problems and solutions

6 problems the NAACP has with charter schools — and 5 of its ideas for how to reshape the sector

PHOTO: Laura Faith Kebede
Alice Huffman, chairwoman of the NAACP's National Task Force for Quality Education, speaks during a public hearing in January in Memphis.

After calling for a temporary ban on new charter schools last year, the NAACP has revealed what would it would take to get the civil rights group to support the privately run, publicly funded sector.

The lengthy report, released Wednesday, allows for the fact that some charters are doing well, but also relates an exhaustive list of concerns. About 5 percent of the country’s public school students attend charters, with an even larger share of black students, the focus of the NAACP report.

To address the concerns, the group offers a set of recommendations that could dramatically curb the sector if adopted. The recommendations are aligned with the country’s two major teachers unions, which have ramped up their criticism of charter schools amid U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos’s advocacy for them. Here’s what the NAACP is worried about, what we know about those issues, and what the group’s recommendations could mean for the charter school world.

NAACP’s problems with charters

1. Charters schools have mixed performance.

The NAACP argues that “research finds mixed outcomes for charters as a group—with some doing better and others were doing worse than district-run public schools.”

It’s generally true that charters perform comparably to district schools, as measured by standardized test scores. Charter schools do seem to perform especially well in urban areas, including in Boston, New Orleans, and New York City, as well as specific charter networks.

2. Charter schools close frequently, sometimes leaving students in a lurch.

The report points out that charters close relatively frequently, particularly schools serving many black students. “While school closures are sometimes seen as evidence that charter schools are in fact more accountable than public schools, charter school closures can seriously disrupt students’ learning, especially when closures occur during the school year,” the NAACP analysis states.

In one recent example, three Detroit charters closed to the surprise of families, leaving them scrambling to find a new school. However, there is evidence in Ohio and New Orleans that when charters are closed based on low performance, students benefit in terms of achievement.

3. Charters suspend black students at high rates and have been accused of pushing out certain students.

During the NAACP’s hearing across the country, the report says, “many participants testified about students with special needs, those perceived as poor test takers, or those who pose as a behavioral challenge are either not accepted, or once enrolled, disciplined or counseled out of many charter schools.” A report by the California ACLU found that one in five of the state’s charters had explicit and illegal discriminatory policies, though there is limited research on this issue more broadly. Some studies have not found evidence that charters push out students — at least not at greater rates than district schools.

The NAACP report also raised concerns about high rates of suspensions in charter schools, particularly of black students. One recent study found that charter schools were significantly more likely to be suspend black students than white students — but this is also the case in district schools. Civil rights advocates including the NAACP fear that this sort of exclusionary discipline make students more likely to drop out of school and create a “school-to-prison pipeline.”

4. Charter schools have been accused of lacking financial transparency and accountability.

“The extent to which charter schools are financially accountable and transparent often varies depending upon the strength of individual state charter laws,” the NAACP says, citing a number of examples.

Thorough reports in North Carolina, Michigan, and Ohio have raised concerns about financial impropriety.

A national analysis highlighted ways that charter schools could profit off of lax oversight requirements. “The multiple layers of private school operations and management, governing boards of private citizens, and in some cases, authorization by private entities, presents far greater opportunity to shield documents and avoid constitutional and statutory protections in the charter sector,” according to the report.

It is unclear, though, to what extent the charter sector differs in this respect compared to district schools and how widespread improprieties are.

5. Charter schools may increase segregation.

Most studies have found that charters are more racially and economically segregated than public schools generally,” the NAACP writes.

That’s true, though charter supporters note that this may be because charters are more likely to be located in cities that are themselves segregated. Careful analyses in a number of cities that examine how students transfer to and from schools over time do find evidence that charter schools exacerbate segregation, though the findings are not uniform.

