A newly emboldened United Federation of Teachers is back on the attack against New York City’s charter schools. The union is pushing lawmakers in Albany to force charters to serve equal proportions of students with disabilities and those learning English as nearby district schools.
“Research clearly shows that urban charter schools do each of the things the UFT President accuses them of neglecting.”
This week, UFT President Michael Mulgrew drew the battle lines by challenging the notion that charters are public schools, reportedly saying: “You want to be a public school? Take all kids. Keep them. And educate them.”
Mulgrew’s case would be more compelling if it were backed by more than several carefully picked anecdotes. Research clearly shows that urban charter schools do each of the things he accuses them of neglecting.
Students who apply to charter schools are randomly offered seats. Prior research has found that these lotteries are fair. When they apply, students with disabilities or those learning English are just as likely to be offered a seat in a charter as anyone else.
Separate analyses of student enrollment data by myself and the Independent Budget office has found that students with disabilities and those learning English are substantially more likely to remain in their school if it is a charter than if it is a district school. Another study I conducted found that students with low test scores are just as likely to exit New York City’s charter and district schools.
A wide body of research shows students benefit academically from attending urban charter schools. A recent study of Boston’s charter schools by MIT researcher Elizabeth Setren found that students with disabilities and those learning English are making significant gains in those schools, which are just as large as non-charter students.
Why, then, are smaller proportions of charter school students placed in these categories than in district schools? Primarily because such students are much less likely to apply to charter schools than general population students.
As schools of choice, charters ultimately depend on parents determining that the school is a good fit for their child. Perhaps charters could still be doing more to recruit students with disabilities and those learning English, but it is hard to imagine punishing schools because not enough students in particular categories freely chose to fill out an application. That approach doesn’t address the underlying issue. Policymakers interested in narrowing these enrollment gaps need to focus on getting more of these students to apply.
“Lawmakers in Albany should look past the UFT’s bluster and focus on the evidence. Charter schools enroll, retain and educate the disadvantaged students who make it to the classroom, but they need to apply first. ”
Adopting a common enrollment process for all charters and district schools is a promising strategy for meeting that goal. The Center for Reinventing Public Education presented survey evidence showing that low-income parents in particular find it easier to apply to a charter under such a system than in the school-based lottery process employed in New York and most other cities. In a recent study, I show that adoption of this system substantially increased the proportion of English language learners and those eligible for free- or reduced-priced lunch enrolled in Denver’s elementary schools.
Lawmakers in Albany should look past the UFT’s bluster and focus on the evidence. Charter schools enroll, retain and educate the disadvantaged students who make it to the classroom, but they need to apply first. These research findings point to a very different solution than what Mr. Mulgrew would impose.
This piece originally appeared in City & State's NY Slant
This piece originally appeared in City & State's NY Slant