In this fiscal climate, teachers want a raise that the district cannot afford.

Is this problem intractable? Hardly. Among the 116 charter schools in Chicago that are in our network, 10 have independent unions representing teachers in negotiations with school management. These schools have been able to reach agreements, largely by acknowledging that expenses must be in line with revenue. Management and teachers at these schools have balanced their books, extended the school day, and recognized the critical contributions teachers and leaders make in creating successful schools. They have done this while the per pupil payments for charters increased a modest 8% over the past five years (compared to the 16-42% overall wage increases for CTU teachers noted by the arbitrator).

This sort of solutions-based teamwork should be a model of partnership for the city. Once again, charter schools in Chicago are on the leading edge of innovation, this time in the field of labor relations.  

Failing that, here is a modest proposal:  tie the teachers’ proposed raises in each year of the contract to the rate of funding provided to Chicago through the general state aid formula. Then, both sides will have skin in the game and an incentive to work in Springfield to revamp our terribly outdated school funding formula.

These actions have generated a backlash among communities who feel excluded from the school action process.

We have seen this movie before. When the School Board votes on these actions at its February 22 meeting, it will only serve to highlight how much more needs to be done. That’s because any realistic appraisal of the scale of the facilities problem is lost amid the controversy over school closings. The problem will only get more difficult to solve the longer it is deferred.   

Most of Chicago’s schools were built when housing patterns and population densities were dramatically different, but the school system has never adjusted to our new reality. Unlike state and federal laws that require legislative bodies to reapportion seats and redraw districts every 10 years in response to demographic and other changes, there is no such requirement for school systems.  As a result, school districts are notoriously slow to adjust to demographic change until their balance sheets are bleeding red.  That is exactly where Chicago finds itself today, a result of compounded inaction over many, many years.   

Crucial decisions have been deferred

This challenge is the predictable result of years of policies that have never adjusted CPS’ capital inventory to the shifting reality of where students live. Consider the results from the 2010 census. Over the past decade, the city has lost more than 200,000 residents, a decline of 7% overall. This trend goes back generations and has led to a steady decline in school enrollment over that time.  Over the past 10 years, Chicago has lost approximately 40,000 students.  To put this number in context, the second-largest school district in Illinois, Elgin, has a total of 42,000 students. During this same 10-year period, Chicago has opened more than 100 new schools of various types. Many of these schools are performing admirably and serving students well, but they also serve to highlight the fact that Chicago is losing students while adding building capacity—hardly a recipe for maximizing efficiency when the district’s budget is stretched thin.

In the wake of this problem, one proposed solution is to close more buildings and consolidate enrollment among a smaller number of facilities. Given the fact that Chicago has dozens of K-8 grammar schools built for 1,000 students that currently enroll 100 or 200 or 300 students, this idea certainly seems appealing. 

But this approach ignores a basic reality: Although there are hundreds of underutilized school buildings in Chicago, they tend to be in neighborhoods where students no longer live.  A quick review of the census data reveals that population losses have been concentrated in certain areas of the city, mostly on the South and West sides, though a swath of census tracts on the far North Side also lost substantial population.  Because of these realities, CPS should adjust its facilities approach geographically so it is tailored to these changes. While closing buildings will produce some efficiency, it does nothing to relieve the overcrowding that exists in other neighborhoods.  The overcrowding problem is particularly acute in heavily Latino neighborhoods, predominantly on the Northwest and Southwest sides of our city.  These neighborhoods have too few buildings to accommodate the current student population. 

Those of us in the charter school sector frequently underestimate the scale of this challenge. While charter schools certainly have a right to advocate for access to public school buildings, something we at Illinois Network of Charter Schools have done, it is rarely that simple.  Every decision to close a school necessarily involves reassigning current students to other schools. In addition, school performance is not distributed evenly throughout the city, so even if CPS decided to be more aggressive in consolidating schools, finding better ones – the core goal of any consolidation program – would be difficult.  Meanwhile, approximately 60% of charter schools are located in private buildings, forcing them to divert scarce operational dollars to pay for facilities.