6. For-profit and virtual charter schools are especially troubling in light of low performance.

The NAACP said that in the listening tour concerns about for-profit and virtual charter schools repeatedly came up, with the report describing “widespread findings of misconduct and poor student performance in for-profit charter schools.”

As the report points out, recent studies have shown that virtual charter schools produce dramatically worse results than public schools, and that for-profit charters perform modestly worse than non-profit charters. Some states like New York already bar for-profit charters, but they make up a large sector in other places, such as Michigan and Florida.

NAACP’s recommendations for charters

1. Eliminate for-profit charters

The NAACP recommends getting rid of for-profit charter schools — a position that is in line with many left-of-center charter school advocates. About one in five charter students attend a school run for profit, with even more doing so in certain states like Michigan and Florida.

2. Ensure that only school districts can authorize charters.

About 90 percent of authorizers right now are school districts, though it’s unclear what percentage of charter schools they authorize. Many states also allow state boards, universities, or independent commissions to approve and oversee charters. The NAACP wants to see those alternative authorizers eliminated in favor of a single overseer that can “monitor the supply of schools across the district … and ensure that high-quality schools open in neighborhoods that most need them.”

In response to the NAACP position, the National Association of Charter School Authorizers argued that school districts do not provide consistently strong oversight of charters. And it’s unclear what would happen in places, such as New York City, where relatively few charters are authorized by the district.

3. Mandate that only certified teachers be hired at charters.

“Charter schools should not be permitted to waive any licensing requirements for teacher and leaders working in their schools,” the NAACP report says, a position in step with the teachers unions. State policy on this issue varies. One authorizer in New York City has recently started a controversial move to allow charters to certify their own teachers. Research suggests that certification is only a modest predictor of teacher performance.

4. Tighten authorizing and accountability requirements.

The NAACP wants tougher oversight on charter schools’ disciplinary rules, recruitment and retention of students, financial practices, and academic performance. A number of these recommendations might be well received by progressive charter backers. For instance, on the issue of school discipline the NAACP highlights the approach of Washington, D.C.’s independent charter board, which many charter advocates have also praised. (Notably, though, this board would not be allowed under the NAACP’s recommendation that only districts can operate charters.) More conservative charter advocates — who already believe that charters are subject to too much regulation — are unlikely to support these ideas.

5. Improve the public school system as a whole.

A number of NAACP recommendations have nothing — directly — to do with charters. For instance, the report suggests “more equitable and adequate funding for schools serving students of color.” The group also backs the idea of community schools and pre-kindergarten.

Perhaps ironically after devoting an entire report to the topic, the NAACP suggests that charter schools may be a distraction: “It is a concern that charter schools have had a larger influence on the national conversation about how to improve education in communities of color than these other well-researched educational investments.”

Hello Again

Debora Scheffel chosen by acclamation to fill State Board of Ed vacancy

State Board of Education member Debora Scheffel at a campaign event in 2016. (Photo by Nic Garcia/Chalkbeat)

A Republican vacancy committee unanimously selected Debora Scheffel to fill the opening left by Pam Mazanec on the State Board of Education.

Mazanec, a staunch defender of parental rights and school choice who represented the 4th Congressional District, resigned at the end of January to focus on her other obligations. Scheffel previously represented the 6th Congressional District on the board but lost that seat in 2016 to Democrat Rebecca McClellan.

McClellan’s narrow victory gave control of the board to Democrats for the first time in 46 years. Scheffel, who serves as dean of education at Colorado Christian University, moved to Douglas County, and ran unsuccessfully for school board there in 2017.

Scheffel’s selection does not change the balance of power on the state board because she replaces another Republican. Scheffel faced no opposition at the vacancy committee meeting, which took place Saturday in Limon.

Scheffel has said she wants to continue Mazanec’s work on behalf of rural schools and in support of parent and student choice, as well as work to protect student data privacy, a cause she previously championed on the board.

The district takes in all of the eastern Plains, as well as the cities of Longmont, Greeley, and Castle Rock.

