSA president and CEO, Greg Richmond. Richmond warns against the dangers of charter school forum shopping whereby a charter school seeks out a new authorizer to avoid accountability. In Indiana, several charter schools that have been slated for closure by Ball State University are now shopping around. Richmond says that this is a race to the bottom that won’t get us more quality schools and will only allow low-performing schools to continue failing kids.

“As they pitch other authorizers, these failing schools will come up with many explanations for their low performance. They serve a lot of low-income students. Their students come to them far behind academically. They’re popular with parents. Other public schools are no better. They need more time.
Indiana’s parents and taxpayers should be wary of these arguments. These groups were given a charter because they said they could do better. They knew that many of their students would be low income and come to them behind. But they said they could succeed; none of them proposed to run a “D” or “F” school.
This is a moment of truth. We cannot create more good schools for children by accepting more failing schools. In the end, we will get the quality of schools we demand. If we accept low performance, we will continue to get low performance. If we maintain high expectations and standards, our children will get the schools they need to prepare them to succeed in life

Read the whole piece here.

 

Although Ball State University’s Office of Charter Schools has faced some tough criticism in the past, it is working to set an example of how an authorizer can drastically improve its policies and practices—and consequently the strength of the schools in its portfolio.

The largest authorizer in Indiana for over a decade, Ball State has taken the heat for the number of persistently low-performing schools it authorizes. But two years ago, the university started working with NACSA to improve its practices across the board.

“About two years ago, we took a hard and close look at our work, and clearly saw what we needed to improve,” explains Bob Marra, executive director of the university’s Office of Charter Schools (OCS). “It was a critical piece—though not very pleasant—to put ourselves under the microscope.”

Ball State’s improved accountability framework led to its announcement a few weeks ago that it was non-renewing seven failing charter schools. While these decisions were made after thorough analysis of school performance and careful deliberation, they are still never easy.

Said Marra, “We had to make these decisions—which we realize are extremely difficult for schools and their communities—because we know they are the right decisions for children.”

Read more about Ball State’s journey to transform its own work and the quality of its schools.

 

A new report from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University (CREDO) “found that the typical student in a Massachusetts charter school gains more learning in a year than his or her district school peer, amounting to about one and a half more months of learning per year in reading and two and a half more months of learning per year in math.”

“The average growth rate of Boston charter students in math and reading is the largest CREDO has seen in any city or state thus far. These results signify that these schools could serve as a model and have an opportunity to transfer knowledge to not only the rest of the state but to the national sector as well.” –Edward Cremata, CREDO Research Associate and co-author.

In Boston, where 13 percent of the state’s charters are located, the findings “were even more pronounced, equating to more than twelve months of additional learning per year in reading and thirteen months greater progress in math. At the school level, 83 percent of Boston charter schools have significantly more positive learning gains than their district school peers in reading and math, and no Boston charter schools were found to have significantly lower learning gains.”

 

NACSA’s president and CEOGreg Richmond, issued the following statement regarding the KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes study released yesterday by Mathematica Policy Research:

“Today’s Mathematica Policy Research study on the positive results produced by KIPP charter schools is welcome news for the many children in America who don’t have the opportunity to attend a good school. Poverty, gangs, drugs and violence are enormous obstacles in the lives of many children and there are too many people who say that there’s nothing schools can do about that. They’re wrong. KIPP shows that a well-run school that has the autonomy to do things differently can change children’s lives.

When we focus on growing quality schools, give schools the autonomy they need to excel and hold them accountable for results, we expand parent choice and give more children access to the education they deserve.

Every school in America, charter schools and traditional public schools, can do the same things that KIPP does and can have the same results. We can do better at replicating great schools and great programs, particularly with the help of studies like this one. Armed with more data on a school operator’s performance, charter school authorizers can make more informed decisions and encourage replication of successful charter schools. When we focus on growing quality schools, give schools the autonomy they need to excel and hold them accountable for results, we expand parent choice and give more children access to the education they deserve.”

