Governance and Leadership – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org A Journal of Opinion and Research About Education Policy Fri, 14 Jul 2023 18:11:24 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.4.2 https://i2.wp.com/www.educationnext.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/e-logo-1.png?fit=32%2C32&ssl=1 Governance and Leadership – Education Next https://www.educationnext.org 32 32 181792879 Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior https://www.educationnext.org/behind-biden-administrations-retreat-on-race-and-school-discipline-real-concern-on-student-behavior/ Wed, 19 Jul 2023 09:00:32 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716791 Even the teachers are alarmed about fights, violence

The post Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
The U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C.
The U.S. Department of Education headquarters in Washington, D.C.

As k-12 schools officials struggle to address a post-Covid surge of student misbehavior and violence, they must also navigate rapid swings in civil rights directives from the U.S. Department of Education. A decade ago, the Obama administration issued lengthy guidelines on bullying, sexual harassment, and racial disparities in school discipline. It also launched hundreds of protracted investigations to enforce these demands. The Trump administration withdrew many of these guidelines, and substantially reduced the number of systemic investigations. The Biden administration has promised to return to a more aggressive approach to civil rights rulemaking and enforcement. A year ago, the Department of Education proposed new rules on sexual harassment, and announced new guidelines on discipline for students with disabilities. In May 2023 the departments of Justice and Education took yet another step, releasing a policy statement with the enigmatic title, “Resources on Confronting Racial Discrimination in Student Discipline.”

Neither a formal regulation or even a standard guidance document, “Resources” describes 14 investigations of school discipline practices completed by the Department of Education between 2012 and 2022. It includes an account of an academy in Arizona that told a student with an Afro to get a haircut. It also include the case of a school district in Utah that referred a Black student to law enforcement while giving a white student a conference for the same offense. Oddly, the two departments insist upon the limited legal significance of their report: “It does not constitute final agency action, and it does not have an immediate and direct legal effect. It does not create any new rights or obligations, and it is not enforceable. Neither the Departments’ investigations nor the summaries included below constitute a binding precedent.” “This document,” they explain, “is for informational and technical purposes only.” What guidance, then, does this report offer? Largely a set of steps school districts can take to stay in the departments’ good graces.

To understand the ongoing controversy over school discipline mandates, it is important to recognize just how limited the federal government’s power is in this area. Outside of special education, the federal government only has authority to prohibit disciplinary practices that discriminate on the basis of race, national origin, or sex. (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, in contrast, creates specific rules for disciplining students with individualized education plans). In 2014 the Obama administration launched an aggressive effort to substantially curtail use of out-of-school disciplinary measures (that is, suspensions and expulsions), which many claim have no educational value and contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline.” But the only way federal regulators could address the issue was by claiming that these punishments were being applied in a racially discriminatory manner.

There is no question that if school officials punish a Black student more harshly than a similarly situated white student, they have engaged in unlawful discrimination and violated Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But what does “similarly situated” mean? Not only that the two students engaged in the same type and degree of misconduct, but also that they had a similar history of prior transgressions. Proving “different treatment” requires detailed investigation of individual cases. Given the subjective nature of many forms of misbehavior and the fact that most such behavior is viewed only by a few people, seldom are these easy calls. Consequently, the Obama administration’s 2014 Dear Colleague Letter announced that schools “also violate Federal law when they evenhandedly implement facially neutral policies and practices that, although not adopted with the intent to discriminate, nonetheless have an unjustified effect of discriminating on the basis of race.” A school’s disciplinary policies and practices would be deemed to have an “adverse impact” on minority students if those students are “disproportionately” punished at higher rates or “subject to longer sanctions or more severe penalties.” Once that prima facie case has been made, the school bears the burden of demonstrating that its policy is “necessary to meet an important educational goal,” and that there exist no “comparably effective alternative policies or practices that would meet the school’s stated educational goal with less of a burden or adverse impact on the disproportionately affected racial group.” The Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights explained that it would take a particularly hard look at policies that “impose mandatory suspension, expulsion or citations” for specified offenses, especially truancy. Such punishments, federal regulators strongly suggested, are seldom either “necessary” or “effective.”

Black students are subject to disciplinary action more frequently than white, Asian, or Hispanic students. This might be the result of discrimination, but it might also be a consequence of difference in socio-economic status, family structure, neighborhood influences, youth subcultures, and policies adopted by schools in high-crime areas. Although the 2014 Dear Colleague Letter acknowledged that racial disparities “may be caused by a range of factors,” its “disparate impact” analysis said little about them. Its primary goal was to curtail the use of out-of-school punishments. The Trump administration withdrew that Dear Colleague Letter in 2018. The Biden administration subsequently announced that the withdrawal was “under review.”

The 2014 Dear Colleague Letter was announced by the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights Catherine Lhamon. When she was nominated to regain that position in 2021, she told a Senate committee, “it’s crucial to reinstate guidance on the topic.” What is most notable about the 2023 document, though, is the extent to which it backs away both from the 2014 Dear Colleague Letter’s “disparate impact” analysis and from its blanket condemnation of out-of-school punishments. Helpful suggestions have replaced legally binding obligations. Although this shift does not preclude a return to the aggressive enforcement strategy of the Obama administration, it does seem to signal a more conciliatory federal approach to discipline issues as public schools struggle to respond to heightened levels of violence and misbehavior.

By focusing on case resolutions that span the Obama, Trump, and Biden administrations, the report seeks to downplay the obvious policy shifts of the past decade. Most of the policy changes recommended in the report are sensible and relatively uncontroversial. They include

  • Collecting and regularly reviewing data on disciplinary actions to identify possible discrimination;
  • Establishing clearer, less subjective rules on what constitutes misconduct and appropriate the punishments for various levels of misconduct;
  • Making sure that school policies are consistent with state law;
  • Reducing the role of School Resource Officials (i.e. law enforcement personnel with arrest power located within schools) in routine disciplinary matters;
  • Improving communications with parents, especially those with limited English proficiency;
  • Developing alternatives to out-of-school punishments;
  • Providing better training to school personnel;
  • Hiring more school counselors and mental health professionals; and
  • Providing students with “tutoring, afterschool and summer learning, and enrichment programs to help students make meaningful academic and behavioral progress.”

Note that most of these items are worthy aspirations, not enforceable rules. Whether schools will have the resources and the commitment to put them into effect is one big question. How the Department of Education will try to nudge them in that direction is another.

Why has the department retreated from its hardline 2014 stance? Perhaps the White House has pressured the department to avoid hot-button educational issues prior to the 2024 election—as it seems to have done with the department’s recent proposal on transgender students’ assignment to sports teams. So far, though, we have little information on the nature of the debate within the administration. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify four factors that likely influenced its deliberations.

The first is growing alarm among school officials and parents about post-Covid disorder in our schools. According to a report by the Brookings Institution’s Brown Center, “Schools across the country are reporting increased levels of misbehavior, including fights and more serious acts of violence.” A survey conducted by Education Week’s Research Center found that “nearly half of all school and district leaders (44 percent) say they are receiving more threats of violence by students now than they did in the fall of 2019 . . . [T]wo out of three teachers, principals, and district leaders say that students are misbehaving more these days than they did in the fall of 2019.” In this context, restricting the availability of disciplinary measures would encounter strong resistance.

The second is concern among rank-and-file teachers about their own safety and the difficulty of maintaining order in classrooms and hallways. The department’s 2014 Dear Colleague Letter initially received support from the national leadership of teachers’ unions, but eventually drew angry opposition from teachers subject to lengthy investigations and restrictions on out-of-school punishments. With teachers facing greater threats of violence within the classroom, such opposition could not be ignored—especially since it comes from a key Democratic constituency.

Third, initial research on the main alternative to out-of-school punishments—restorative justice—found that this approach to dealing with misbehavior falls far short of its supporters’ expectations. Subsequent to the 2014 Dear Colleague Letter, the RAND Corporation sponsored two randomized control studies comparing schools that instituted restorative justice programs with those that employed traditional disciplinary practices. RAND’s study of several schools in Maine found that “the middle-school student who received Restorative Practices Intervention did not report more school connectedness, better school climate, more positive peer relationships and developmental outcomes or less victimization than students in control schools did.” A second, more extensive study of schools in Pittsburgh found that the number and length of suspensions declined in elementary schools instituting restorative justice programs. However,

Despite fewer suspensions, academic outcomes did not improve in PERC schools [those instituting restorative justice programs]. At the middle grade level (grades 6-8) academic outcomes actually worsened in the treatment schools. Neither did we find fewer suspensions in middle grades. . . . We did not see fewer suspensions for male students, for students with individual education plans, or for incidents of violence or weapons violation. Neither did we see a reduction in arrests.

According to a summary of the evidence in The Hechinger Report, “The biggest insight from the Maine study was how hard it is for schools to implement restorative justice even after days of teacher training, monthly consultations and visits by coaches.”

Finally, studies of the implementation of the Obama administration’s policies found a wide gap between the policies announced in formal agreements between school leaders and federal officials on the one hand, and the actual practices of teachers and principals on the other. Within a single school district, compliance and reporting differed substantially from one school to another. That experience suggests that without substantial support from teachers and principals on the front lines, directives on discipline from Washington are likely to be ignored.

The fact that federal regulators have addressed the school discipline issue by describing the results of past investigations rather than by issuing explicit rules emphasizes the central role that such investigations play in federal civil rights policy. Especially during the Obama administration, the Department of Education has used lengthy and intrusive investigations to pressure schools to sign detailed resolution agreements. The process was the punishment, and federal policy was in effect the sum of these individually negotiated agreements. The May 2023 report does little to constrain the Department of Education. But it seems to indicate that the department has adopted a more nuanced and pragmatic approach to the school discipline issue than it did a decade ago.

Shep Melnick is the Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. Professor of American Politics at Boston College and author, most recently, of The Crucible of Desegregation: The Uncertain Search for Educational Equality (University of Chicago Press, 2023).

The post Behind Biden Administration’s Retreat on Race and School Discipline, Real Concern on Student Behavior appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716791
Building Diverse College Campuses Starts in Kindergarten https://www.educationnext.org/building-diverse-college-campuses-starts-in-kindergarten/ Wed, 05 Jul 2023 13:03:10 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716735 In the wake of the Students for Fair Admissions, an urgent call to take on the “excellence gap”

The post Building Diverse College Campuses Starts in Kindergarten appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
U.S. Supreme Court
United States Supreme Court

Immediately following the announcement of the Supreme Court’s decision outlawing the use of race in college admissions (see “High Court Decision in College Admissions Case Has K-12 Implications”), the Biden Administration released a U.S. Department of Education plan to “promote educational opportunity and diversity in colleges and universities.” It includes forthcoming guidance to higher education institutions on how to use still-lawful practices to promote diversity, particularly new “measures of adversity” that consider what applicants may have had to overcome. The department also will consider expanding data collections and transparency around admissions factors and convene an “educational opportunity” summit to bring colleges and universities together with students, advocates, and researchers to discuss a way forward.

That’s all well and good, but it’s worth noting what was left off the department’s laundry list: anything having to do with k-12 education. That’s a huge missed opportunity and one that the administration should urgently work to address. One of the most effective ways to boost college diversity is by building broader, more inclusive paths to educational excellence. And that work starts in kindergarten.

Imagine if, instead of or in addition to looking at adversity and other proxies for race, our nation dedicated itself to creating a more diverse pipeline of high-school graduates with the ability to do advanced-level work. Imagine a world where college admissions offices didn’t rely on loopholes and complicated backdoor policies to create diverse student populations. Imagine that the top high-school students in the United States were already racially and socioeconomically representative of our great nation—without the need for affirmative action of any kind.

A Stubborn Gap in “Excellence”

Sadly, we are a long way from that today. On virtually any measure, there’s an “excellence gap” among students coming out of 12th grade. Students reaching the highest levels of performance—whether measured by test scores, grade-point average, or the number of Advanced Placement courses—are more likely to be Asian or white than Latino or Black. This excellence gap means that white and Asian teenagers are disproportionately represented among the top 10 percent of U.S. students, while Latino and Black students are significantly underrepresented.

Closing this gap will not be easy. It is related to a complex mix of social and historical conditions, including the impact of centuries of systemic racism, sharp socioeconomic divides between racial groups, and big differences in school experiences, family structures, and parenting practices. But frankly, as a nation, we’ve never really given it the “old college try.” If we focused on what schools can do to recognize and nurture excellence in all students, instead of just trying to work around the gaps at the end of their high-school careers, we could make significant progress toward the inclusive college campuses we all want to see.

That’s the message from an important new report from the National Working Group on Advanced Education, an ideologically and racially diverse set of scholars, policymakers, and practitioners convened by the think tank that I lead. Its most important message: Rather than wait until kids are leaving high school to try to even the playing field, we must start in kindergarten to identify the most academically talented students of all races and backgrounds and give them the support they need to excel.

The working group makes three dozen recommendations for states, schools, districts, and charter networks, with specific opportunity-building actions that start in the earliest grades and continue through high school. It is a clear roadmap for building this wider, more diverse pipeline of advanced students.

