After calling for a temporary ban on new charter schools last year, the NAACP has revealed what 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 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.
[In Connecticut, it’s “a mixed bag” as to whether students are better off attending charter schools, research by the state department of education has found.]
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.
[In Connecticut, the closure of a charter school is extremely rare. It has been more than 10 years since the last charter school closed.]
3. Charters suspend black students at high rates and have been accused of pushing out certain students.
During the NAACP’s hearings across the country, the report says, “many participants testified about students with special needs, those perceived as poor test takers, or those who pose 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 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.”
[In Connecticut, there are several charter schools whose students do not reflect the communities where they are located since they enroll either no or few students who have disabilities or speak limited English. Some charter schools in Connecticut have also for years had among the highest suspension rates in the state.]
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.
[In Connecticut, attempts to overhaul public disclosure laws have been somewhat successful, though donor names are still off limits.]
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.
[In Connecticut, the majority of charter schools are “hyper-segregated” and fail to enroll diverse populations based on race and ethnicity. More than 90 percent of their students are minorities.]
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.
[For-profit charter schools are not permitted to enroll Connecticut public school students.]
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 teachers 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.”
Originally posted July 27, 2017, on Chalkbeat, a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Connecticut Mirror Education Reporter Jacqueline Rabe Thomas contributed the Connecticut information to this article.