Pioneer responds to Charter School Criticism

It's not often that a policy innovation fulfills its promise. That is unarguably the case with charter public schools, independently run public schools that are proving particularly effective at addressing the issue of persistently low achievement among poor and minority students.

But with success come attempts to redefine and even minimize its real value. With success also come unreasonable attempts to try and make the innovation a cure-all and suggest that if it does not address every issue, it is then a failure.

Unfortunately, several recent pieces in the print media demonstrate that this is now happening. For example, last week Boston Globe reporter Jamie Vaznis indicated that Boston charters' high test scores may stem from educating fewer special education (SPED) students and English language learners (ELL) than do district schools.

Why have recent policy proposals and articles come out attempting to redefine what success for charter schools should be? Part of the focus stems from mounting pressure to open more charter public schools in Massachusetts resulting from President Obama's push to lift charter school caps. Much of it, however, stems from the basic need to move the goal posts on charters precisely due to their success in the face of persistent failure in low-performing public school districts.

This year alone, we have seen abundant evidence of just how successful charter schools have been. In January, a study conducted by Harvard and MIT researchers for the Boston Foundation showed that Boston charter school students dramatically outperform their district counterparts. More recently, the Obama administration made it clear that states with arbitrary charter caps are unlikely to receive any of the $4.35 billion being made available in federal "Race to the Top" grants.

This summer, Governor Patrick and Mayor Menino, both long-time opponents, have embraced charter schools. This is to be commended. Patrick proposes doubling the number of charters in the Commonwealth's lowest-performing districts and Menino is seeking legislation to create a new form of in-district charter school. These and other state leaders have embraced charter schools because of their success narrowing stubborn achievement gaps.

Overall Demographics

The gaps in SPED and ELL populations in district and charter schools is an important data point. But so are data on other disadvantaged populations, such as Low-Income, African-American, and Hispanic students. A comparison of charter and district student demographics reveals the larger story. (The numbers below from the Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary education are for the 2007-08 school year.)

	Charter Schools	State Average
African-American	26.5%	8.1%
Hispanic	22.6%	13.9%
White	43.9%	70.8%
Low Income	44.3%	29.5%

Clearly, charter schools are, indeed, addressing several key disadvantaged student groups. Moreover, it is worth noting that no public schools, whether district or public, controls whether an entering student is poor or a racial minority. On the other hand, SPED and ELL status depends on identifications made by school officials. Yet, while statewide charter school enrollments are determined by a random lottery, charters still enroll far higher percentages of the Commonwealth’s neediest and minority students.

Targeted, Transitional Programs?

State law requires schools to provide SPED students with "free and appropriate services in the least restrictive environment." The idea, dating back to the 1970s, was that SPED would be a targeted, transitional program and not a separate status in which students would spend their entire educational careers. With a growing percentage of students in SPED programs, and the belief that this was occurring because of government incentives to place students in SPED, Massachusetts eliminated the state financial incentives in the 1990s.

The designation still attracts additional federal dollars, and today the percentage of students in SPED programs is as high as 20 percent in some Massachusetts districts. Nationally, the norm is closer to 12 percent. As a different story published in the Globe last month reported: "The Boston public schools are keeping too many students with disabilities out of regular classrooms and may be wrongfully identifying some students for special services because of shortcomings in teaching literacy or dealing with behavior problems..."

ELL was also meant to be a targeted, transitional program. Unfortunately, the incentives to classify students as English language learners are even more tangible. An ELL designation increases state aid for that student by one-quarter. The Boston Public Schools identify half of all non-native English speakers as ELL, but at the city's Excel Academy Charter School, just 8 percent of non-native speakers are ELL.

Takeaway

Raising questions about the percentage of SPED and ELL students in charter schools is absolutely fair, but the analysis has to go much deeper to be valid. Real consideration of the SPED and ELL issue would require asking:

1.  Are charter public schools simply doing things differently from district schools? For, example, are they providing support and structure needed to address some SPED and ELL issues outside of these specific designations?
2.  Are current financial incentives leading district schools to over-label kids as SPED and ELL?
3.  Why are charters so successful with the other three disadvantaged categories — African-American, Hispanic and Low-Income — where districts have not been?
4.  Are charter public schools or are district schools transitioning SPED and ELL students back to mainstream classrooms?

The can-do, empirical approach that underlies charters is missing from far too many urban district schools. Rather than laud charter schools for bridging achievement gaps and try to replicate their successes, sixteen years after the landmark 1993 Education Reform law establishing charter schools, supporters of the status quo tirelessly attempt to impose on charters the bureaucratic and process-based measures that hinder progress in so many urban district schools.

At the end of the day, only when state policy makers and the urban leadership truly focus their energies on the hundreds of thousands of poor and minority student in districts who are not making proficiency, will we begin to see large districts in Massachusetts make progress towards the successes many charter schools have had closing the achievement gaps.