Future of Schools

Indianapolis struggles to balance how much money schools need with what people will pay

PHOTO: Dylan Peers McCoy
Lewis Ferebee

Without a massive influx of cash from taxpayers, Indianapolis’ largest school district could be in dire financial straits. But the fate of the referendums asking voters for more money is in limbo.

Even as the Indianapolis Public Schools board revealed plans to reduce how much money it is seeking from voters, the administration portrayed the district’s financial future as precarious. During a board discussion Thursday, officials underscored how critical it would be for the tax increase to pass. It’s unclear, however, whether the district will get the extra cash it needs to avoid making painful cuts.

Critics have suggested the request — $936 million over eight years — is too high and that the district has not offered enough detail on how the money raised would be spent. With only tepid support for the tax plan, district leaders appear poised to reduce the amount they are seeking. That move could win over new allies, but it could also undercut their efforts to gain support.

Next year, the administration is expecting spending could outpace income by more than $45 million. The plan for filling that gap hinges on raising more than $46 million from a referendum that will go before voters in May.

Without that extra money, Superintendent Lewis Ferebee said, the district would have to burn through its savings or make vast cuts that could include freezing teacher pay, cutting school budgets, and reducing transportation.

The district would need to begin making cuts immediately, said board member Kelly Bentley. “It’s just going to get worse the next year, and the next year,” she added.

The district’s future will look brighter if leaders are able to win public support for more funding, although it’s no longer clear how much money they will ask for. The original plan, which was approved by the board in December, includes two referendums to raise property taxes. One would ask voters to give the district as much as $92 million more per year for eight years for operating expenses such as teacher pay. Another measure, which the district is not expected to change, would pay for $200 million in improvements to buildings.

Ferebee said the amount he originally proposed was based on what the district needs rather than what would be politically feasible. In the face of community feedback, however, the district is crafting a plan that would have a lower price tag. Next, the district will need to explain what services will be cut to keep down costs, he said.

“I anticipate people will want to know, ‘what are the tradeoffs?’ ” Ferebee said. “We owe it to the community to provide that explanation, and we will.”

Indiana districts have pursued more than 160 property tax referendums since 2008, when state lawmakers created the current school funding system. About 60 percent of those referendums have been successful, according to data from Indiana University’s Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

Stephen Hiller, who has been studying referendums with the center for nearly a decade, said that it’s likely that many districts have had to reconcile how much money they would ideally want with how much taxpayers might be willing to pay. But that conversation likely happens before a referendum is announced and approved by the board.

“I think IPS has it a little more difficult here that it’s happening in the open after they’ve approved it in a very public way,” he added.

School board president Michael O’Connor said that the district’s willingness to change the plan is a sign that local government works.

“We live in the community within which we serve, and all of us have heard pretty plainly and clearly, ‘we think that number might be too big,’ ” he said. “We are being responsive to our constituents.”

Reducing the referendum could be enough to win over many supporters. Several groups that have supported the current administration in the past have not yet taken a stand.

Tony Mason of the Indianapolis Urban League said in a statement that the district needs more money to pay high-quality teachers and meet the needs of its diverse students. But he raised concerns about the potential impact of the tax increase on residents with fixed- or low-incomes.

“IPS will still need to continue in its efforts to make the case for the substantial amount it is requesting,” Mason said. “The IUL is an avid supporter of education, particularly for urban schools that struggle with unique challenges.”

Chelsea Koehring, who taught in the district and now has two children at the Butler Lab School, shares the view that the district needs more money. But leaders have not offered enough details about how the money would be spent, she said, and changing the request raises red flags.

“People, you should’ve had this together before you asked,” she said. “Lowering it at this point — I don’t know that that’s going to instill confidence in anyone that they have any clue what they are doing.”

Correction: February 17, 2018: This story has been corrected to reflect that Indiana districts have pursued more than 160 property tax referendums since 2008. Some districts have held multiple referendums.