Budget doesn’t address facilities problem

Since the budget reflects the district’s priorities, it is always helpful to begin with the budget when discussing policy challenges. CPS currently spends $5.9 billion to educate the district’s 402,681 students, a figure that includes operational and capital expenses. Of this $5.9 billion, $790 million is dedicated to facilities expenses. Thus, CPS spends approximately $2,000 per pupil per year on facilities costs. The 2012 budget is notable in another respect: The FY12 budget is an overall reduction from last year, representing a departure in practice from the previous 10 years during which expenditures steadily increased (although the operating budget has increased from last year).  In 2005, the district’s operating budget, excluding facilities, was $4.2 billion.  By 2011, in an era of limited inflation, the operating budget was $5.6 billion, an increase of 25%.  During that same period, enrollment fell by more than 18,000 students.  Reflecting the same dynamic at play in the facilities arena, the district has done less with more. 

The budget takes a few tentative steps to reverse this trend, but it does little to address the core facilities problem.  A review of the district’s facilities plan reveals attempts to catch up with deferred maintenance and a footprint that is still too large for the current enrollment. To a degree unique among educational policy issues, facilities decisions are really financial decisions. By that measure, CPS’ current facilities choices merely delay the structural decisions that are ultimately needed. 

One only has to look at the current CPS facilities allocations to appreciate the challenge. The current allocation includes $96 million for Jones College Prep, an appropriation that would take the total cost of that high school to $120 million. CPS also plans to spend up to $75 million renovating Chicago Vocational and Career Academy, a high school with over 1,000 students.  Despite the substantial expenditure, CVCA is still substantially underenrolled. Given the current condition of CVCA and the fact that its roof and building envelope are apparently a safety hazard, such expenditures certainly seem necessary, but they avoid the more difficult question:  In an era of shrinking capital expenditures, where should the district spend its money for maximum benefit?  On an aging school built in 1940 that once housed more than 4,000 students but now has approximately 1,400?  Or on new facilities or strategic renovations more aligned with population density and project growth?  Add to this question the fact that CPS has 56 currently operational school buildings that were built before 1900 and it doesn’t take long to conclude that the district needs to take action on facilities sooner rather than later.

A Way Forward

In face of these challenges, what should be done?  First, the district should examine all current school facilities with three features in mind:  (1) current capacity; (2) condition of the building; and (3) academic performance. Using these three categories as a guide, it is not difficult to build a matrix to guide facilities decisions. For schools that are substantially under capacity and academically failing, the decision to consolidate, transform, or close depends substantially on the buidling’s condition.  Such a school in sound condition is an obvious target for restructuring of some sort.  Such a school in terrible condition, by contrast, would require substantial investments that might be better spent elsewhere.  Likewise, a school that is academically succeeding and underenrolled is an obvious target to accept students in a consolidation or realignment.

Second, the district should decide where new buildings need to be built to relieve overcrowding and should find efficient means to build those buildings.  The days of $120 million high schools will necessarily come to a close. School buildings are still substantially more expensive than comparable buildings in the same geographic area, suggesting inefficiencies in the building process.  There are great examples of adaptive reuse in Chicago where older buildings are renovated at a total cost of $10,000 per student.  Under that model, one can establish a 1,000 student high school with a 30+-year projected life span for a total cost of $10 million. In fact, it has already been done in Chicago.

Ultimately, a holistic school facilities solution is possible that includes consolidation, phasing in new school options, and expanding school facilities in targeted neighborhoods. This will free up additional operational dollars that can be directed to effective programs.  We should use new school options, including high-quality charter schools, co-location arrangements, and similar models to reduce overcrowding and provide an incentive to school operators to locate in areas where the need is greatest. 

Andrew Broy is president of the non-profit Illinois Network of Charter Schools.

On one side of the debate are advocates who believe that more school funding will create additional programs, more opportunity for students and better academic outcomes.  Across the divide stand those who claim that the district must become more efficient and produce better student outcomes before being rewarded with additional revenue.  Both sides seek to address persistent low performance at CPS, but each misses the central question:  Is the $5.9 billion budget sufficient to educate the district’s 402,681 students?  Stated differently, can we expect a world-class education when we spend an amount equal to $14,652 per year, per student? 

