Sign up for our newsletter
Contact

Our National Education Crisis Shows No Signs Of Ending

May 23, 2016 By

by Jeanne Allen
Investor’s Business Daily
May 20, 2016

The latest report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an urgent reminder of the crisis in U.S. education, with just 37% of all 12th graders making the grade in reading and 25% in math. And the achievement gap is growing among minority kids.

White and Asian students score as many as 40 percentage points higher than black, Hispanic and other minority students. The number of 12th grade students failing to demonstrate even basic levels of math and reading achievement increased from the last time the test was administered in 2013.

NAEP data, combined with information on college readiness, presents a clear picture on the need to improve and expand access to innovative learning opportunities. Despite the U.S. graduation rate being at an all-time high of 81%, graduation rates clearly have little relevance to achievement, with 12th grade 2015 math and reading results revealing that less than half of graduating seniors are prepared for college coursework.

While 42% of 12th graders report being accepted to four-year colleges at the time of the NAEP assessment, research reveals that 20% of first-time students at four-year colleges require remedial coursework. At the community college level, approximately 60% of students enroll in at least one remedial course.

While the dropout rate has slowed, this data doesn’t even account for those who don’t make it to 12th grade. Eighty percent of the U.S. prison population is made up of high school dropouts. We must think creatively about how to create unique learning opportunities for students we have yet to reach.

Amid these grim statistics, we can find hope in the fact that more and more entrepreneurs and policymakers are doing extraordinary things and breaking the mold to foster innovative learning opportunities that lead to better outcomes and results for our nation’s children.

Twenty-five years ago, policymakers on both sides of the aisle in Minnesota came together to craft a novel policy, a charter school law, to allow for a new type of public school to solve the persistent issue of underachieving schools and a growing dropout problem.

Today, there are more than 6,800 charter schools educating more than 3 million students. These schools were the first among public schools to show that innovations in teaching and learning can lead to student achievement, with results that outpace most comparable conventional schools — and they accomplished this feat despite adverse funding conditions.

As lawmakers enact more laws that provide children access to greater opportunities to achieve upward mobility, there is also unprecedented application of technological, teaching and system innovations being tested and applied.

This is the era in which schools find themselves, and yet the Nation’s Report Card demonstrates that the majority of schools have still not caught up with the pace of advancement sweeping other flexible schooling structures.

Most students are still sitting in rows and amid systems created when education was simpler, flatter and less homogeneous, and well before the age of labor contracts and large bureaucracies dictating the bulk of actions that a school must undertake daily.

To apply what works demands not only a reset on this outdated system, but meaningful measures that test and evaluate that which is working. NAEP provides only an aggregated snapshot of academic achievement from samples of students across states, and does not capture individual student progress or outcomes.

We do not have another 25 years to wait for the flexibility to apply the pathbreaking research and innovations that exist today to the schools of tomorrow. NAEP’s ongoing assessment of students does not change dramatically, for better or worse, year after year.

While it is unwise to use NAEP scores to make speculations surrounding specific policies, due to the nature of the data, we know that unleashing the power of innovation and opportunity can drive success for even the most disadvantaged students.

Policymakers must free the schools. Schools must update their infrastructure to make learning more personalized in an increasingly technological and global world. And they must do so in a way that does not shut out access for those traditionally underserved by our education system.

Resetting the landscape for structural change in education requires providing maximum opportunities for kids, teachers and families, and allowing flexibility for innovations to be tested and applied.

Allen is Founder and CEO of The Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C.

Filed Under: Opinions, CER in the News

AEI Study Finds Slight Negative Tilt in Media Coverage of Charter Schools

May 21, 2016 By

by Mark Walsh
Education Week
May 20, 2016

A study of news coverage of charter schools shows “some evidence of a noticeable anti-charter tilt.”

…

The Center for Education Reform, a Washington organization that promotes charter schools and used to grade media coverage of school reform issues, applauded the AEI report.

“It comes as no surprise that the media plays a huge role in how people perceive charter schools,” the center said. “The media can only report what they hear and see, and when opponents outnumber proponents and have a habit of spreading misinformation, it’s no wonder the media leans negative.”

Read the full article at Education Week.

