Critics of Florida’s new Schools of Hope program often settle on a familiar line of attack.
Some charter schools are fail to serve students well, they argue. So why should the state spend money to lure more of them into areas where existing public schools struggle?
The latest example comes from an investigative report by Tampa’s WFTS:
The Florida legislature recently approved more than $100 million to fund charter schools in economically challenged communities in hopes of giving families more choices and better educational opportunities.
But ABC Action News learned from bay area parents, existing charter schools aren’t always making the grade.
Leave aside, for a moment, the reality that many of the allegations the TV station raises, troubling as they are, could be found in a wide range of schools — public, private or charter. Let’s focus on the idea that some charters are bad, and therefore charter schools can’t lift achievement for struggling students. It’s pretty widespread.
When prosecutors scored indictments against the operators of Newpoint charter schools, the Florida Education Association and its allies flogged the development on social media.
A charter school co. operating across FL faces fraud charges as Corcoran pushes Schools of Hope. https://t.co/a7DUuBGfHa #betterschoolsFL
— FEA Action Center (@BetterschoolsFL) July 13, 2017
The Orlando Sentinel‘s Scott Maxwell and the Tampa Bay Times‘ John Romano have made similar arguments.
Maxwell phrased it this way:
Take, for instance, the “schools of hope” program (explained in lines 5,060 through 5,463 of the bill). This seeks to use tax dollars to create more charter schools, specifically in neighborhoods where traditional schools have failed.
Sounds swell, right? I mean, who wants failing schools?
Well, here’s what they aren’t telling you: Charter schools often fail at a higher rate than traditional schools in Florida.
In Osceola County, for example, there are only two F-rated schools. Both are charters.
In Orange County, charter schools fail at a rate more than three times higher than traditional schools.
It’s true. Not every charter is a life-saver. Some are just plain bad. Newpoint is an especially stark example. The defunct charter school network faces criminal fraud charges. Before it shut down, it faced allegations of grade tampering. And a recent Stanford University study found Newpoint charters had significant negative impact on student learning in both reading and math.
Charter School Associates runs the school at the center of the ABC Action News investigation. The operator doesn’t have problems anywhere near as bad as Newpoint. But it also doesn’t approach the echelon of schools lawmakers are targeting with Schools of Hope.
The charter school network study from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found students in Charter School Associates’ schools lost significant ground in math compared to peers in traditional public schools. In reading, their learning gains were about the same as their district-school peers.
The fact that problems plague some charter school networks doesn’t reveal a flaw in the Schools of Hope plan. It shows why Florida could use that program — or, at least, something like it.
The CREDO study confirms that quality varies a lot across charter school organizations. Networks like KIPP, BASIS, Success Academy and Achievement First form an elite group where students out-perform comparable peers by substantial margins in both reading and math.
Florida education reformers have long lamented the state’s struggles to attract similar “high-impact” charter school networks.
A few homegrown operators, like Miami-Dade’s Doral Academy, boast numbers that place them among the national elite. But the state still has few charter school networks with track records of lifting achievement among disadvantaged students. Schools of Hope would allow charter networks that set up shop near academically struggling schools to qualify for grants, loans and a streamlined application process. But first, they’d have to prove they’re the kind of organization that’s capable of making a real difference.
None of this guarantees the program will work. But it’s clearly designed with the premise that not all charter schools are created equal.
