What do we do about the fact that some New York charter schools don’t enroll (or retain) their “fair share” of at-risk kids? It’s a fair question — but not the “charter killer” that opponents of these innovative schools seem to think.
The state Board of Regents and SUNY — the two main authorizers of charters in New York — recently released some data on the issue, along with a new approach to setting targets for charters on this front. Importantly, they also looked at the record of regular (“district”) public schools in this regard.
Statewide, about 80 percent of the charter schools meet at least one of the three enrollment targets, and 73 percent did the same for retention. (There are three targets for three distinct “at risk” populations: children qualifying for free and reduced lunch, English-language learners and students with disabilities.)
With this new information, where should policy makers focus their energies? How do they hold schools accountable in a way that maximizes outreach to high-needs students and respects parent choice?
First, the Regents and SUNY should examine the 20 percent of charters that missed all three targets. These schools should try to copy what already works for other charters — and, failing that, give such students preferences in the admissions lottery.
Second, the Legislature can change laws that prevent charters from serving disadvantaged students. Thankfully, the state Senate yesterday by 46-13 passed a bill that lets schools use service consortia to be better able to serve at-risk students. In the Assembly, it’s sponsored by Black, Puerto Rican, Hispanic and Asian Caucus Chairman Karim Camara. Let’s hope the Assembly passes the bill before it leaves for the summer.
These simple fixes will reduce the number of schools that miss targets, but won’t end the problem. So the Regents and SUNY need to aggressively implement the “good-faith effort” clause — and start to be more candid about the limits of enrollment targets.
A first step toward that candor is their decision to analyze the “at-risk” performance of all public schools — because it provides long overdue context: The analysis shows that a number of district schools struggle with the same issues.
When district schools miss targets, and yet are rightly seen as valuable institutions, it becomes untenable to hold charters to a different standard.
Both authorizers must also be clear about the statistical problems behind the targets. It’s unclear how the authorizers will use the methodology to accurately determine if small schools with small at-risk student populations have met each target.
This is not a criticism of the attempt to apply these statistics in a nuanced way. Rather, it’s just one example of many that shows the difficulty of creating a comprehensive statistical model to allow us to form good policy. The Regents and SUNY are in a near-impossible position and should just admit as much.
Schools certainly should seek out the highest need students — but it lacks perspective to penalize high-performing schools that fail to meet all targets. Schools with superior academic performance that enroll a large number of students in even just one disadvantaged category should be celebrated, not closed.
Let’s admit the obvious: Neither the Regents nor SUNY will tell families that a charter school that effectively educates their children should close over a de facto enrollment quota, just as the Regents would never close a district school in a similar situation.
The uncomfortable fact remains that there are not enough excellent public schools — district or charter. Policymakers don’t have the luxury of sanctioning schools that fail to meet every goal.
Unquestionably, charter operators will chip away at this problem. In the meantime, the Regents and SUNY have no choice but to do two things well at once — enforce good-faith efforts to enroll more disadvantaged students and also acknowledge the primacy of academic performance.
Bill Phillips is president of the New York Charter School Association.