What are the reasons for the recent resistance to charter schools? And what’s the way forward?

So far, 2020 has been an unexpectedly strange and stressful year for the charter school movement. After enjoying eight years of solid political support and generous federal funding under President Barack Obama, the charter school movement has taken some hard punches since 2018. While charters continue to enjoy great popularity in some communities, they have encountered increasingly stiff opposition in many others, creating the overall impression that the movement’s progress has come to a standstill, if not shifted into reverse. Old battle lines have resurfaced, new ones have been drawn, and yet researchers have come no closer to having a clear consensus on whether charter schools have actually helped or hindered public education.

Although the charter movement is no stranger to resistance, the recent pushback has taken many in the education sector by surprise. Why the sudden shift? As I see it, the current backlash has been fueled by a perfect storm of circumstances:

Tensions within the movement

The first factor in this perfect storm centers on the movement itself, which, since its beginning, has attempted to blend autonomy and government investment. When charter schools were first envisioned in the late 1980s by Albert Shanker (then-president of the American Federation of Teachers), they were meant to be an innovation in public education, a way to operate with fewer restrictions than traditional public schools. “Charters,” as they became known, would adhere to a written contract approved by a charter school authorizer. That contract would guide a school’s actions and activities and, theoretically, ensure students’ needs were being met and public tax dollars were being spent appropriately.

While all that sounded simple enough, things got a lot more complicated as the charter school movement spread to more and more states. For one thing, and like almost everything in public education, charter school laws vary by state. After 30 years of growth and expansion, trying to figure out how the nation’s charter schools get authorized and who holds them accountable has become a state-by-state odyssey that often includes multiple authorizers, a range of governance models, and differing levels of transparency. Some states engage in rigorous oversight for charter schools, while other states allow local charters to have almost complete autonomy.

The upshot is that it has become maddeningly difficult to figure out how the nation’s charters get authorized and who holds them accountable. Add to that some egregious examples of fraud and poor performance; the involvement of powerful advocacy groups, wealthy donors, and private foundations; and a growing number of charters operated by for-profit companies, and you have all the ingredients needed for a backlash.

The DeVos effect

The next element is Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, who is both an ardent supporter of charter schools and a deeply unpopular figure. From her earliest days, the secretary rubbed many educators, policy makers, and public education supporters the wrong way. Her fanatical school choice agenda, which to this day has gone nowhere, lumped public charter schools in with for-profit charter schools and private school vouchers. In a classic case of guilt-by-association, the charter school movement has suffered ever since.

And if that weren’t enough, the Trump administration’s proposed 2021 budget, released earlier this year, cuts the federal Charter Schools Program and moves what’s left into a block grant that includes several other programs. Charter school advocates are both stunned and furious, and for good reason. The administration’s policies and the secretary’s persona have damaged the charter school movement at a crucial time in its history. At the 30-year mark, one would expect the movement to be reflecting on its accomplishments, addressing its shortcomings, and coming up with a new and visionary path for the future. Instead, it faces chaos and uncertainty.

The election

And finally, there is the 2020 presidential campaign. After a year of yelling and finger wagging, the Democratic candidates for president have left behind a trail of unsettled issues, including the future of charter schools. Every campaign depends on a cast of heroes and villains, and in the lead-up to the primaries, several candidates chose to portray charter schools as public enemy No. 1.

It wasn’t so much the details of each candidate’s attack on charter schools that mattered (heck, by the time you read this, only one candidate’s opinions will matter anyhow!), it’s the fact that charter schools were the most talked-about education issue in the campaign — and virtually all of the chatter was negative. The nuance required when evaluating the role and impact of charter schools was completely lost in the political maelstrom.

Whither charters?

So where does that leave us? It’s seems to me that at this point in time, the best step forward for the charter school movement would be to embrace the serenity prayer: God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change. . .

Those who believe in charters and want to see their numbers grow can do nothing to control presidential politics or the actions of Secretary DeVos. They can, however, use this moment as an opportunity to address the issues that matter to both charter school supporters and detractors. By acknowledging that charter schools have their deficiencies just like traditional schools, and by taking steps to address those concerns (or at least engage in constructive conversations about them), the charter movement might shed some of its current outlaw status.

Let’s start by looking at the two biggest concerns that surfaced during the presidential campaign: First, candidates argued that charter schools should be held accountable for the public dollars they receive, and second, they challenged the idea that for-profit companies should be allowed to operate charter schools.

Resolving the first issue at the federal level will be a challenge because it is up to individual states to determine how they will hold charter schools accountable. At present, while some states maintain an even accountability playing field for traditional public schools and charters, others give charters more leeway to meet the expectations of their charter contracts. To many, this situation is not only unfair, it can allow poorly performing charter schools to fly under the radar.

Creating some consistent ground rules for holding charter schools accountable, regardless of the state they operate in, could help mitigate these concerns. For example, California passed a law in 2019 requiring that all charter schools follow the same laws that govern public school districts, and advocates have argued that this is a sound policy that every state ought to consider. We all know that getting a majority of states to agree on anything about education is no easy task (remember the Common Core?), but it will be interesting to see if other states follow California’s lead.

On the second issue, whether for-profit companies should be allowed to operate public charter schools, debates have gone back and forth for many years. But at some point during the Democratic primary campaign, candidates decided to draw a sharp line on this issue, with for-profit charters relegated to the wrong side. Even Michael Bloomberg, who supported charter schools while mayor of New York and on the campaign trail, came out against this brand of charters.

I would like to believe this rejection of for-profit charters represented one small sign that most Americans believe public education is supposed to function as a cornerstone of our democracy and not just another way to make a buck — but my cynical side thinks it just made for a good political soundbite. In any case, a report from the National Education Policy Center, The Business of Charter Schooling (Baker & Miron, 2015), offers some useful cautionary tales about the ways individuals and organizations have made money off charter schools, without meeting students’ needs. It seems to me that allowing for-profit companies to operate public charter schools is, as the grandparents used to say, “borrowing trouble.”

While the states wield most of the power to determine the shape of the charter sector, the 2020 election will no doubt have some real influence as well. Politicians and pundits on both sides of the debate will, as ever, play with the cards they are dealt, and with any luck, there will be broader and more inclusive conversations about whether charters are an effective way to improve public education. Until then, education leaders should remain steadfast in their efforts to ensure that all public schools, including charters, are doing right by the children and families they serve.

Reference

Baker, B.D. & Miron, G. (2015, December). The business of charter schooling: Understanding the policies that charter operators use for financial benefit. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.