The truth about charter schools

Put two New Yorkers who disagree on charter schools in a room and get them going, and you could be watching an Israeli and Palestinian in argument on the streets of East Jerusalem. It’s gotten just that bitter.

I know because, as a member of the Daily News editorial board, I’ve helped write pieces strongly supportive of outstanding charters; as editor of the op-ed page, I’ve run pieces by both enthusiasts of the movement and by those who think it’s the root of what’s wrong with school reform.

After publishing any argument, I invariably get searing heat and feeble light from the opposing side. Here’s an effort to set things straight — and tell both charter enthusiasts and charter haters some of what I believe they need to hear.

Charter schools are public schools.

They are created via an elaborate application process and formal government approval. They can be swiftly shut down if they fail to perform. They offer free education to predominantly low-income and minority students.

They operate with taxpayer support, which is the overwhelming source of funding even for those that raise charitable donations. From their inception, their goal — as articulated by Bill Clinton — was to offer parents more choice while injecting innovation into school districts deeply resistant to reform.

Charter school quality runs the gamut.

The word “charter” is not interchangeable with the term “excellent.” While many charters are outstanding, some are doomed to fail.

Overall, charters in New York City are outperforming peer district schools. According to Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, which rendered mixed judgment on charters nationwide, New York City charters had a very positive effect on student performance in mathematics, and a more modest positive effect in reading.

Why does the city have a high-quality charter sector? Likely because of strong state regulations, including an exacting approval process, and because, over many years, Mayor Michael Bloomberg welcomed the country’s best charter operators to set up shop here.

Charter schools have advantages that help them raise test scores.

Supporters suggest charters can be compared apples-to-apples to neighborhood schools — and that if district schools followed charters’ lead and did A, B and C, they could excel, too. Not really.

The lottery admissions model means that only parents with some motivation to seek out educational alternatives for their kids will apply in the first place.

That and other factors help explain why charters serve fewer special education students, English Language Learners and homeless kids, all of whom demand disproportionate attention and resources.

In New York, charters aren’t required to admit kids except in the grades they choose; some don’t admit students after third grade. After that the doors are closed. Traditional schools are required to serve every child who shows up at their doors, regardless of their achievement level.

And a small fraction of charter success may be attributable to the fact that kids who struggle choose to leave or are counseled out.

So, while it’s factually correct to call charter schools public schools, it also glosses over meaningful distinctions.

These structural advantages are frequently overstated.

Though there have been sporadic charges of “creaming” to ensure that charters admit only higher-performing kids, the instances are outliers. And though there have been credible reports of charters systematically sending difficult children back to traditional public schools, the practice is far from standard operating procedure.

Still, charters often end up with easier-to-educate classes if children transfer out and the schools do not fill their seats. Everyone should just admit that.

The outstanding performance of the best charters is real.

Foes love to write off the best programs as products of cherry-picked students and gamed test scores. The facts say otherwise.

One example: The children in many of the 22 schools run by Success Academy notch test scores that are among the best in the state. The achievement gains are impressive, and they are real. You can’t hit those marks simple by forcing out low performers — unless you were to admit thousands more students, winnow 90% of them and keep only the brightest.

The most powerful drivers of those results is having children spend extra time on task, fostering a respectful, academics-oriented school culture, building faculties that are well-prepared, engaging parents and implementing a content-based curriculum. Go to a Success Academy school and watch a lesson. It will amaze you.

An underappreciated key to the excellence of the best charters is management flexibility.

Nine out of 10 New York City charters aren’t unionized, which gives them more freedom to put their staffs through rigorous training, lengthen the workday, adjust salaries, and hire and fire teachers — and school leaders — at will.

That’s in stark contrast to district schools, which have to abide by what can be rigid and stifling laws and contract rules.

In other words, charter school leaders have the freedom to make the types of smart decisions that are the hallmark of almost all well-run organizations.

Money matters, but it cuts both ways.

Because New York State doesn’t currently provide charter schools with facilities funding, they get about $2,300 less public funding per student than district schools do.

To help make up that difference, and sometimes more, some charter school networks have fundraising operations that, among other things (many of which are valuable), help underwrite the excessive salaries of network leaders and employ public relations firms.

At the same time, we must not forget that those on the other side of the argument have plenty of resources at their disposal (the United Federation of Teachers has much deeper pockets). And many traditional public schools, especially in wealthier communities, cultivate affluent patrons — including hedge-fund millionaires. So it’s unfair to hold the fundraising prowess of charters against them.

Charter school supporters try to have it both ways.

While properly saying charters are public schools, they accept the fact that some pay private-sector salaries to their leaders and deny that they have some real structural advantages over traditional public schools.

Charter school opponents try to have it both ways.

They highlight that charter schools serve a fraction of the city’s kids, as though that discredits their achievements and marginalizes them. At the same time, they fight to prevent charters from growing so that they might serve many more children.

jgreenman@nydailynews.com