“There are too many lousy charters out there.”

While one bad school is one too many in any sector, some who suggest lousy charters exist do so with the purest of intentions but often the faultiest of data. They believe that by standing up for quality and against poor performance, they are demonstrating a commitment to accountability and avoiding a kind of “double standard” criticism by the establishment who get offended when reformers say too many conventional public schools are failing. If they admit publicly that their own movement has flaws and undertake what they believe are corrections, then policymakers and opponents will take the charter concept seriously, see them as serious reformers and good policies as well as eventually only good schools will exist.

But saying there are bad charter schools without an intensive look at data – below the surface of even what publicly released AYP scores say and do – ignores their real progress and achievement. And isolating the purpose of charter schools to only one of their three intended effects – quality schooling – ignores the other major two, and equally important effects charters were created to address: parent choice and competition.

This “lousy charter” myth, however, is easily rebutted. Let’s start with data contained in CER’s The Accountability Report: Charter Schools, which highlights not only the progress and comparable achievement of charters, but the fate they face when charters don’t hold up their end of the bargain.

Since 1992, 657 of the over 5,250 charters that have opened have closed for a variety of reasons. The most prevalent reason for closures – the cause for fully 41 percent closed – is financial deficiencies caused by low enrollment or inequitable funding. Such schools typically close well before contracts are up for renewal, and usually voluntarily. The most interesting aspect of studying these schools is that they failed because their model failed. Schools that succeed start with robust parent demand, which grows and is sustained as the school demonstrates an ability to satisfy and educate. While some proponents play down parent demand, it turns out it is largely responsible for early indication of whether schools fail – or succeed.

Another piece of the group of schools closed for financial reasons is the result of faulty laws which put authority in the hands of hostile or difficult authorizers, usually school boards, who have excessive authority to dictate the terms of contracts, operational revenue and rules for schools to follow. Under those circumstances many schools have opened hoping for the best, and have closed, recognizing the obstacles were insurmountable.

Another 14 percent of schools have been closed for poor academic performance.  This is apparently not enough for some advocates, who suggest many more should be closed because of performance.  But as we’ve learned, most schools that are destined to close do so long before academic failure is apparent. Strong operations usually go hand in hand with strong academic programs. Those that don’t make it operationally are fated for closure, something rare in other sectors. As John Bryson from Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina notes, “How often do you hear of traditional public schools being shut down?”

Facilities battles and other bureaucrat hostilities are the reason the remainder of schools closed. Many of these did not deserve to close, but small groups of citizens and teachers have only so much time, money and energy to fight city hall, and dozens of charters have closed without realizing their goal of filling a community need.

And what about state based accountability systems that suggest as many as 20 and 30 percent of charters might be low performers?  Reviewing Ohio data, we find that both the law and its implementation may have swelled the ranks of schools that now are not meeting state standards while masking their purpose and actual performance. 75 percent of charters in Ohio meet or exceed expectations set forth by the State Board of Education, but among the other 25 percent are a myriad of schools, clustered in the state’s “Big 8″ school districts as required by law - including the state’s largest, most troubled cities, such as Akron, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo. Those not making the grade now are at a variety of points in their progress, some doing well but lagging with a student population intentionally focused on dropouts, adjudicated youth, and others poorly served by the system earlier. Yes, some are just not cutting it. They may not all be KIPP, but unlike KIPP, these schools fill their classes on a rolling basis each year, which creates challenges for demonstrating steady achievement for all kids. We need an intensive review of those schools to determine what value, if any, they are adding. Those sorts of realities are not always clear from annual state data dumps. That is not to say some Ohio schools should not be closed that are currently open, but the call to determine their fate should be grounded in intensive analysis of data and schools. Once determined, not only should school failure be addressed, but also the fate of a persistently under performing authorizer should be in question. Finally, such standards should be required of all public schools and their own governing boards. The entire public school universe should be forced to play by the same rules, be assured of consistent and objective delivery of timely data, and face closure when they fail to educate.

As we have discovered when identifying and reporting data on both closed schools and state test scores, typical state data reports do not tell the whole story, and when it comes to charter schools, they are rarely as accurate as conventional school systems. As our lead researcher reports, “If state data systems were accurate, I wouldn’t have to ask staff to double and triple check charter school data that comes directly from states’ Departments of Education annually.” Indeed, the reporting of data from charter schools in each state varies greatly depending on how the law was written and who the authorizer is, as well as the nature of the data collected and on what time frame. To be serious about charters requires one to be serious about understanding and reviewing original data before making conclusions. Those who do not do so are hiding behind the “lousy charter myth” because they are either opponents, or misguided supporters who believe their stand is worthy of praise.

Online resources from the Center for Education Reform:

The Accountability Report: Charter Schools (link)

Chalk Talk (link)

National Charter School Data 2008-2009 (link)

Charter School Closures (link)