 

Related news:
Press Perception on Charter Schools, CER Commentary 5.19.16

Filed Under: CER in the News

School choice advocates celebrate win in Nevada, gear up for next round

May 20, 2016 By

by Heather Kays
Watchdog
May 20, 2016

Nevada’s education savings account program does not violate a constitutional ban on using taxpayer money for religious purposes, Las Vegas District Court Judge Eric Johnson has ruled.

Johnson dismissed the lawsuit challenging the law on Wednesday, ruling that the ESA program was “neutral with respect to religion” because parents, not state officials, decide whether to use the funds for private or religious schools.

Johnson also ruled a provision in the state constitution allowing lawmakers to encourage education “by all suitable means” allows the ESA program to exist alongside the traditional public school system.

The ESA law, enacted in 2015, allows parents to determine how about $5,100 in per-pupil state funding will be spent on state-approved educational options for their children. Those options include private school tuition, home-school expenses, tutoring, textbooks, some therapies and other educational resources.

“The state has no influence or control over how any parent makes his or her genuine and independent choice to spend his or her ESA funds,” Johnson wrote in his decision.

Despite the favorable ruling, the ESA program remains on hold because a Carson City judge issued an injunction in a separate case in January that halted implementation. The Nevada Supreme Court is expected to schedule hearings on that case soon.

State Sen. Scott Hammond, who wrote the ESA legislation, told Watchdog.org that he was “thrilled beyond belief” by the decision. “I think it was obviously the right decision. There was just too much precedent that the judge couldn’t ignore.”

Hammond said he thinks both cases challenging the ESA program will be combined and then heard by the state Supreme Court. And he said he expects the high court to rule quickly.

“I don’t think they’re going to dawdle at all,” said Hammond. “There are about 6,000 students signed up for the program. They have to make a decision.”

And, he said, the ruling is likely to spur more applicants.

“This is about civil rights. I do believe we will get to a point where every parent will be able to customize their own child’s education. Parents have got to be empowered,” said Hammond. “The money is following the kid. It was never about religion. It was always about empowering parents.”

School choice advocates celebrate

Proponents of school choice outside the Silver State were also celebrating the decision.

Leslie Hiner, vice president of programs at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice says the judge gave parents “renewed hope” that the courts in Nevada will honor the ESA program.

“Nevada’s ESA shifts the balance of power in education from an old one-size-fits-all system that’s been in place since the days before electricity to a child-friendly land of opportunity where all children can get the educational services they deserve – and parents, not the old bureaucracy, have the power to choose educational options that fit the unique needs of their children,” said Hiner.

Hiner says this week’s ruling provide a “solid foundation” for the Nevada Supreme Court to uphold the ESA program.

Jason Bedrick, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute‘s Center for Educational Freedom, said the judge was on solid ground regarding religion.

“The ACLU argued that the Nevada Constitution demanded that the legislature discriminate against religious institutions,” said Bedrick. “Fortunately, the judge rejected this notion. Instead, following the U.S. Supreme Court and the near-consensus of other state supreme courts, Judge Eric Johnson held that the state constitution demands religious neutrality but does not prohibit religious institutions from benefiting from programs, like the education savings account, that have a secular purpose and benefit the public generally.”

Jonathan Butcher, education director for the Goldwater Institute, was also upbeat, while acknowledging that the fight is not yet over in Nevada.

“This is a great outcome for parents and families,” said Butcher. “While there are plenty of steps to go through the system, it’s good to get a win for students.”

“It’s going to be key to resolve the other lawsuit, Lopez, so that Nevada can start awarding accounts to families,” Butcher added.

Mike Petrilli president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said he is hopeful that the ESA program will be up and running sooner rather than later.

“The Nevada program breaks new ground for parental choice, and we’re glad to see the courts deferring to elected legislators,” said Petrilli. “Now it’s up to state officials to implement the ESA initiative thoughtfully so that it succeeds academically and politically, and not just legally.”

Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, pointed to precedents set in other school choice cases.

“Nevada’s legal system has affirmed precisely the same rights that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in 2002 in the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris ruling on Ohio vouchers — that parents indeed have the right to choose programs that they feel best provide the right opportunity for their children,” said Allen.

Filed Under: CER in the News

Press Perception on Charter Schools

May 19, 2016 By

IS THE FOURTH ESTATE’S COVERAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BIASED?

Thanks to a new report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), charter school students, educators and advocates can clearly see that their role in advocating has never been more important.

