State Politics and Race to the Top

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.