The short answer is yes – but not within the current structure, which is hopelessly outdated and unable to adapt to current educational realities. The solution is to move toward a student-based funding model in which need drives funding allocations. Such weighted student funding models have been enacted elsewhere and ensure that funding arrives at the school as real dollars—not as teaching positions, ratios, or staffing norms—that can be spent flexibly.  In this model, accountability is focused more on results and less on inputs, programs or activities. 

Student need should drive decisions 

Much of the current CPS budget is devoted to categorical programs that provide school leaders with no meaningful autonomy and the district with no real flexibility.  Almost a billion dollars is dedicated to capital outlay and debt service on existing facilities obligations.  And federal funds that flow into the system have substantial programmatic restrictions that cannot be altered.  But even on the programmatic side, unnecessary inefficiencies abound.  Why should central office decide, for instance, whether a school on the West Side of Chicago should allocate its academic funding for a program for English-language learners or institute double periods of mathematics?  That choice should be left to the decision-makers closest to the students – principals, in consultation with teachers.   

To be fair to CPS, the proposed FY12 budget is an overall reduction from last year, representing a departure in practice from the previous 10 years during which expenditures steadily increased (though the operating budget has increased from last year).  In 2005, the district’s operating budget (excluding facilities) was $4.2 billion. By 2011, in an era of minimal inflation, the operating budget was $5.6 billion, an increase of 25%.  During that same period, enrollment fell by more than 18,000 students.  Put simply, the district has done less with more. The budget takes a few tentative steps to correct this, but a problem created over many years cannot be solved in one. 

Smarter spending, not just more 

Those who claim that more funding without reform will somehow magically improve academic outcomes are missing lessons from dozens of districts.  The poster child is Newark, New Jersey, which last year spent $24,123 per student, excluding facilities and capital funding.  Newark’s current graduation rate is 38%.  For an average 3rd-grade class of 26 students, this means that the system spends $627,198 every year on one class to produce abysmal results.  These data didn’t stop Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg from pumping $100 million into the system, an infusion unlikely to have lasting impact without substantial changes in the way funding is allocated.     

The key is money well spent on rational incentives and programs tied to student outcomes.  Consider the current CPS salary schedule, which compensates teachers based on seniority and degrees.  Under this system, the assumption is that more experience and higher-level degrees create better teachers.  While experience improves teacher performance in some cases, this is not true across-the-board.  And research has unequivocally shown that additional degrees do not equate to better performance.  Such a system also creates counterproductive incentives, with diploma mills churning out low-quality masters’ degrees and individual teacher incentives entirely back-loaded, creating barriers to retaining terrific, early-career teachers.  

There was a time when using proxies for teacher quality was more rational – when our data systems could not capture the impact teachers have on student learning gains.  In the past decade, however, abundant research has documented the effect of high-quality teaching on student learning gains.  Rick Hanushek, an economist at Stanford University, found that the effects of a high-quality teacher on student learning gains are significant.  In a 2010 study, he found that teachers in the bottom-quality decile produced one-third the student learning gains as teachers in the top decile, whose students advanced the equivalent of 1.5 academic years per year.  Over several years, a series of great or ineffective teachers can lead to unbridgeable gaps in student learning. 

All of this raises the obvious question: When we have actual evidence of learning gains and the differential impact of individual teachers, why do we still use crude proxies like years taught and degrees earned to drive compensation and job security? 

The short answers are tradition, state and local policies, and constituencies that fiercely oppose any differentiation among teachers.  Thankfully, these foundations are crumbling.  When polled, overwhelming majorities of Americans agree that teachers should be treated as professionals. The good news is that our leaders are now challenging the status quo and revealing a simple truth: Professional standards for teachers are fundamentally incompatible with lock-step, uniform, quality-blind treatment. 

Time for a reality check 

Large school districts are notorious for creating add-on programs to address a particular challenge while avoiding the larger, structural challenges that caused the problem in the first place.  This is why merit pay systems for teachers and principals have had mixed results in Texas, Denver, Nashville and Atlanta. They are implemented as supplements to an outdated salary schedule, rather than as a compensation and retention system that measures what matters (mainly student outcomes) and then aggressively differentiates among teachers. 

This is the core challenge with Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s recently announced merit pay program for principals.  The unit of focus is right: Great principals, when empowered to make decisions, are the most powerful lever we have to create great schools.  However, while the merit pay program represents a step in the right direction, it will not do enough to reform a system that is founded on the wrong principles.  

