The Charter Blog

Nashville’s charter director Alan Coverstone is looking for charter operators interested in turning around a struggling middle school. It’ll be a “real” conversion, and the new operator will have the autonomies provided under the state’s charter law – which should please even the most hardened turnaround skeptics.

This morning Gary Orfield’s Civil Rights Project (CRP) releases a report portraying charter schools as “a divisive and segregated sector of our already deeply stratified public school system.”  For those of us in the movement, the CRP’s arguments are a trip through the looking glass. Where we applaud the charter founders who set up inner-city schools to serve the kids in greatest need,  the CRP sees only a geographic concentration “that skews the charter school enrollment toward having higher percentages of poor and minority students.”   Where we brim with pride at the million or so minority parents who choose to send their kids to charter schools, the CRP – well, it pretty much ignores them. Where we know high-quality charter schools are addressing a profound civil rights issue –the denial of educational opportunity – the CRP sees them as part of the problem.

For a group with Harvard and UCLA pedigrees, it’s a remarkably shoddy job, with page after page of tables comparing charter school demographics to those of entire metropolitan area school systems – as if the charters were evenly distributed among Chicago, Joliet and Naperville, in one example. (Next time you visit an inner-city charter school, stroll down the street to the neighborhood district school – the kids will look pretty similar.)

The CRP’s analyses are based almost solely on demographics -- for example, showing the percentage of minority populations in charter vs. other public schools, and the “exposure” that students of one race have to students of other races based on these numbers. But in the era of NCLB and disaggregated data, we know that schools and  systems with neatly aligned proportions of ethnic and racial groups can still have appalling achievement gaps among them. Take a look at David Whitman’s Sweating the Small Stuff to see how some of our great charter schools actively prepare their mostly-minority students for their future in a diverse and competitive culture – taking their students to college visits, consciously modeling and stressing middle-class values, and so on. These schools produce achievement and confidence through relentless focus and consistent, high-expectations culture – which most of their students did not experience in any prior setting, whatever the demographics.

What’s most painful is that we all share Dr. Orfield’s aspiration for cities and school systems full of vibrant diversity. There’s even some interesting conversation going on within our own movement (as in Petrilli’s recent post) about working for more diversity in charters.  We know the federal government can do a better job of collecting good data on charter and other public schools, and we certainly want authorizers to be vigilant in assuring that charter schools reach out to diverse populations when recruiting students. And we’re fine with expanding magnet schools (which the report advocates)  -- so long as we realize that they are often selective and do not replace charters’ open-enrollment approach that works especially well for kids who wouldn’t make it into the magnet pool.

But this kind of broadside won’t get us there, if only because it so defies the actual reality of our day. The report actually suggests that states deny charters to CMOs that operate racially isolated charters. So, in the name of diversity, the CRP would forbid even our best CMOs from opening new campuses in the inner city -- despite their track record of producing spectacular gains for the very minorities Orfield and company purport to serve.  Astonishing.

Early press here.

Obama’s FY2011 budget request looks to be a major boost for charters but don’t pop the cork just yet.  This is just the beginning of the long, long budget process -- and the proposal itself is more complicated than usual.  Currently, the three charter programs (startup grants and two facilities programs) are getting $256 million – and in FY2010 the Department was also granted the ability to use federal start-up  funds to support replicating and expanding successful charters.  With the FY11 proposal, it’s a whole new game.  The charter programs got consolidated into a $490 million program called “Expanding Educational Options” that now includes support for “autonomous public schools” as well as Public School Choice, Smaller Learning Communities, and Parental Information efforts. There’s no set amount that is strictly for public charter schools – which needs attention -- but in the voluminous materials released today there are some interesting signals about how the increased funding might flow. 

Nelson Smith, President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, released the following statement on the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget proposal:

The Obama Administration’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget request includes a significant increase in funding for public charter schools. With a floor of $310 million for the Charter School Programs and the potential for increased funding under a newly consolidated Expanding Educational Options program, the Administration has stated clearly its strong support for successful public charter schools. However, the proposed new program provides $490 million for several purposes including “autonomous schools,” and it is unclear how much of the increase will be directly available to support public charter schools.

We share the Administration’s interest in moving toward systems of public schools that have real operational autonomy combined with accountability for performance. However, we also know that the promise of autonomy is littered with compromises that provide neither site control nor serious accountability. Our strong preference is to guarantee both autonomy and accountability by creating public charter schools under strong state charter laws.

We look forward to working with the Administration and Congress to ensure that the final Fiscal Year 2011 appropriations continue progress toward fulfillment of President Obama’s promise to double support for high-quality public charter schools during his term.

