Parent Choice...

We have been involved in some very interesting conversations over the last few months with superintendents interested in using Rocketship as a vehicle for restarting their most troubled schools. There is a kind of core philosophical tension between districts and charters over whether parent choice is a good thing or a bad thing.

Folks who worry about charters often say that since parents select us, we are "creaming" or at least not serving every family. This opt-in property of charters is at the root of this concern and it is a concern because it is a fundamentally different approach than the comprehensive zoned approach that districts are usually organized around. In the restart context, the way this philosophical divide plays out is with a superintendent pushing for the charter school to serve all students in the geographic zone for the school that is being restarted.

First of all, this makes sense because it is the way that districts have always done it, so of course the most natural thing is to keep doing it. Second, because most districts don't really buy that parents choosing schools makes them more engaged or their students more successful, they don't see a value to the community. Third, they want to remove any structural differences to see if the charter can still outperform.

All of these seem valid on the face, but not in execution. Districts have operated in a certain way for the past 100 years and as desegregation got enforced, have generally not been able to eliminate the achievement gap in their low-income schools. So telling a charter that they should replicate the way that does not work instead of doing what does work does not make sense. On the second issue of, "does choice work?" the answer is of course, "it works when it is used well and backed up by successful execution in the classroom by the school." Unfortunately there have been lots of charters loved by the parents with terrible teaching and crummy results. But if you take a look at the highest performers, they have incorporated choice into their approach to create the kind of engagement and motivation that makes parents and students want to do whatever it takes.

The third issue is the most interesting because it actually splits the charter industry. There have been several notable organizations who have executed on the "remove all the differences" comprehensive turnaround model. Their theory is somewhere between the practical issue of needing the building the superintendent has to offer on whatever terms, and the desire to prove to the community that even without the advantages of choice they can eliminate the achievement gap. In my opinion, the jury is out on whether they can match the results of the organizations that don't buy the whole comprehensive enchilada. In a lot of ways, it is not a fair comparison. If you do a comprehensive turnaround and are able to overcome the re-culturing of the school, you still have a set of students that actually have no interest in your program. Some of these students are the most troubled, in and out of prison, suffering emotional trauma, and other very severe issues.

So what is the answer? How do you restart schools with stellar results but as a system serve all of the students? This is where the believers in parent choice would propose a far different solution than districts have typically implemented. Instead of looking at the most troubled students as some kind of tax on the system which must be born by all, we should look at this special population as an opportunity for an organization to focus and serve very well. It is my opinion that many of the comprehensive operators have actually gotten very good at serving this exact population. Unfortunately they are also creating several different kinds of schools for the other kids they have to serve in a comprehensive turnaround, making it very difficult to do everything well.

Instead, each organization should focus on doing one thing well and serving parents and students who have certain desires and needs. As a system, we should put our money where our mouth is and pay operators the 2-3x more to serve the most at-risk students well. I am convinced that this would create a whole set of non-profits which would do this well.

So the next version of restarts doesn't look like a Rocketship taking all 600 students at an elementary. We take the parents who have deep desires to send their kids to college. At the same time, the district partners with other organizations with other focuses, including several that focus on the most at-risk students with the goal of exiting them back into the system in a year or two. We have seen this type of portfolio approach work over and over in the charter world and I am convinced that focus will allow us not to see that final 5-10% of students as a tax, but as a natural resource with the most upside of any students in the system.