Charter schools have become a staple, albeit still a relatively limited one, in American education today. While just five percent of America’s total school-aged population is being educated by charter schools, millions more are on waiting lists and tens of millions attend better schools since charter schools opened their doors. As former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee once announced, she wouldn’t have been able to drive the improvements in teaching astampa-03nd learning that she did had it not been for the pressure caused by the District’s vibrant charter school community.

And yet, many parents, policymakers, and business and community leaders still don’t fully appreciate just exactly what these innovative learning opportunities are, or what they’re doing for our children and nation’s future. In polls and surveys, fewer than half of respondents know what a charter school is. Once educated, however, their support surpasses 75 percent!

So it comes as no surprise that the media plays a huge role in how people perceive charter schools. AEI researchers found that coverage on charter schools in 2015, while broadly mixed, still tends toward the negative.

Those findings today are validated by findings from the Media Bullpen, formerly the Center’s media watchdog. From 2011 through 2013, the Bullpen analyzed and scored the news on education reform. In baseball parlance, there were more strike-outs and pop flys than home runs. Of the 38,000 scored over that time, the Media’s batting average was less than 50 percent. In fact, the media reliability on charter schools overall was never more than 40 percent.

The Center for Education Reform still feeds the news media through the Media Bullpen, but we stopped scoring the news in favor of influencing the news. The media can only report what they hear and see, and when opponents outnumber proponents and have a habit of spreading misinformation, it’s no wonder the media leans negative. It’s also no wonder because even many advocates themselves decry charter school achievements, based on flawed data and government reporting.

Because of the media’s power in influencing policy and communicatinScreen Shot 2016-05-19 at 3.49.22 PMg information to students, families and voters, one negative story can have enormous consequences. Exhibit A: when the Detroit Free Press failed to respect journalistic integrity and issued an 8-day, 42-article tirade on charter schools based on the opposition’s allegations. The paper then mailed its hatchet job to lawmakers the day they happened to be voting on charter school legislation. Media biased much?

Whether at a local newspaper or larger, nationally known syndicates, most journalists take seriously their responsibility to report the facts on charter schools. But to report the facts, they need those facts. We applaud the AEI report because the Fourth Estate is critical to our public discourse.

Advocates must take responsibility to ensure the public’s understanding of all education opportunities, so that the policies created to foster educational excellence are not stifled by misinformation and bias.

Filed Under: Choice & Charter Schools

America’s graduation rate dilemma

May 18, 2016 By

by Nate Davis
The Hill
May 18, 2016

We have a graduation problem in the U.S. Too many young people, in particular the underprivileged, are failing to get high-school degrees.

Some believe America’s education system is reversing that trend. They point to the U.S. Department of Education’s announcement in December that graduation rates reached an all-time high. Others believe we are actually going in the wrong direction, that higher graduation rates are the result of lowering standards in order to graduate students in four years. Students may be obtaining degrees, but they are not college- or career-ready, leaving post-secondary institutions with a heavy remediation burden.

The newly released “Building a Grad Nation” report thrust the high-school graduation debate back to the forefront. According to the report, the primary roadblocks to obtaining a 90 percent graduation rate by 2020 include graduation gaps between subgroups of students (e.g., whites and minorities, and low-income and non-low-income students) and low-graduation-rate high schools. The report found that a disproportionally large percentage, around 50 percent, of the low-graduation-rate high schools nationwide are alternative, charter and virtual schools, despite the fact that they only make up about 14 percent of all high schools and enroll 8 percent of all high-school students.

But dig deeper into how the graduation rate is calculated and other questions emerge: Does the federal government’s four-year graduation rate effectively measure school performance, or does it enable schools to pass the buck of failure to others? Is there a better way to measure graduation?

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) defines a low-graduation-rate high school as a school enrolling 100 or more students with a graduation rate of 67 percent or below. The U.S. Department of Education requires that the graduation rate be calculated by determining how many students graduated four years after entering the ninth grade out of the total number of students who were in the same class cohort. Therefore, only what happens during a student’s fourth year of high school impacts the graduation rate for that school. What happens in the ninth, 10th, and 11th grades doesn’t matter.

