Share
For the sake of the Obama administration, we'll reiterate what we've said about charter schools. We support charters. But we think resources should go to successful charter school models that are innovative, that schools should show steady academic progress, and that low-performing charters should be shut down. Increasing the number of charter schools without those conditions wastes money and doesn't help students who need it.
The Obama administration shouldn't tag states with those rules as being at a “strategic disadvantage in applying” for federal stimulus money designated for K-12 school reform. We call such conditions responsible behavior.
Barack Obama did too, when he was on the campaign trail running for president. Back then he proposed that “expanded funding go to states that improve accountability for charter schools, allow for interventions in struggling charter schools and have a clear process for closing down chronically underperforming charters.”
That's what North Carolina is trying to do. A blue-ribbon panel commissioned by the state Board of Education reported last year that several N.C. charters were poor academic performers but were allowed to continue unhindered. The state had closed only a handful since lawmakers approved the creation of charters in 1996. And those were closed for mismanagement problems, not for academic failings.
After that report, the state board took action – declining to renew the charter of one failing school and giving only limited renewal to another. Still, many charters continue to struggle academically.
That's true nationwide. A June report from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University said that “students in charter schools (were) not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.” It said 17 percent of charters reported academic gains significantly better than traditional public schools. But 37 percent showed performance that was worse. Forty-six percent of charters showed no significant difference.
North Carolina was one of the 15 states plus the District of Columbia included in the study. We were among those with no significant difference in performance.
Of course, in this state we know that charter school performance – just like traditional public school performance – depends on the school. There are many excellent N.C. charter schools – many more good ones than poor ones.
Still, too many are perpetrating a fraud – providing insufficient academic preparation to help students learn what they need for success later in life.
The Stanford study recommends that successful models be studied so they can be replicated. It also said charters need to fulfill their obligation to be accountable “in exchange for flexibility” and urged that failing charters be closed.
N.C. law established charters for specific purposes – to improve student performance and to be incubators of innovation. The aim is to help provide the education students need to be globally competitive.
Simply setting up a charter school won't achieve the goals. North Carolina shouldn't have arbitrary limits on expanding them. But officials are right to focus on accountability and academic success in authorizing charters, and in shutting them down. Federal officials should too. That serves the best interest of students – and the rest of us.