In the final analysis, the answer to the original question is conditional. A $5.9 billion CPS budget may be sufficient to educate the district’s 402,681 students, but only if the money is spent wisely and not allocated on inputs like inflexible central office supports or quality-blind salary raises for all teachers.  

But that isn’t the debate we are having.  Instead, we are having the usual more money vs. more efficiency argument.  Until we address the core issues of resource allocation and use student outcomes as a significant factor in making personnel decisions, we will suffer with a school system with far too few truly transformational schools.  Incremental “fixes” will sadly result in more of the same. 

Andrew Broy is the president of the non-profit Illinois Network of Charter Schools. 

Like most urban districts, the Chicago Public Schools have lost enrollment for decades.  In the past three years, however, CPS enrollment has held steady at approximately 410,000 students, making Chicago the third-largest school district in the country.  What is far less known is that charter enrollment increases over the past three years have accounted for substantially all of CPS’ sustained enrollment. 

Consider the enrollment trend.  In the fall of 2009, CPS enrolled 409,279 students.  In the fall of 2010, CPS enrolled 408,571 students.  During this one-year time period, charter school enrollment in Chicago increased by 25%, growing from 30,112 students to 40,021 students. 

If it weren’t for this dramatic charter school enrollment increase, CPS’ overall enrollment would continue to decline.  Moreover, a disproportionate amount of the charter school enrollment growth was among African-American students.  In a city where the 2010 census results revealed that 200,000 people, mostly African-American, left the city over the past decade, we should be finding ways to keep families in our city.  The best way to do that is through improved schools, and charter schools are a critical component of this school improvement effort.

We acknowledge that charter school quality is uneven among the 103 charter campuses in Chicago, but on balance it is difficult to argue that charter schools have not been successful.  Based on the CPS’ most recent performance report, charter schools have student proficiency rates more than 10% higher than comparison schools. This performance accelerates at the higher end of the performance distribution.  In fact, seven of the ten highest performing non-selective high schools in the city are charter schools. 

This is not to say that all charter schools are great.  They are not.  And some of our lowest performing charter schools should close, a point we have made to CPS leadership.  As a sector, we also take responsibility for the charter bargain that exchanges enhanced flexibility for increased accountability.  We at Illinois Network of Charter Schools (INCS) work directly with schools to help them improve, but when they are unable to sufficiently improve and meet their academic performance targets, we do not stand in the way of charter closures.  To do so would negate the very essence of the charter bargain. 

Mr. Estvan also claims that charter schools are viewed by some as a means to diminish union power.  Those of us who have worked with charter schools for decades – authorizing charter schools, serving on charter school boards, and trying to improve charter schools – recognize that one of the keys to charter success is personnel autonomy.  Charter schools are not anti-union, but they are pro-student. 

What does that mean?  It means that when the IEA, IFT, and CTU go to Springfield to encourage a more realistic school funding model that does not rely so heavily on local property taxes, the charter community stands shoulder to shoulder with them.  But it also means that the charter sector opposes the unions when they object to lengthening the school day in Chicago, which has the shortest school day among the 50 largest urban districts in our country.  Put simply, INCS is an issue-based organization.  We don’t have permanent allies; we have permanent interests.

Mr. Estvan is on stronger ground when he notes that charter schools face severe financial challenges.  The core problem, however, is that charter schools have never been equitably funded in our city.  A 2010 national study showed that charter schools in Chicago receive $2,020 less per pupil from public sources than comparable public schools.  This means that the average charter school class of 30 students is funded at $60,600 less than a similar public school.  Even when foundation and philanthropic revenue is included, the per pupil gap remains $1,309, or $39,270 per class.  The remedy should be for the district to fund charter schools equitably and to make charter school facilities access a priority. 

We at INCS have worked tirelessly over the past two years on Senate Bill 79, the Charter School Quality Act.  The main aim of SB 79 is to improve charter school authorizing in the State and to make charter school options available more broadly by creating an alternative authorizer. 

