We’ve worked in education long enough to know that idea is not only wrong, it’s dangerous. And if educators let it guide the future of schooling, we’ll hurt the very children we say we’re trying to serve.

For more than two decades, we have led , an Indigenous, community-based public charter school in Northeast Los Angeles. We started this school because we believe education is not just a service — it’s a sacred responsibility that communities carry together. It is how communities sustain themselves, how culture is carried forward and how children learn to protect the world they will inherit. It was never meant to be a marketplace.

Yet the U.S. educational system increasingly treats it as one.

Schools are pressured to compete for students, buy pre-packaged curricula from multibillion-dollar publishing companies and outsource major decisions to consultants with a focus on standardization. Anyone who has sat through those meetings knows how quickly the conversation shifts from students to numbers. We’ve seen teachers, parents and even children reduced to data points.

These aren’t random shifts. They are all part of a growing push to marketize education.

You can see this trend in national politics as well. Recently, President Trump highlighted a meant to set up trust funds for children to invest in the stock market. It was framed as an investment in their future. But it also sends a message: that children’s opportunities will depend not on the strength of their education or the support of their communities, but on their relationship to speculative financial markets.

At the same time, efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education would place schools even more at the mercy of market forces. Yes, schools need funding. Yes, a functioning economy matters. But if schools teach children that their futures begin and end with the stock market, they are failing them. Their creativity, their relationships, their roots in community and their future—those are the things that actually carry them through life.

We know this because we’ve watched it happen at our school.

For 23 years, Anahuacalmecac has drawn from Indigenous knowledge systems, systems that kept communities alive on this land long before California was called California. Our students learn Nahuatl, English and Spanish. They plant gardens and learn where their water comes from. They study their own histories, including the parts of California’s story that don’t make it into mainstream textbooks. They participate in cultural protocols. They learn that they belong to a community and that their choices matter.

This isn’t nostalgia. It’s preparation for the world they’re inheriting.

In parts of Los Angeles, kids grow up breathing unhealthy air and drinking water that isn’t always safe. Their families struggle with rent. Parks and open land disappear to development. The effects of climate change show up in severe weather and devastating wildfires, in asthma rates and in the daily lives of students. These crises aren’t limited to L.A., or even California. This is the reality for many children across the country — and the globe.

Schools can’t pretend these conditions don’t exist. Our job is not simply to help young people navigate crises; it’s to give them the tools and imagination to change them.

That requires something beyond training students for the workforce. It means teaching resilience, curiosity, cultural memory and responsibility to the places they come from. It means helping them recognize that their value is not determined by an economy, but by their ability to strengthen their communities and repair what has been harmed.

This approach isn’t just Indigenous. Denmark’s education system — a model U.S. policymakers often praise — focuses on creativity, collaboration and student well-being. Danish children aren’t pushed into competition at every turn or told that their future hinges on financial speculation. They are taught to think, to create and to care for the world they live in. The U.S. could learn from that.

At our school, we’ve seen firsthand that when students understand who they are and what they carry from previous generations, they don’t run from hard problems. They move toward them with confidence.

So we have to ask: What if our public education system centered on children’s well-being instead of the demands of the market? What if schools invested as much in belonging and culture as they do in standardized tests and outside consultants? What if they trusted communities — and children — to shape solutions that actually address the problems they face?

The crisis in public education isn’t because families or teachers failed. It’s because its roots in colonial missions to civilize our ancestors, factory models of training wage laborers and Native American boarding schools committed to destroying culture and language still embody the illusion of democracy through government schooling.

Educators can choose to transform this reality.

When we all create schools grounded in dignity, culture, connection and care, we prepare young people not just to face the future but to shape it. And if we want a healthy society — one capable of meeting climate, social and economic challenges — there is no better investment than that.

These changes led to exceptional improvements in academic outcomes, as researcher Doug Harris has thoroughly . In the two decades since, however, no city has attempted such an ambitious structural reform.

Until now.