 

Mathematica Policy Research, a nonpartisan research firm, has released a new study of KIPP middle schools. The study, funded by Atlantic Philanthropies, found that “The average impact of KIPP on student achievement is positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial.” According to the authors, the study found that

Key Findings

KIPP middle schools have positive and statistically significant impacts on student achievement across all years and all subject areas examined. In each of their four years of middle school, KIPP schools produced positive academic impacts on state standardized tests. Significant positive impacts are evident on average as well as for the majority of individual KIPP middle schools in the study.

The magnitude of KIPP’s achievement impacts is substantial. In each of the four subjects studied, KIPP schools produced achievement gains large enough to have a substantial impact on student outcomes:

  • Math: Three years after enrollment, the estimated impact of KIPP on math achievement is equivalent to moving a student from the 44th to the 58th percentile of the school district’s distribution. This represents 11 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in three years without KIPP.
  • Reading: Three years after enrollment, the estimated impact in reading is equivalent to moving a student from the 46th to the 55th percentile, representing 8 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in three years without KIPP.
  • Science: Three to four years after enrollment, the estimated impact in science is equivalent to moving a student from the 36th to the 49th percentile, representing 14 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in that time without KIPP
  • Social Studies: Three to four years after enrollment, the estimated impact in social studies is equivalent to moving a student from the 39th to the 49th percentile, representing 11 months of additional learning growth over and above what the student would have learned in that time without KIPP.KeyFindings1

The matched comparison design produces estimates of KIPP’s achievement impacts similar to estimates of the same impacts based on an experimental, lottery-based design. Researchers found that KIPP’s achievement gains are similar for the matched comparison design and the experimental lottery analysis.

KIPP’s gains are not the result of “teaching to the test.” For KIPP students in the lottery sample, researchers administered the TerraNova test—a nationally norm-referenced test—which students had not prepared for, and which carried no consequences for students or schools. The impacts shown in the TerraNova test were consistent with those shown in state tests.

You can read the Executive Summary here and the full report here. A fact sheet is here.

 

 

This morning, the Charter School Committee of the Board of Trustees of The State University of New York (SUNY), the governing body of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute decided to renew the charter of U.F.T. Charter School for a two-year probationary period during which the school must meet performance standards or automatically lose their contract to operate the school. The charter school is a project of the New York City teachers union, the United Federation of Teachers. Beth Fertig reported yesterday on the unusual news that of the 10 charter schools up for renewal by SUNY, the U.F.T. school was the only school not to receive a recommendation for renewal from the Charter Schools Institute’s staff. The staff did, however, issue what Fertig calls a “scathing” report. As Fertig explains,

The union opened the school in 2005 to demonstrate that unions and charters are not mutually exclusive. The school, located in East New York, Brooklyn, serves children in kindergarten through 12th grade at two campuses. In 2010, it was given a conditional, three-year renewal instead of a full five-year renewal because of its anemic test scores and other academic indicators. But a short-term renewal like that can only be granted once, and the union has been fighting to prove the school has improved and deserves a full five-year renewal.

Today, the SUNY trustees disagreed and granted the school what amounts to a do or die extension. It must improve or close.

According to SUNY staff report, the union’s school has a lot to work on. Fertig summarizes the findings:

Continue Reading »

Eastern Michigan University’s Charter Schools Office Director Malverne Winborne weighs in on the recent report commissioned by the Michigan State Board of Education comparing the performance of authorizer portfolios across the state. Winborne claims that the report is flawed because it doesn’t account for the fact that even low-performing schools may be outperforming their local districts or that EMU purposefully seeks to charter schools in areas where students are already struggling.

 

“Postcard from the Statehouse” will provide occasional updates on the travels of NACSA’s Policy Team as they advocate for strong authorizer policies across the country.

