In a new analysis intended as a conversation starter about the impact of charter school laws, the Democrats for Education Reform (DFER) found little ties between the strength of a charter law according to The Center for Education Reform’s own rankings and student learning.
To be fair, and as DFER points out in the conclusions section, charter student success is based on a number of variables, and it’s this type of positive customization and versatility that makes a charter school a charter school. This does not take away, however, from the importance of having a strong charter school law on the books.
Though the analysis isn’t meant to illustrate cause and effect, The Center for Education Reform still cautions against drawing any inferences when charter student performance is based on the very questionable results produced by the 2013 national CREDO study.
CER noted in 2013 that the national CREDO study is fraught with unreliable methodology that leads to equally unreliable conclusions.
The initial effects of having a strong charter law are twofold. Not only does a law with multiple, independent authorizers, no cap and equitable funding allow for more educational options to flourish, but in so doing creates an environment in which charter educators, leaders and parents are a welcomed part of public education.
This relationship is exemplified by the 335 additional charter campuses created during the 2012-13 school year in states rated ‘A’ or ‘B’, on the law rankings, contrasted with the 13 campuses in states rated ‘D’ or ‘F.’
The removal of oversight mechanisms — whether in the form of a politicized state commission or an ill-equipped local school district — that lack a vested interest in the success of charter schools go a long way in attracting excellent charter models.
As Kara Kerwin wrote in the charter school ‘wonk-a-thon’ earlier this year, the varied nature of charter success helps explain the proven stories found in places such as Boston, where charter schools may not be bolstered by a strong law but still produce learning gains in the face of legislative adversity. This begs the question of how much more the Massachusetts charter sector could do without policy inhibitions, such as a restrictive cap.
But the main takeaway from Kerwin’s ‘wonk-a-thon’ post is that ‘more’ is the operative word for building a successful charter sector. This means more children sitting in more seats in more schools made available by more choices. Strong laws help make that happen.