The Indiana General Assembly on Wednesday passed , a dramatic restructuring of public education within the boundaries of Indianapolis Public Schools. The bill was a direct result of recommendations made by the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance, of local education and civic leaders. Chaired by Mayor Joe Hogsett, the alliance voted 8 to 1 in December to support a that proposed, among other things, revamping facility and transportation management for public schools within IPS boundaries.

Indiana legislators used these recommendations to craft HEA 1423, and The Mind Trust advocated for the bill because it presents a once-in-a-generation opportunity to create a school system that serves all students well. The legislation establishes the Indianapolis Public Education Corporation, which will have a nine-member board appointed by the mayor. Board members will include representatives from IPS and charter schools, as well as facilities and transportation experts with extensive knowledge of sound business practices. This new entity will be tasked with several key activities, among them:

• Creating a unified transportation plan to ensure that all public school students have access to safe, quality and efficient transportation.
• Developing a system-level facilities plan that would maintain, and potentially own, buildings for all schools that choose to opt in.
• Levying property taxes for both operating and capital costs so that all public schools within IPS boundaries benefit equally.
• Establishing a unified performance framework, including the default closure of persistently low-performing schools, that charter authorizers and IPS would be tasked with implementing.

The changes will effectively put charters and traditional public schools on the same footing — both in terms of the money spent per student and the consequences for poor performance.

All of this comes at a critical time for IPS. Today, a clear majority of public-school students within IPS boundaries attend charter schools, not IPS-managed schools. IPS has struggled to adjust to this new reality and, as a result, is running a $44 million structural deficit this school year, which is projected to grow significantly in the coming years. Without significant changes, the district will exhaust its rainy-day fund next year, risking insolvency and state takeover. 

Underutilized buildings and inefficient operations are key drivers to the district’s financial woes. An independently governed authority has the potential to both significantly downsize the district’s facility footprint and ensure the efficient provision of transportation. This structure also benefits charter schools by ensuring universal access to transportation and fully eliminating over time the funding disparity that currently leaves charter schools with about $8,000 less per student than traditional public schools.

While hard decisions remain for IPS, the legislation creates the opportunity for a reimagined school system, acknowledging that the status quo is no longer acceptable. The revolutionary component of the bill is simple but powerful: Separating the education of children from the management of operations. This approach allows educators to focus more time on what’s happening in the classroom. IPS will now become another school operator alongside charter schools, and district schools will compete on the same playing field and be held to the same accountability standards.

Critically, HEA 1423 allows for greater efficiency and coordination at the system level while safeguarding school autonomy and the ability to innovate at the school level. The new corporation’s role is well defined and limited to facilities, transportation and the creation of a new performance framework. Schools will be in charge of what happens inside classrooms and will even have the option to continue owning their buildings — and foregoing local debt service funds — if they feel the facilities plan does not meet their unique needs. A collaborative, multi-year planning process will ensure thoughtful implementation and the ability to identify future legislative tweaks.

Unlike New Orleans, where a hurricane forced leaders to quickly rebuild a school system, Indianapolis’ approach is a product of decades of methodical reforms and, more recently, a diverse group of local leaders coming together to reimagine what’s possible. And unlike more recent attempts at reform like Houston’s state takeover, this legislation activates a form of local mayoral control that has never before been tried: one that respects school autonomy while providing a single point of accountability for the financial and operational health of public education.

Indianapolis has been a national leader in education innovation since the 2001 passage of the state’s charter school law. Through three different mayors of both political parties, strong mayoral and civic leadership have been the cornerstone of that progress. A growing body of research shows that the growth of charter schools in Indianapolis has led students to significantly more academic progress, closed achievement gaps and helped usher in key system-level reforms.

This legislation is the culmination of 25 years of concerted effort. Now the hardest work begins, implementing this system in a way that significantly improves student achievement and forever breaks the connection between socioeconomic background, student success and long-term life outcomes.

As districts across the country struggle to deal with declining birthrates, universal school choice and lagging student achievement, Indianapolis provides a potential model for cities looking to create a modernized school system built for the future – not for a world that no longer exists. If this new structure is implemented well in Indianapolis, it won’t take another two decades for other major American cities to replicate that success. A little bit of courage today will go a long way toward securing a bright future for our children.

Indianapolis — flyover country to some — might just have the roadmap to get there.

Disclosure: The Mind Trust provides financial support to The 74.

And while just 19 states now offer taxpayer-supported , which allow families to spend public funds on the school or program of their choice, the policy has a growing constituency: Nearly half of parents strongly support it. 

Meanwhile, the constituency for annual testing is withering, with just 29% of parents saying they strongly support it.

The new revelations come from the second edition of , conducted by the policy group 50CAN, which operates chapters in 12 states. It surveyed parents in 50 states and Washington, D.C., and found small but significant improvements across five key educational areas, including satisfaction with school quality and student mental health support. 

The findings paint a slightly different picture than the one we’re accustomed to seeing in accounts of crowding into school board meetings: 47% of parents now say they’re very satisfied with their child’s school, up from 45% in 2024. Satisfaction by low-income parents jumped five points, from 41% to 46%. 

Likewise, 41% are very satisfied with the kind of emotional and mental health support their children get at school, up four points from last year, with significant gains in critical transition grades such as sixth and ninth grade, both up about five percentage points. 

“Overall, my takeaway is we shouldn’t get distracted by all the headlines, all the crazy stuff going on in the world,” said Marc Porter Magee, 50CAN’s founder. “We have a very reasonable shot at making education better in ways that will meaningfully improve kids’ lives. We’re generally heading in the right direction.”

Among the findings: 

• Participation in tutoring rose from 19% to 24%, with the income gap nearly cut in half, from nine percentage points to five, but low-income families still struggle to get their kids tutoring, largely because of cost and transportation;
• 86% of parents now favor free tutoring, while 80% support free summer camps; 77% back open enrollment and universal ESAs;
• 49% of parents want their children to get a four-year degree, but only 38% believe it’ll happen, with college affordability a huge sticking point; 
• While more high-income children participated in summer camp, overall participation dropped two percentage points; among low-income kids, it dropped three points; kids from high-income families are now twice as likely to attend, 61% vs 27%.

On the summer camp statistics, Porter Magee said, “My takeaway from that is there’s still a need, and high-income families are really leaning into that. But low-income families are getting hit with affordability.”

Responding to the findings, Keri Rodrigues, president of the , said, “Parents are fighting for a school that works for their kid, but when higher-income families can buy tutoring and summer learning while everyone else gets waitlists and paperwork, that’s not choice, it’s rationing.”

She noted that the union’s polling shows that just 48% of public school parents say their child is “definitely academically prepared for next year”; 31% say schools didn’t even tell them what skills their child needs.

As for satisfaction with mental health support, a 2024 found that 65% give schools an “A” or “B,” but that 31% give schools a “C” or worse. 

She said her group’s findings on parents’ priorities are clear: “Make tutoring, mental health supports, and quality learning time universal and easy to access, especially for low-income families. If we’re serious about outcomes, we have to be serious about access.”

ESA support rising across political lines

Among the most significant findings, parents across the political spectrum are now increasingly interested in ESAs — 46% of Republicans, 49% of Democrats and 43% of Libertarians and Independents say they “strongly support” the idea, and among self-described members of the Green Party or , support climbs higher, to 57%. In most state-level debates on ESAs, political conservatives are their biggest supporters.

ESAs, as well as open-enrollment policies, which allows students to attend the public school of their choice, now command more support than charter schools, and by a wide margin: 46% to 36%.

Porter Magee said ESAs merit attention as an “anti-majoritarian” school choice policy that appeals to many different kinds of parents, for different reasons.

“If you’re on the far left, you probably don’t feel like your traditional public school and school district represents you and your values perfectly,” he said. “And it’s the same when you’re on the far right. A lot of times, the people who are most attached to traditional school districts are moderates — wealthy, suburban moderates. So it kind of does make sense.” 

Porter Magee said he knows of no other parent polls that break out political beliefs like this, suggesting that conservative policymakers who favor ESAs and other school choice proposals should consider “a strange-bedfellow strategy” that invites Green and DSA-aligned parents. “Maybe they are better allies on some of these issues than we think.”

