This morning, U.S. News and World Report released its 2018 list of the nation’s best high schools. For the past few years, public charters have been slowly taking over the top 10 spots on the list; this year, they dominated them.

For those of us who believe in the power of public school choice to bring dramatic change to America’s education system, the timing of the release couldn’t have been better. After all, it’s National Charter School Week, and what better way to highlight the success of public charters than by celebrating that seven of  America’s 10 best high schools are charter schools, including the top six spots.

Of course, rankings should always be taken with a grain of salt, and U.S. News’s methodology for ranking schools differs from the method used by The Washington Post for its “most challenging high schools” list. Creating performance frameworks for schools is difficult, and there’s alway room for quibbling over rankings and ratings.

Regardless, we shouldn’t ignore that public charter schools were the only non-selective public high schools to make it into the top 10 spots on the U.S. News list

District-run “selective” schools are allowed to evaluate applications and select students based on academic criteria and other admission requirements. Public charters, on the other, must take all students who apply. If a charter school is oversubscribed, it holds a lottery to see who gets in, giving preference only to siblings of current students and, in some cases, students who are economically disadvantaged.

The only three traditional public schools to earn a spot on the U.S. News top 10 list have admission requirements. Of the top 20 spots on the list, nine of the 11 traditional public schools have them. The other two traditional public schools in the top 20 use lottery enrollment systems similar to those of public charters.

Personally, I don’t have an ideological objection to academically selective public schools; however, I think placing these high schools in the same category as the rest of America’s public schools doesn’t make for a fair comparison.

When high schools require students to complete any combination of testing, grade reporting, interviews, or teacher recommendations as part of the admissions process, they are attempting to select for a specific subset of students – the brightest and most motivated. To some extent, the most difficult work has already been done. These schools are only admitting the students deemed most likely to succeed based on their previous academic and behavioral records. America’s other public schools, including public charters, must teach all kids, regardless of their abilities or behavioral issues.

A mere five years ago, on the 2013 list, seven of the top 10 schools had selective admissions processes. (The other three were two charters and a traditional public school with a lottery admission). In a short time – because of the growth and success of public charters – we’ve seen those numbers reverse.

Charters competing with, and outranking, these selective schools shows that America now has public high schools capable of educating all students, not only those marked as highly qualified before they walk through the doors.

If states and districts continue to invest in growing 21^stcentury school systems that utilize the charter formula of autonomy, accountability, and choice, we can have more of these schools. And maybe, one day, America can live up the promise of providing a rigorous and enriching public school for every child – not just for those who test into one.

This week, Antwan Wilson stepped down as Chancellor of District of Columbia Public Schools after the majority of the 13-member D.C. City Council demanded his resignation for skirting the rules of the infamously competitive D.C. school lottery. Wilson ensured his daughter received a preferential transfer into the district’s highest-performing, non-selective traditional public school.

To the City Council, I would like to say: “well done.”

Wilson’s daughter was attending Duke Ellington School of the Arts, a selective performance arts school with a three-part admissions process. Ellington is generally considered one of the district’s better high schools; however, in the middle of the academic year, Wilson decided the school was not a good fit for his daughter.

Rather than abide by the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) rules for a mid-year transfer Wilson approached the Deputy Mayor for Education to secure a placement for his daughter in Wilson High School. Following the district’s procedure for a mid-year transfer would have meant sending his daughter to her in-boundary neighborhood school, Dunbar High School.

Just half a year ago, in his “Vision for D.C. Public Schools,” Wilson wrote: “Families, educators and community members expect us to offer students a world-class education that will prepare them to think for themselves, work with others and lead in today’s complex world. They expect us to do that for every student in every neighborhood — without exception. And they expect us to do it with the same caring we would show our own children.”

They’re beautiful words, but his action speaks louder. He  didn’t show the same caring for every D.C. child as he did for his own; after all, he placed his daughter in front of the more than 100 other children on Wilson High School’s waitlist.

