Keeping up with charter schools

THE ADVENT of charter schools was supposed to assure that a zip code doesn't have to be destiny, by giving Philadelphia parents a choice of education alternatives. But there's "choice," and then there's "informed choice." Comprehensive information about individual charters and their performance has been scarce.

That's why the School District of Philadelphia's release of profiles of all charter schools operating in the city last week was so welcome - and long overdue.

Since the state law authorized charters in 1997, these alternatives to traditional public schools have grown virtually unchecked, with little oversight and a need for more accountability. The city's 83 charters enrolling nearly 70,000 students represent the second largest district in the state. The state (and city) has poured billions of dollars into them. The Pennsylvania Department of Education oversees charters, but wields a light touch in that oversight; witness the spotty range of compliance in the annual reports charters are supposed to send the department each year.

The school district's charter office - which numbers 8 employees - has taken on the task of providing overviews of charters that could help parents who are considering charter schools. The profiles include location, areas of focus, demographics of students, enrollment figures and more. (www.philasd.org/charter_schools)

Performance and fiscal soundness aren't included in the profiles, though the district provides a link to the school progress reports of all schools, which highlights strengths and weaknesses on reading, math, climate, and other metrics.

Now we wish that state lawmakers would use the profiles to better familiarize themselves with the system that they created nearly 20 years ago, and consider the kinds of reforms that are long overdue.

In February, the court found the school district overreached its powers when it suspended parts of the school code which it used to impose caps on charter growth. That means that charters will be able to expand without any checks or balances, and this could bring a huge financial hit to the district. That's because every student who moves from a traditional public school to a charter costs the district $8K a year, and $23K for special-ed students. The state used to reimburse the district for some of these "stranded costs" but not anymore. That means that the district has no control over its expenses.

And while some charter schools are rigorous and achieve high academic performance, the results are mixed overall, with many performing the same or below traditional public schools. Cyber charters are a different and more disturbing story, with a recent report finding that 70 percent of cyber students are trailing their counterparts at traditional public schools.

Legislators like charters because they're popular with parents. Many members of the teachers union believe they're popular with legislators because they help dismantle the powerful teachers union (charters are operated independently and don't require union teachers).

They were formed originally to provide a place for educational innovation that could be scaled up into more traditional public schools. But that hasn't happened. Instead, the original charter law has managed to inflict financial damage on one system in order to build another. On the eve of charters' 20th anniversary in the state, we should all push for a clear-eyed look at how to make both kinds better.