The fact of the matter is that the quality of charter school authorization varies widely among Illinois’ 869 school districts and it is time to create an independent authorizer with the expertise to approve (and deny) charter applications based on their strength, not based on ancillary political calculations.  When that happens, we will achieve what Mr. Estvan calls for at the end of his article and “let charter schools stand or fail based on the students they can enroll and the results that they can achieve.”  The charter community would like nothing more.

Andrew Broy is executive director of the Illinois Network of Charter Schools.

Their successors will control school systems that educate 1.6 million students, a figure that surpasses the public school population of all but nine states.  While some observers worry that these changes will create a vacuum of reform-minded leadership, this is more properly viewed as an opportunity to continue those reforms that have proven effective, discontinue outmoded district procedures that have not worked, and demonstrate for the country what effective district leadership requires.

To be sure, both men were instrumental in the current national climate of data-driven instruction and assessment, and their tenures underscore the effect mayoral control can have on school systems.  Mayor Bloomberg has picked Klein’s replacement, Cathleen P. Black.  Chicago’s next mayor will ultimately decide who will lead CPS into a new era in 2011.  As Chicago readies itself for new leadership, we should demand the system implement policies that put student needs before adult interests and focus on a few, core areas: 

•    Academic Standards:  Illinois standards are insufficiently rigorous and provide students an unrealistic measure of their achievement levels.  We must create more rigorous college and career-ready standards tied to diploma standards, ensure that our testing system measures meaningful skills that prepare students for college or a career, and provide realistic alternative options for students who plan to enter the job market upon graduation.

•    Accountability grounded by data:  Schools should be judged based on how well they improve educational outcomes among students.  We must establish a data system that is sophisticated enough to measure actual student growth and use this growth in making significant policy decisions about schools.  Schools themselves should be provided enhanced flexibility in exchange for heightened accountability, and every school should have performance-based student achievement objectives memorialized in a written document made available to the public.

•    School Options:  Chicago’s mosaic of magnet schools, selective enrollment schools, charter schools, and related programs within schools should be improved and the admissions process made more transparent to parents and communities.  In addition, these options should be extended to parents in all neighborhoods, especially those with a dearth of high-quality seats.  Charter schools in particular, which now serve 10% of the Chicago student population, should be allowed to expand to low-capacity neighborhoods, provided such schools have a track record of success and a sound management plan.  Charter school students should also be funded equitably and not disadvantaged by facilities policies that irrationally restrict district-owned buildings to traditional public schools.  As a corollary, we must intervene in any school, however organized, that struggles to demonstrate sustained student improvement, including closing schools that have failed students consistently.

•    Instructional Time:  Chicago is alone among the 50 largest urban districts in permitting an exceptionally short 172-day school year and a 5-1/2 hour school day.  New York doesn’t allow this — we shouldn’t either. Many districts are rightfully making international instructional time comparisons, where American schools fare poorly.  In Chicago, we do not even meet national comparisons. The days of providing our neediest students with the shortest school day, the shortest school year, and the least-qualified instructor and then asking them to pass high-stakes tests should end.  Optional, part-time pilot programs in a small sample of schools are insufficient.  We must extend learning time. 

•    Funding Reform:  The Chicago school system’s budget over the past 10 years has increased in inflation-adjusted dollars, while its enrollment has steadily declined. The solution is to move toward a student-based funding model that recognizes that student needs should drive funding allocations. So-called weighted student funding models should ensure that funding arrives at the school as real dollars—not as teaching positions, ratios, or staffing norms—that can be spent flexibly, with accountability systems focused more on results and less on inputs, programs, or activities.

•    Teachers and leaders:  A school system is only as good as its teachers and principals. We must focus our energies squarely on effective teachers and school leadership, including prioritizing the recruitment of new school leaders, improving the quality of teachers and leaders in the classroom, and supporting alternative programs to lower barriers for capable and interested future teachers and principals.  We cannot continue to ignore labor realities, should accept that the era of most teachers staying 30 years is over, and manage turnover so that the most effective teachers are retained and rewarded.

•    Efficiency:  Chicago has more than 50 school buildings that are enrolled at less than 50% capacity, and many of those produce abysmal results for students.  Most of Chicago’s schools were built when housing patterns and population densities were dramatically different, but the school system has not adjusted to the new reality.  A holistic school facilities solution is possible that includes consolidation, phasing in new school options, and expanding school facilities in targeted neighborhoods. In particular, there are portions of our city, especially in heavily Latino areas, where schools are dramatically over-enrolled.  We should use new school options, including high-quality charter schools, co-location arrangements, and similar models to reduce overcrowding and provide incentive for school providers to locate in areas where the need is greatest. 