That means some schools are being penalized for non-graduates even though they may not be the primary school that contributed to the student falling behind in the first place. For example, a student could be enrolled in School A for three years, earn no high school credits, and then transfer to School B for his fourth and final year, where he will fail to graduate with his four-year cohort. Under the current graduation rate calculation, School B is penalized for not graduating the student “on time” despite the fact that it only had that student for one of those four years. School A escapes all accountability for failing to progress the student toward graduation. That hardly seems fair.

So just how big of impact could the above scenario have? America’s public education system needs schools that take in struggling students who, for whatever reason, failed or dropped out. Parents seeking help for their children rely on these school choice options. Charter, alternative and virtual schools — the very schools that have been classified as “low-graduation-rate high schools” — often serve as schools of last resort for families. They offer students a second chance to obtain a degree. These schools strongly believe in their mission to serve all who come to them regardless of need and no matter the cost.

The last thing we want to do is discourage these schools from helping underserved students graduate at the risk of being labeled low-performing. Nor should any school be able to simply hand off a credit-deficient student to another school a year or two prior to graduation and force that new school to take full responsibility for the non-graduate that was four years in the making. It’s a classic example of how regulatory policies can unintentionally create the wrong incentives.

Rather than the four-year cohort model, calculating an annual “progress toward graduation” metric for all schools would be a far more accurate measure of whether or not a school is successfully helping students earn diplomas. According to education researcher John Watson, states need to begin by “defining how a student is determined to be behind, on track, or ahead of pace, at time of enrollment; determining what is appropriate progress towards graduation; and determining incentives to schools for working with students who were behind at time of enrollment and getting them on track to graduate.” In other words, measure every student every year, not only in year four.

There is much we need to do to tackle our nation’s graduation and dropout challenges. Getting the right metrics in place is a start.

Davis is executive chairman of K12 Inc., a technology-based education company and leading provider of online learning programs to schools across the U.S.

Filed Under: Opinions

Letter: Charter schools misrepresented

May 16, 2016 By

by Jeanne Allen
Deseret News
May 16, 2016

An article about charter schools (“Do charter schools work?” May 9) misrepresented the success and outcomes of these innovative public schools on students, schools and communities. Research has consistently shown that charters lift all boats and grow student learning across all populations. And not only that, but by law, charter schools must accept all students. If there are more applications than seats available, charter schools must hold lotteries to determine enrollment.

The beauty of charter schools is that there is no “one-size-fits-all” when it comes to what a charter school looks like. Charter schools are public schools that are independently run and held accountable for results, yet their methods, structure, curriculum and more vary based on the unique void the school seeks to fill in a community. Not every school is a good fit for every student. Thankfully, charter schools are one solution to creating more excellent learning opportunities for children. But in order to truly meet the needs of every child, there must be a greater push to expand school choice programs and innovative learning opportunities that break the mold to get results for our nation’s children, giving every parent a plethora of options to choose from.

Filed Under: Opinions, CER in the News

School choice works

May 14, 2016 By

by Michelle Tigani
Washington Post
May 13, 2016

Regarding the May 12 Politics & the Nation article “The problem that school choice has not solved”:

Has school choice been able to interrupt the strong link between home environments and academic success? The answer to that question is a resounding yes, especially when looking beyond the sole metric of graduation rates.

In the District, 90 percent of students participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program graduate from high school. The program serves a population that’s approximately 97 percent minority. The average household income of the program’s students is $22,000. Additionally, 88 percent of D.C. voucher students who graduate go to college. We know charter high school graduates are more likely to stay in college and earn more as adults, thanks to research that does an apples-to-apples comparison of students using real data over time and accounting for variations in school composition, size, longevity and more.

School choice can dramatically improve opportunity and upward mobility, regardless of the neighborhood in which a child resides. The problem that must be solved when it comes to school choice is ensuring that all parents truly have access to high-caliber schools and creating policies that will allow innovative, flexible and accountable learning environments to flourish well into the future.

Michelle Tigani, Washington

The writer is communications director
at the Center for Education Reform.

Filed Under: Opinions, CER in the News

Federal Intervention Over Transgender Issues Affects Schools

May 13, 2016 By

May 13, 2016

Obama transgender edict causes stir over the proper use of government in an educational venue, reports Caitlin Emma of Politico:

But critics say the administration has issued a directive that’s going to use up tons of school resources and take time away from teaching students.

“Saying that students are allowed to use the locker room that aligns with their gender identity changes the way schools do business,” said Jeanne Allen, founder of the Center for Education Reform. “Schools have to spend time, money, resources and people working on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of school.”

