With the newly released State-by-State analysis, the panel room was buzzing with people eager to hear just how rankings were assigned. Todd Ziebarth, Senior Vice President of National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), began the panel by posing the question, “How do you even start to rate the charter school movement?” The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools ranked schools in the United States by addressing 11 indicators ranging from new charters, closed charters, geographic distribution, innovative practices, and quality. In ranking schools, they preferred charters that focused on underserved students and utilized sources of innovation. While NAPCS plans to add more information to provide a fuller picture, especially regarding innovation efforts, the overarching issue was very clear: data collection for this report was far too difficult. If information isn’t accessible to a group conducting an intricate study, how are people who just need information for life choices able to access this data? There needs to be a priority on data accessibility so that people can accurately gage charter health.
Delving into the NAPCS’ ranking comparisons, Todd noted there is some correlation between states with high-strength laws and higher rankings and states with weaker laws and lower rankings. There are, however, exceptions to the rule. New Jersey, for example, has a low ranked charter law, but it has strong, independent charter schools in a relatively smaller sector that outperform restraints that come along with its weaker law. Nevada, picking up the #26 last place ranking (this report didn’t look at all states with charter school laws), has no law that caps charter school growth or an independent state authorizer. Instead, the multiple entities and lack of charter school funding keeps the schools in shambles and is probably a reason that no communities had more than 10% of their public school students in charters between 2012-2014. Washington, D.C., on the other hand, is ranked #1 and has an independent charter board as its authorizer, autonomy and accountability. Charter schools are often only as strong as their laws allow them to be; therefore, improvements made to the law directly improves the education system.
One of the most interesting conversations that came up during the panel was the differentiation between urban charter schools and suburban charter schools. Todd stated that while the research conducted should encourage statewide movements, NAPCS has a slight bias toward urban charters that typically reach underserved communities. Scott Pearson, Executive Director of the D.C. Public Charter School Board, chimed in and argued against people who say that charter schools are better if the traditional schools around it are doing poorly. “This is not apples to apples;” a charter school in suburban Minnesota is not worse than an urban school in D.C. yielding the same exact results just because the schools that surround it are also high-performing. Achievement has to be based on individual results, not conclusions based on the best of the worst.
Pearson was then given the metaphorical charter school first place trophy and asked to give some insight about the D.C. system. The basic points were that high levels of autonomy and funding were helpful, however, a core impact is authorizers that are committed to quality and equity. Quality comes from holding charter schools accountable and closing them when necessary, and equity derives from charter schools acting as public schools and providing detailed help so that everyone is very informed on programs both in the charter school and at a college level. Thriving schools attract people who usually would not associate with a public charter. The success of public charters depends on strong visions and people stepping up to the plate to take control. D.C. charter schools are constantly stepping up their game regarding their environment and these schools flourish because of this competitive atmosphere.
Kenneth Campbell, president of the Black Alliance for Educational Options (BAEO), gave insight into Louisiana charter schools, a very different part of the country. Campbell said that prior to Hurricane Katrina, not many charters were successful, but now they are on the top of the charts. How do they keep their schools performing at such an outstanding rate? Campbell chalks it up to visionary leaders and incentive programs. In New Orleans, schools are given renewals based on student performance and also prepares for school failures before they even happen. Schools flourish when administrations have their part of the job taken care of and authorizers have the power to give assistance to schools that are thriving. The panel addressed these issues, along with the scoring details, and ways in which they can improve rankings for the future. The health of the charter school movement depends on legislation and policy in order to help good schools continue to produce incredible results.
Brett Swanson, CER Intern