It also shows that he doesn’t really expect each high school to offer students a world-class education.

If Wilson really wanted for communities to believe that obtaining a world-class education for their children was a possibility at any district school, in any neighborhood, would he have sought preferential placement for his daughter at DCPS’s most racially and socio-economically diverse traditional public school? Wouldn’t he have sent her to Dunbar High School, where 100 percent of students are economically disadvantaged?

There’s no doubt that Wilson was just acting out of love and trying to do what was best for his daughter, but over 100 other parents wanted the same for their children. They just didn’t have the means to get it.

Wilson previously promised that DCPS would “develop a clear vision for equity that addresses race, income, disability, English-language fluency and other traditional markers for disadvantage, and then act on that vision in ways that strengthen opportunity.”

The lottery system is a crucial part of that vision for equity. It offers an equal chance for all students to receive placement in one of the district’s top schools, regardless of socio-economic status. Wilson even previously worked to strengthen the lottery rules by attempting to close loopholes that made preferential placements possible.

By going around this system, he betrayed parents, the DCPS community, and his own mission to create equity for all families in DCPS.

Wilson’s vision statement for DCPS was beautifully written, but if the Chancellor doesn’t believe in abiding by the system he created to help make that vision a reality for all parents and children in DCPS, then he’s not the man for the job.

The community has spoken, and, at least for once, the City Council listened.

Fighting for the neediest and pushing back against special interests are often unexpected actions in the realm of political battles.

However, Dorsey Hopson, Superintendent of the Shelby County Schools (SCS) in Memphis, Tennessee, might exceed our expectations.

Last week, Hopson announced that he is “willing to voluntarily relinquish control over some struggling schools to be operated by private charter groups.”

For years, SCS has been working hard to turn around struggling schools through its Innovation Zone. The iZone, however, is a costly model, and few of its schools have successfully achieved key benchmarks.

In defense of his decision, Hopson said:  “We spend so much money, whether it’s philanthropic dollars, state dollars, our dollars, on trying to improve these Priority Schools over the last five or six years, and we’ve gotten some gains but certainly nowhere near the transformative results that we would like to have had …So I think we’ve got to take another shot at it and do it differently.”

Hopson is showing strength of character by acknowledging the success of the charter school model at a time when the anti-charter propaganda machine is in full swing. Because he recognizes the district’s need for “transformative results,” Hopson is willing to throw out the old, unsuccessful model of education that has failed urban students for decades in favor of embracing public charters, which have created profound changes in cities like New Orleans, Washington D.C., Denver, and Indianapolis.

Strong superintendents cannot, and should not, sit idly and continue to  support schools that are not helping children achieve, especially when public charters schools can help thousands of our nation’s most disadvantaged kids.

After all, the Tennessee Charter School Center reminds us that a charter sector benefit students because:

• Public charter schools are held accountable.  Test scores and performance results are published and are part of the school district findings.
• Public charter schools provide healthy learning environments for all students, including students with special needs, English Language Learners and the gifted.
• Public charter schools are not allowed to turn away any child, for any reason.
• Public charter school teachers want to be in their school; it was their interest that brought them to the school.

If none of these key points brings you to the table with Superintendent Hopson, then looking at the data from the 2017 Shelby County Schools Charter Schools Annual Report might. The existing charter schools have already paved the way for more innovation, progress, and success.

The report notes that student enrollment in Shelby County charter schools has increased annually by an average of 1,500 students per year. More parents are choosing the charter option than ever before.

The charter sector also has lower suspension rates for secondary schools, and public charters in Shelby County have a lower withdrawal rate than district-managed schools. More students receive more days of instruction.

Finally, charter schools participate in a program that offers transparency and encourages oversight.  The Operations Score Card (OSC)  assesses the charter schools’ performance regarding non-academic expectations, like school budgets, operation, legal compliance and other issues.  The OSC stated that Shelby County Charter schools “are consistently managing operations well and to respond appropriately in the interest of protecting SCS and its students when charters are at risk for non-compliance.”