The first step is called “frontloading,” a type of enrichment provided to young children before they are old enough to be assessed for advanced learning opportunities like gifted and talented programs. Because poor children tend to come to school with limited vocabulary and less knowledge about the world compared to their more affluent peers, they typically earn lower scores on most traditional academic assessments—even if they have the intellectual horsepower to take on rigorous academic work. High-quality enrichment programs can help young students build knowledge and vocabulary to improve their reading skills and get them on the path to success.

The next step is to use “universal screening” to find every single child who could benefit from enrichment, acceleration, and other advanced learning opportunities. Schools and districts can use valid and reliable assessments—such as IQ tests, diagnostic exams, or state achievement tests—to identify all kids with the potential to do advanced-level work. That’s a big change from how many school districts do things today, which is to ask parents or teachers to nominate children for their gifted programs (or later, Advanced Placement courses). It’s not hard to see how that approach can bring with it racial and socioeconomic biases. Affluent, college-educated parents tend to be more aware of these programs and know how to advocate for their kids. And classroom teachers, however fair-minded, might overlook some talented students because they don’t fit a stereotype of a high achiever.

Opportunity Starts in Elementary School

Once students are identified as highly capable, they need the programs and opportunities that can help them realize their potential. School-based programs that do this can take many forms, but most share several key features: They allow students to study and engage with academic materials more broadly and deeply than the typical class, including doing above-grade-level work. They allow students to skip an entire grade if that’s what a child needs and can handle. And once students get to middle and high school, they automatically are enrolled in honors and Advanced Placement classes. In other words, no more gatekeeping that tends to dissuade kids on the bubble from giving these tougher classes a shot.

Doing this work and doing it well will take leadership and commitment from district and charter network leaders. Educators will have to view greater equity in education as crucial—and not just for their lowest-achieving students, but also for their highest-achieving ones. They will have to reexamine how a student’s potential is measured, and when. And they will have to focus on supporting more students to excel, including by looking closely at how students are identified to participate in advanced coursework and enrichment programs. The absolute worst thing schools could do is to eliminate advanced learning opportunities, like gifted and talented programs or honors classes, which have disproportionate white and Asian enrollments that mirror the “excellence gap.” True equity demands that we mend, rather than end, such programs—and extend these opportunities to many more kids.

Universities might object that there’s not much they can do about k–12 educational practices. But that’s simply not true. Institutions of higher education can make sure that their schools of education prepare future teachers and school leaders to recognize and serve every student who can do advanced-level work, especially students from low-income families. And universities can lend their expertise and money to local school districts and charter networks that need assistance in putting these kinds of initiatives in place.

The Biden Administration should widen its action plan to include the k-12 system. Starting in kindergarten isn’t the fastest way to college diversity, but it is probably the sturdiest.

Michael J. Petrilli is president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, and an executive editor of Education Next.

The post Building Diverse College Campuses Starts in Kindergarten appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716735
Settle for Better https://www.educationnext.org/settle-for-better-how-overpromising-undercut-education-reform-movement/ Tue, 20 Jun 2023 09:00:43 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716719 How overpromising undercut the education reform movement, and what to do about it

The post Settle for Better appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

IllustrationWhen I first got involved in education reform back in 1993, a quote attributed to the famed anthropologist Margaret Mead had become a mantra at gatherings of those of us in “the movement”: “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.”

Everyone in the room would nod their heads in agreement and breathe in the heady inspiration that comes from being with like-minded people who share a belief in the righteousness of their cause and the inevitability of their success. For us “happy few” crusaders, history and justice were on our side.

Thirty years later, and after spending the last eight years in state bureaucracy as the Massachusetts secretary of education, I still believe in the ideas and aspirations behind the reform efforts of the 1990s and 2000s, but it’s now clear that our ambitions were exaggerated, and our timeline was way off—most memorably the promise that No Child Left Behind would get 100 percent of students to proficiency in English and math by 2014.

This is not a rationale for abandoning the cause; quite the opposite. It’s the foundation for rededicating ourselves to the hard work that needs to be done one day at a time, by shifting our mindset from the visionary call to “change the world,” to a more pragmatic directive to “do your job” (as New England’s own Coach Bill Belichick might say).

Education reform that had its beginnings in the 1980s and came into full bloom in the 1990s and the first decade of the 21st century had four basic components:

• Standards, assessment, and accountability, to set and raise expectations, along with measurement of school and student performance, to create a culture of data-driven decisionmaking and timely action to address systemic weaknesses

• Innovation in school models and instructional tools and systems, often tech-enabled, to shift the learning process from mass production to mass customization

• Robust teacher recruitment and practice-based training, to attract the best and the brightest and give them the skills they need to be highly effective, as measured by effects on student achievement

• Autonomous schools and parental choice, to provide front-line educators with real decisionmaking authority and to empower parents to vote with their feet when their children were stuck in low-performing neighborhood schools

What knit these elements together was a belief that applying the lessons of modern management and competitive markets from both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors would yield significant improvement to K–12 education, specifically as measured by student achievement and other academic or career outcomes. More compelling was the commitment to employ these strategies to eliminate the persistent performance gaps between schools serving high-poverty communities of color and schools serving well-to-do, mostly white suburbs.

In the words of both George W. Bush and Barack Obama, this remarkably bipartisan effort to raise student achievement and close gaps represented “the civil rights issue of our time.”

For a variety of reasons, the education-reform zeitgeist has shifted. Indeed, “education reform” is now considered to be a loaded term that is no longer spoken in polite company without risking a heated argument or losing the friendship of former allies. Although the Trump presidency accelerated the break-up, the coalition had begun to fray years before.

Loss of Consensus

The biggest sea change occurred with the loss of consensus that raising the level of academic achievement in historically underserved communities is essential to the pursuit of greater social equity. This is not just a matter of toning down the rhetoric around college-for-all to make room for career readiness; it’s also a reflection of a breakdown in the shared understanding of what educational excellence means and the purpose of schools in the first place.

Photo of Albert Shanker
Albert Shanker

The late Albert Shanker, legendary president of the American Federation of Teachers, once said, “The key is that unless there is accountability, we will never get the right system. As long as there are no consequences if kids or adults don’t perform, as long as the discussion is not about education and student outcomes, then we’re playing a game as to who has the power.”

At the August 2022 meeting of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, here’s what Max Page, the current head of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, said in opposition to the state’s student-assessment system:

It [strikes] me that we have a fundamental difference of views of what schools are for. The focus on income, on college and career readiness, speaks to a system that . . . is tied to the capitalist class and its needs for profit. We on the other hand have as a core belief that the purpose of schools must be to nurture thinking, caring, active and committed adults, parents, community members, activists, citizens.

How did we get here?

The general social and political environment certainly had a lot to do with it, but I think those of us in the education reform community, including state policymakers, need to reassess our own contributions.

To motivate people and mobilize resources to take on a big challenge, you need to tell a compelling story—about both the problem you’re trying to solve and your vision for the future. In the terminology of the day, you need a “burning platform” and a “theory of change.” For at least two decades, the messaging used by reformers worked to power a genuine national movement for education reform.

The rub is that creating excitement about dramatic change can eventually lead to overpromising and under-delivering—and when the results don’t keep pace with expectations, disappointment and disillusionment ensue. What’s more, the narrative of “transformation,” uplifting to many, can have a demoralizing effect on the people and organizations that are doing their best to get results within the existing “dysfunctional” system.

President George W. Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002, surrounded by students and lawmakers.
President George W. Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act into law on January 8, 2002, surrounded by students and lawmakers. Like many education reforms of the time, NCLB fell short of its ambition to ensure proficiency for all students in English and math.

The Role of State Policy

Even under the best of circumstances, moving the needle on overall student achievement and closing gaps across communities and student subgroups at scale is a multi-generation task. It is certainly not something that can be achieved through policy reforms in one or two terms of a president or a governor.

Affecting student outcomes is only partially and indirectly a function of public policy. State policymakers, in particular, can help create the conditions within which improvement can occur by fairly and equitably allocating financial resources, establishing rigorous standards and aligned assessments, and providing meaningful and timely information to educators and local officials. Policy can also disrupt the status quo by authorizing the creation of new schools, allowing parental choice, and enabling state education agencies to intervene in the lowest-performing schools or districts.

The 1993 Massachusetts Education Reform Act established the commonwealth’s version of the national standards-based reform movement, which culminated in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. As documented by Harvard economist Thomas Kane, the impact of these reforms in Massachusetts and across the United States is arguably among the most successful social-policy stories of the past 50 years, notwithstanding more recent stagnation or decline. Massachusetts significantly expanded its investment in K–12 education through a progressive funding formula and at the same time developed rigorous curriculum frameworks along with high-quality and well-aligned student assessments. It also established a school accountability system tied to performance-based outcomes and authorized some of the country’s earliest and best charter schools. Through these measures, the commonwealth was able to raise its overall level of school quality and student achievement, especially during the first two decades of reform.

Student performance on the mathematics portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress provides a telling example. Between 1992, just before the Education Reform Act was passed, and 2011, Massachusetts saw an increase of more than 25 scaled-score points at both 4th and 8th grade, moving in the state rankings from ninth and twelfth place, respectively, to number one. Although progress on gap-closing has been mixed and inadequate, the scaled-score difference in mathematics on the NAEP between white and Black 4th graders in Massachusetts was reduced by one-third over the same period.

Getting the policies right is a challenge, and once they’re implemented, their effects take time to emerge. Lasting change requires sustaining those policies in the face of ongoing pressure to turn back the clock or to try something else.

Over the course of the last eight years, the state’s Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, largely appointed by Republican Governor Charlie Baker, took steps to update and reinforce many of these core elements of the 1993 reform by

• revising curriculum frameworks

• developing “next generation” student assessments for the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)

• strengthening the accountability framework by broadening its performance metrics and sharpening its focus on improvement among the lowest-achieving students

• re-benchmarking and raising the “competency determination” for high school graduation based on MCAS

All of this took place in a political and legislative environment that has become at best ambivalent toward standards-based education reform, as the weaknesses that plagued the system prior to the Education Reform Act fade from memory and as student performance gains flatten or recede. Holding the line going forward will likely become an increasing challenge as Massachusetts state government transitions to full one-party (Democratic) rule.

Notwithstanding the fact that the Massachusetts Education Reform Act and similar laws in other states have played a crucial role in improving student outcomes, when all is said and done, the best policy environment only makes improvement possible; it doesn’t make it happen. That change can only occur at the ground level, in more than 100,000 schools and more than two million classrooms across the country.

So, if policy effects tend to diminish over time, what can state education officials do that might make a lasting difference?

Doing nothing is not an option, for at least two reasons. First, most state governments, including Massachusetts, have a constitutional obligation to ensure all students receive an adequate education. Municipalities operate schools as a delegated responsibility, so when things go wrong, the state is ultimately on the hook. Second, even though decentralization sounds like it would be fertile ground for innovation and continuous improvement, each school district in effect operates as a monopoly, typically at the toleration of its local teachers union. Throw in the outsized influence of graduate schools of education in teacher training and you have the “iron triangle” that holds public education in its grip. In this environment, only state government has the leverage to create space for real change.

In getting more directly involved in educational programs and practice, however, state policymakers need a heavy dose of humility. From a teacher’s point of view, the only thing worse than having someone from the central office telling you what to do is having someone from the state department of education telling you what to do.

Governor Baker’s dictum throughout his administration was “Do more of what works.” That approach, ideally backed up by solid evidence, not only provides the greatest promise for positive near-term student impact but also offers the path of least resistance when it comes to adoption and effective implementation by educators.

There are a variety of proven programmatic initiatives that state policymakers might pursue (although unfortunately it’s not a terribly long list). During the Baker administration, our priorities were:

Early literacy. In fall 2022, the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted regulations requiring all children in grades K–3 to receive semi-annual literacy screening to determine whether they are on track toward reading proficiency. For students who are below benchmark, schools must inform parents and develop individual reading-improvement plans grounded in evidence-based instructional practices.

High school pathways. Starting in 2017, the Baker administration launched two parallel initiatives to establish early-college and early-career pathways, providing integrated courses of study for student cohorts in more than 100 high schools to deepen learning and engagement while strengthening college and career readiness. Both options are focused on improving outcomes for students who are underrepresented in higher education or high-demand industries.

Vocational and technical education. An interagency Workforce Skills Cabinet committed more than $200 million to upgrade equipment and technical lab spaces in vocational schools, comprehensive high schools, community colleges, and nonprofit training centers. In addition to creating new “reskilling and upskilling” capacity for workers and adult learners, these investments also enabled vocational enrollment to grow by close to 8,000 students (about 15 percent) since 2015, even though overall high school enrollment was flat.

Educator diversity. A central focus of the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education is the recruitment, support, and retention of teachers of color. With the support of targeted grant programs and state-local partnerships, the number of Black and Latino teachers has increased by more than 30 percent since 2015, even as the total number of teachers has remained constant.

Unlike the earlier generation of policy reforms, these programmatic initiatives are not perceived as threatening to local autonomy and are generally met with enthusiasm by educators, students, and parents—as well as legislators on both sides of the aisle. Strategies like high-dosage tutoring, vacation and summer learning opportunities, and incentives for adoption of evidence-based curriculum and professional development could probably be added to this list. Equally important is the identification of other initiatives that could make an impact. Federal and state education agencies should partner with researchers to independently and rigorously evaluate promising programs and interventions.

Photo of Charlie Baker speaking into a microphone
The administration of Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker attempted to reinforce the state’s standards-based 1993 Education Reform Act with stronger accountability.

Hope and Pragmatism

Execution, of course, is always the challenge, especially on a large scale, but these strategies offer hope for meaningful change at the classroom level, promising to move us closer to universal reading proficiency by 4th grade, create more equitable and inclusive classrooms, and provide a more engaging and purposeful high school experience.

If efforts like these prove successful and continue to gather momentum—especially across two gubernatorial administrations representing both major political parties—there is hope that they can be sustained over time to achieve statewide scale.

This is not an argument for abandoning other approaches to reform that operate closer to the margins of the dominant system, including charter schools, parental choice, and tech-enabled innovation. Any long-term school improvement plan, if it is to succeed, must include a robust outside strategy that can work collaboratively and competitively with school districts—challenging and enabling them to accelerate change and providing alternatives when they don’t. State policymakers must ensure that education entrepreneurs are supported and encouraged to play an ever-larger role in the public education ecosystem, especially for communities and student populations that have long been underserved or ignored.

By regaining traction on overall student performance and making progress on stubborn inequities, the programmatic initiatives described above, and others like them, might also help reinforce the value of the underlying standards-based reform architecture, helping to demonstrate its relevance, three decades after being enshrined in statute.

Perhaps just as important, renewed educational progress might help refocus politicians, media, and the broader public on the day-to-day work of schools, which has been overshadowed lately by the din of the culture wars. There is no way for schools to be fully insulated from these increasingly vitriolic and often hyperbolic ideological clashes; after all, schools play a central role in raising our children. But what gives these issues oxygen at school board meetings, state houses, and on social media is the growing sense on both the right and the left that schools are part of the problem and therefore not to be trusted.

From the left, schools are charged with being the perpetrator of the school-to-prison pipeline. From the right, schools are seen as a training ground for social justice warriors. Unfortunately, the “silent majority” in the middle mostly sits on the sidelines, in part out of fear of being ostracized by their angry neighbors and in part because many of them have lost confidence in the ability of our school system to deliver on its core educational mission—a perspective that was exacerbated by remote learning during the pandemic.

Over the past 30 years or more, education reformers have tried to “fix” a “broken” system of public schools. Although real progress has been made, the work is not even close to being done. By making the bold promise to “leave no child behind,” we helped to turn what should have been a positive story into a narrative of failure. Without a new, more pragmatic plan to achieve meaningful and sustainable improvement that both students and parents can recognize in their own schools, we risk losing the gains that we’ve made.

James A. Peyser served as secretary of education for Massachusetts from 2015–2022 and as chairman of the state board of education from 1999–2006.

The post Settle for Better appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716719
Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? https://www.educationnext.org/is-ron-desantis-education-record-anything-to-emulate-forum-mattox-young/ Tue, 23 May 2023 09:00:04 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716605 Expanding choice while fighting a culture war

The post Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis reacts after signing a bill to expand school vouchers across Florida during a press conference at Christopher Columbus High School on Monday, March 27, 2023, in Miami.
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis reacts after signing a bill to expand school choice across Florida during a press conference at Christopher Columbus High School on Monday, March 27, 2023, in Miami.

The governor of Florida, Ron DeSantis, has emerged in recent years as a nationally significant political figure and a possible Republican presidential contender in part on the basis of his record in K–12 education. What has he actually accomplished in Florida? Are his tactics there worth emulating elsewhere, or would they best be avoided? William Mattox, the director of the Marshall Center for Educational Options at the James Madison Institute in Tallahassee, Florida, who is a registered independent, offers a more positive assessment, while Cathy Young, a fellow at the Cato Institute who also writes for The Bulwark, Newsday, and Reason, is more cautious about what DeSantis has done.

 

This article appeared in the Summer 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Mattox, W., and Young, C. (2023). Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? Education Next, 23(3), 62-71.

The post Is Ron DeSantis’s Education Record Anything to Emulate? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716605
Districts and States Give Students a Seat at the Boardroom Table https://www.educationnext.org/districts-states-give-students-seat-boardroom-table-authority-voting-rights-differ/ Tue, 07 Mar 2023 10:00:18 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716404 But authority and voting rights differ from place to place

The post Districts and States Give Students a Seat at the Boardroom Table appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Zach Koung was sworn in as the student member of the Howard County (Maryland) Board of Education in July 2020. His status as a voting member met resistance.
Zach Koung was sworn in as the student member of the Howard County (Maryland) Board of Education in July 2020. His status as a voting member met resistance.

University of Pennsylvania undergrad Zach Koung remembers the moment during a college class when his past caught up with him. “We were talking about school boards, and one of my classmates said, ‘Wait, Zach, weren’t you on a school board?’”

Yes, Koung said. Not only did he serve on his local board of education during his senior year of high school but he also wound up at the center of two lawsuits challenging his power to cast binding votes. “I never thought that at 17 I’d rack up the creds for that,” he joked.

Koung, the 2020–21 student member of Maryland’s Howard County Board of Education, can make light of his experience now, but it didn’t feel funny at the time. Furious parents so aggressively protested his votes to maintain remote-only learning during the COVID-19 pandemic that he sought counseling and feared for his safety. “I literally did not leave my house because I was afraid,” he said.

In August 2022, the Howard County board prevailed when Maryland’s highest court upheld the constitutionality of allowing students under 18 to serve as voting members. In November, a separate federal lawsuit against the board was dismissed. With the court challenges over, Koung was free to speak out about giving students a direct say in the policy decisions that govern their public schools.

“Students are the most important stakeholders in their education,” said Koung, who is simultaneously pursuing a bachelor’s degree and a master’s degree in education policy at Penn. “This is building civic engagement and helping prepare students for the world that awaits them once they leave school.”

In this belief, Koung is not alone. School boards are being pushed to give students a seat at the table—and a vote when they get there—perhaps harder than at any time since the wave of student activism in the late 1960s and 1970s.

To be sure, student school-board members who wield a binding vote are not the norm, and court fights like those in Maryland remain rare. Still, the emergence of a startup national association of student board members—in concert with organizing and policy action at the state and local levels—suggests that if the issue has yet to reach your community, it may be coming to a school board near you.

“There is growing momentum around the issue,” said Andrew Brennen, who is board chair of the Kentucky Student Voice Team. Brennen tracks developments on student board members for the newsletter “From Student Voice to Student Power.”

Andrew Brennen, who in 2021 was named to Forbes’s “30 under 30” list in education, advocates for student board membership as chair of the Kentucky Student Voice Team.
Andrew Brennen, who in 2021 was named to Forbes’s “30 under 30” list in education, advocates for student board membership as chair of the Kentucky Student Voice Team.

Varying Degrees of Authority

The roles of student board representatives vary widely by location, with little uniformity even within individual states. Some students sit on state boards, others on local ones. Some have binding votes, while others can’t even sit on the dais with regular board members. Some are appointed by state or local officials after vetting by student government associations, while others are chosen in broad elections open to the full student body starting as early as the 6th or 7th grade.

Amid calls to elevate student voice in policymaking, how student board members are selected is just one in an array of questions being pressed by educators, policymakers, and most notably, students themselves. These players are examining not only the threshold question of whether K–12 students should be involved in education governance, but also which powers they should hold in such roles.

Besides voting rights, for example, should they have access to board sessions that are closed to the public? How should they be trained and supported? And what recourse, if any, should adult voters have to hold student representatives accountable for decisions that may affect families’ lives, students’ trajectories, and taxpayers’ pocketbooks?

As causes go, student school-board representation draws far less attention than issues animating young activists such as climate change, gun violence, racial equity, or LGBTQ rights. Moreover, students face formidable barriers to expanding their participation on school boards and to exerting significant policy impact once there.

Those obstacles range from the brief and transitory nature of student leadership roles to skepticism and sometimes vigorous opposition from adults. In Kentucky, for example, state lawmakers in 2021 nearly succeeded in abolishing the seat of a nonvoting student member of the state board just months after the first one took office.

Yet supporters see this comparatively low-profile school governance issue as a means for students to influence a range of other causes that matter to their generation. And they point to examples of recent legislative and policy wins—such as helping lead efforts in California to give students excused mental-health days and fighting for free menstrual products in Maryland—as evidence that the student role can extend beyond tokenism.

“Young people are becoming more and more active in the issues of the day, in particular the issues that directly affect them—where education needs to go, how learning needs to happen in our country,” said Vicki Phillips, chief executive officer of the National Center on Education and the Economy, a Washington-based think tank that is incubating a national association of student board members.

The students organizing the national association are “incredibly thoughtful, well-researched, strategic young people,” said Phillips, who is also a former chief state school officer in Pennsylvania and superintendent of schools in Portland, Oregon, and supported student-voice efforts in prior positions at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and National Geographic. “Their orientation is about how to serve everybody well, and they need a seat at the table.”

Not everyone agrees. And nothing concerns skeptics more than empowering students to cast binding votes. “The largest stakeholders in the prison system are people behind bars, and I don’t think they get many votes on what to have for lunch,” said Reid Novotny, who authored unsuccessful legislation in 2021 and 2022 as a GOP member of the Maryland House of Delegates to curtail student board members’ voting rights. “There is zero accountability with a student member of the board to anyone who is a functioning adult paying taxes.”

Novotny’s views align with his former constituent Traci Spiegel, a plaintiff in the state suit against Maryland’s Howard County school board challenging the practice of allowing student members like Zach Koung to cast binding votes. Filed in December 2020, the suit came after Spiegel and like-minded parents watched in mounting frustration as the board deadlocked 4–4 in votes to allow a return to in-person classes. Permitted under state law to vote on a limited number of issues, Koung was among the four who repeatedly voted to remain virtual.

“I’ve never been against students having a voice in decisions,” Spiegel said. “I just don’t think they should have a binding vote. When you’re 17, you are incredibly idealistic. You don’t pay taxes, you would choose to eat pizza every night for dinner, you would drive your friends around at 3 a.m. How in the world can you make the same decisions as adult members?”

Asking students to vote on such issues as whether to cancel exams during the pandemic puts too much pressure on them, argued Spiegel, who said she’s been inaccurately “painted as a racist, homophobic, extreme right-wing person” because of her stance. “The adults in the room should be ashamed to be putting a young person in that position.”

Even some supporters of student board representation harbor qualms. Maryland state Senator Nancy King, a Democrat, recalls that when she was serving on her local school board, opponents of proposed changes to school-attendance boundaries directed their ire at the student member in person, in hostile phone calls, and on social media. “They would think that the student board member was an easy target,” she said. Pressure can come from inside the classroom, too, King added. “Teachers might not like a contract issue, and the teachers take it out on the kid. It doesn’t happen often, but it does happen.”

Yet King has largely overcome her concerns. “I started out as a real nonbeliever on the student members having a vote. But then I saw many student board members being really well prepared, and in fact better-prepared than some of the adult members,” King said. “So I have gone along with it, but it’s not without some trepidation. I just think it’s a lot of responsibility to heap on the kid.”

As the 2022–23 student member of the school board in Montgomery County, Maryland, Arvin Kim visited Highland Elementary School and other district schools to learn more about issues that affect student learning in the classroom.
As the 2022–23 student member of the school board in Montgomery County, Maryland, Arvin Kim visited Highland Elementary School and other district schools to learn more about issues that affect student learning in the classroom. “Who knows more than our students?”

Differences among States

Nationally, data on how many American school boards include student members is scarce. Those who follow the issue say no national database tracks that information. Research on student board members in the United States is also scanty, said Dana Mitra, a Pennsylvania State University education professor whose research focuses on student voice: “It’s really hard to study it in the United States, because it’s more of an anomaly than a part of how schools should be running.”

In 2022, the National Association of State Boards of Education found that 24 state-level boards of education had student members, although 17 of them did not allow students to vote. In the District of Columbia and six states—California, Maryland, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Vermont, and Washington—the student board members held the power to vote on at least some issues, NASBE found.

In some states, students’ powers have evolved. In California, for example, the state board has had student members since 1969, but not until 1983 did they get full voting rights and the right to be in closed sessions.

As for local boards, the National School Boards Association found in a 2020 survey of state-level affiliates that local governing boards in more than 30 states had student members as a local option. The NSBA report did not yield clear data on all states, however. And since its report in January 2021, at least one state changed its law; New Hampshire now requires local school boards to have at least one nonvoting student representative from each of their public high schools.

Fourteen states reported to the NSBA that “having students serving on local school boards was not their practice”—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.

Nationally, Maryland stands out for empowering student board members. Only eight of the state’s 24 local districts have student board members with the right to cast votes that count, at least on some issues, but those eight districts educate more than three-quarters of Maryland’s public school students.

Maryland’s Anne Arundel County, which includes the state capital of Annapolis, is believed to be the nation’s only local school board that grants its student members full, unrestricted voting rights on all matters—from the school system’s budget and union contracts to hiring and firing the superintendent. “Our student member gets treated differently from student board members” elsewhere, said board president Joanna Bache Tobin. “There’s never a moment when that student member has to leave the room when the board has to make the tough decisions.”