Greetings from Texas!  Yesterday, the Senate Education Committee heard testimony on SB 2, a newly introduced bill that would improve oversight of–and access–to high quality charter schools.  NACSA President and CEO Greg Richmond was one of seven invited panelists and spoke to the Committee about lifting caps on the growth of charters, creating a new independent statewide chartering entity with the authority to do their job well, and default closure of the state’s worst-performing schools. Committee members were very interested in authorizing and peppered Richmond with questions about how other states find a balance between authorizer autonomy and authorizer accountability.  We know that states handle this issue in a variety of ways and Richmond outlined successful authorizer accountability measures, included approval of authorizing policies by an elected body (ie a State Board of Education or the Legislature) and annual reporting requirements.

NACSA is honored to be an active participant in the discussion as Texas considers significant reform of its authorizer policy and its charter accountability regulations.  We sincerely thank Senator Patrick and the Texas Association of Charter Schools for inviting us to participate in this process and share our Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing with the Senate Education Committee.

For more information on the SB 2 hearing, check out this interview with Caprice Young, Vice President of Education for the Laura and John Arnold Foundation in Houston.

The current version of the bill here.

 

No Exit?

Imagine if you were in a contractual relationship with a service provider, and the provider told you that you couldn’t end the contract.  A recent case in Florida illustrates why NACSA recommends that the contractual relationships between charter school boards and their service providers clearly address important issues like how and when either party might act to end a relationship, what services will be provided and at what price, ownership of property and employment of staff, and how the provider will be held accountable for its performance.  It is hard to imagine it going more badly than in this case, where the charter school’s board of directors announced its decision to end its contract with its service provider and the contractor then sent an email to the school’s parents claiming that the board couldn’t sever the relationship and directing parents to ignore any further communication from the school’s governing board.  The provider has now sued the board to block the contract termination. Charter school governing boards and their authorizers can find out more about how to successfully navigate a relationship with an education service provider here (PDF) and here (PDF).

 

By design, charter schools are supposed to be open to all students. The idea is that rather than gaining admission based on their zip code or test scores, charter school students are selected at random from all who are interested. A recent story by Reuters’ Stephanie Simon described a variety of practices some charter schools used to game this system of open enrollment by artificially limiting the selection pool. These practices, no matter how prevalent, are a violation of the fundamental premise of school choice and usually of a school’s charter contract and state charter law.

Responsible people do not support these practices.  Indeed, the Reuters article quoted no one who defended them. Those who were quoted,  and those who have commented publicly since, including Nina Rees at the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, agree that these practices have no place in charter schools and should end immediately.

In exchange for strict accountability for performance, charter schools enjoy broad autonomy over many aspects of their operations. Admissions policies and procedures, however, can’t be left to schools alone. NACSA’s Principles and Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing make clear that authorizers have the responsibility to protect the rights of students – all students.  To protect student rights and ensure open enrollment, authorizers must review the admissions procedures and plans of charter applicants before schools are approved to open and must monitor admissions practices regularly thereafter. If allegations emerge later, authorizers need to respond on a timely basis to determine what is taking place and intervene if necessary.  Charter contracts and the authorizers’ own policies also should establish clear rules regarding permissible and prohibited practices.  In some cases, admissions might best be handled through a district-wide choice process that gives all families equal access to all schools.

If authorizers are unwilling or unable to ensure that schools follow the law and comply with their obligations to students and the public, then states need to act to hold both schools and authorizers accountable. In some circumstances, the charter school laws and state policies are too weak. Those policies may need revision.  NACSA encourages everyone—from parents and charter school boards to state education leaders and legislators–to examine what is going on in their area and take appropriate steps to create better access and more effective oversight and policies.

Like most issues that generate controversy in education, acknowledging that there are problems that need to be fixed does not mean fixing them is simple.  But just because problems are complex doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to fix them. Context matters, and it helps to understand a problem well if you want to fix it. This is an issue that would benefit from more study, and our solutions should be informed by what is happening locally.

Given the lax oversight of some authorizers, and the complicated choice environments and weak policies on this particular issue in some states, there may be places where a coordinated approach is best to ensure fair access across entire systems.  In other places, unacceptable practices may be isolated outliers that authorizers can address one at a time.

We know that there are thousands of charter schools across the country that are open to all families and provide children with a great education. Where this isn’t true, we need to act. Where there are problems, we need to fix them.

 

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »