Although the charter sector has grown rapidly in both size and quality in recent years, there are still myriad issues holding it back from substantially improving public education. Most worrisome is the way charters have begun to resemble the district schools they were designed to differ from. In this new paper, the Mind Trust teams up with Public Impact to shine a light on how the sector can embrace its innovative roots in order to improve. The report outlines three key ideas: The sector must get better (slightly edging out traditional public schools isn’t good enough); the sector must get broader (underserved groups like at-risk students, special education students, English language learners, and students in rural communities still aren’t served effectively by charters); and bigger (approximately one million students are currently on charter waiting lists nationwide). The authors emphasize that creative thinking and innovation are the only ways forward in accomplishing these goals. Trying the same old things on new student groups, working harder instead of smarter, and failing to find more effective and sustainable ways to operate won’t expand the impact of charters. Instead, they will only deepen their similarity to traditional schools.
To achieve break-the-mold results, stakeholders will need break-the-mold innovations. The report offers recommendations and parses them out according to four stakeholder categories: school operators, policy makers, city-based education organizations, and funders. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the recommendations for school operators are the most detailed. The authors advise them to invest in new school models that innovate in the realm of student experience, as well as the use of time, space, and personnel. These new models could come from start-up organizations, existing high-flyers, or collaboration between the two. Operators can also embrace innovation by making ambitious improvements to existing models. The report recommends adjustments to facility use and facility funding; investing in taking over failing schools rather than planting new ones; rethinking startup economics by opening entire schools at once rather than phasing in by grade; backfilling vacant spots; and sharing school functions like administrative and finance work across networks.
For policy makers, supporting innovation includes funding charters equitably, permitting high-performers to expand, and setting (and acting on) high performance expectations. City-based education organizations can advocate for policies that support innovation; facilitate connections between new models, existing schools, and local leaders; offer planning funds; attract talent; and support small-scale pilots. For funders, the recommendation is simple and straightforward: Invest in new and innovative models, even if it means taking a risk.
The risk factor, of course, is what will ultimately determine whether stakeholders heed this report’s mostly solid recommendations. Considering that charters were founded because of a need for something different from traditional schools, one can only hope that stakeholders show greater willingness to innovate. Otherwise, we may end up with a pair of traditional—and struggling—school systems.
SOURCE: “Raising the bar: Why public charter schools must become even more innovative,” The Mind Trust and Public Impact (October 2015).
