Why Don't More Districts Stimulate Choice and Innovation with Charters?

By Jack McCarthy | February 12, 2007

The New York Times Magazine's Paul Tough examined schools with strong evidence of success in closing the race and class gaps in school performance in What It Takes To Make a Student (December 17, 2006).

Tough begs the question of why more Superintendents of low performing school districts like Washington, DC don't use charters to stimulate the supply of new education choices for families or closing low performing schools and reopening them as charter schools as provided in No Child Left Behind?

Twenty years ago, when we wanted a cup of coffee, we were satisfied with black, cream and sugar or decaf. How many choices does your average Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts offer the consumer today?

All children can achieve high standards. Some take longer others learn in different ways. You wouldn't know that by looking at urban school data.

That's why Washington, DC Public Schools (DCPS) suffered a 25% erosion of their student enrollment since 1998. People want quality choices in education, too.

The Nation's Report Card (NAEP) details the consequences of failure (like the 90% of DCPS fourth graders who cannot read with proficiency or the 70% who cannot read at even a basic level of comprehension). It should be clear to us that "one size doesn't fit all" when it comes to schooling.

Typical comprehensive schools educate about 25% of their student well, 25% reasonably, 25% not well and the final 25% not well at all. Ask your favorite urban superintendent and I'll bet you (a mocha cappuccino) that they won't quarrel with this estimate.

In fact, what if we don't really have a "performance" problem, but instead we have a "design problem?" It seems plausible that new principals, new teachers, new curriculum and technology just might not be able to get those schools to perform any better because their agrarian calendars, six hour days, standardized curriculum, lack of quality professional development, taylorism, and inflexibility place handcuffs on the key drivers of school improvement.

Could the same people, funding and buildings with different chartered designs and choices based on clear goals, research-based instruction and accountability for performance improve outcomes and satisfaction? Could they do worse?

Instead of seeing charters as burdens that outsiders impose on them, can superintendents use charters as deliberate strategies for creating choice, piloting designs and improving achievement so that the promise of No Child Left Behind can be achieved by 2014?

***
Related:

What No Child Left Behind is Missing by Bill Milliken