Chicago has a proud history and in many ways has led the nation in school reform efforts.  It initiated mayoral control, pioneered local school governance models, and examined new school options before other large districts. The good news is that we know much more than we did when mayoral control was initiated almost 15 years ago — it is time for the next school superintendent to improve upon this tradition by focusing on what matters:  student outcomes and the life chances they create. 

Andrew Broy
President
Illinois Network of Charter Schools

A review of this data makes clear that charter schools have transfer rates that are in fact lower than comparable schools:

•    9 out of 10 charter schools in Chicago have transfer rates that are lower than the neighborhood public schools that their students would have otherwise attended.
•    Of the 74 charter campuses examined in the report, 67 of those campuses experienced transfer rates that were substantially lower than the comparison neighborhood school examined.
•    When weighted by enrollment, the net transfer rate of charter schools is roughly half the rate of comparison neighborhood schools.

The articles also missed a larger truth about charter schools: charter schools are schools of choice, unlike traditional public schools and the magnet schools referenced in the articles. This means that students may choose to attend charter schools or, if those students determine that the school is not serving their needs, they may choose to leave. Providing diverse, tailored options should be viewed as a benefit to the system not a drawback.

Charter schools are also far from monolithic. They serve diverse populations within the school system and each is tailored to serve a pressing student need within CPS. KIPP Ascend, for instance, uses a college-going culture to prepare elementary students for lifelong success and has a very different mission that Youth Connections Charter Schools, a drop-out prevention and recovery network designed to serve students who have struggled in a traditional high school setting. In the context of such disparate models, it is very difficult to generalize results.

Not every charter school is perfect, and the charter school model may not fit every student who chooses to attend. Indeed, it is not uncommon for students who transfer into charter schools to take some time to adjust, a point acknowledged in the Catalyst article. Charter schools typically have longer school days, longer school years, and higher academic and behavioral expectations for their students. This is something that those of us working to improve public education should applaud, not decry. Frankly, I wish all of our public school students had the benefit of similar settings where they can be challenged, held accountable, and receive the benefit of additional instructional time.

Does this mean that there haven't been instances of counseling out among the 41,000 students attending charter schools in Chicago? No, but that is why we at INCS support authorizers who enforce the open enrollment provisions of the charter school law strictly, to ensure that all students have an equal chance of enrolling in a high quality school of choice. It is also why we work directly with charter schools and charter school networks every day to help them understand the provisions of law and make decisions that benefit students directly.

Perhaps most curious is the article's claim that "[m]agnet schools are comparable to charter schools, with lotteries for coveted seats and no attendance boundaries." Magnet schools may be comparable to charter schools in the narrow sense that they may be oversubscribed, but magnet schools have express enrollment preferences and frequently condition enrollment on test scores, something charter schools are prohibited from doing. This fact alone makes any magnet school comparison inapt. If one were to examine magnet school achievement data, for instance, it becomes immediately apparent that comparing such a school to an open enrollment charter school produces only heat, no light. Even a passing glance at magnet school admissions policies reveals why their student mobility rates are far lower than open enrollment schools, charter or traditional public.

One thing charter schools will not do is apologize for having high standards and expecting more out of teachers and students. After all, nothing is more important to our city's future than creating schools where student needs are put ahead of all other considerations. For too long in our city we have tolerated a public school system that produces graduates who are not college or work ready and have made excuses for why certain students could not succeed. Thankfully, there are many schools today in Chicago, charter and traditional public that are proving that school organization, teacher quality, student discipline, and true accountability matter.

Charter schools that succeed do so because they are intentional about setting a culture of high expectations that permeate the school. This culture touches on every aspect of the school's organization and is designed to create an environment in which students can thrive. This culture is evidenced by the fact that charter high schools, unlike traditional high schools, do not have any metal detectors. Despite this lack of "protection," incidents of violence in charter schools are far fewer than those in traditional public schools. A cynic might claim this is because charter schools just happen to enroll more peaceful students; a realist would understand that getting school culture right is the first step in creating schools that actually work for our students.

