Will Hil follow Bam’s charter-school lead?
When President Obama steps up to the podium tonight, his legacy will be center stage. While the history books are likely to remember his unprecedented victory in expanding access to health care, his education record cannot be overlooked.
Throughout Obama’s tenure, he used his bully pulpit and federal purse strings to advance policies to help disadvantaged students. Love it or hate it, his support for common standards, better teacher training and evaluation have rightly focused states on the need for more meaningful standards and instruction.
But his most significant education legacy could be his support for expanding public charter schools.
Today, American families have more choices than ever when it comes to picking a public school. There are 2,000 more charter schools open today than when Obama took office. Nearly 3 million children attend a charter, a 47% increase.
Yet the Democratic platform approved this week wavers on these schools, a concession to teachers unions, which continue to view largely nonunionized charters as a threat to their workers. Specifically, the unions secured a provision that permits charters but only so long as they do not “replace and destabilize” existing public schools.
It would be hard for any charter school to meet that test, since enrolling in a charter is typically a rejection of the existing option.
Now, a party’s platform is very different from how that party’s nominee, if elected, would actually govern. But to the extent the platform represents Hillary Clinton’s views — and on the campaign trail, she’s shown some signs that it may — she should think again. Charter school populations mirror the Democrats’ base of low-income and workingclass African-Americans and Latinos. Attacks on the schools they send their children to are not what they want or need from the political party they call home.
None of this is to say that Clinton shouldn’t give thought to how, if elected, she can use her power to push for policies at the state level that ensure that charter schools in every state are of high quality.
She need look no further than her adopted home state, New York, for guidance. New York has mostly struck a smart balance, putting in place policies that allow charters to flourish while at the same time paying attention to providing common-sense oversight and regulation. Some of the things New York has gotten right:
l Authorizers of charter schools in New York have generally held the line on quality. They thoroughly vet applicants at the front end, and at the back end, they don’t hesitate to close schools that are not getting the job done.
l New York State has never allowed virtual charter schools, a model which has been widely discredited as ineffective.
l New York has made strides toward ensuring charter schools are getting their fair share of public funding. Recently, the state created a rental assistance program for new and growing charter schools.
l Local charter schools are increasingly sharing the lessons they have learned with their district counterparts, so best instructional practices spread.
All this has resulted in a vibrant and high-quality charter sector. African-American students in the city’s charter schools are twice as likely to score proficient on their state math exams as their peers in traditional district schools. The number of special-needs students being served is up 30% over the past five years. The city’s schools chancellor has expanded opportunities for charter and district schools to collaborate.
Not surprisingly, nearly 50,000 families have their children on wait lists.
Charters aren’t a silver bullet, but they are part of the solution to the opportunity gap on display at the convention this week. Obama understood this and fought to give parents across the country what so many affluent families have had for generations — a choice. His successor, whether Democrat or Republican, would be wise to do the same.