Rose Mary Grant: R.I. foolish to harm charter schools
By Rose Mary Grant
Providence Journal
March 29, 2015
As the debate about charter school funding continues at the Rhode Island State House, a narrow focus has been placed on the financial impact of charters on the traditional public schools.
It is clear that the review of the funding formula and the decisions made moving forward could significantly alter the landscape for charter schools. However, what has not been brought to the table at these hearings is the impact that undermining charter schools could have on the State of Rhode Island.
The CREDO (Center for Research on Educational Outcomes) Report, published by Stanford University in 2013, ranked states based on the growth performance of charter schools in reading and math as compared with students in traditional public schools.
The study used an approach in which a “virtual twin” was constructed for each charter student by drawing on the available records of traditional public school students with identical traits and identical or very similar prior test scores who were enrolled in traditional schools that the charter students would have likely attended if they were not in their charter school. Factors included in the matching criteria were: grade level; gender; race/ethnicity; free or reduced-price lunch eligibility; English language learner status; special education status; and prior test score on state achievement tests.
Rhode Island charter schools clearly led the pack in growth rates and impact on performance. The report equates growth rate with extra instructional days.
On page 63, the report explains reading growth and states: “Especially of interest are those states such as the District of Columbia (72 additional days learning) and Louisiana (50 additional days) that have above-average charter effects and below-average NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] scores. Rhode Island has the strongest charter effect in reading at 86 additional days of learning.”
On page 64, a similar pattern is noted in math growth. “The average charter impact in math for students in the District of Columbia is equal to 101 additional days of instruction; in New York City, the amount is 94 additional days, and in Rhode Island, it is 108 additional days of learning.”
How ironic is it that the state with very weak laws in place to foster the growth and development of charter schools has charters that are leading the nation in outcomes?
The Center for Education Reform Report on Charter Laws this year gave the State of Rhode Island a grade of D for charter school laws. “Rhode Island has a very weak charter law across the board. Only the state can approve charter schools, there is a cap on the number of charters.”
Clearly, it is time for Rhode Islanders to understand that this is not an argument of charters versus traditional public schools. It is not about who wins and who loses. All of Rhode Island loses if we cut funding to the very schools that are nationally recognized as outperforming their counterparts across the country.
Rhode Island’s economy and workforce are dependent on high-quality education. Businesses will not move into a state if they know that their prospective employees will question the educational options for their children. Likewise, Rhode Island will not grow its own workforce by cutting funding to high-performing schools.
With statistics showing that minorities are struggling, schools with higher outcomes for Hispanic and black students are critical to building the Rhode Island economy. Rhode Island urban charters are the schools doing that heavy lifting and closing the gaps for minority students.
Changing the funding formula to harm charter schools would not only hurt those schools, but also hurt job development, employment, the housing market and business stimulation and growth in the state.
How shortsighted Rhode Island would be to ignore the national data available to us as we make critical decisions about the future of our state. How will national leaders and funders look upon a state that chooses to ignore the impartial evidence based on solid outcomes and decrease funding to the charter schools that are leading the nation in outcomes for our minority student population?
