A promising type of charter

By Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter

Today, Philadelphia's School Reform Commission is slated to decide the fate of 39 charter-school applications.

Charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately run, are contentious so emotions are running high. Supporters claim charter schools offer exciting alternatives for students trapped in failing schools, and opponents suggest charters offer false hope and drain money from traditional public schools.

The research on outcomes for charters is mixed, with some performing at very high levels, others proving disastrous, and most doing about as well as traditional public schools. It's time to move beyond the debate over whether charters are good or bad to focus on what types seem most promising.

In our new book, A Smarter Charter, we identify a number of high-performing charters that are guided by two research-based principles: They seek socioeconomic diversity among students and provide teachers with a strong voice in how schools are run.

Fifty years of research suggests that low-income students perform better, on average, in economically mixed schools than they do in high-poverty schools. Schools with some middle-class students are more likely to provide a peer environment that encourages achievement - and the middle-class kids do very well, being enriched by interacting with classmates who have different life experiences. Schools with some middle-class parents generally have more active PTAs and parent volunteer programs, and stronger teachers, on average, are found in economically diverse schools.

Likewise, when teachers have a voice in how schools are run, they tend to be more invested and stay longer than in schools where educators feel powerless. When teachers have a say, they can test out innovative ideas and approaches. Kids benefit as a result.

Both of these principles were central to the thinking of teacher union leader Albert Shanker, who proposed the charter school idea in 1988. Unfortunately, most charters today promote neither teacher voice nor student integration.

Indeed, the guidelines under which the School Reform Commission operates make no mention of teacher voice or student integration. To the contrary, the guidelines give priority to schools in neighborhoods that have higher poverty rates. On one level, this is understandable, because low-income students are in the greatest need. But given that low-income students perform best, on average, in socioeconomically integrated schools, why not make room for charters that take that approach?

In Philadelphia, for example, the proposed Partnership School for Science and Innovation (PSSI), developed by the successful Mast Community Charter School, makes socioeconomic integration an explicit goal. To be located in gentrifying Center City, the school would set aside at least 20 percent of its seats for students in disadvantaged zip codes.

The coalition backing the effort forecasts a student body in which at least 30 percent of the students are from families with incomes below the poverty line. This is consistent with other charter schools, like Brooklyn's Community Roots Charter, which has lots of middle-class applicants but sets aside 40 percent of its seats for students in public housing, or Blackstone Valley Prep Mayoral Academy in Rhode Island, a regional charter school network that reserves 50 percent of seats for low-income students and balances suburban and urban enrollment.

In addition, PSSI says it will empower educators by putting teachers on the charter school board, as does Mast's existing school. This is a constructive way of promoting teacher voice - as is having a teacher union negotiate on behalf of charter teachers, as happens at Green Dot Public Schools in California, or using a teacher-run co-op structure like the one at the Avalon School in Minnesota.

Some will argue that in a high-poverty district like Philadelphia (whose student population is about 80 percent low-income) there is no place for economically integrated charter schools (which we define roughly as those serving 30 to 70 percent low-income students). But suggesting that all charters reflect the citywide demographics would condemn students to high-poverty schools across the board.

The great democratic mission of public education is to promote social mobility (through equal educational opportunity) and social cohesion (by emphasizing what we have in common as Americans). Socioeconomically diverse schools reinforce these fundamental ideals. While many charter schools promote segregated schooling, Philadelphia has a chance to create smarter, integrated charters that redeem the underlying goals of public education.