Morning Joe welcomed the AFT’s Randi Weingarten today with the John Legend/Deborah Kenney clip we’ve been playing - -and then asked her some tough questions about the union’s role in last week’s Albany debacle. You’ll recall that the UFT’s insistence on anti-charter “poison pills” produced a stalemate that failed to lift the state cap, thereby torpedoing NY’s chance at $700M in R2T funds. Take a look at Randi’s response, and then read the Daily News and Time Magazine coverage. Yes, the union supported an inadequate cap lift but in the name of “accountability” would have turned all charters over to the state’s weakest authorizer.  The AFT’s spin doctors can’t fix this one.

So, much is being made of the current Domino’s effort to “turnaround” its pizza.  They literally have a website for this campaign, www.pizzaturnaround.com.  So, with all the talk on school turnarounds happening, and my last post on this subject (Cash for Clunkers) I’ve again been seeing some connections. 

So, Domino’s customers told the headquarters their pizza was HORRIBLE.  I don’t want to take away your fun of watching the commercial if you haven’t, but they also get pretty descriptive on how bad it is.  Anyway, the point was their pizza was definitely in the bottom 5% of pizza according to the customers and was in DESPERATE need of “turnaround.”   And, what did Domino’s do – they STARTED OVER.  They didn’t replace JUST THE TOPPINGS, or JUST THE SAUCE, they redid everything from the dough to the cheese to the sauce.    

I am sure someone is horrified I have just compared Domino’s turning its pizza around to our nation’s school turnaround efforts, but there is a parallel here.  When something is horrible, you don’t tinker around the edges, you don’t make superficial changes, you do systemic change – YOU START NEW SCHOOLS!  Domino’s isn’t in the business of making less than profitable pizza and to be profitable, it has to be good!  The company realized that it had to “restart” its pizza. 

The California State Board of Education (SBE) recently took a major step forward for the future of improved special education service delivery options.  On January 7, 2010 the SBE voted in favor of removing “pilot” status from four Special Education Local Plan Areas (SELPA). This monumental decision grants charter schools increased flexibility to better service their special education students.

Forty states and DC filed their Race to the Top apps by yesterday at 4:30. It’ll be awhile before we know what’s in them (and much longer before we know whether the plans have legs). But today’s January 20th, the first anniversary of Obama’s inauguration, and a good time to take stock. Whatever his wins and losses in other areas, there’s no question that Obama and his Ed Sec Arne Duncan have shifted the terms of debate on ed policy – and moved charters into the center ring of reform. We’ve seen a lot of press about charter cap-lifts but that’s only part of the story.

We’ve just published new rankings of state charter laws but remember, this is a moving picture. Two states that scored high on our quality criteria are now dealing with caps as the RTTT deadline looms. Massachusetts has just Done the Right Thing, big time – last night their legislature approved a major cap lift that will open thousands more charter seats to kids in low-performing districts. Bravos to state charter leader Marc Kenen and to former State Board chair Jim Peyser, whose “insurance policy” of a threatened ballot initiative lit a fire under the lawmakers.

But then there’s New York State, where some Assemblypersons are trying to shoot themselves in the foot.  As the price of lifting the state’s restrictive cap, they want to remove the State University of New York as an authorizer and put all charters under the State Board of Regents. SUNY is justifiably recognized as one of the nation’s pre-eminent charter authorizers and – to put it bluntly -- the Regents is/are not. The absurdity of this proposal is right there in the alleged “justification” from sponsor Catherine Nolan: “In fact, applications rejected by the Regents can proceed through SUNY rather than address what can be problematic flaws in their proposals.” That’s never actually happened  -- although the Regents have on five occasions approved SUNY turndowns after applicants made improvements. The point here is that a monopoly doesn’t serve the goal of quality schools.  Moreover, SUNY has a deserved reputation for toughness on accountability – as illustrated by their methodical, fact-based approach to the upcoming decision on closing New Covenant charter after repeated warnings, and despite a barrage of political support for the foundering school.

Since the RTTT guidelines want states to ensure “successful conditions for high-performing charter schools,” killing off the largest and most effective authorizer in the state is one heckuva strategy, Brownie.

Early, enthusiastic reaction to the Alliance’s new state charter law rankings suggest that it was indeed time for a fresh approach. NACSA says it’s a “victory for principles of strong authorizing,”  Journos in Ohio,  Massachusetts, Hawaii, Louisiana and other states link it to Race to the Top;  Russo ponders whether the quality-focused approach replaces “old school” charter advocacy…  and more.

Today, the Alliance released a new report and database entitled “How State Charter Laws Rank Against The New Model Public Charter School Law.”  The rankings report follows the original intent of charter school law, which is to ensure that public schools are allowed to be more innovative and are held accountable for improved student achievement.

