Whitmire: 5 Ways to Stop Bad Charters from Derailing Education Reform

Honestly, the past twenty years of educational reform have been somewhat disappointing. It’s difficult to admit, but it’s the truth.

The appealing idea that reducing class sizes significantly could turn things around has been proven wrong in California. The logical belief that vouchers and parental choice would lead to better schools has also failed in Milwaukee. Additionally, the idealistic hope that the federal government could use strong measures to improve schools has dissolved with the failure of No Child Left Behind.

So far, the only disruptive force that has actually improved educational outcomes for poor and minority students, who now comprise around half of our schools, is the charter school system.

However, it’s not as simple as celebrating this success. Not just any charter school will suffice for these students. Only the high-performing charters, which are able to achieve a year-and-a-half of learning for every school year, are truly making a difference. Approximately 1,200 charter schools consistently achieve this level of performance.

But here’s the issue – we can’t just accelerate the growth of the best charters. The only way to do so is by shutting down the numerous underperforming charters that are dragging everyone down. Currently, there are 6,440 charter schools in operation. Of these, around 1,000 should be shut down immediately, and many others require significant improvement.

Closing low-performing charters has always been at the core of the risk-accountability tradeoff that comes with the charter school system. The assumption is that not all charters will succeed, and as the weak ones close, the strong ones will thrive.

However, when not enough of the bad charters are closed, this tradeoff becomes imbalanced.

Until we address this issue, critics of charter schools, including teachers’ unions who oppose non-unionized schools and superintendents who are threatened by competition, have a valid argument. Why should we approve more charters when there are still so many subpar ones in existence?

They have a point.

So, if we believe that high-performing charters are our best hope for improving education, how can we salvage that hope? After speaking with some of the most knowledgeable people in the field, here’s a 5-point starting list on the best strategies to rid ourselves of subpar charters:

1. Advocates must change their mindset.

Repeat after me: Charters must be good, not just popular. Just because parents want to enroll their children in a lousy charter school – maybe there’s even a waiting list for this school – doesn’t mean it should exist.

This may sound logical, but hardcore "choice" advocates argue that the fact that a school is full of students justifies its existence. Their point is understandable, especially when parents claim that their zoned school would be even worse. Or the most difficult argument of all: My zoned school is not safe.

The safety issue is complicated. "That’s a heartbreaking one," said Scott Pearson, who is in charge of the respected DC Public Charter School Board.

According to Pearson, the safety argument is intertwined with the argument that zoned schools are equally as bad. Allowing this logic to prevail ensures that neighborhood schools will never improve. The goal, he believes, should be to open a better school in the same building.

Recently, I visited charter schools in Kansas City. While there are a few exceptional charter schools, only about half of the charters perform better than the troubled traditional schools in the Kansas City district. And yet, very few charters are shut down. Instead, they struggle year after year.

National research indicates that struggling charter schools rarely turn themselves around, according to Stanford University’s CREDO, Center for Research on Education Outcome.

We must not justify keeping lousy charters open simply because equally bad district schools remain in operation. These are not the same thing. "Charter schools are meant to be an improvement over traditional public schools," said Pearson. "If we’re not delivering quality, I don’t think we should be in this game."

Greg Richmond, the head of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, adds, "Running a charter is a privilege, not a right."

2. Charter advocates must hold specific charters accountable.

The scarcity of state charter organizers closing down charters can be attributed to the robust charter system in California. Elizabeth Robitaille, who oversees performance issues at the California Charter Schools Association, acknowledged that they faced a quality problem about five years ago. After analyzing socioeconomic factors, the organization noticed that their schools were either high-performers or low-performers, with very few in between. To ensure growth and autonomy, the association took action. In the first year, they sent report cards to all charters, promising privacy for that year only. The following year, they identified 10 charters that should close, and in the most recent year, there were five on the list. It is important to note that the association does not name charters that are less than five years old, nor do they name alternative schools or charters for pregnant students. Additionally, low-performing charters can also be pressured to close through other means, as evidenced by the 177 closures in the past six years. Pressuring low-performing charters has led to significant improvement in the scatter graph while encouraging the best. California is currently the only state charter organization publicly advocating for the closure of underperforming charter schools.

Another lesson from California is to establish and enforce a low bar for charter quality. While the definition of a great charter may vary depending on the student population, there should be a consensus on the minimum standards. This requires a precise definition of academic achievement. Some low-performing charters only provide data on attendance trends, indicating a lack of focus on academic performance. Automatic closure laws that apply to charters falling below the established bar can be effective, although it is crucial to set the bar at an appropriate level.

Advocacy for changes in laws that allow underperforming charters to continue operating is essential. Two school reform groups in Philadelphia have recently launched a campaign to close more low-performing charters in order to create space for top charters to expand. While Philadelphia charter schools show impressive results for Black students in poverty, there are still a significant number of charters performing worse than the district. The solution proposed in the report is to urge lawmakers to strengthen the process for closing bad charters. Loose laws in Pennsylvania and even in California pose challenges to closing underperforming charters. In California, there are two statutes that struggling charters can use to prolong their closure, with one of them offering a loophole if the zoned schools are no better.

Improving charter authorizing is another important step in ensuring charter quality. While many states have made improvements to their charter laws, there are still exceptions. For instance, North Carolina recently passed a charter school law that assumes renewal is deserved rather than requiring the school to prove its merit for renewal. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers urged the House speaker to prioritize success for all charter schools, but their advice was ignored.

In a large education system, the concept of per-pupil reimbursement can be effective without causing staff layoffs when shutting down a single charter. However, in Kansas City, where each authorizer is responsible for only a few charters, this poses a problem.

There is a prevailing belief that there is little that can be done about weak authorizers, but this is completely false. What is necessary is for state politicians to firmly demand that the necessary actions are taken.

For a long time, the Arizona charter board was seen as a disgrace. The state had a reputation as the "Wild West" of charter schools, similar to Ohio’s charter sector. Almost anything would be approved in Arizona, and this lack of regulation was evident in the quality of the schools. According to Richmond, they were enthusiastic supporters but saw poor results.

However, all it took to change this situation was the appointment of a strong chief of authorizing, supported by legislators who were embarrassed by past mistakes. Today, Arizona is no longer seen as an embarrassment when it comes to authorizing charter schools.

While this is a positive development, it is not a solution that applies universally across the nation. Other states have yet to have the same realization, as noted by Richmond.

In conclusion, it is time to move past the optimistic press releases from charter advocates about closing underperforming charter schools. It is time to take action, to hold those responsible accountable. This is the only way to truly expand the presence of high-performing charter schools.