More broadly, he said, “We should not be writing off the left or the right when we’re trying to figure out the coalition that would actually pass these things.”

Kids who are ‘just not doing a lot’

The survey also broke out responses by about 1,000 parents who are K-12 teachers. It found that they’re significantly more likely to be very satisfied with their children’s school, and that their kids participate in summer programs, sports, community service, dual enrollment, and Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate courses at higher rates. “They’re just more engaged,” Porter Magee said. “They’re getting more out of their time as students.”

Asked about their children’s grades, parents with kids who get mostly A’s reported that their children were more likely to do 30 minutes or more of homework, spend time with friends in person and read for fun — “all the things we want them to do,” Porter Magee said. D and F students were more likely to play video games, scroll on their phones and access social media, their parents say. 

They also drop out of sports at higher rates, he said. “They’re just not doing a lot.” 

The difference between how “A” and “D” students spend their time isn’t generally addressed in public policy, he said, “partially because we haven’t had the data, partially because we don’t know what to do about it. But I do think it’s an issue, and I think parents see it as an issue.” 

Overall, Porter Magee said, the main finding from the survey is one of slow, incremental progress for kids, whose parents now feel that they have greater access to different kinds of opportunities. But the fact that much of that progress is largely enjoyed by high- and middle-income parents, he said, is problematic.

“How would you create the public systems to make a more equal world, where all of those opportunities are available to everyone?” he said. “That’s what we’re trying to do, and [what] the survey is helping us track.”

That feeling increased after the club, known as the O.C. Carmichael Youth Center, was used as an all-day learning pod during the pandemic for kids that needed help taking classes online, a role clubs in many cities took on.

“This building sits empty,” Wilson, now CEO of the Boys and Girls Clubs of the Northern Indiana Corridor, remembers thinking at the time. “We want every inch of this space to be utilized as much as possible for kids.”

So Wilson found an unusual way to get more use out of the building. 

After first considering loaning the 15,000 square foot space to a preschool, Wilson struck a deal with a charter school that builds many of its lessons around projects or field trips. The Career Academy Network of Public Schools, which has four other schools in the area, opened a K-5 elementary school with just over 110 students in the club at the start of the 2023-24 school year.

The partnership gives the Success Academy at Boys and Girls Club — which is not affiliated with the New York-based Success Academy charter schools — use of the building until 3 p.m. when the doors open to kids from other schools for the afternoon. Many of the school’s students stay for sports, crafts, and extra academic help with the same club aides that were in their classrooms.

“They stay with the cohort that they’re with during the day,” said Wilson. “That’s the whole idea, so that they can have that continuity of care. They know the strengths of the students that they’ve been working with all day.”

Career Academies Superintendent Candida Van Buskirk called the afterschool lessons “an additional power punch of literacy.”

“There’s no acclimation of a new leader,” said Van Buskirk. “There’s no acclimation of a new curriculum. This is the work that we do all day long, and we’re just getting an extra dose after school.”

Partnerships with schools are common for Boys and Girls Clubs, who run before and after-school programs across the country. Clubs are usually separate sites, but are often located at schools that have extra space.

But clubs hosting schools are rare. Van Buskirk said club leaders looked for clubs with similar arrangements when negotiating the partnership, but had no luck.

“We were unable to find one where it was fully enmeshed like this,” she said. 

The partnership helps the charter school in several ways. The school and Boys and Girls Club have jointly applied for grants together, which they say has helped win some. 

In addition, the Boys and Girls Clubs nationally include teaching about careers a priority of their afterschool programs, which matches a focus of the Career Academies charter chain. As part of the partnership, Katie Rodriguez, the regional workforce development coordinator for the Boys and Girls Clubs, works with the school to arrange field trips that teach students about careers.

Those trips also fit the school’s experiential learning model. Students have visited community organizations like the local food bank, local colleges, the local library so students could take home their first library cards and a theater so students could see a play and learn about all the jobs there, from actors to lighting technicians to ticket sales. 

The school also invited a judge to preside over a mock trial of the Big Bad Wolf for blowing down houses of the Three Little Pigs.

