Education Week - January 27, 2016 - 32

Jared Boggess for Education Week

COMMENTARY

By Cami Anderson

he debate over the future
of our nation's education
system continues to divide
the country. On one side we
have advocates of marketdisrupting charters looking
to eliminate the bureaucracies they believe inhibit education. On the other, public school activists
are committed to preserving a system that
has failed many students for decades. There
is, however, a third option that would allow
both charter and traditional public schools
to thrive and serve students with diverse
needs across educational levels.
Cities like Newark, N.J.; Washington; and
Denver are pursuing groundbreaking approaches by embracing both charters and
traditional schools. Leaders from both sides
have begun to step up and assume collective responsibility for providing a quality education to all students, regardless of
which school they attend. They are building
a mixed education market that draws on
economic principles of competition and our
country's founding commitment to equity so
that all families have access to a variety of
great educational choices.
The original concept behind charters was
sound: Create new options in poor communities with low-performing schools so children have an immediate chance for success.
Charter schools would be held accountable
for results and their leaders freed from antiquated policies and practices. Charter proponents hoped this flexibility would create
the conditions for higher student achievement outside of district schools and generate
promising practices for reform more broadly.
And the initial plan worked. In places
like New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and
Houston, high-performing charters serving
student populations similar to traditional
schools delivered radically better results. Excited by early successes, reformers and advocates pushed for more charters, faster. Private-sector funders cheered because it meant
injecting competition into a broken monopoly.
But charters are not a silver bullet, and
their expansion can create unintended consequences for communities. In my time as
the superintendent of schools in Newark,
I came face to face with the realities of aggressive charter-market-share expansion.
While high-performing charters offered better options to lottery winners, their rapid
growth had the potential to make things
worse for families that lost.
An analysis for our One Newark plan
projected that over the course of seven
years, charters would grow from serving 5
percent of students in 2010 to 40 percent of
students in 2017. This trend threatened to

| INSIDE |

THE THIRD WAY
A Mixed-Market
Approach to
Schooling
leave more than half of Newark's students
in dysfunctional schools that were, at the
time, losing students and resources, while
being staffed by the most senior-but not
always effective-teachers.
When students leave a traditional school
to attend a charter, the money goes with
them, along with jobs and contracts that
sustain fragile economies and fuel local
politics. My team and I needed to find a
way to help charter schools increase their
positive impact while lifting up traditional
schools so that all of Newark's students and
neighborhoods thrived.
The first step was to level the playing field

WHEN
'OPPORTUNITY'
IS ANYTHING BUT

32 | EDUCATION WEEK | January 27, 2016 | www.edweek.org/go/commentary

WALTON FAMILY
FOUNDATION:
RETHINK VIRTUAL
CHARTERS

so everyone had an equal chance to get into
a good school. Traditionally, each charter ran
its own lottery, which resulted in confusion
and difficulty for already-burdened families. We created a one-stop enrollment system that every school-charter and district
alike-was required to participate in, giving
all families access to the same options.
This universal-enrollment system, staffed
with family advocates, began to change the
dynamic that favored charter-school-lottery
winners and left everyone else-often those
schools with the fewest resources-with
the leftovers.
Next, we worked to give district schools

SPECIAL
EDUCATION
NEEDS AN
EXIT PLAN

Charters are not a silver
bullet, and their expansion
can create unintended
consequences for
communities."
the same flexibility and tools that allow
charters to succeed. We overhauled our
teacher-evaluation system to retain high
performers and let go of low performers.
Excellent teachers were included in the process, and passionate leaders with entrepreneurial spirits and effective management
skills were installed in schools. Our focus
on best-in-class training and coaching encouraged teachers and leaders to move the
district toward the future.
Finally, we sought to end the divide between the district and charters by aligning
charter-growth plans with community needs.
We asked charters to take over schools in the
toughest neighborhoods with high family demand, instead of growing one grade level at a
time in new buildings where they got the best
real estate deals. Charters agreed, renovated
historic buildings, and kept the traditional
school names. Schools that would otherwise
have closed, hurting our poorest neighborhoods and making politics even tougher, are
now community anchors.
Our mission from the outset was to ensure
100 percent of schools in Newark were excellent, located in thriving neighborhoods,
and supporting all students. The early results are encouraging. Graduation rates are
climbing. Overall enrollment is up for the
first time in over a decade-a critical sign
of health. A recent study by the Center for
Reinventing Public Education showed that
40 percent of Newark students are enrolled
in "beat the odds" schools-those that outpace demographically similar schools statewide-far above the average of only 8 percent across the 50 cities studied.
Even with this progress, cities like Newark
and states like New Jersey have miles to go to
truly create the charter-like conditions necessary for district schools to compete. This will
take courageous public policy and leaders to
completely rethink laws governing tenure,
civil service, and service contracts. Ironically,
those organizing to protect a broken status
quo are creating the very circumstances that
make charters feel like the only option for advocates and families who want results now.
Cities and states across the country can embrace and build on Newark's example to foster
a diversified market with more choice, higher
quality, equal access, and a community focus.
The mixed-market approach will work
only if we redefine success. It is not about
expanding charters or saving districts.
We all need to stop the polarizing discussion and come together to create a blended
model, a third way, of giving all students in
all neighborhoods access to the best education possible, rather than treating children
like pawns in our political games. ■
CAMI ANDERSON was the superintendent of public
schools in Newark, N.J., from 2011 until 2015.

LETTERS TO
THE EDITOR

http://www.edweek.org/go/commentary

Education Week - January 27, 2016

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Education Week - January 27, 2016