In  Reinventing America’s Schools, David Osborne underscores the findings and points out, “As in most charter cities, Memphis’s charters outperform traditional public schools.”  

The data supports the promise of having public charters take over operation of SCS’s failing schools. It’s no wonder that Hopson supported the idea too.

Of course, not everyone was pleased at Hopson’s announcement. United Education Association of Shelby County President Tikeila Rucker was dismayed that Hopson would consider partnering with charter organizations: ““UEA along with parents, teachers and community leaders stands behind the district turning schools around, not giving schools away.”

Unfortunately, in the face of such commotion, Hopson has begun to placate those who want to keep the status quo.  In an email to principals, he clarified his remarks, writing: “All that said, I want to be very clear that my preference would always be to keep schools under the governance of (Shelby County Schools).”

Please, Superintendent Hopson, continue to stay strong and do what’s right. Put politics aside and put kids first.

As I travel around the country on a 24-city book tour, giving talks and meeting with education reform leaders and activists, I get a lot of questions. I thought it might be useful to answer a few of them in print. These are a set I received in Oakland, California, at an event sponsored by GO Public Schools, Educate78, and the Rogers Family Foundation.

When will cities face the brutal reality of failing schools, name that as the reality, and use that as the impetus for change?

 Some cities—Denver, New Orleans, Washington, D.C., Indianapolis, Memphis, and others—have done so. It requires strong leaders, and they must win the inevitable political battles that result—something that is not always easy.

Replacing failing schools with high quality schools inevitably means some people will lose their jobs, and that usually drives the teachers union to oppose such changes. Some community leaders will also oppose replacing schools in their neighborhoods, even though the new school operators have outstanding track records. Reformers need to win the resulting political battles with unions and work with the communities involved to help parents help pick the replacement operator they prefer.

Sometimes cities won’t improve without outside influence. Bureaucracy is slow to change, and patronage politics runs deep in many urban districts. In New Orleans, Newark, and Camden, New Jersey, the wake-up call came when the state took over the local school district (or most of its schools, in New Orleans) because of perpetually failing schools. People don’t like losing local control, so even if the state improves the schools, a takeover is often met with hostility. But in all three cities, the reforms have won many parents over, because the resulting schools are so much better that those they replaced.

 Community engagement and parent empowerment are key factors to support the development of our schools. How do they fit in?

 Systems of choice and charter schools have helped empower parents in many cities. In these systems, the tax dollars usually follow the students, so parents have some leverage with the schools, since they can move their children and the dollars will follow. Many charter schools also have a history of encouraging parent engagement. Home visits, regular parents’ nights at school, and other ways to involve parents were initiated in charter schools and then adopted by district schools, in cities such as Washington D.C. and Denver.

Many parent empowerment organizations, such as The Memphis Lift and Stand for Children, have helped organize and give voice to parents who support charter schools and school choice. These organizations play an important role in giving parents political influence and allowing their voices to be heard.

In Newark, where more than 30 percent of the students are in charters, Mayor Ras Baraka was anti-charter until local charter supporters registered more than 3,000 parents of charter school students to vote. Baraka then decided to back “unity slates” for the District Advisory Board, which will become the school board when control returns to Newark citizens. Newark had some of the strongest charters in the nation, but without mobilizing charter parents, charter advocates would not have been successful in winning seats on the board.

What might be the unintended consequences of this 21^st century strategy?

 Any idea can be poorly done. In states that don’t have strong charter laws, authorizers aren’t held accountable to anyone but parents. Unfortunately, some parents are happy if a school is warm and nurturing and will leave their children in a school where kids are falling further behind grade level every year. But if the kids aren’t learning, we’re cheating them, denying them future opportunities. We’re also cheating the taxpayers, who fund public schools to produce an educated citizenry and workforce. So charter authorizers need to hold schools accountable.

