This story first appeared in Ann Doss Helms' weekly education newsletter. Sign up here Sign up here to get it to your inbox first.
When you listen to North Carolina’s lawmakers, it can seem like school choice is a starkly partisan issue: Democrats support public education, while Republicans value choice and competition.
Real life is so much more nuanced.
School choice has been a defining theme of the education beat since I started in 2002. As I approach retirement, I’m still grappling with how we can cultivate the benefits of choice while protecting against the hazards.
In 2002 the big local news was the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools “choice plan,” created to replace race-based student assignment. The district expanded an already robust menu of magnet schools created during court-ordered desegregation. In addition, students could apply for seats in neighborhood schools within a large transportation zone.
Parents searched for the best options. Tens of thousands of students switched schools. CMS had to haul in trailers to accommodate all the students in popular neighborhood schools, while others (often in low-income neighborhoods) had empty classrooms. A massive, complex transportation plan was required — ironically, busing for choice proved to be more costly than busing for desegregation.
A consumer-based paradigm
As you might imagine, that much change brought controversy. One sore point came when kids didn’t get their first-choice assignment. Parents said the very term “choice” implied that families would get what they asked for.
In fact, much of the language of choice was modeled on consumerism. Parents shopped for schools. Schools competed for customers. Districts watched their market share.
That’s a familiar paradigm for Americans. But consumerism is inherently individualistic and competitive. When you’re shopping for a car or a pair of shoes, you understand that some folks have more resources than others and will get better things. Your job is to negotiate the best deal you can — and if you do better than the next guy, you count that as a victory.
The wealthiest have long been able to send their children to top-flight private schools. But as the competitive, look-out-for-your-own-kids mindset spread, I wondered what might happen to community support for public schools. The folks with clout in Charlotte have always voiced strong support for public education, and I think it’s sincere. But I had to wonder: Were those of us with resources starting to support the public school system in the way we support homeless shelters — not as something that’s there for us, but as the right thing to do for the less fortunate? And if so, what would that mean for public schools as a path to opportunity?
Does competition drive innovation?
CMS quietly phased out the “choice plan” language and scaled back the options after a couple of years. But the district maintains a focus on magnets and other alternatives, celebrating a huge school choice fair each fall. And many nearby districts have added magnets in recent years.
School choice expanded in 2011, when North Carolina’s General Assembly lifted the 100-school limit on charter schools. These publicly-funded schools are authorized by the state and run by nonprofit boards instead of school districts. They have more flexibility than district schools on such things as teacher licensure, school calendars and transportation, though they must give the same state exams and report the same data on school report cards.
Charter schools are designed to give families options. Proponents suggested they would also serve as innovation labs for all public schools.
They’re clearly a popular alternative, especially in the Charlotte region. North Carolina now has 210 charter schools, with almost 145,000 students enrolled last year. While enrollment in school districts has flattened or shrunk, charter enrollment keeps growing.
But after more than a decade of covering charter schools, I can’t side with the camp that sees them as a godsend — or those who see them as a curse. Charter schools generally perform a lot like district schools. Those located in areas that attract advantaged students tend to have high test scores, while those in locations that cater to disadvantaged students perform poorly. It’s worth noting, though, that Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, which has been tracking and comparing national performance since 2000, initially found no clear advantage to charter schools but now shows them gaining ground.
I’ve heard charter schools described as bastions of segregation, but I see the same trends in demographics as in performance: Charter schools in suburban areas tend to be whiter and more affluent, while many located closer in serve mostly students of color and poverty — generally mirroring district schools in the same areas.
In 2016 I compared teacher pay for charter schools and Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools. Charter schools “get more flexibility in hiring – only half the teachers have to be licensed – and can more easily dismiss those who don’t work out,” I wrote in The Charlotte Observer. “In theory, that allows charter boards to craft creative pay plans. They can carve off big salaries to entice a handful of superstar teachers, or create a scale that rewards effectiveness over experience. They can schedule extra class time or school days, with paychecks to match the greater demands.”
But that wasn’t what I found: “In reality, many Charlotte-area charter schools say the budget isn’t big enough for much creativity.”
There are clearly successful charter schools. But I can’t think of a single instance in which the General Assembly has revised the system to take charter-school innovations to scale.
Likewise, there have been dramatic charter school failures, but they are the exception. After the cap was lifted, a couple of Charlotte schools fell apart before their first year ended, creating disruption for students, families and the public schools that took the students. And the state has forced several around the state to close because of academic, management and/or financial problems. Proponents would say that’s a sign that the charter-school oversight system works. According to EdWeek, charter school researchers theorize that improvements in screening and accountability may be driving improvements in academic performance.
Scrapping for limited resources
The latest twist in choice has been North Carolina’s steadily-growing private-school voucher program, which provides tuition subsidies with very few strings attached. One theme is constant, even as the players change: Choice means competition for money and for motivated students.
State funding for public schools is based largely on enrollment. And the families who pursue alternatives tend to be the ones who speak English, who have the time and skills to “shop” for schools and who may have to provide their own transportation. That can leave neighborhood schools, especially in less affluent areas, facing what feels like a no-win situation: Reduced enrollment, reduced funding, a high-needs student body and an official “low performing” label that accelerates the cycle of flight.
So yes: The challenges of school choice are real and serious.
But so are the benefits.
I grew up in a time and place where everyone went to neighborhood schools. We learned cursive writing, memorized our “times tables” and got paddled when we acted up. Some people romanticize that as a golden age. But I am in awe of the options today’s students have. They can explore their creativity at an arts school or a Montessori program. They can become fluent in a foreign language. They can find a specialized program for gifted students, take college-level classes in high school, learn lucrative trades or earn a prestigious International Baccalaureate diploma.
It’s hard to imagine many families would trade that for a one-size-fits-all education.
Mixing and matching
Heath Morrison was superintendent of CMS when the charter school boom began. He said something that turned on a lightbulb for me: CMS families, charter school families and private school families are not separate camps. Instead, each family weaves together the options that match what their children’s needs — and those needs often change over the years.
I’ve seen that play out. A family may have one child who thrives in a traditional public school and another who needs alternatives. Families who start with home-schooling or charter schools when children are young often switch to traditional public high schools that offer more classes, extracurriculars and sports.
And philosophy can clash with reality. One of my friends thinks private-school vouchers are horrible public policy. But a private school offered a lifeline for his child during a tough time, and he wrestles with the ethics of having an option that other families can’t afford. Likewise, plenty of choice advocates take pride in their own neighborhood schools — and realize that if public schools fail, property values, economic development and civic life will take a hit.
All of which leads me to believe we’d benefit from honest, thoughtful strategizing about shared values: A desire to open doors of opportunity, recognition that kids and families have complex needs, and a sense of responsibility for spending public money wisely. But that’s devilishly hard to pull off in a political climate that values chalking up wins and demonizing opponents.
