The other day, Checker explained how charter school opponents are using the current budget-cutting environment as an excuse to clobber charter schools and to keep new ones from opening. ???We can't afford them,??? goes the argument. While that threat is real (and really despicable), I wondered to myself: might there not be a silver lining in this economic crisis? Here's my line of thinking: Out of the 4,000-odd charter schools in the country, quite a few are tiny little mom-and-pop operations that are financially and academically marginal. If tight budgets pushed them over the edge and forced them to close, that wouldn't be such an awful thing. Even if we ended up with fewer charter schools, the ones that remained would be, on average, stronger. No one sheds tears for Circuit City or Linens-n-Things because we still have Best Buy and Bed, Bath, and Beyond. Likewise for mediocre charter schools that disappear.
I tried this argument out on some of the smartest thinkers in the charter movement to find out what they thought of it. And the conclusion: not much. Here's a sample of their feedback.
Todd Ziebarth, the policy director of the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools (NAPCS) writes:
My initial reaction is I think that when states cut budgets, they'll do it in a way that doesn't distinguish between good and bad charters. The cuts will affect all charters equally. I think they'll also use the recession to justify continued foot-dragging on fiscal equity for all charters (including new funds for facilities) and to rationalize attempts to enact moratoria on all new charters--again without distinguishing between good and bad charters.
Terry Ryan, my colleague who runs Fordham's Ohio operation , agrees:
Todd's prognosis certainly rings true for Ohio. The schools most likely to survive are the large for-profit operators, especially the e-schools. The mom and pop schools are likely to die out as their margins are razor thin to begin with, and it will be very hard for new charters--even excellent ones like KIPP--to get a foothold in a state like Ohio.
So, too, does Robin Lake, who runs the National Charter Schools Research Project:
Financial hard times might push a small number of low performers who were already in dicey financial shape to close, but otherwise, I agree that most independent charters will feel the pain pretty equally. I think Terry's right that e-schools may be in the best shape thanks to low reliance on labor. Maybe we'll see some mergers of like schools as mom and pops look for ways to survive financially without going over to management groups. I wonder how CMOs [Charter Management Organizations] will survive the squeeze on foundation funds that will no doubt come. Their heavy reliance on private funds could be a big problem especially. New CMOs may have an especially hard time attracting investors.
Bryan Hassel, co-founder of Public Impact, picks up on the idea of charter consolidation:
If we had too many charter schools, mass closures would be a good outcome of a downturn. But in fact we have too few good charter schools. So a better outcome than mass closure would be some kind of consolidation: acquisition of bad charter schools by good charter schools, CMOs, or others who can turn them into good schools. That way, parents who have fled bad district schools wouldn't have to go back. Problem is, with per pupil funding, consolidation doesn't necessarily save states money, so it's not a natural response to tight budgets...unless you could engineer a deal in which strong schools would agree to operate weak schools for, say, 80% of normal charter funding. Hard to see that happening except in cases where the acquisition brings with it some kind of valuable asset, like a facility. A state or authorizer could put out an RFP and see if there are any takers.???
Finally, at my prodding, Nelson Smith, the president of NAPCS, offers some ideas on how the ???movement??? can respond:
Mike's question is whether ???the charter movement??? can use this opportunity???-but we don't control the de-selection process. 90% of charters are authorized by local and county school boards, many of which already lack the skills to pick and oversee strong charters. Given that their own budgets are hurting, which will slow down the creation of new charters, I'm not sure I want to hand them another rationale for eliminating their competition.
But if Rahm Emmanuel is right, and ???a crisis is a terrible thing to waste,??? what would we, the movement, do to mop up our own toxic assets? Three years ago the Alliance, NACSA, and Fordham teamed up to demand a ???house-cleaning??? for Ohio's troubled charter movement, and the legislature enacted mandatory closure for chronic low performers. That's one approach. Another is to call for tougher state oversight of authorizers, and pull the plug on those that don't close lousy schools. Yet another is for movement leaders, especially at the state level, to use the bully pulpit and focus peer pressure on schools that sop up scarce resources without getting results.
But none of these work overnight, and the laggards might outlast the fiscal emergency. By comparison, Tim Geithner has it easy.
Well said, one and all.