That means vetting applications thoroughly before giving charters out, then replacing schools that fail to meet their performance goals by large margins. In states where authorizers abdicate this role, charter schools don’t perform much better than district schools. School systems need both autonomy and accountability.

Also, places with weak authorizers or multiple authorizers usually can’t resolve the equity issues that arise in any school system. Do special needs, low-income, and kids learning English have an equal shot at high-quality schools, for instance? Only if authorizers ensure they do by creating common enrollment systems, workable funding systems for special education, services for those who don’t speak English, and publicly funded transportation to school. This has happened in places with strong authorizers, such as New Orleans, D.C., and Denver, but not in cities with multiple authorizers or district authorizers too preoccupied with operating schools—with rowing—to meet their responsibilities to steer.

Is common enrollment for district and charter schools required for this change?

 Ideally, yes. As noted above, enrollment is an equity issue. Without a common enrollment system, parents with more education, time, and know-how can get their kids into better schools.

In 2011, Denver Public Schools rolled out its common enrollment system, “SchoolChoice.” Before then, parents who wanted their children to attend a school other than their neighborhood school had to research and apply to multiple schools. The district had more than 60 enrollment systems for its own schools alone, plus many more for charter schools.

Community organizations such as Metro Organizations for People pushed for a common enrollment system on equity grounds. Many low-income parents didn’t have the time or language skills to fill out multiple applications, and they found the previous process intimidating, so they were less likely to apply.

SchoolChoice has clearly increased equity, leading to a jump in the percentage of low-income students and English-language learners attending in-demand schools.

Without common enrollment systems, parents and schools can more easily circumvent the “required” procedures for applying to certain schools. In Denver, a 2010 study proved that 60 percent of those whose kids attended an elementary school outside their neighborhood got them in through “unofficial” means, such as baking brownies for the principal. Common enrollment put a stop to that.

Is transportation required in what you call “21^st century school systems”?

 If we want equal opportunity, yes. There is no true equity unless all students have equal access to high quality schools. If parents can’t get their kids to school each day, they’re going to send them to the closest school, which means they don’t really have a choice. Those who have the means will take their kids to a better school and those who don’t will stay with what’s geographically close.

In systems of choice, there should also be a variety of school models—different schools for different kids. Without transportation, this won’t work as well. Imagine if a student wants to go to a STEM school, but the school in his or her neighborhood is a dual-language immersion school. That student needs transportation to the STEM school; otherwise, he’s forced to attend an educational model that isn’t engaging for him.

How do you reconcile choice and the inclusion of “non-choosers” (kids without advocates and families without agency)?

 Most families want their children to have the best education they can, but some lack the resources, “know-how,” or wherewithal to get their kids into good schools. A few are simply not paying attention, for one reason or another.

In 21^st century systems, authorizers and/or school boards are freed of the daily tasks of running schools, so they can focus on steering, which includes ensuring equal access to quality schools. In districts such as Denver, New Orleans, Washington D.C., and Newark, the implementation of common enrollment systems has helped level the playing fields so that all students have equal access. (Soon Indianapolis will follow suit.) After implementing common enrollment systems, districts and authorizers must provide good information about schools in multiple languages, and they must create centers where parents can go to learn about the schools, as the Recovery School District did in New Orleans. Then they should reach out to families who aren’t reaching out to them, to make sure they get the information and help they need to make good choices. Many have not yet met this challenge.

If districts or authorizers fail to do this, outside organizations can step into the breach. In New Orleans, a nonprofit called EdNavigator now contracts with a series of large employers to help their employees make good decisions about their children’s schooling and deal with any problems that come up involving their schools.

Finally, choice, competition, and school accountability help all students, even if their families are not actively choosing. Schools that have to compete often work hard to improve. And if districts and authorizers replace failing schools with stronger operators, as they do in 21^st century systems, the students in those failing schools benefit.

There are other districts that have improved their academic performance using a totally different strategy (e.g. Long Beach, Ca., and Union City, N.J.). Why shouldn’t our district just use that approach?