Andrew Broy
President
The Illinois Network of Charter Schools

Editor’s note: Catalyst Chicago welcomes comments. However, there are several points we would like to address so that our readers clearly understand the strong basis for our report.

First, our report was not based on an internal memo from Chicago Public Schools, which was used only to provide context. Our report relied on transfer data reported directly to the Illinois State Board of Education by charter schools. Deputy Editor Sarah Karp filed two separate Freedom of Information Act requests for the raw data that Chicago Public Schools uses to compute the transfer rates presented in the district’s annual charter school report, which you refer to. The rates included in that report are the product of a complex formula that takes into account the number of minutes in each charter school year, although there is no rationale for taking the length of the school year into account. An accurate transfer rate is most reliably calculated using enrollment and the number of students who left the school during the year.

In response to Karp’s FOIA requests, CPS produced two databases with different numbers. The CPS research office eventually admitted that it could not figure out which set of raw numbers was used to produce the transfer rate that the district reports. As a result, we relied on the ISBE report, which presents self-reported transfer data from charters.

Second, we intentionally included interviews from parents who support strict rules in charters, and with students who, despite having transferred out, wanted to go back. So in fact, we did not “miss the larger truth” about charters being schools of choice.

Third, the CPS website clearly states that in magnet schools, “Students are selected by a computerized lottery.” Magnet schools do not use test scores for admission, do not have attendance boundaries and select students from across the city—just like charter schools.

Buried in the issue is the most relevant fact:  that charter schools are producing terrific outcomes for students.  Based on the district’s most recent performance report, charter schools have student proficiency rates more than 10 percent higher than comparison schools. This performance accelerates at the higher end of the performance distribution.  In fact, six of the ten highest performing nonselective high schools in the city are charter schools, even though charter schools enroll a mere 8 percent of public school students.  On nearly every measure, from graduation rates to attendance rates to school violence, charter schools are succeeding.

This is not to say that all charter schools are great.  They are not.  And some of our lowest performing charter schools should close, a point we have made to CPS leadership.  But to tarnish the charter movement without a realistic recognition of our progress is a disservice to your readers.

You criticize charter schools for high teacher turnover.  While teacher turnover has been a challenge for urban districts across the country, including Chicago, the critical point is that charter schools have control over which teachers are retained.  More important than the existence of teacher turnover is whether the teacher turnover is managed to best improve student outcomes.  When districts face difficult budget decisions, they lay off teachers based on seniority without regard to performance.  When charter schools face the same difficulty, they lay off teachers based on performance.  Do charter schools always get it right?  Of course not, but districts wish they had similar discretion to focus on what should matter (but rarely does) in our school reform debates—student outcomes. 

You also note that many charter schools run deficits.  As you acknowledge in your article, however, charter schools have never been equitably funded in our city.  A 2010 national study showed that charter schools in Chicago receive $2,020 less per pupil from public sources than comparable public schools.  This means that the average charter school class of 30 students is funded at $60,600 less than a similar public school.  Even when foundation and philanthropic revenue is included, the per pupil gap remains $1,309, or $39,270 per class.  The remedy should be for the district to fund charter schools equitably and to make charter school facilities access a priority.  In an era where Chicago is planning to cut charter school reimbursement 6 percent while funding a 4 percent increase in teacher salaries on top of step increases, Catalyst should be asking why the district isn’t funding performance.

Finally, parent voices are noticeably absent from the issue.  Thousands of Chicago families have chosen charter schools for the education they provide and 15,000 more Chicago families are on charter school waiting lists.  Chicago families seem to understand what Catalyst missed—that charter schools are providing high quality public school options for our neighborhoods.  In the future, we hope Catalyst moves beyond tired rhetoric pitting charter schools against traditional public schools.  Chicago families want great schools, however organized, and we should focus our efforts on making that a reality, not repeating the tired school choice debates of the past.

Andrew Broy
President
Illinois Network of Charter Schools

Editor’s Note:Thank you for your letter. We welcome feedback from, and dialogue with, our readers. We also stand by our reporting, and several points are worth noting. While it is true that some charters do achieve great success—which we noted—the