On Sunday the Washington Post launched a major series of articles about D.C. charter schools; a second installment appeared today and a third is coming. Unfortunately, it started with a regrettable front-page story examining the banking industry's involvement with D.C. charters and focusing on United Bank's Tom Nida, who chairs the D.C. Public Charter School Board. It's unfortunate because I've gotten to know Tom a bit over the years, and he's a decent person who works hard for D.C.'s schools --whereas here we read that he does so for personal gain. (The headline: "Public Role, Private Gain: Board Chairman, a Banker, Took Actions That Stood to Benefit His Employer and Customers")
The paper offers a detailed history of his work chairing the D.C. Public Charter School Board, which approves school expansion plans, renews school charters, etc., and his role as a lender, as United Bank lends money to some DC charter schools and to the landlords of others. They report that Tom recused himself from many charter votes where United Bank business was involved, and that at United he avoided direct work on loans involving D.C. charters. His sin, it appears, may have been not making more public these intersecting relationships.
But the opening article is not just unfair toward Tom, it's unfair toward D.C.'s charter schools. Lost is a sense of the bigger picture:
- That D.C.'s booming charter school sector is a blessing to its students, even if it has "accelerated the exodus from the traditional public school system."
- That the public funding available here for charter facilities should be praised, not decried as a boondoggle that has "benefited charter schools' landlords, developers, bankers and investors while taxpayers fund two separate school infrastructures." This funding lets D.C. charters compete on a level playing field with district schools, setting D.C. apart from the many states that short-change their charters.
- And that the involvement of talented and experienced people, like Tom, in charter schooling is part of what makes them succeed; here, it seems no good deed goes unpunished.
Today's segment on student achievement is much more positive, showing that many charters are doing terrific work and leaving district schools behind. It's certainly worth reading (it includes a cool interactive map of D.C.'s charter schools).
I would argue that it still places too much emphasis on the supposed "ample funds" that charters get, and not enough on the hard work, creativity, and skill involved in creating great schools. But that aside, couldn't the Post have launched its series with this installment, rather than a muck-raking attack? Unfortunately, I suspect the latter sells more Sunday papers.