…

Allen said she expects more lawsuits to come out of school districts across the country. “Is this a proper use of government in an educational venue?” she said of the Obama administration’s guidance. “Parents will rebel.”

Allen and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute, who are both proponents of school choice, said the issue might spur parents to push for more schooling options independent of the public systems and micromanagement by the federal government. Patrick also made that argument.

Read more at Politico

Filed Under: CER in the News

Newswire: May 10, 2016

May 10, 2016 By

Vol. 18, No. 18

CRISIS OF ACCOUNTABILITY. The Connecticut Senate narrScreen Shot 2016-05-10 at 5.11.54 PMowly averted passing a law that would disconnect any part of teacher evaluations from the performance of their students. It’s hard to believe in this day and age that anyone would say that teachers have nothing to do with how students perform, but that’s precisely what the teachers union said in pushing this bill – and they plan to come back again next year! Asked for guidance and research on the subject by state lawmakers, CER produced this policy perspective to validate that teacher effectiveness has more impact on student achievement than any other factor controlled by schools. To ignore teaching as if it has no correlation with learning outcomes, and to abolish effective evaluations that make a path for improvement clear, is to shirk responsibility.

CHARTER RESEARCH MISSES VITAL DISTINCTIONS. A Grad Nation report released yesterday reveals 44 percent of charter schools in the US are graduating students at a rate higher than the national average, while 30 percent of charter schools have a graduation rate of 67 percent or below. Once again, data crunchers are mixing apples and oranges. The Grad Nation report fails to identify that many of the schools they are ridiculing were set up specifically to serve special populations of students, such as dropouts or adults, and that these are schools which often cannot satisfy a four-year proficiency requirement for their students, who are often coming back into a school environment after many years or were woefully underserved by their previous school. As the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools argued this week, a charter school in San Fran that is located inside a county jail serving a population of students who previously failed to earn a high school diploma is incorrectly classified as a regular charter school. The data collectors and analyzers in the education business need to sharpen their skills if they want to provide any service to students in need.

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 6.03.09 PMEVEN AFFLUENT KIDS NEED HELP. It’s long been the case that parents of students in “good” or seemingly “great” schools don’t think they have any issues, and as a result, cannot really relate to those whose schools are demonstrably worse. The problem is — and always has been — that even our better schools are underperforming. According to a recent report from Education Reform Now, of the more than half a million rising college freshman who enroll in remedial courses, 45 percent are from middle, upper-middle, and high-income families. Despite the U.S. graduation rate at an all-time high of 81 percent, the latest results on the Nation’s Report Card reveal the majority of US 12th graders lack proficiency in reading and math. All signs point to the need to improve and expand access to innovative learning opportunities for ALL kids.

REVERSING NOLA TAKEOVER. The anti-charter school Governor of Louisiana is poised to sign a bill that would restore some of the old kind of power that New Orleans once had over schools. In the name of “local control,” all charters currently under the Recovery District will fall under the purview of a newly elected school board, the same kind of board that had the city in educational shambles before the storm. Would this hurt progress made in NOLA post-Katrina? Nearly two-thirds of New Orleans students attended a failing school before Katrina. Today, just 7 percent do. The reason charter schools were able to respond so quickly and serve NOLA students post-Katrina is because of their flexibility and autonomy. With that in danger, there’s a scary possibility that progress could halt. And, as the New York Times wisely notes, “an even bigger question is whether the elected board will have the nerve to close failing schools and resist the city’s tradition of crony politics and malfeasance.”

Screen Shot 2016-05-10 at 5.28.05 PMICYMI. Whether you joined us in person, online, or were anxiously awaiting the recording, now’s your chance to recap insights from Gov. McCrory, Congressman Messer, and more about what it takes to expand innovation and opportunity for our children. Takeaways, full recordings, and video highlights here!

EFFORT TO BANKRUPT ST. LOUIS CHARTERS. The St. Louis, MHammer-about-to-smash-piggy-bank-by-seniorplanning.org-cc.-772x579O school district filed a lawsuit claiming that the state has overpaid charter schools via desegregation tax revenue. The districts’ greed posits that the money belongs to them, rather than the students –  in both traditional public and public charter schools – potentially causing devastating effects for kids in charter schools, as the dollar amounts charter schools could be forced to pay are massive.