During a more than four-hour public meeting of the Anne Arundel board in December 2022, student member Zachary McGrath limited his comments to joking about a local high-school football team and thanking Tobin and the board’s vice president for being “mentors and friends.”

He offered no remarks during the meeting’s most contentious deliberations, on whether the 2023–24 school calendar should be adjusted to send students home early to accommodate equity-focused professional development for teachers. As board members divided 6–2 in a series of four votes, McGrath always sided with the majority without explaining his vote or participating in the discussions.

But McGrath and other board members said his influence is not always on public display. “I speak up a lot during the closed session, but then in the public session, I only speak when I feel like I am adding something to the conversation,” he said. One example came as the board was considering a new online learning platform, and “the superintendent asked me, ‘What is the student perspective?’” McGrath recalled. He replied that the platform with the better app would let students with long bus rides get their homework done en route. “When I said that, Dr. Tobin said, ‘Ladies and gentlemen, that’s why we have a student member of the board.’”

In California, districts must appoint a student school-board member if enough of those enrolled in their high schools sign petitions requesting it. Student members each have a “preferential vote,” defined as “a formal expression of opinion that is recorded in the minutes and cast before the official vote of the board, but is not part of the final vote tally.”

In 2021, a new law extended California students’ power to petition for board membership from local districts to county and charter school boards. That change marked a win for an association of student board members founded by Zachary Patterson, a Duke University undergraduate who served as the first student member of the San Diego Unified school board before graduating in 2022. Patterson is now helping organize the national association being incubated at the National Center on Education and the Economy.

Solyana Mesfin was the first student to serve on Kentucky’s state board of education.
Solyana Mesfin was the first student to serve on Kentucky’s state board of education. She promoted broader representation in leadership in the student-voice movement.

Student Voice

Patterson hopes the national organization will help counter what he sees as disrespect of students’ capability to serve as board members. “We’re at our early stages of figuring out this inherent adultism and addressing the barriers people have put in place to exercising student agency,” he said.

Patterson’s interest in student voice began when he was in 7th grade and saw “a disconnect between those serving students and the students. That put me on a three-year journey to create a student board member.” Patterson said he “received significant pushback from a number of quarters, a strong belief that students weren’t qualified, they couldn’t handle it, and they weren’t able to be advocates to help change their own school system.” But in 2019, during his sophomore year, the campaign paid off when he was sworn in as the district’s first student board member.

Like Patterson, many current student board members argue that policymakers make better decisions when students have a say. “Who knows more than our students about how these issues are really affecting our learning in the classroom, what the classrooms and the hallways of our school buildings even look like?” asked Arvin Kim, the 2022–23 student member of the school board in Montgomery County, Maryland.

That firsthand knowledge can be especially important amid culture-war conflicts on school boards over how to treat race, sexuality, and student discipline, supporters argue. Among them is Eric Luedtke, a former teacher and Democratic state legislator who is now chief legislative affairs officer for Maryland Governor Wes Moore. “To the extent that the culture war debates are about what students should be exposed to, shouldn’t students have a voice in that discussion?” he asked.

Student board members tend to boast impressive resumés—and head to top colleges after graduation. While such exceptional students may help assuage doubts about student board members’ maturity and judgment, some see the pattern as a problem.

“We have no student-voice movement unless we have every type of student represented,” said Solyana Mesfin, the Kentucky state board’s first student member. As a child of Ethiopian immigrants, Mesfin sees a need to foster leadership among an array of students, including students of color and those in urban and rural districts with scarce resources.

“I’ve been in student advocacy ever since my freshman year, and the majority of the time I was the only Black student, the only first-gen student, and the only low-income student,” said Mesfin, now at the University of Louisville. “I didn’t feel like I fit into the student-voice movement.”

Mitra, the Penn State professor, agrees that it’s important to address what kinds of students serve on boards. “Of all the kids in a school, the kids who want to be on the school board are the ones who are going to be the most like the adult school-board members,” she said. “The struggling kids are not going to talk to the high flyers about their experiences.”

In Georgia, youth organizer Julian Fortuna thinks students are better off concentrating on collective action “rather than focusing on getting a position.” A sophomore at the University of Georgia, Fortuna helps train high school students with the youth-led Georgia Youth Justice Coalition, which worked with the national Partnership for the Future of Learning on a 2022 model school-board policy on student members.

“I’m not against young people occupying these positions, but we can’t just rely on the individuals,” said Fortuna. “It’s important that people think of democracy as something we exercise every day. The danger is that students will think that voting once for a student representative is all they need to do.”

Back in 1975 when he served as Anne Arundel County’s first student school-board member with the right to vote, Anthony Arend said he never portrayed himself as speaking for everyone. “We emphasized that we were not representing all students. I was the member of the board who happened to be a student,” recalled Arend, now a professor at Georgetown University and chair of its department of government. “We had to counter the view that we were creating a special-interest position on the board. That was something that was very important in the conceptualization of this.”

But today, student board members say they take pains to represent their fellow students accurately. Montgomery County’s Kim, who had to campaign for his position in an election open to all of the district’s middle and high school students, said he relies on a network of student leaders whom he calls his “cabinet.”

“Having 400 diverse voices from across the county and across grade levels provides me with so much insight about the issues,” said Kim, whose priorities are mental health, school safety, and educational equity. “It’s a model that shapes so much of my work. It’s crucial in representing students.”

Eric Plankey, the 2022–23 student member of the Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, is helping organize more channels for participation beyond traditional student-government structures such as the commonwealth’s Student Advisory Council. The elected chair of that council—Plankey himself in 2022–23—serves as the board of education’s voting student member.

Plankey has worked to get more district school boards to follow a state law requiring them to have not only elected student representatives but also student advisory councils to advise the student school-board members. “You have to build an infrastructure for student voice, because student representation is not a one-person job,” he said.

Looking back on his time on the Howard County board, Zach Koung said he has no regrets, including about his votes to delay a return to in-person learning. Like most other student board members, Koung served for just a year. But he said his presence played a role in policy changes aligned with his liberal values.

To promote student mental health, he said, he successfully pressed for relaxed pandemic grading policies. While he did not win his fight to remove school resource officers from all schools, they were taken out of middle schools, a move that he applauded. And as a champion of diversity, equity, and inclusion, he is especially proud of the addition of an elective course in LGBTQ studies.

“Everything that I campaigned on, I did,” said Koung. “Yeah, we might only have a year. But we’re very effective in our jobs, and we can get it done.”

Caroline Hendrie is an independent journalist based in Maryland.

This article appeared in the Summer 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Hendrie, C. (2023). Districts and States Give Students a Seat at the Boardroom Table: But authority and voting rights differ from place to place. Education Next, 23(3), 8-14.

The post Districts and States Give Students a Seat at the Boardroom Table appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716404
The Imperial Presidency Meets Student Debt https://www.educationnext.org/the-imperial-presidency-meets-student-debt-supreme-court-skeptical-biden-unilateral-loan-forgiveness/ Wed, 01 Mar 2023 13:25:49 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716388 Supreme Court skeptical of Biden’s unilateral loan forgiveness

The post The Imperial Presidency Meets Student Debt appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Nebraska Solicitor General Jim Campbell speaks with reporters outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023, after arguing before the court against President Joe Biden's student debt relief plan. Standing behind Campbell are Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, from left, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, Ray Wagner of the Missouri Attorney General's office and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers.
Nebraska Solicitor General Jim Campbell speaks with reporters outside the Supreme Court on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2023, after arguing before the court against President Joe Biden’s student debt relief plan. Standing behind Campbell are Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, from left, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, Ray Wagner of the Missouri Attorney General’s office and Nebraska Attorney General Mike Hilgers.

The 20th century witnessed an astonishing growth in presidential power, leading some to contend that the office had become “imperial,” dominating other branches of government. President Biden’s decision in 2022 to forgive more than $350 billion in student loan debt—an action taken on the basis of statutory authority that was, at best, unclear—gave critics of the imperial presidency another reason to worry.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, Biden promised to waive up to $10,000 in federal student-loan debt. When he did so in August of 2022, the amount increased to $20,000 for Pell Grant recipients but was limited to $10,000 for all others. To qualify, in either 2020 or 2021 the adjusted gross income for individuals had to be less than $125,000 and for married couples less than $250,000. The legal authority on which Biden relied to justify the action was the Higher Education Relief Opportunities for Students Act of 2003, also known as the HEROES Act. The Act, which was passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, allows the Secretary of Education to “waive or modify any statutory or regulatory provision . . . as may be necessary to ensure that” borrowers affected by a national emergency “are not placed in a worse position financially.” It defined the individuals who could qualify for relief as those serving on active duty or in the national guard during a war or other military operation, those living or working or is employed in an area that is declared a disaster area by a federal, state or local government, or those who have “suffered direct economic hardship as a direct result of a war or other military operation or national emergency.”

Previously, in response to the Covid-19 pandemic, the Trump administration had suspended student loan repayments, a policy Biden continued while unsuccessfully seeking Congressional passage of loan forgiveness. Indeed, prior to Biden’s action, it was difficult to find many people who thought the president had the authority to cancel debt unilaterally without a new act of Congress. For instance, in July of 2021, when asked about student loan forgiveness, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “The president can’t do it. So that’s not even a discussion. Not everybody realizes that. But the president can only postpone, delay, but not forgive.” The “discussion” that nonetheless ensued ultimately led to oral argument before the Supreme Court February 28, 2023, in two cases, Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown, that challenged the Biden administration’s decision.

The first was brought by six Republican state attorneys general. They contended that Biden had exceeded his authority under the HEROES Act and that the plan was created in violation of rulemaking procedures that federal agencies are supposed to follow. A federal district court judge, Henry Autrey, initially dismissed the case, saying that states lacked standing to sue. But a three-judge appellate panel in the 8th Circuit overturned that decision and granted an emergency injunction pausing the program. The Supreme Court then accepted a Biden Administration request to hear the case on expedited schedule.

The second case was brought by two student-loan borrowers. Myra Brown did not qualify for relief under the program because her loans were held by commercial lenders. Alexander Taylor did not qualify for $20,000 of relief because he did not receive Pell Grants. Both argued that it was “irrational, arbitrary, and unfair” for their debt to not be forgiven too. A district court judge, Mark Pittman, ruled that the program was unlawful. When the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to pause that ruling, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on an expedited schedule as well.

At oral argument, the justices spent significant time discussing whether the states or the students had standing. The best hope for the Biden Administration to prevail would be for some of the court’s conservatives to join with the liberal bloc to declare that none of the plaintiffs had a right to sue. For plaintiffs to have standing, they must show a “concrete harm” or “injury in fact.” Some of the conservative justices, such as Justice Barrett, appeared sympathetic to the claims that some of the plaintiffs could not meet that standard. But overall, the justices seemed skeptical about accepting the consequences of adopting that position. Chief Justice Roberts captured that skepticism when he said to Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who was defending the policy for the Biden Administration, that her view means “that the President can act unilaterally” and therefore “there was no role for Congress to play in this either, and at least in this case, given your view of standing, there’s no role for us to play in this — in this either.” This outcome seemed antithetical to principles of separation of powers and the ability of each branch of government to check abuses of power by the others to Roberts. As well, Prelogar acknowledged under questioning by Justice Alito that as long as the court finds that any party in either of the cases has standing that the court could decide both cases on the merits. Since standing doctrine is relatively flexible, it seems likely that the court will decide that at least one of the two students or one of the six states does in fact have standing.

If the court’s conservatives do reach the merits, enough of the justices appeared unconvinced that Biden had sufficient legal authority for his action to make betting on the program’s survival unwise. Most importantly, there seemed to be a consensus that at the least the policy should fall under the major questions doctrine. Just last term, the court used that doctrine to strike down the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA. The doctrine says that if an agency wants to decide an issue of extraordinary economic or political significance, the agency must be able to point to Congressional authorization that is clear and specific rather than merely vague. Even Justice Sotomayor said that the significant sum involved in forgiving the loans “seems to favor the argument that this is a major question.” Prelogar tried to argue that the doctrine should only apply to exercises of regulatory authority by an agency while this was merely a “benefits program” which allegedly has a lower threshold of “liberty interests” for citizens. That distinction did not seem to gain any traction.

Justice Thomas pointed to another concern. Canceling the debt was “in effect . . . a grant of $400 billion,” he noted, which seemed to him to run “head long into Congress’s appropriations authority.” Other justices seemed skeptical that even if the program could be created that it could be done so outside of normal notice-and-comment rulemaking where the public has an opportunity to weigh in on the effects of the decision. Prelogar argued that Congress had exempted the HEROES Act from those requirements, but Justice Kavanaugh seemed to think that outside of ordinary rulemaking it would be impossible for the Secretary of Education to factor in all the “big winners and big losers” created by loan forgiveness.

Those “winners and losers” also troubled Chief Justice Roberts, who raised questions about the fairness of the program. Some people might have worked hard during college to avoid taking out loans while others did not, but only the latter would rewarded. Roberts also mentioned a hypothetical landscape-business owner who didn’t go to college but who borrowed money to start a business. His debt was not forgiven, and his tax dollars were spent to subsidize the college graduates. At one point, the chief referred to the loan forgiveness as a “half trillion” dollar action. To Roberts this reinforced that this kind of decision should be left to Congress, since “we like to usually leave situations of that sort, when you’re talking about spending the government’s money, which is the taxpayers’ money, to the people in charge of the money, which is Congress.”

Overall, the broad concerns about executive power likely point to a loss for the Biden Administration. Justice Kavanaugh, for instance, said that “some of the biggest mistakes in the Court’s history were deferring to assertions of executive emergency power” while “some of the finest moments in the Court’s history were pushing back against presidential assertions of emergency power.” One could even imagine a majority agreeing that the policy was unlawful but not agreeing on the reasons why, which would still mean a defeat for the Biden Administration.

The administration tried to turn the focus back to the beneficiaries of the debt relief, with Secretary of Education Cardona issuing a post-argument statement about “the crushing burden of student debt for millions of working families.” The court may tell those families, essentially, that if they want loan forgiveness, they will need not only to elect a sympathetic president such as Biden, but also to install a Congress that is willing to authorize the expenditure in a more explicit way than was done by the HEROES Act of 2003. Those concerned about the imperial presidency would welcome that result.

Joshua Dunn is professor of political science and director of the Center for the Study of Government and the Individual at the University of Colorado Colorado Springs.

This article appeared in the Summer 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Dunn, J. (2023). The Imperial Presidency Meets Student Debt: Supreme Court skeptical of Biden’s unilateral loan forgiveness. Education Next, 23(3), 6-7.

The post The Imperial Presidency Meets Student Debt appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716388
Supreme Court Opens a Path to Religious Charter Schools https://www.educationnext.org/supreme-court-opens-path-to-religious-charter-schools/ Thu, 12 Jan 2023 14:25:02 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49716201 But the trail ahead holds twists and turns

The post Supreme Court Opens a Path to Religious Charter Schools appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Students at St. Elizabeth of Hungary, a PK-8 private Catholic school in Dallas, work on a lesson.
Students at St. Elizabeth of Hungary, a PK-8 private Catholic school in Dallas, work on a lesson.

In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Carson v. Makin that Maine violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by excluding religious schools from a private-school-choice program—colloquially known as “town tuitioning”—for students in school districts without public high schools. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that “the State pays tuition for certain students at private schools—so long as the schools are not religious. That is discrimination against religion.”

Carson was, in some ways, unremarkable. For the third time in five years, the court held that the Constitution prohibits the government from excluding religious organizations from public-benefit programs, because religious discrimination is “odious to our Constitution.” But the fact that Carson was not groundbreaking does not mean that it is not important. On the contrary, Carson represents the culmination of decades of doctrinal development about constitutional questions raised by programs—including parental-choice programs—that extend public benefits to religious institutions. Among the most important of these questions is whether there is “play in the joints” between the First Amendment’s religion clauses—the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause—that might permit government discrimination against religious institutions in some situations. Going forward, the answer in almost all cases is likely to be no. Both clauses, the court has now made clear, require government neutrality and prohibit government hostility toward religious believers and institutions. (The court clarified—but did not overturn—its 2003 decision in Locke v. Davey. In that case, the justices upheld, by a vote of 7–2, a Washington State law prohibiting college students from using a state-funded scholarship to train for the ministry; that law, the court ruled, did not violate the Free Exercise clause. Arguably, Carson narrows and effectively confines Locke to its facts by characterizing it as advancing only the “historic and substantial state interest” against using “taxpayer funds to support church leaders.”)

Carson does, however, leave at least two important questions unanswered. The first concerns the decision’s scope. The holding makes explicit that “a State need not subsidize private education. But once a State decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.” Carson is silent, however, on what it means for the government to “subsidize private education.” In particular, it leaves unanswered the question of whether the nondiscrimination mandate applies to charter schools, which are privately operated but designated “public schools” by law in all states—and supported by tax dollars. Does the Free Exercise Clause require states to permit religious charter schools?

The second question concerns which regulations states may lawfully impose as a condition of participation in private-school-choice programs. Right after the court issued its decision, for example, Maine’s attorney general, Aaron Frey, clarified that all private schools taking part in the program, including religious schools, are bound by the Maine Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. As a result, while Carson opened the door for religious schools to participate in the tuition-assistance program, many declined to do so because of the tension between the non-discrimination mandate and their religious commitments. Carson says nothing about whether such non-discrimination mandates—or other regulations that some faith-based schools may find objectionable on religious grounds—are constitutionally permissible.

Troy and Angela Nelson, with children Alicia and Royce, were plaintiffs in Carson v. Makin who wanted religious education included in "town tuitioning."
Troy and Angela Nelson, with children Alicia and Royce, were plaintiffs in Carson v. Makin who wanted religious education included in “town tuitioning.”

Understanding Carson

In rural Maine, many small school districts have no high school. Since 1873, the state has given these districts the option of permitting residents to use public funds to attend private schools. Students could use these funds at religious schools until 1980, when the state decided that the Establishment Clause prohibited the practice. At the time, this conclusion was defensible: The Supreme Court’s existing Establishment Clause doctrine could be interpreted to prohibit students from using public funds at religious schools. Beginning in the 1980s, however, the court shifted course and began rejecting challenges to programs aiding religious-school students. When the exclusion of religious schools from the tuition-assistance program was first challenged in 1996, it remained unclear whether the constitution permitted, let alone required, Maine to permit participating students to attend religious schools. (I was one of the lawyers who filed that first challenge, Bagley v. Town of Raymond. We lost on establishment-clause grounds.)

In 2002, in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court upheld a voucher program enabling disadvantaged children in Cleveland to attend religious schools. The court concluded that the program did not violate the Establishment Clause for two reasons. First, it was “religion neutral,” giving students the option of attending either secular or religious schools. Second, religious schools benefited only indirectly, as the result of parents’ independent choices.

Zelman clarified that states could include religious schools in private-school-choice programs but was silent about whether they could choose not to, as Maine continued to do. The answer to this question unfolded in three recent cases. Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer (2017) held that Missouri unconstitutionally excluded a religious preschool from a playground resurfacing program. Espinoza v. Montana (2020) found that the Montana Supreme Court violated the Free Exercise Clause by invalidating, on state-constitutional grounds, a private-school-choice program because it included religious schools. And finally, Carson rejected the argument that there is a constitutionally relevant distinction between discrimination based on the religious character (or status) of an institution and discrimination motivated by a desire to avoid spending public funds on religious conduct (for religious use). In Carson, this so-called “status-use” distinction undergirded the argument that Maine was not discriminating against schools for being religious, but rather because they taught religion. Carson clarifies that the court has “never suggested that use-based discrimination is any less offensive to the Free Exercise Clause” than status-based discrimination. This clarification by the court is important. Since integrating religious and secular instruction characterizes schools in many faith traditions, asking them to stop teaching religion is tantamount to asking them to stop being religious.

Plaintiffs Dave and Amy Carson received no tuition assistance from the town of Glenburn, Maine, for their daughter Olivia to attend Bangor Christian Schools.
Plaintiffs Dave and Amy Carson received no tuition assistance from the town of Glenburn, Maine, for their daughter Olivia to attend Bangor Christian Schools.

Religious Charter Schools

Carson has few immediate implications for existing private-school-choice programs. Thirty-one states, D.C., and Puerto Rico each have one or more such programs, and only two states—Maine and Vermont—ever excluded religious schools. In the medium term, however, the Carson decision may open the door to (and certainly will prompt litigation about) religious charter schools. Here’s why: Carson makes clear that states choosing to fund private education must extend benefits to religious schools. And, although Carson does not address the question of religious charter schools, if charter schools are constitutionally analogous to private schools then—as one state attorney general recently concluded—charter-school laws prohibiting religious charter schools (as all such laws do) are unconstitutional.

This question has enormous implications for education policy, since charter schools command a sizable portion of the K–12 market. While the private-school-choice movement has gained tremendous momentum in recent years, only just over 700,000 students—about 1.3 percent of all K–12 students or 15 percent of all private-school students—participated in a private-school-choice program in 2021–22. In contrast, charter schools, which are authorized in 44 states and D.C., educate nearly 3.5 million students (7 percent of all public-school students). Charter schools are privately operated but universally designated by law to be “public schools.” All state charter laws require charter schools to be “secular”; many prohibit religious institutions from operating them at all.

The constitutionality of laws prohibiting religious charter schools was in question before Carson. Indeed, Justice Stephen Breyer flagged the issue in dissent in Espinoza, asking, “What about charter schools?” He reiterated his question in his Carson dissent: “What happens once ‘may’ becomes ‘must’? . . . Does it mean that . . . charter schools must pay equivalent funds to parents who wish to give their children a religious education?”

The answer turns on a legal doctrine unrelated to religion, known as the “state action” doctrine. Under this doctrine, privately operated entities are not bound by the federal Constitution except when their actions are effectively the government’s actions. The state-action question is pivotal, because the Supreme Court has made clear that the Establishment Clause requires government actors, including district public schools, to be secular. Thus, if charter schools are state actors, state laws requiring them to be secular are not only constitutionally permissible, but also constitutionally required. On the other hand, if charter schools are not state actors, then states, after Carson, not only may permit religious charter schools but also must. That is to say, if charter schools are, for federal constitutional purposes, private schools, then charter-school programs are programs of private choice, and states cannot prohibit religious schools from participating in such programs.

Kendra Espinoza, with daughters Sarah and Naomi, won a Supreme Court ruling in 2020 for a Montana state scholarship program to include religious schools.
Kendra Espinoza, with daughters Sarah and Naomi, won a Supreme Court ruling in 2020 for a Montana state scholarship program to include religious schools.

Charter schools are, by design, distinct from district schools. Most importantly, they are privately operated and exempt from many public-school regulations. But are they different enough from district schools to be treated, for federal constitutional purposes, as private schools? The answer is far from straightforward. The Supreme Court has articulated a number of factors to determine whether a private institution is a state actor. These include whether it is performing a function that has been “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the State”; whether the government controls it to such a degree that it is a governmental agent; and the degree of interdependence (or “entwinement”) between the government and the private actor. The overarching inquiry is whether there is a “sufficiently close nexus between the state and the challenged action to attribute the action to the government.” As the Supreme Court has observed, “a State normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the State.”

It is easier to explain which attributes of charter schools do not make them state actors than to explain which ones might: First, they are not state actors, because they are schools. Education obviously is not “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state,” since millions of children are—and have long been—educated in private schools or at home. Second, the fact that the law calls them “public schools” does not automatically mean they are state actors. The Supreme Court has held that legal categorization of an entity as public or private is not dispositive of the state-action question. Third, the fact that state laws enable their creation does not necessarily make them state actors. After all, most private schools (as well as most charter schools) are operated by private corporations, which do not exist before a state grants their corporate charter. Clearly, issuing a corporate charter to a private corporation does not make it a state actor. Fourth, they are not state actors simply by virtue of being regulated and funded by the government. In Rendell-Baker v. Kohn (1982), the Supreme Court found that a private school was not a state actor even though it was heavily regulated by, and received more than 90 percent of its funds from, the government. “The school,” the court observed, “is not fundamentally different from many private corporations whose business depends on [government] contracts. Acts of such private contractors do not become acts of the government by reason of their significant or even total engagement in performing public contracts.”

Federal courts are divided on the state-action question. In 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Arizona charter school was not a state actor in a lawsuit challenging a teacher’s termination as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s due process clause. The court rejected the claim that charter schools’ legal designation as “public schools” controlled the state-action question and found an insufficient nexus between the state and the school’s decision to fire the teacher, concluding that the termination was the purely private action of a private corporation. In contrast, earlier this year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that North Carolina charter schools are state actors in a case alleging that a classical charter school’s dress code, which requires girls to wear skirts, violates the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. The majority’s opinion turned on several factors, including the degree of public funding and the fact that North Carolina law calls charter schools “public” schools. The majority also said that the state had delegated its constitutional obligation (to provide public education) to charter schools. Several judges vigorously dissented, arguing that the majority opinion adopted an expansive definition of state action that is inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent.

No court has yet considered the question of whether the First Amendment permits and/or requires states to authorize religious charter schools, although litigation is undoubtedly on the near horizon. In December 2022, the attorney general of Oklahoma, John O’Connor, issued an opinion letter finding that provisions of state law prohibiting charter schools from being operated by or affiliated with religious organizations and requiring them to be “nonsectarian” in all operations likely violates the First Amendment. Having found that charter schools are not state actors, he concluded that “the State cannot enlist private organizations to ‘promote a diversity of educational choices,’ and then decide that any and every kind of religion is the wrong kind of diversity. This is not how the First Amendment works.” Although an attorney general’s opinion does not have the same legal standing as a court opinion, the state will permit religious charter schools for the time being.

