New charter school regulations will harm communities of color
New charter school regulations introduced by Gov. Tom Wolf are designed in theory to strengthen charter oversight and performance. In practice, they will almost certainly hamper charter schools and disproportionately burden communities that are traditionally underserved by the commonwealth’s public education system.
Some charter schools have been plagued by scandal and others have failed to live up to their promises. Charter schools also receive less money than traditional public schools but academically benefit poor, Black, and Hispanic students, especially in larger metro areas like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
The new regulations are far from a sure bet to yield stronger performance from charter schools. Recent research from scholars at the University of Arkansas reveals that more stringent charter school regulatory regimes do not predict stronger student achievement. Rather, achievement in a given state is positively predicted by “the availability and accessibility of private, charter, homeschool, and public school choice.”
Mr. Wolf’s regulations, which critics charge will hamper the creation of new charter schools and lead to the closure of some existing charters, may in fact be detrimental to student learning.
Worse, perhaps, is the likelihood that the regulations carry unintended consequences, the brunt of which will be shouldered by Black and brown school leaders and students. In recent research with coauthors, I observed that more stringent charter regulation shuts out Black and brown education entrepreneurs who aspire to open charter schools. Moreover, laws that require charters to be closed if they fail to meet certain guarantees of performance (regardless of community feedback) disproportionately result in the closure of schools started by and serving African Americans.
One of the new statutes requires charters to provide the same health care plans as their school districts do. This will present an especially large challenge for single-site charter operators. Standalone operators employ more people of color in leadership positions, but receive less philanthropic support than multi-site charters.
Charter schools in major metros nationally face a 33% funding gap compared to traditional public schools, and more than 40% of charter closures are primarily attributed to financial deficiencies.
Qualitative research also raises equity concerns about how charters are rewarded and retained. A University of Wisconsin professor interviewed Black charter leaders in New Orleans and discovered widespread concern about the process. The chartering process (i.e. an authorizer granting permission to open a charter school) is ostensibly benign regulatory gatekeeping, meant to ensure quality.
However, it tended to privilege white outsiders rich in social capital rather than Black community leaders rich with insight about community needs.
Closer to home, 15 of 17 of Philadelphia’s Blackr u n charter schools formed the African American Charter Schools Coalition to address inequities relating to “renewal, expansions, philanthropic funding, resources, and support.” The coalition reports that Black-run charter schools in Philadelphia account for 19% of charters but 89% of charters closed or recommended for nonrenewal.
These inequitable outcomes don’t just make for bad optics. They’re also bad policy. A rich research literature finds that Black students benefit from exposure to Black teachers and principals, sometimes in ways not detectable by test scores.
Critics of the new regulations have expressed concerns not only about the statutory language itself, but that the victory was achieved through bureaucratic workarounds rather than the legislative process.
Similar concerns have been aired about recently proposed federal regulations on charter schools that could prove particularly problematic for Pennsylvania charters if they’re forced to simultaneously navigate new federal and state mandates.
Amending the state charter law through the legislative process would have been preferable, and not only because it would have been in accordance with law-making norms. The 30- year- old charter school movement faces something of an identity crisis.
Originally devised as laboratories of innovation and a means to empower communities of color, charters have become increasingly subject to technocratic control that places narrow focus on outperforming traditional public schools on standardized tests. The legislative process would have provided a platform to discuss which vision best meets the needs of Pennsylvania students.
The best available evidence indicates that the priorities of academic excellence and local control exist in harmony rather than conflict. New regulations regrettably defy that reckoning, to the detriment of the state’s traditionally underserved students.