You know the old saying: “Don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater?” Does it have an opposite? What’s a nice way of warning people who are busy preserving the good not to forget to get rid of the bad? That’s the message Education Secretary Arne Duncan is trying to convey to states regarding charter schools. In order to get their hands on the education stimulus dollars he’s dangling in front of them, Duncan is requiring states to not only life their charter school caps and expand high performing charters, but he’s added a third requirement: close underperforming ones.

A recent study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University compared test scores of students in charter schools to their counterparts in public schools in 16 states. Results suggest that on average, charter schools are not necessarily any better than public schools—at least as far as standardized test scores go. (Unfortunately, that was the only point of comparison.) Gains in reading scores at charter schools are not significantly different from those in public schools. And in math, 83% of charter schools made the same or fewer gains in test scores than their public school counterparts.

Assuming the validity of the study (which is definitely an assumption rather than a fact), it is still wrong to conclude that charter schools are without merit and should be opposed. Rather, this study proves what to me seems obvious: It doesn’t make sense to lump all 4,600 charter schools together into one category and say “charter schools are good” or “charter schools are bad” because quality among charters varies so widely. (See previous posts here and here).   So I agree with Duncan’s emphasis on charter school quality as opposed to just quantity. All children deserve to attend excellent public schools, charter or otherwise. Those that are getting the job done well should be supported, and those that are not need to improve or risk closure.

Speaking of charter school quality, I’m itching to write about a little charter school in Mass. that made the news yesterday as 13 of its seniors graduated against all odds and are heading off to college.

Phoenix Charter Academy is not your typical charter high school. For starters, it only has 150 students. It’s an alternative school for kids whose behavioral problems, previous academic failures, chaotic home lives, and ongoing struggles with substance abuse make succeeding in regular public high schools exceedingly difficult, if not impossible. Most arrive at Phoenix at least two grade levels behind.

What impresses me most about Phoenix is that like other successful charter schools, staff members seem to have a “whatever it takes” attitude. The school day is eight hours long and the school year is extended giving students extra catch-up time. Classes are mixed-age so students can progress according to ability. There’s an on-site day care facility enabling young mothers to attend classes worry-free. Teachers not only strictly enforce discipline, but take the word “support” to a whole new level by calling and texting students when they don’t show up to class, and often reaching out to them over the weekend. And each student has a personal academic plan and a staff member who will support them during their first year in college. In fact, that’s one of the requirements for graduation: an acceptance letter from a two or four year college.

An unusually small charter school with an exceptional student body achieving against-all-odds results. Such is the potential of charter schools whose freedom to innovate allows them to accomplish results that other schools cannot. And as long as there is adequate oversight and an emphasis on demonstrable quality, I expect many more charter schools to make a difference in the lives of many more deserving children in the future.

(Photo: Chesi – Fotos CC’s flickr photostream/Creative Commons)