Charter schools defy easy categorization, and it could be years before the Supreme Court weighs in on the issue (although a petition asking the court to review the Fourth Circuit’s decision is pending currently). It is also possible that, given variations in the ways they are regulated, charter schools may be state actors in some states, where they are more closely controlled by states or school districts, but not in others, where they enjoy significant operational autonomy. That said, it is my view that, in most states, charter schools are not state actors. If that is right, then charter schools are essentially programs of private-school choice, which Carson holds not only may permit religious charter schools but must permit them. That does not mean that religious schools must, should, or will seek authorization to operate as charter schools. Many may reasonably decide not to, especially in states with robust private-school choice. Indeed, a number of education reformers reacted negatively to the Oklahoma attorney general’s opinion authorizing religious charter schools; these critics raised prudential concerns about the risk of greater governmental control over charter schools than schools participating in private-school choice programs. I share many of their concerns and embrace their support for expanding private-school choice. But the prudential question of whether religious organizations should operate charter schools is not the same as the legal question of whether the Constitution gives them the right to do so—and a strong case can be made that it does. That case likely will be tested in court sooner or later.

People wait outside the Supreme Court in January 2020 to hear oral arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.
People wait outside the Supreme Court in January 2020 to hear oral arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

The Regulatory-Strings Question

A second question left unanswered in Carson concerns the range of regulations that can be constitutionally imposed on participants in choice programs. Carson prohibits states from requiring schools to secularize as a condition of participation in a funding program, but there are many other regulations that schools might object to on freedom-of-religion grounds. Maine reminded schools about the state’s nondiscrimination requirements, which led many religious schools to decline to participate. Thus far, no school has challenged these regulations.

Private schools in the United States are lightly regulated. The same is true of private schools participating in choice programs, although most states impose modest additional requirements on the latter—for example, requiring them to hire minimally qualified teachers, to administer a standardized test (but typically not the state test), and to teach certain basic subjects. A handful of programs regulate student admissions. For example, Louisiana requires schools to randomly select scholarship recipients, D.C. prohibits schools from considering religion in admissions, and Maryland prohibits schools from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity or expression.

Before turning to the “regulatory strings” question, it is important to note that the government undoubtedly could impose many additional regulations on private schools regardless of whether they accept public funds. Private and religious schools might object, for example, to a rule requiring them to administer the state achievement test, but such a requirement would be constitutional. States have chosen to lightly regulate private schools. I believe that choice is a wise one that respects and fosters educational pluralism. But many of the regulatory choices made by states with respect to private schools are the result of political compromise, not constitutional mandate.

This is true even of some regulations burdening religion. Under existing doctrine, the Free Exercise Clause does not prohibit regulations that incidentally burden religion, provided that they are religion neutral and “generally applicable.” The Supreme Court has explained that a law is religion neutral if it treats religious conduct and institutions at least as well as like secular conduct and institutions. For example, a nondiscrimination regulation that applied with equal force to all private schools would be religion neutral. And a regulation is generally applicable unless it includes exceptions or gives government officials discretion to grant exceptions. For example, a regulation requiring private schools to administer the state achievement test except if doing so would be unduly burdensome would not be generally applicable. If a law fails to satisfy either of these criteria, then the government must offer a “compelling interest” justifying it and demonstrate that the government cannot achieve that interest in a less burdensome way.

There are, however, regulations that the government could not directly impose on religious schools but might be able to impose as a condition of participating in a private-school-choice program—that is, in order to receive public funding. Consider, for example, employment decisions regarding teachers in religious schools. The First Amendment prohibits the government from regulating in any way religious institutions’ selection of “ministers,” a category that includes—the Supreme Court has held—teachers responsible for religious instruction and faith formation in religious schools. (Disputes about the scope of this so-called “ministerial exception” will be set aside here.) The ministerial exception is situated within the court’s broader “church autonomy” doctrine, which precludes government interference with the internal organizations of religious institutions. Regulations outside the employment context might also fall within the protections of this doctrine—for example, rules prohibiting religious schools from preferring (or limiting enrollment to) co-religionists.

It is clear that the government may not directly regulate religious schools’ employment decisions about ministers, including some teachers, through nondiscrimination law or otherwise. The same is true of other regulations that implicate church autonomy. What is not clear is whether the Constitution permits the government to accomplish indirectly what it cannot accomplish directly. Can the government condition participation in a private-school-choice program on religious schools’ waiver of their constitutional rights?

The answer to that question turns on the so-called “unconstitutional conditions doctrine.” This doctrine reflects the concern that the government might use the power of the purse as leverage to accomplish what would otherwise be unconstitutional ends. Unfortunately, the doctrine is a hopeless mess, with some cases finding it permissible to condition the receipt of a public benefit on the waiver of a constitutional right, others finding such conditions impermissible, and none satisfactorily clarifying the line between permissible and impermissible conditions.

The application of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to private-school-choice regulations undoubtedly will be addressed in future litigation. Thus far, there has been virtually no litigation about the issue, probably because existing regulations are unobjectionable to religious schools. In January 2022, a federal district judge held that Maryland violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment when it prohibited a school from expressing religious views on sexuality if the school chose to participate in a state voucher program. The decision, however, is narrow. The judge found only that the state’s restriction on the school’s expression ran afoul of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. She took care to clarify that her decision did not address the constitutionality of the underlying regulation prohibiting discrimination against LGBT students in admissions. At this point, it is premature to make predictions about how courts will rule on other claims that the government is imposing unconstitutional conditions on participation in private-school choice programs. It is worth noting, however, that Carson itself is an unconstitutional conditions case. Although the court did not discuss the doctrine, it made clear that Maine could not condition participation on schools shedding their religious identity. This suggests that the court might view skeptically other conditions that had similar effects on schools’ ability to live out their religious mission, including perhaps regulations limiting schools’ autonomy over the employment decisions subject to the ministerial requirement.

Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned the implication of public funding for religious schools on charters in a dissenting opinion for Espinoza.
Retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer questioned the implication of public funding for religious schools on charters in a dissenting opinion for Espinoza.

Even if the government can legally impose regulatory conditions that burden religious freedom as a condition of participating in private-school-choice programs, there are many good reasons not to do so, including respect for religious liberty and educational pluralism. Moreover, the success of choice programs turns in part on the participation of academically strong schools. Regulations, including those that ask schools to waive religious-freedom rights, will increase the cost of participating, likely leading some good schools to opt out and leaving fewer options for participating students.

Carson was an important victory for religious liberty that promises to have wide-ranging implications, both within and outside of K–12 education. The full extent of those implications, including the answers to the two questions addressed here, remains to be seen. These questions will undoubtedly be tested in future litigation. Both seem destined eventually to wind up on the Supreme Court’s docket.

Ultimately, the two questions may intersect. To date, the regulatory conditions placed on schools participating in private-school-choice programs have—by and large—been unobjectionable to religious schools. Legislative efforts to impose conditions in tension with the faith commitments of some schools have fallen short. If, however, advocates succeed in leveraging Carson to open the door to religious charter schools, especially in states without private-school choice, regulators may respond (as they have in Maine) by imposing operational requirements that are in tension with some schools’ religious commitments. Some existing charter-school laws likely include regulations that some religious organizations would find objectionable. These rules may dissuade religious organizations from seeking authorization to operate charter schools, prompt them to pursue litigation challenging the requirements as unconstitutional conditions, or both.

Nicole Stelle Garnett is the John P. Murphy Foundation Professor of Law at the University of Notre Dame.

This article appeared in the Spring 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Garnett, N.S. (2023). Supreme Court Opens a Path to Religious Charter Schools: But the trail ahead holds twists and turns. Education Next, 23(2), 8-15.

The post Supreme Court Opens a Path to Religious Charter Schools appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49716201
The “Urgency” Issue https://www.educationnext.org/the-urgency-issue/ Tue, 08 Nov 2022 10:00:22 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715926 What some see as a key ingredient in educational improvement has come under attack.

The post The “Urgency” Issue appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

Exterior of an urgent care facility

When we asked Rachel Skerritt to reflect for Education Next on her tenure as head of Boston Latin School (see “What I Learned Leading America’s First Public School,” features), we didn’t know what to expect. Our managing editor, a Boston Latin parent and recipient of many an email penned by Skerritt, assured me that the piece would be well written. But we had little inkling of what lessons she would draw from steering the school through a global pandemic, a national reckoning on issues of race, and local attacks on Boston Latin’s exam-based admissions system.

What I did not expect was that Skerritt would assert that a “culture of urgency is essential” to effective school leadership. Urgency is out of fashion in education circles—derided along with perfectionism and objectivity as a defining characteristic of “white supremacy culture” in diversity training materials based on the work of author Tema Okun that are widely used in the sector. Yet here was a Black woman, who spent much of her tenure leading Boston Latin’s response to Black students’ concerns about the school’s racial climate, arguing that urgency is just what schools need.

The “urgency” issue surfaces in a different way in Robert Pondiscio’s article about the future of charter schools in New York (see “What Next for New York Charter Schools?features). Pondiscio reports that at BES, a Boston-based leadership-development program known for launching many of the nation’s highest-performing charter schools, founder Linda Brown “routinely plastered the word ‘urgency’ in office windows and around the walls at Fellows’ training sessions.” That practice changed after Brown retired in 2018 and, as part of a broader rebrand, BES changed its name from “Building Excellent Schools” to “Build. Excel. Sustain.” BES’s long-time chief academic officer, Sue Walsh, told Pondiscio she left the organization after “we were given readings as a staff that ‘urgency’ was racist.”

I chair the BES board, and I tend to agree with Skerritt that urgency is a key ingredient in educational improvement; it’s certainly not inherently racist. Linking urgency to white supremacy strikes me as simplistic and counterproductive, at least if the goal is to shift people’s thinking. Absence of urgency can mean delaying change. That prolongs problems for those ill-served by the status quo.

But that doesn’t mean that there is nothing for organizations like BES to learn from aspects of Okun’s critique. When a sense of urgency “makes it difficult to take time to be inclusive [and] encourage democratic and/or thoughtful decision-making,” it can be oppressive, says Okun, who describes herself as white. When a sense of urgency produces “unrealistic expectations about how much can get done in any period of time,” it can become self-defeating, Okun argues. Skerritt herself is quick to emphasize that “Urgency does not mean to place so much pressure on teachers and staff that their longevity in the profession is unlikely.”

The task confronting education leaders is to convey and maintain a sense of urgency that’s shared and sustainable. It is to cultivate a sense of urgency within a community rather than to impose it from above.

That task is especially key as we emerge from the pandemic. Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress released in September confirmed that American 9-year-olds lost the equivalent of four months of learning in reading and more than five months in math since 2020. Making up that ground will surely require a multi-year effort. Yet our May 2022 Education Next survey (see “Parental Anxieties over Student Learning Dissipate as Schools Relax Anti-Covid Measures,” features) reveals that the parents of only 9 percent of students said they are not confident their child will “catch up” from Covid-related learning loss within a year or two; the parents of the rest either were confident the child will catch up (49 percent of students) or perceive no learning loss in the first place (43 percent of students).

The “urgency” issue, in other words, extends beyond school leaders and educators to parents and policymakers, some of whom may be operating with an unrealistically rosy sense of the pandemic’s effects on children’s education. Better informing education decisionmakers at all levels—from households to the White House—is a task to which we at Education Next bring our own sense of urgency.

Martin R. West

This article appeared in the Winter 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

West, M.R. (2023). The “Urgency” Issue. Education Next, 23(1), 5.

The post The “Urgency” Issue appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715926
What Next for New York Charter Schools? https://www.educationnext.org/what-next-for-new-york-charter-schools/ Tue, 11 Oct 2022 09:01:32 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715892 The era of explosive growth of network-run, “no excuses” charter schools is over. Tentatively emerging: “community-based” charter schools.

The post What Next for New York Charter Schools? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
Re’Shawn Rogers, a 2012 graduate of Eastern Michigan University, is working to open a new charter school, Destine Prep, in Schenectady, New York.
Re’Shawn Rogers, a 2012 graduate of Eastern Michigan University, is working to open a new charter school, Destine Prep, in Schenectady, New York.

Few people in education policy get to see visible evidence of their work in real time and three dimensions. Not once, but whenever she wants it, Susie Miller Carello can stand on a subway platform in Harlem, and, for a few minutes on any given school day, watch the world she helped midwife pass before her eyes. “If you go to the subway station at 125th Street and Lenox from 7:15 to 7:30 in the morning, it’s filled with kiddos with school uniforms and backpacks,” she says. The kids in navy blue and white are en route to Harlem Village Academies. The bright orange polo shirts and ties or plaid jumpers belong to children who attend one of the four Success Academy schools in the neighborhood. Scholars in yellow and blue are on their way to Democracy Prep a few blocks up the street.

For a dozen years Carello served as executive director of the State University of New York’s Charter Schools Institute, the lead authorizer for well over half of the state’s 357 charter schools. The explosive growth of New York City’s charter sector happened first on her watch, and then under her nose. “The first time it happened, I had just hopped on the train in Times Square and noticed the moms and dads and the kids in the subway car,” she recalls. “And when I got off the train, I was like, ‘Oh my God, look at this! These are all our kids.’ And they’re going to these schools that are providing them much better options than they would’ve had 20 years ago.”