The report also reflects a maturing of the charter school movement, incorporating lessons learned about how state policy can better ensure charter growth and flexibility while also providing accountability for student learning.  As one example, the report pushes states to enact laws requiring authorizers to establish rigorous application processes; provide firm but supportive oversight; and create reliable, transparent processes for funding and renewal – provisions that support the creation of great charter schools and improved student achievement as we’ve learned via the laws, regulations, and research in such states as Massachusetts and New York.

Incoming VA Governor Bob McDonnell is naming BAEO chief Gerard Robinson as his Secretary of Education today. Robinson is smart, savvy, and passionate about expanding educational choices for kids. This is a great signal about McDonnell’s intent to carry through on campaign promises – and the kind of appointment that will shake up ed policy ranks nationwide.

Charter schools are public schools, subject to the requirements of IDEA. But there’s a drumbeat of criticism out there to the effect that charters are trying to evade their responsibility to serve kids with disabilities. Some are, and they deserve to be nailed for it; but most charters do their damndest in this department, despite all sorts of obstacles. And it’s nearly impossible to have a coherent dialogue on this subject because aggregate numbers don’t tell much about what’s really going on in the schools --  the actual decisions being made about how best to serve kids.  (Let’s note here that the latest available federal data, from the 2005 Schools and Staffing Survey, shows a pretty small gap nonetheless: 11% special education students in charters vs. 13% in non-charters.)   The UFT (NYC’s teacher union) played the numbers game in a recently-released report; but  Marcus Winters of the Manhattan Institute penned an astute and data-rich short course in response. It’s one of the best distillations of this complex topic that I’ve read.

Macke Raymond and her CREDO/Stanford team have released a new study of NYC’s charter sector and it’s a doozy, showing a strong advantage for kids who attend charters over their ‘virtual twins’ in district-run schools. Particularly gratifying finding: Black and Hispanic kids “do significantly better in reading and math compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools.”  Special Ed and ELL students, though, do about as well as their district peers.

This comes a few months after Caroline Hoxby’s lottery-based study showing similar conclusions through a very different methodology, and after a startling public argument between the Hoxby and Raymond camps over the methods used CREDO’s downbeat national study released in June.

Happy new year, all!  

I tried to avoid education news over the holidays (really!) but that pesky Internet thing kept sending me stuff. Here, at random, are a few items that caught my eye:

The NY Times gets better and better on ed reform. Here’s a neat piece that acknowledges new forms of school leadership driven in large part by the emergence of charter schools. (Nice shout-out to Joe Nathan’s business-mentor program too).

Over the weekend Michigan lawmakers wrapped a big education-reform package positioning the state to compete for Race to the Top funds.  It includes some of the Administration’s most cherished items: use of student performance as a factor in teacher evaluation, permission for state takeover of failing schools; a couple of new  cyber high schools;  and a  “smart cap” approach on charters.

The state has labored under a convoluted authorizer-quota system that has limited charter growth where it’s most needed.  The new bill allows a few extra new starts (either by Mom and Pops or top operators from other states), but also allows existing high-performing charters to become Schools of Excellence, able to create new campuses through replication.  So instead of just pushing a numerical cap a little higher, the legislation now creates a sort of… well, a race to the top:  The more high-performing charters there are, the more opportunities they’ll have to replicate.

A lot of buzz this morning about DOE’s RTTT technical-assistance session in Baltimore yesterday. But if you follow us on Twitter, you saw this exchange (courtesy of our man on the scene, Brooks Garber) showing states looking for wiggle room around the charter-school scoring component, and DOE shooting them down:         

	charteralliance: Confusion among states about potential for 40 points under criteria around charters, trying to get 40 points without charters.
	charteralliance: ED's rule though states clearly, under the criteria you divide the total points by number of sub criteria, thus only 8 for non-charters.

House-Senate conferees have agreed to a 2010 funding amounts that provides a “significant down down payment” on President Obama’s promise to double federal funding for public charter schools. The measure will also permit the Secretary of Education to directly compete up to $50  million in new grants for replication of high-performing charter models - -which will speed deployment of our best schools to kids who need them the most. Lots more in the agreement, including new roles for charters in community-wide development.

The folllowing ran in the New York Times on  December 7, 2009

An Innovation Agenda

By DAVID BROOKS

... First, push hard to fulfill the Obama administration’s education reforms. Those reforms, embraced by Republicans and Democrats, encourage charter school innovation, improve teacher quality, support community colleges and simplify finances for college students and war veterans. That’s the surest way to improve human capital...

National Journal's expert bloggers weigh in today on the question: "Do charter schools deserve the attention that the Obama administration is giving them? Why or why not?'