DO CHARTER SCHOOLS WORK? You bet they do, despite this Deseret News headline.

EDTECH GOES TO ISRAEL. Innovation is spreading and not just in the US!  More than 40 international speakers and delegates from around the world, representing thought leaders, industry experts, leading EdTech companies and EdTech investors from the US, China, and Japan will be attending IES2016 – Israel EdTech Summit June 8-9. It’s not too late to attend – register here.

Filed Under: Newswire Weekly, Newswire

Charters – a valuable public school option

May 5, 2016 By

by Joe Nathan
HometownSource.com
May 4, 2016

Something unusual and important is happening in many Minnesota suburbs and small towns: the significant increase in the number of students attending charter public schools – an idea that started here in Minnesota, 25 years ago this month. These are free, public, non-sectarian schools open to all, with no admissions tests.

Minnesota charter K-12 enrollment grew in the past 10 years from 17,544 in 2004-05 to 47,747 in 2014-15. Meanwhile K-12 enrollment in non-charter public schools decreased from 809,787 in 2004-05 to 795,185 in 2014-15.

Nationally, the number of students enrolled in charters has grown from less than 100 in 1992 to an estimated 2.6 million in 2014-15, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, which offers information here: http://bit.ly/1NVy2BE.

National Gallup polls consistently find more than 60 percent of Americans support the charter idea. Although charters are controversial for some, the majority of Americans would agree with what Nekima Levy-Pounds, Minneapolis NAACP president and St. Thomas law professor, recently wrote to me, in part, via email: “It’s important for parents to have a choice in identifying schools that will be the best fit for their children.”

May 1-7 is National Charter School Week. Both President Barack Obama and a bipartisan group of U.S. senators have issued proclamations explaining that, as the president explained, charters “play an important role in our country’s education system.” The full proclamation is here: http://1.usa.gov/1WFY79c.

While thousands of charter public schools have opened since 1991 in 42 states and the District of Columbia, nationally, most are found in cities. In Minnesota, many suburban and small town families have access to the free public education offered in charters as well as traditional district schools.

I don’t think either district or charter option is inherently better. We should be learning from the most effective schools, whether district or charter.

Charters are found in suburbs such as Blaine, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Eden Prairie, Minnetonka and Stillwater. They’re found in small and medium-size cities like Cologne, Isanti, Maple Lake, Monticello and Otsego. More information about all 164 Minnesota charters is available from the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools website, http://bit.ly/1SYe9sz.

Eugene Piccolo, executive director of the Minnesota Association of Charter Schools, told me: “There’s no single reason why families select charters. For some, it’s a particular feature, like smaller class size and overall smaller school size. Others like the Montessori, Classical or International Baccalaureate curriculum. Some families want their children in a language immersion school that offers another language along with English.” One or more Minnesota charters offer instruction in Arabic, Chinese, Dakota, German, Hmong, Korean, Ojibwe, Spanish or Russian. “Some families like the idea of an ‘online’ school. Other families like the idea that some charters are K-12, so that all the children can attend school together, if that’s the parents’ desire.”

That diversity of reasons Piccolo mentions is supported by parent surveys.

Tom Kearney, superintendent and principal of New Heights School in Stillwater, sent me a recent parent survey citing small class sizes, more individualized attention and flexible academic program as among the most frequently cited reasons for selecting the charter school.

Amy Erendu, curriculum and accountability coordinator at PACT Charter School in Ramsey, reported that in the school’s most recent (2015) annual parent survey, the most frequently cited reasons for keeping their students at the school included small class size, emphasis on character, teaching staff, culture of parent involvement in the classroom and non-school Fridays.

There are few things as American as the ability to choose among various options – whether it’s where to live, who we’ll elect to office or what job we have. We rightly value freedom. Fortunately, Minnesota has decided to provide families with a variety of public school options, including both district and charter public schools.

Minnesota wisely gives educators the chance to create the kinds of schools they think make sense for students. This gives more educators the power to use their professional insights and, most important, helps more students succeed.

Joe Nathan, formerly a Minnesota public school teacher, administrator and PTA president, is a former director and now senior fellow at the Center for School Change. Reactions are welcome at joe@centerforschoolchange.org.

Filed Under: Opinions
« Older Posts
Newer Posts »