At a different moment, both politically and in education reform, Carello might have lots of company taking in the view from that subway platform. For some politicians, philanthropists, and other members of New York’s elite, the city’s charter sector has been an object of civic pride. That’s so particularly in neighborhoods like Harlem, the South Bronx, and downtown Brooklyn, where educational failure stretches back decades. Those neighborhoods have large concentrations of charter schools, including dozens run by the largest and most well-established charter management organizations in the country: KIPP, Success Academy, Uncommon Schools, and Achievement First, among others. A visitor might look at the passing parade of school uniforms and smile at the sight of disadvantaged children put on the “path to possible,” as one charter advocacy group’s slogan puts it, by energetic reform efforts backed by philanthropy and effective public policy. Over the last 20 years, New York City charters have launched tens of thousands of low-income Black and brown children to college and beyond.

Susie Miller Carello directed State University of New York’s Charter Schools Institute for 12 years.

In recent years, though, those cheering on the charter sector have seen their numbers dwindle. With few exceptions, the bipartisanship that ushered in the heyday of the education-reform movement has badly eroded. That means diminished political support for charter schools and minimal appetite to thwart the will of the powerful teachers union in deep-blue New York City. In March 2019, the city reached a state-imposed cap on the number of charter schools permitted to operate. Less closely examined or well understood is the resistance that has risen from within the education-reform movement itself. Charter schools, particularly those run by networks with resources sufficient to staff energetic recruitment efforts, have long relied disproportionately on young, recent college graduates to staff their classrooms. But the energy, idealism, and agenda of those recruits has changed. To the founding generation of New York’s highest-performing charter schools, strict classroom management, academic rigor, and high expectations were the hallmarks of well-run schools and conditions necessary for student achievement. But that same school culture can register as abusive and harmful, even grounded in white supremacy, to younger staffers steeped in the argot of social justice and committed to “anti-racism.” This clash of ideals happens largely over the heads of parents, who continue to swell charter-school waitlists and whose vision of a good school never seems to change much: safety, solid academics, character education, and a fair shot at college and upward mobility, whether their children attend a school that’s part of a large network or a single-site “mom and pop” charter school.

New York is emblematic of charter schools nationwide and indicative of the growing pains in the sector, buffeted by changing ideals and priorities, including from within the sector itself.

* * *

Emily Kim decides to found the Zeta Charter School network after working for several years as general counsel at Success Academy, another large New York-based network of charter schools.
Emily Kim decides to found the Zeta Charter School network after working for several years as general counsel at Success Academy, another large New York-based network of charter schools.

After disgorging students onto the platform in Harlem, the 2 train rumbles north to 241st street in the Bronx, where other high-performing charter networks like Icahn Charter Schools and Bronx Classical opened schools in neighborhoods long beset by educational failure. But to catch a glimpse of an up-to-the-minute symbol of the state’s charter sector, you need to leave the City entirely and travel 150 miles up the Hudson River to New York’s capital region. There you will find Re’Shawn Rogers, one of the state’s newest charter-school pioneers.

There is still “cap space” to create new charter schools in New York state outside of the five boroughs of New York City. Thus, in September of 2021, Carello and her staff recommended to the SUNY board of trustees that they approve Rogers’ application to launch Destine Preparatory Charter School the following fall with 116 students in kindergarten and 1st grade and to enroll 435 children up to and including 5th grade over the next five years. The school’s name is meant to invoke “Destiny,” but there’s a Destiny Prep in Jacksonville, Florida. Rogers didn’t want to risk copyright infringement or bad press, so “destiny” became “destine.” The shortened name is meant to invoke the great things the school’s students are destined to achieve.

On a Saturday morning in May 2022, Rogers is expecting about half a dozen families for an information session in a nondescript office building in between Union College and a riverside casino in Schenectady. The place once grandly called itself “the city that lights and hauls the world,” a reference to General Electric, which was headquartered here, and the American Locomotive Company, which went out of business in 1969. The city has been losing population for nearly 100 years. A demographic mix of 65,000 people call Schenectady home today, nearly one third fewer than at the city’s 1930 peak. The poverty rate is 20 percent, roughly double the national average.

The first person to arrive for the information session is Osei, a bright, energetic, and chatty five-year-old boy, who bounds into the third-floor conference room several strides ahead of his father and announces boisterously, “I’m here to meet my new school!” Almost immediately his attention is captured by a pile of donuts on the conference table. Without breaking stride, he marches around the table and grabs one, which his dad orders him to put down. When Rogers asks the child to say his name again, perhaps to redirect his attention from the treats, the little boy reaches for a pen and paper and insists on writing it out, first and last name. He pushes the paper across the table to Rogers. “Now I get a donut,” Osei says, making an announcement, not asking permission. His father, Harry Rolle, smiles and relents. “You worked up an appetite writing.”

“Good job, buddy,” Rogers smiles warmly at the child. “Hard work gets rewards. I’m in the same bucket as you.”

Rogers has been working hard on the launch of Destine Prep for two years; his reward is only now coming into focus as the school moves from two years of planning and authorization to meetings with prospective students and their parents. Charter-school applications are mind-numbingly detailed, running hundreds of pages. Would-be school founders must document a demonstrated need for a new school, describe their academic model in detail, and show community support in the form of a strong local board of directors. Then there is the nuts-and-bolts work of real estate, contracts, construction management, hiring staff, fundraising, and persuading families to take a chance on a school that exists only as a PowerPoint presentation.

“I helped scale up Success Academy, but we had extraordinary resources, seemingly unlimited support, and [Success founder] Eva Moskowitz busting through barriers,” remarks Emily Kim, who founded the Zeta Charter School network after several years as general counsel at Success. “I know exactly what needs to be done because I’ve done it so many times. When I think about independent charter schools, given all the challenges school founders face, I don’t know how they overcome these massive obstacles solo.”

When no other families arrive for the information session, Rogers gamely launches into his presentation with Destine’s operations manager, Mashoma Brydie, who joins the meeting via Zoom. Much of Rogers’s talk could have come straight from a pitch for a no-excuses charter school two decades ago: Destine will offer an extended school day and year; kids are expected to be in school every day; and learning doesn’t stop over the summer. Rogers believes in “logical consequences” for behavior management and stresses he’s “big on communicating” with parents. Osei starts running laps around the table and trying to get his father’s attention as Rogers finishes his presentation. The mission of Destine Prep is to develop students in grades K–5 to become FUTURE CHANGE MAKERS (the PowerPoint slide renders this in all caps) through “rigorous academics, social and emotional learning, and affirmation of their identities.”

* * *

Education Secretary Miguel Cardona watches as President Joe Biden speaks to students in a classroom during a visit to Luis Muñoz Marin Elementary School in Philadelphia, Friday, March 11, 2022.
President Joseph Biden’s Department of Education proposed new tough regulations on the federal Charter School Program, dismaying charter-school advocates and pleasing critics of the schools.

There was a time, fast receding into memory, when big-city charter schools were media darlings, lionized in movies like Waiting For Superman, and the subject of fawning coverage on 60 Minutes. They were the flagships of a fast-growing education-reform movement, luring the best and brightest new graduates of elite universities away from law schools and investment banks and into Teach For America, and from there to inner-city classrooms aspirationally named Harvard, Princeton, Georgetown, or Michigan instead of Room 222. Tightly run charter schools were celebrated as a rebuke to district-run dropout factories, which had relegated generations of low-income students to second-class citizenship. Charters bristled with do-gooder energy and dubbed themselves “no-excuses” schools, in the belief that the Black-white achievement gap was evidence of low expectations and indifference, not poverty and certainly not race. When students failed, it proved merely that adults had failed them. And there must be no excuses for adult failures. Period.

At the federal level, charter schools had patrons and champions from across the political spectrum. Bill Clinton was an early charter-school supporter; so was George W. Bush. The number of U.S. students in charters more than doubled from 2009 to 2018, to 3.3 million from 1.6 million, with most of those gains coming during the eight years of the Obama presidency. In the years since, bipartisan support for charter schools has significantly weakened. Earlier this year, President Biden’s Department of Education proposed new regulations on the $440 million federal Charter School Program. Progressives cheered the move to rein in money “squandered on unneeded, mismanaged schools and the operators.” Conservatives complained the move was “designed to bring the boisterous, popular charter school sector to heel.”

No single event heralded the change in the weather. In 2011, the biggest and most well-established urban charter network, KIPP, released a study showing that one third of its earliest cohorts of students had graduated from college—four times the rate for low-income Black and brown children at large, but less than half of the figure its founders believed they could achieve. The report led to significant changes in KIPP’s program and pedagogy. As the decade wore on, a palpable reform fatigue set in as some Americans soured on the standards, testing, and accountability regime that had come to dominate public education at large. Antagonists like Diane Ravitch hammered relentlessly at charter schools, questioning their results, attacking their “harsh disciplinary policies,” and turning “no excuses” from a rallying cry to an epithet. When widespread protests over racial discrimination inspired by the Black Lives Matter movement broke out on college campuses in 2015, charter critics adopted the protesters’ language. Teaching “taxonomy moves” common to no-excuses teachers represented “carceral pedagogy” aimed at “controlling Black bodies.” Students marching through school hallways in tightly supervised straight lines was “practice for prison.” White-led charter schools were said to echo power structures in society at large.

The charter sector has largely accepted the criticism as sincere and tried to adjust to it rather than rejecting it outright. That’s somewhat puzzling, given that there was ample material with which to construct a defense. First, college-preparatory no-excuses schools had lost little of their luster among parents for whom high expectations, tight classroom management, and school uniforms were reassuring signs of safe, well-run schools and an antidote to chaotic inner-city classrooms. Internal measures of parent satisfaction and “net promoter” scores (e.g. “How likely are you to recommend your child’s school to a friend or family member?”) remained consistently strong. Even more pertinently, the schools delivered measurable results. A 2017 study by Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes examined charter schools across 24 states, New York City, and Washington, D.C., and found that attending an urban charter school run by a larger network of schools was associated with improved educational outcomes.

That was precisely the point of nearly two decades of education policy. As the authors of the Stanford report observed, “we would expect that only charter organizations with a demonstrated track record of success would be allowed to open multiple schools.” The report concluded, “it is reasonable to expect current policies to result in continued improvement. However, there is still room for charter school authorizers to accelerate the rate of improvement by ensuring only the finest of charter school organizations are given the privilege of expanding their services to multiple schools.”

Written only five years ago, that language already feels anachronistic. New York has gone in a different direction, functionally denying high-performing charter management organizations the privilege of expanding their services to meet the demand. The sector itself now responds to different sets of impulses and metrics than in its days of heady and explosive growth.

* * *

Aasimah Navlakhi was promoted to chief executive officer of BES after Linda Brown stepped down in 2018.
Aasimah Navlakhi was promoted to chief executive officer of BES after Linda Brown stepped down in 2018.

When charter schooling’s old guard talked about the importance of their schools and movement being “led by people who look like the people we serve” and mused about the day their students would come back to teach in the schools they once attended, they were imagining Re’Shawn Rogers. He was a charter-school student in his native Detroit and worked as a teacher for several years after graduating from Eastern Michigan University in 2012, rising to be humanities dean at Achievement First’s Aspire Elementary school in Brooklyn’s East New York neighborhood.

As a child he struggled in school. “I didn’t really learn how to read until middle school,” Rogers says. During those years, his family moved from Detroit to Lansing, Michigan, where Rogers attended a diverse public school and got involved with its theatre and band programs. For high school, he moved back to Detroit and attended one of the city’s first charters, operated by Detroit Community Schools. “My teachers were just great and met us wherever we were,” he recalls. “For the first time I started to feel successful. I got into AP classes and stuff that I never would have imagined in elementary school.”

His dream was to open a charter school back home in the Detroit area, but in the summer of 2020, he was accepted as a fellow at BES, a Boston-based leadership-development program (the initials originally stood for “Building Excellent Schools”) that identifies and supports emerging school leaders. It was BES that encouraged him to consider applying for a charter in upstate New York, which was terra incognita to Rogers. “I created this huge spreadsheet of anyone who was doing anything important in the Capital region and started calling them,” he says. “‘Did you go to school here? What was your experience like? What do you think about a new school?’” His initial impulse was to apply to SUNY to open a school in Albany, but neighboring Schenectady hadn’t had a charter school in 15 years, since International Charter School was closed due to poor academic performance and financial stress.

As a BES fellow, and with both financial and technical support and advice from the organization, Rogers began working on the application for what would become Destine Prep at a tumultuous time in the charter-school movement and the nation. The Covid-19 pandemic had closed schools for the last several months of the school year and put much of the country on lockdown; the May 2020 death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police ignited profound anger among many. The summer when Rogers began his BES fellowship brought to a boil tensions that had long simmered in charter-school networks and the broader education-reform movement.

Seemingly overnight, social media accounts such as Uncommon Truth, Survivors of Success Academy, BnB@DP (Black and Brown at Democracy Prep) and dozens of others began springing up with students and staff posting accounts of perceived racist slights and abusive practices in their schools. KIPP, a national network of more than 240 schools serving more than 100,000 students, announced it would retire its famous “Work Hard. Be Nice.” slogan. CEO Richard Barth explained that the trademark phrase “ignores the significant effort required to dismantle systemic racism, places value on being compliant and submissive, [and] supports the illusion of meritocracy.”

