Reformer ToolboxLogin



CancelLost your password?

Desert Flowers: Time for charters to bloom in new places.


• Sam Duell

New analysis by Fordham suggests charters have plenty of opportunity to expand.

 

The Thomas B. Fordham Institute published a geographical analysis and interactive website today that shows the saturation (or lack) of charter elementary schools in socio-economically disadvantaged areas. The report identifies geographic locations with both high rates of poverty and no charter elementary schools, giving them the title of “charter school deserts.” According to Fordham’s analysis, there are over 500 charter deserts across 39 states. This is a thought-provoking analysis that deserves attention.

First, let’s discuss what this analysis is and what it’s not. “Charter School Deserts: High-Poverty Neighborhoods with Limited Educational Options,” answers three basic questions:

  • Where are charter elementary schools located?
  • Where are there concentrations of poverty according U.S. Census data?
  • How do these two areas overlap?

Assuming that families with lower incomes need more educational options, the analysis clearly indicates that America has work to do. With an average of 10.8 charter deserts per state, we can also assume that charter schools have room to grow while serving economically disadvantaged populations. The analysis and interactive website are tools for communities across the country to understand which neighborhoods might want new educational opportunities.

Fordham is clear about the limitations of the report. It’s not claiming that charter schools are just for poor students, and it’s not claiming that quality and poverty are necessarily and invariably inversely correlated. In fact, the authors clearly indicate that they do not address school quality and stipulate that charters vary in size, purpose and geography. So, the analysis does not declare that by introducing charters to poor neighborhoods educational outcomes will improve, rather the report simply identifies and quantifies the fact that many poor neighborhoods across the U.S. don’t possess charter school options.

Second, let’s talk about maps. Maps are cool, especially when they help us see familiar geographies from different perspectives. They’re made for specific purposes, and it is critical to appropriately align the kind of map with its intended purpose. For example, I wouldn’t use a topographical map to determine which interstate highway I should take, and I wouldn’t use a road atlas to navigate a sailboat across an ocean. Fordham and the authors of this work have created a visual representation that aligns the geography of poverty in relation to the proximity of charter elementary schools. Their work has a narrow function and, like with any map, is best utilized when it’s used for that intended purpose.

Finally, though the analysis has a narrow function and a wide scope, it reminds me that some very basic charter principles that might be worth revisiting.

  • Charters exist for many reasons, and those reasons are best understood by the communities in which the schools reside and by the families who choose to attend them. Should charters serve students from poor families? Yes, if those families want the charter. But let’s remember, charters should exist for any community that wants them.
  • Charters are a diverse set. They vary in size, structure, educational philosophy, curriculum, personnel and efficacy. Some charters are unionized, some are not. Some charters have longer school days, some keep similar schedules to district schools. Some charters focus on STEM, while others focus on the fine arts. Some charters predominantly serve children from middle-income families, while other mainly serve students from low-income families. There are charters operated by large non-profits, and there are charters that are founded and run by teachers. Some charters serve students very well, and others don’t.
  • Charter schools are public schools, not only in the way they are funded but also in the way they are defined according to statute and in the role they play in a functional democracy. Nearly every charter school law explicitly defines charter schools as public schools. And nearly every charter school requires the support of the community in order to start serving students. The majority of charter schools are authorized and governed by local school districts who oversee and monitor charter school compliance and effectiveness. The basic principle of a charter school is a handshake, an agreement between those that form the charter and those that oversee it—that in exchange for some flexibility, the school will be held accountable.
Check out my summary below and then visit Fordham’s interesting interactive website. Just don’t forget it’s limitations.

 

 “Charter Deserts: High-Poverty Neighborhoods with Limited Educational Options” 
Andrew Saultz, Queenstar Mensa-Bonsu, Christopher Yaluma, James Hodges 

Thomas B. Fordham Institute – April, 2018

Simple framing questions

  • Where are charter elementary schools located?
  • Where are the poorest neighborhoods located?
  • Are they located in the same place?

Key definitions and numbers

  • Charter school desert – “areas of three or more contiguous census tracts with moderate or high poverty and no charter elementary schools.”
  • There are more than 500 charter school deserts across the country.
  • 39 of 42 states with charter laws have at least one charter school desert.
  • States with charter laws average 10.8 deserts per state.
  • Twelve states each have 15 or more deserts: California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

The report posits two takeaways

  • The charter sector should move beyond city boundaries.
  • We must address the policy and practical boundaries in some states that keep charter schools from locating where they are needed.

The report claims that the, “results suggest that some inner-ring suburbs and small towns are prime locales for rekindling charter growth.”


About the author


Sam Duell

sam@excelined.org

Before Sam joined ExcelinEd as the Associate Policy Director for Charter Schools, he was a special education teacher, a school and central office administrator, the Executive Director of School Choice at Oklahoma’s department of education and the Managing Director of OPSRC’s Education Collaborative. In every position, Sam worked creatively to meet student needs. He founded the Integrated Support Program at Fischer Middle School in San Jose, California to increase the number and percentage of students with learning disabilities who have access to the general education classroom. He was the first administrator of Oklahoma’s Statewide Virtual Charter School Board, the authorizer for online schools in Oklahoma. And he co-founded a statewide afterschool network called the Oklahoma Partnership for Expanded Learning to organize and advocate for expanded learning opportunities after school and during the summer. Sam’s current interests include charter schools and their role in a functional, thriving democracy.