 These districts have not improved as fast as New Orleans, Washington, D.C., or Denver. In addition, they have required political stability for a long time. Long Beach has had two superintendents over the past 25 years, the second of which was the first’s deputy. It took five years for reform efforts to begin to show progress in student learning, but the board and superintendent stuck with it. In Union City, profiled in David Kirp’s excellent book, Improbable Scholars, the leadership of the mayor (who was an important force for improvement) and district also remained consistent for more than two decades. Under such conditions, even centralized bureaucracies can make significant progress. Union City, after more than 20 years, reached roughly the state average in performance. But New Orleans, with a far tougher population, did so in less than a decade.

If your district can afford to go more slowly, can guarantee political stability for two decades, and cannot use charter and charter-like schools for some reason, by all means emulate Long Beach and Union City. Their children are much better off after 25 years of steady system improvement.

What if a city has too many buildings for the number of schools appropriate to the number of students it has?

There are a number of alternatives. Perhaps the best is to lease empty buildings to charter operators, who are often desperate for buildings they can afford. Some districts, such as Denver, Washington, D.C., and New York City, have also shared buildings between district and charter schools, leasing one wing or one floor of a building. This brings in district revenue while helping the charter schools.

The final alternative is to close half-empty schools and sell the surplus buildings. But this is disruptive to students and families, and it is politically difficult. It might also leave a district with too few buildings if enrollment later grew.

Districts should note that D.C., New Orleans, and Denver are all growing districts. An embrace of charter schools and choice has turned out to be the best strategy for increasing enrollment.

How does a district close schools while also pursuing new models and approaches?

Closing schools is always tough, but ultimately, if we let failing schools continue to operate, we hurt kids. So districts should engage with school communities, including parents, to demonstrate that the school is not educating their children effectively and show them other operators that might come in to run the school.

The goal is not to close schools put to replace them with better schools. In New Orleans, D.C., and Denver, the districts/authorizers have learned to bring in two or three potential operators and let the parents talk to them about their school models. They also encourage parents to visit the operators’ existing schools. Then they give parents a say in the decision about which operator comes into their neighborhood and educates their children.

States with strong charter laws and funding tend to attract better charter management organizations, which often have more experience with replicating schools and taking over failing schools. So the quality of state legislation is also important.

Can you share a few examples of similar transitions in other parts of government that are farther along, and how you know that it has “worked?”

 Contracting of public services is very common in today’s world. Head Start programs contract with nonprofit organizations to operate their centers. Many human services are contracted to nonprofit organizations. Cities contract with for-profit firms to build and maintain their roads, bridges, and highways. Garbage collection is often contracted out to competing private companies, as are myriad other public services.

Consider our largest public programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare. All use public funds but private service delivery, by private doctors and hospitals. Indeed, the majority of publicly funded services are now delivered by private organizations. Public education is well behind the curve, too often stuck with an Industrial Era model in the Information Age.

When our district granted more autonomy to principals, it worked for some leaders but some didn’t use their autonomy well. What kind of training and preparation do school leaders need for this to be effective? And what do districts that have made this transition do with principals that don’t want to or can’t make the switch?

 Leaders of all organizations need leadership and management training, something school principals rarely get. We also need to make principals’ jobs easier by using multiple school leaders, as so many charter schools do: one for academics, another for operations, and sometimes a third for culture and discipline. And we need to provide mentors and coaches to principals who struggle with autonomy.

If a school or program is new, giving the leader(s) enough preparation time is critical. When starting a school, they need time to plan and to build a leadership team well before the school opens. In Indianapolis, an organization called The Mind Trust provides financial and other support to leaders planning new school models, typically for a year or two. The district provides at least a year of planning time for the schools after the application is approved but prior to the opening of the school.