“As a white man, I did not do enough as we built KIPP to fully understand how systemic and interpersonal racism, and specifically anti-Blackness, impacts you and your families—both inside of KIPP and beyond,” co-founder Dave Levin wrote in a plaintive letter to KIPP alumni. “It is clear that I, and others, came up short in fully acknowledging the ways in which the school and organizational culture we built and how some of our practices perpetuated white supremacy and anti-Blackness.”

KIPP was the most visible example of the culture clash between veteran figures in the charter-school movement and younger staff and alumni more attuned to current thinking about social justice. However, few organizations are more emblematic of the shift in values and mindset than BES, which was also transforming itself in response to activism and heightened racial consciousness.

“The big networks—KIPP, IDEA, Uncommon, Green Dot, Achievement First, and more—build from within,” wrote Richard Whitmire in his 2016 book about early charter schools, The Founders, in an admiring chapter about BES. “It’s a winning formula, but it skips over another promising glide path: potential charter leaders who come from outside that pipeline—school pioneers who could build networks every bit as successful as KIPP and Achievement First.”

For nearly two decades under its founder Linda Brown and chief academic officer Sue Walsh, BES had operated as a kind of boot camp for school leaders who would visit top charter schools across the country like Newark’s North Star Academy; Brooke Charter Schools in Boston; and Purpose Prep and Nashville Classical in Tennessee. Brown routinely plastered the word “urgency” in office windows and around the walls at Fellows’ training sessions, which sometimes began at 5:30 in the morning. “If you’re going to start a school, you’re going to be showing up at your office at 5:30 in the morning,” explains Walsh, “because your teachers are showing up at 6:30 and your kids are showing up at seven.”

BES fellows have founded more than 200 schools in 50 U.S. cities, educating more than 63,000 students. In 2018, Brown stepped down from the organization she founded. Aasimah Navlakhi was promoted from chief of staff to chief executive officer; she had initially joined BES as communications director four years earlier. She began her tenure with a listening tour, meeting with past and present BES fellows. “These conversations illuminated a gap between BES’s stated mission and lived values,” said Navlakhi in an interview posted on the organization’s website. She responded by launching an effort to “evaluate our programs and internal operations through a DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] lens.” It concluded with a commitment to make BES “an actively anti-racist organization.”

“I felt in my gut that this path forward was the only way that we could support leaders to truly transform education for the students in their communities,” Navlakhi said. The organization soon rebranded itself, keeping the acronym BES but changing its name from “Building Excellent Schools” to “Build. Excel. Sustain.” Walsh followed Brown out the door. “The seminal moment for me was when we were given readings as a staff that ‘urgency’ was racist,” Walsh told me.

Interviewed jointly, both Brown and Walsh make a point of praising Navlakhi’s “commitment to equity and humanity.” But Walsh adds, “What we did not expect was the clear rejection and denigration of our work and our intentions, which are manifest in so many strong schools that are the platform on which the work of BES sits.”

“It’s become clear they’ve shifted from the primacy of academic excellence to the primacy of anti-racism,” observes Ed Kirby, an ed-reform fixture who was intimately involved in the design and launch of BES, and authored its “core principles,” which guided its work for two decades. “I’m not going to get into judging them and their new direction. But the place is completely unrecognizable to me,” he says. For her part, Navlakhi says she sees no tension in BES’ evolution. “In quality schools, academic excellence and anti-racism reinforce one another,” she says. “Promoting anti-racism and a community-centered approach creates an environment that respects students and families and, in turn, contributes to academic success.”

Some New York charter-school leaders are worried, however, that these shifts in emphasis will adversely affect students. Stephanie Saroki de Garcia, who runs the Brilla charter school network in the South Bronx, describes what she sees as competing priorities of charter-school parents versus staff “who have gone to elite colleges” and see schools as vehicles to promote societal change. “I think it’s going to have a real impact on academic outcomes for underserved kids, and the opposite of the intended effect. Kids are not getting what they need academically,” she says. “Even in my own child’s charter school, half of their professional development is on racial equity. How are they learning how to be excellent teachers? It’s really worrisome.” Saroki de Garcia has occasionally faced pushback from her own staff over Brilla’s classical curriculum and school culture. “Our response has always been, ‘Look, we’re here because the state has given us permission to teach kids a set of academic standards, and that’s Job One.’ If we don’t do that well, we shouldn’t be in business,” she says.

The transformation of BES stunned Brown. Walsh suggests that current voices in education reform “don’t have enough grounding in bad schools.” This last point comes up frequently in conversations with charter-school veterans: as the movement has grown and evolved, younger staffers have either forgotten or never knew the conditions to which no-excuses charters were created as an antidote.

“The numbers certainly show that parents prefer order and safety over chaos. It also shows in high school and college matriculation,” observes Lester Long, a 2004 BES fellow and the founder of Classical Charter Schools, a network of four schools in the South Bronx. “Deep learning can’t happen in fearful environments, either of other students in a too-chaotic school or of the teacher in a too-strict one. Ultimately, great teachers and schools find that balance.” Long also points out that “no excuses” was too poorly defined, but it was “a shorthand form of deep respect for Black and brown students. The key point was ‘I know you can do this. I believe in you.’ There were disappointing exceptions, but the original meaning and intent was one of empowerment,” says Long, whose schools were frequently visited by BES fellows prior to the change in leadership, but not since.

For Re’Shawn Rogers, meanwhile, the die was cast when there was an opening to become the interim principal at his school, but Achievement First turned him down. “We had a number of meetings with [co-CEOs] Doug [McCurry] and Dacia [Toll] about equity and just having more Black people in positions of senior leadership within the network,” Rogers says. But he didn’t see that happening for himself. “My overall feeling was that there was not a place for me as evident by the lack of senior leadership that looked like me or thought like me.”

* * *

James Merriman, head of the New York Charter Center, an advocacy group, says charter schools fought to get a foothold in New York City and benefited from Mayor Bloomberg’s offer of space.
James Merriman, head of the New York Charter Center, an advocacy group, says charter schools fought to get a foothold in New York City and benefited from Mayor Bloomberg’s offer of space.

In hindsight, New York was an unlikely locus of charter-school dynamism. “There was never a moment where there was great political enthusiasm for charters in New York,” notes James Merriman, the longtime head of the New York Charter Center, an advocacy organization. “It was just not in the DNA of New York, New York,” a Democratic stronghold and a stalwart union town. In 1999, Governor George Pataki approved a pay raise for state lawmakers in a political bargain that led to passage of the law authorizing charter schools. In New York City, a few years later, charter-school operators lucked into a pair of staunch allies in Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his schools chancellor Joel Klein, who raised millions of philanthropic dollars and lured the most successful charter management organizations with the promise of rent-free “co-located” space alongside traditional schools in buildings owned and run by the city’s Department of Education. The availability of facilities for start-up charter schools was “more than a shot in the arm,” Merriman recalls. “It was life itself.”

Bloomberg’s last day as mayor was December 31, 2013, but he remains a player in the city and in education reform. In April 2022, Bloomberg Philanthropies announced a pair of $100 million dollar gifts, one each for Harlem Children’s Zone and Success Academy. In Schenectady, Re’Shawn Rogers is operating on a much smaller scale. He and his school have received grants totaling $100,000 from BES, another $50,000 from the Albany’s Brighter Choice Foundation, and $70,000 from the Schenectady Foundation. “I had to work for that myself, so I’m very proud of that,” Rogers tells me over sandwiches and coffee at a downtown Schenectady pub. He’s equally pleased to have secured a deal that folds construction costs for his new school into the monthly rent for the space, which also offers room to expand as he enrolls more students in the next five years. And there’s another thing he’s proud of, now that he’s left a big charter management organization to open his own school: “It’s become important to me to make sure I see people of color in positions of power, and now I have the opportunity to put people in those positions.” A lot of his friends who are leading and starting schools are people of color, he adds, “so it’s starting to become more normalized to me.”

After lunch, we walk a few blocks to his school. Destine Prep is wallboard, insulation, and ductwork—a construction site, not an elementary school. It seems inconceivable that more than 100 kindergarteners and 1st graders will march up the stairs and into classrooms in less than two months. Rogers is unfazed. Like those early charter-school founders, he does not suffer from a lack of confidence.

In 1999, Governor George Pataki struck a political bargain that led to the state’s charter-school law.
In 1999, Governor George Pataki struck a political bargain that led to the state’s charter-school law.

But it’s all different now. The mission and vision of charter schools, the politics, the concerns of activists and advocates, and the deliverables demanded by philanthropists have all shifted over time. So have the values and ideals of the young people who still flock to this work, albeit in fewer numbers than in its halcyon days. Carello left SUNY over the summer to join the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. New York’s charter-school cap remains in place, but lobbyists and advocates suggest things might be different under Governor Kathy Hochul and New York City mayor Eric Adams, who sometimes sounds more favorably disposed to charter schools than the staunch enemy he replaced, Bill de Blasio. When charter advocates nowadays pitch lawmakers on lifting the cap, conversation is more likely than not to mention creating opportunities for more community-based charter schools like Destine Prep, rather than giving more charters to the big networks.

The one thing that hasn’t changed in 25 years are the parents. On an unseasonably chilly Saturday afternoon in June, Mashoma Brydie welcomes parents to a community center in Schenectady. Two dozen kindergarten and 1st graders are scheduled to be fitted for school uniforms for the school year that’s now just two months away. One of the first to arrive is Christine Lawson, whose grandson Jayceon will start kindergarten this fall.

If Re’Shawn Rogers is the school leader that charter trailblazers imagined would one day lead their movement, Lawson is the matriarch of the archetypal family charters were built to serve. Her own mother worked for the New York City Board of Education, but Lawson wanted something better for her five children, who today range from 18 to 45 years of age. So she cobbled together a mix of public, private, and Catholic schools in Brooklyn and the Bronx for them. All five graduated, which she suggests was no mean feat “during the drug era” in New York City. One went on to earn a degree from the University of California, Berkeley. Jayceon’s mom Whitney is also at the uniform fitting, but when it comes to schools, Lawson is clearly the decision maker in the family.

Her youngest son is about to graduate from Schenectady High School, but Lawson’s grandson will not be setting foot in the city’s schools. “Public school? Nah,” she says, then quickly adds she has nothing against them. The teachers in her son’s school “go hard for the kids,” but public schools “believe in social promotion” and don’t have high enough standards. “You’re just not walking out of high school with everything you need. I know that for a fact,” Lawson tells me. She’s certain Destine Prep will offer a “deeper level” of attention for her grandson. “It’s a brand-new school, but I trust them. I just trust them,” she explains. “We need more attentive people and hard-working teachers, and they’re in charter schools.” She learned about Destine Prep via a Facebook post. If she hadn’t, she would have “done her homework” on other options for her grandson. Even now, her daughter is still considering moving back to New York City. “If she goes back, then I’m gonna follow her, and we’re going to choose a Catholic school” for Jayceon.

She joins a handful of other families in front of a long table, covered with an array of neatly folded sky-blue Destine Prep uniform shirts and khaki pants. Lawson smiles, sighs, and says to no one in particular, “There’s just something about a charter school.”

Robert Pondiscio is a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. He is author of How The Other Half Learns: Equality, Excellence, and the Battle Over School Choice.

This article appeared in the Winter 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

Pondiscio, R. (2023). What Next for New York Charter Schools? The era of explosive growth of network-run, “no excuses” charter schools is over. Tentatively emerging: “community-based” charter schools. Education Next, 23(1), 36-44.

The post What Next for New York Charter Schools? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715892
Are School Boards Failing ? https://www.educationnext.org/are-school-boards-failing-feature-sparks-response-defense-forum/ Tue, 04 Oct 2022 09:00:31 +0000 https://www.educationnext.org/?p=49715866 A feature sparks a response and a defense

The post Are School Boards Failing ? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>

In the Summer 2022 issue of Education Next, in an article headlined “Locally Elected School Board Are Failing,” Vladimir Kogan synthesized the research and recommended, “reformers should remain laser focused on improving school governance—to ensure that the reform process prioritizes the interests of kids rather than the demands and political agendas of adults.” The article has generated a response from Rachel S. White, assistant professor at the University of Tennessee Knoxville; Sarah Stitzlein, professor at University of Cincinnati; Kathleen Knight Abowitz, professor at Miami University; Derek Gottlieb, associate professor at University of Northern Colorado; and Jack Schneider, associate professor at University of Massachusetts Lowell. Kogan, associate professor at The Ohio State University, responds to the response. The resulting exchange offers an excellent encapsulation of the range of views about the purpose, performance, and possibilities of not only the boards but also the schools they govern.

Are Locally Elected School Boards Really Failing?
A work in progress, with multiple purposes
By Rachel S. White, Sarah Stitzlein, Kathleen Knight Abowitz, Derek Gottlieb, and Jack Schneider

 

The Choice in Education Governance Debates: Complacency or Reform?
Too many school districts are the equivalent of municipal water systems constantly producing cholera outbreaks
By Vladimir Kogan

This article appeared in the Winter 2023 issue of Education Next. Suggested citation format:

White, R.S., Stitzlein, S., Abowitz, K.K., Gottlieb, D., Schneider, J., and Kogan, V. (2023). Are School Boards Failing? A feature sparks a response and a defense. Education Next, 23(1), 68-74.

The post Are School Boards Failing ? appeared first on Education Next.

]]>
49715866