5 Key Things You Need to Know About Important New Study on the Benefits of KIPP Pre-K

Analysis: Why Charlottesville Is a Wakeup Call for Educators Who Believe in Equal Promise for All Students

Langhorne: When Pursuing Education Becomes a Crime, It’s the System That Should Be Scrutinized, Not the Students

Cunningham: The School Choice Debate Has Derailed. It’s Time to Focus on Parents’ Rights & Student Success

Exclusive: Teachers Union Document Reveals Master Plan for Unionizing Charter School Networks

Whitmire: In the State That Created High-Performing Charter Networks, College Success Is Lagging Behind Others

Rafal-Baer: In Education, Preparing Next Generation of Leaders Shouldn’t Be a Revolutionary Idea

Smith: 10 Lessons From Rocketship Education’s First Decade as a Pioneer of K-5 Personalized Learning

Oreopoulos: No Diploma Without a Plan for the Future? Why Chicago’s New Graduation Requirement Might Work

Williams: How a Tougher Test and Chaos in D.C. Just Made Things a Whole Lot Harder for Kids Learning English

Analysis: Teachers Union Adds 40,000 Offshore Members While Labor Rolls Stagnate at Home

Quality Early Learning Programs Are a Key to Future Success. Why Don’t States Put Them in Their ESSA Plans?

Bradford: A Free Education System Bought and Sold on the Housing Market, as It Was Intended to Be

Litt: Why Kids in Low-Performing Schools Are Set to Lose Big Under California’s Current ESSA Plan

Reality Check: Before Smartphones Ruined Teenagers, It Was Video Games! And TV! And Elvis!

Lake & Tuchman: Disability Rights Advocates Are Fighting the Wrong Fight on School Choice

Anello: Why the NAACP Should Look Beyond Misleading Narratives & Work With Charters to Lift Up Black Students

Analysis: How OER Is Boosting School Performance and Equity From the Suburbs to the Arctic

Analysis: Which Bothers Randi Weingarten More — Segregation or School Choice?

Howard Fuller: Advancement — the Second ‘A’ in NAACP — Should Apply to Our Children Too

Bertelli: Why a Recent Drop in Charter School Support Is Not About Charter School Quality

Photo Credit: Getty Images

August 21, 2017

Chris Bertelli
Chris Bertelli

Chris Bertelli is the founder of Bertelli Public Affairs, an education public affairs consultancy based in Sacramento. He specializes in working with clients focused on improving educational equity in California public schools.

Chris Bertelli is the founder of Bertelli Public Affairs, an education public affairs consultancy based in Sacramento. He specializes in working with clients focused on improving educational equity in California public schools.
Talking Points

.@CJBertelli on why a recent drop in charter school support has nothing to do with charter school quality

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

If there is one thing polls are really good at, it’s provoking people to wax philosophical on what the findings really mean. So when Education Next’s new annual poll on education reform revealed an unsurprising year-over-year drop in support for charter schools, some were quick to advocate for solutions to improve charters’ public standing.

Unfortunately, most of this early advice, while well-meaning, majorly misses the mark.

Consider this piece by Maureen Kelleher at Education Post, in which she argues that the erosion of support for charters is due to some charters failing to make good on commitments to quality and accountability. She argues, “If we want to win the charter war, we have to start by looking deeply at ourselves.”  

Kelleher is right that charter schools — in fact, all public schools — should be high-quality and accountable for results. But there is no evidence in the poll that the drop in charter support is at all tied to school quality. In fact, the decline is much more likely attributable to the unusually intense charter attacks launched by organizations that benefit from keeping the district-run school model intact. The attacks began in the lead-up to last year’s election and have only intensified since inauguration day as charter opponents attempt to tag anything to do with school choice with the unpopular “Trump/DeVos” badge. Meanwhile, teachers unions and the organizations they support spent the summer passing resolutions condemning charters.

The common themes among these attacks have nothing to do with quality; instead, they rely on ridiculous assertions of “privatization” and “billionaires” taking over schools for their own benefit — and at the expense of public school children. More recently, the scurrilous attacks have painted choice advocates as segregationists.

It hasn’t mattered that, over the same period, there has been a wealth of compelling data released that charter schools are meeting the needs of underserved communities better than their district-run counterparts.

Studies have emerged showing improved college graduation rates, positive impact on nearby district-run schools, leadership in recruiting teachers of color, and improving outcomes despite funding disparities. These complement the comprehensive 2015 nationwide study that showed significant gains for urban charter students relative to their peers attending district-run schools.

So why, despite all the good news about the work charters are doing, is the campaign against them finding traction? Because the average parent does not read about studies, and, as last week’s poll also showed, families drastically overestimate the quality of their local schools.

According to the poll, 54 percent of respondents gave their local schools an A or B grade while giving similar grades to only 24 percent of schools nationally. In fact, only 13 percent of respondents rated local schools in the D or F category. This is consistent with the recent Learning Heroes survey that revealed the serious disconnect between parents’ belief about the kind of education their children receive versus the reality. In short, most people (including parents) believe their schools are good, regardless of what scores actually show.

In this environment, critics of school choice initiatives leverage those beliefs to convince parents that “unaccountable” charters are a scheme by “privatizers” to siphon money from their “good, local” schools. The issue of quality is almost never a factor. If your child attends a “good” school, why would you ever support taking money away from it?

Convincing people to lend their voice and support to change is a two-stage process. First, they must be convinced that the status quo needs changing and, second, that the change being proposed is the right solution. What’s clear from recent polls and surveys is that a growing number of parents don’t see a problem, and therefore see any proposed changes as irresponsible. Charter school advocates need look no further than the results from Massachusetts’s Question 2 to understand that people’s views on charters are almost never a referendum on their quality.

A focus on quality and accountability is great for kids, and charters should not stop striving for those high standards. But as an advocacy strategy, it appears insufficient and misguided, doubling down on a talking point that has failed to rebuff the ongoing relentless attacks against school choice.