 Asking strong school leaders to share best practices with others can also be effective. The superintendent of Denver Public Schools, Tom Boasberg, has hired dozens of people from charters and worked hard to spread successful charter practices to district-operated schools. For example, DPS brought in charter leaders from successful networks such as Uncommon Schools and KIPP to lead professional development for DPS principals. The district also gave aspiring school leaders a year to work in a strong charter school—and to visit outstanding schools around the nation—to learn how it’s done. By 2015, 84 percent of Denver teachers rated their principals “effective” or “very effective,” a big improvement. Though turnover of principals in low-income schools was a problem for years, by 2016–17 it had slowed dramatically.

Principals who don’t want to operate in an environment of school autonomy can always move on to other positions, as teachers or in central administration—or with a different district or business. Most Americans lack lifetime job security, after all; there’s no reason principals should be an exception. Finally, principals who fail in an environment of autonomy must be removed, for the sake of the children.

More autonomy for principals has actually increased the cost of some services in our district – e.g. centralized food service. How should a district balance the need for efficiency through centralized services with this desire for autonomy?

Services that are efficient but not effective are a waste of time. Most teachers, for instance, think the professional development their districts force on them is a waste of time. Making it more efficient would be no help at all.

We should pursue the most cost-effective methods to educate children possible. Often centralized food services do not provide the nutritious meals that school leaders want for their children—instead loading them up with carbohydrates and sugar. If we let school leaders choose their food services, we’re likely to get better nutrition, leading to more learning. In addition, competition between food service providers can lower costs. But if a district contracts out food services competitively, it can also get those lower costs. If school leaders are satisfied with the quality of the food, a centrally managed food service can work—though the power to go elsewhere does help school leaders get what they want from food service providers.

Even in areas where a monopoly clearly offers efficiency advantages, such as school busing, those advantages can sometimes be illusory. Before Hurricane Katrina, New Orleans used one bus system, which was centrally managed. But there was so much corruption and inefficiency that it was quite expensive. (Some bus drivers used their district credit cards to sell gas to truck drivers.) Today each school manages its own busing, which should be more expensive. But the system spends the same percentage of its funds on transportation as it did before the reforms.

A few services may need to remain centralized monopolies, but most do not. Forty years ago, the school district in Edmonton, Alberta, figured out how to decentralize district services, and their model has been used widely since, by governments at all levels. Most central services are turned into public enterprises and capitalized, but their monopoly is withdrawn, so schools can go elsewhere to purchase the service. Then the funds are distributed to the schools, and the new service enterprises must earn their revenue by selling to the schools. This works like a charm, and every district should do it. To learn more about it, see my chapter on this strategy at https://reinventgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/09.0EnterpriseManagement.pdf.

How have districts worked collaboratively with unions on this strategy?

 For the most part, they haven’t. Twenty-first century systems are decentralized, giving power back to the schools and the people who run them. As a result, they take power away from the unions. While some charter schools have chosen to unionize, most have not. Even in charter-lite models, if teachers in a school can vote to leave the collective bargaining agreement, they often do—which means there’s little incentive for the union to support that model either.

The unions have publically supported teacher-run schools, an educational model used in both district and charter schools, because it increases teacher professionalism and teacher voice. In Minnesota the teachers union created a charter authorizer, primarily to authorize teacher-run schools. And in Springfield, Massachusetts, the teachers union agreed to participate in an Empowerment Zone Partnership with the state, which is overseen by a board that now authorizes 10 of Springfield’s schools. Four of the members are appointed by the state, three are local leaders. The union agreed to a longer school day and slightly higher pay, in part because the Partnership offered to require leadership councils at each zone school, with four teachers elected by the teaching staff and one appointed by the principal. The councils work with the principal to make decisions, and they must approve his or her annual plans for the school. (For more information, see our report on Springfield at https://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/education/springfield-empowerment-zone-partnership/.)

Springfield’s example offers a route other districts could take to convince unions to support 21^st century strategies. Most teachers want more say in how their schools run, and sometimes their unions will back reforms they would otherwise oppose if they increase teacher power. Sadly, however, the statewide union in Massachusetts is fighting against a bill to allow other districts to do what Springfield has.