One week last fall, students visited the meteorologist at a local television station after learning about weather and how meteorology works in class.

Teaonna Miller, a school employee who works with Rodriguez to set up visits, said the hope is that students connect what they learn in class to the rest of the world.

“If they’re learning about weather inside the classroom, we find destinations that we can take them to that would relate to and correlate with the weather,” she said.

Mary Donlon, the school’s literacy coach, said the trips give students perspectives they otherwise miss out on.

“They don’t go out of their neighborhoods very often,” Donlon said. “They don’t go to museums. They don’t go to zoos on a regular basis. Generally, those experiences only happen in the school setting, and connecting it to academic things is really powerful.”

How well the school is doing is hard to say, since it is only in its third year and draws students from a low-income part of the city. School officials are proud of its giant leap from 2024 to 2025 in third grade reading proficiency from 33% of students to 70% on state tests, after participating in a state literacy effort credited with boosting scores statewide.

New tests this spring will show if gains continue.

But Wilson said he tells other club officials to consider placing schools in their clubs. He said contributing to any gains by students just furthers goals of the clubs.

“We want what’s best for kids,” Wilson said. “So it’s well worth it.”

The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board voted unanimously against an application Monday for a virtual Jewish charter school, citing the state supreme court’s 2024 ruling that public funding for a religious school would violate state law. As expected, some board members voiced support for Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation.

“I think our hands are tied,” said Board Member Damon Gardenhire, who said he didn’t see much difference between Ben Gamla’s application and a now-closed Native American charter school that featured a “spiritual component.” 

In a statement responding to the vote, Brett Farley, a member of the proposed school’s board, said organizers plan to challenge the decision in federal court. “Oklahoma families should have the freedom to choose schools that best meet their children’s needs — without losing strong options simply because they are faith-based,” he said.

The Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board is expected to deny an application for a Jewish charter school Monday, but will likely welcome organizers of the school to take them to court.

Peter Deutsch, founder of the Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation, and a former Democratic congressman, made his pitch for the school in January, saying that he aims to bring “a rigorous, values-driven education” to Jewish parents in Oklahoma.

“I anticipate that our board would like to grant them the application,” Brian Shellem, the board chair, told The 74. “But we can’t snub our nose at the court either.”

He means the Oklahoma Supreme Court, which ruled against the nation’s first Catholic charter school in 2024. That decision still stands after the U.S. Supreme Court deadlocked over that case last year. The charter board’s likely denial of Ben Gamla’s application is expected to spark another lawsuit, pitting against those who say it would violate the Constitution’s prohibition on establishing a religion. With a case over a proposed Christian charter in Tennessee already in federal court and another religious school in Colorado founded to test the same legal question, there’s little doubt that the nation’s highest court will eventually settle the debate.

“It is hard for me to imagine the court doesn’t take the issue again when it comes to it,” said Derek Black, a constitutional law professor at the University of South Carolina. But after Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself in the case over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, resulting in the 4-4 tie, the justices likely in favor of religious charters, he said, “would want a case that was very strong.”

‘Pray and hear Scripture’

So far, the only case to watch is in Tennessee. Wilberforce Academy of Knoxville, a nonprofit that wants to open a K-8 Christian charter school, sued the Knox County school board because the district wouldn’t accept its letter of intent to apply. State law prohibits charter schools from being religious. 

“Students will begin to develop biblical literacy in kindergarten and begin taking catechism lessons by third grade,” according to Wilberforce Academy’s request for a quick ruling in the case. “And they will pray and hear Scripture together in a school assembly every morning.”

As St. Isidore did before them, Wilberforce argues that the nonprofit is a “private actor” and that approving its charter application would not turn it into a government entity.

The Knox County board told the court that it will “most likely” not take a position on the legality of Wilberforce’s argument. On Thursday, the board rejected asking state education Commissioner Lizzette Reynolds to consider granting Wilberforce Academy a waiver so they can open the Christian school.

The Knox board, however, also said the issue of religious charter schools “deserves a thorough examination by the federal courts.” 

Judge Charles Atchley Jr, for the Eastern District of Tennessee, thinks so, too. Last week, he allowed a group of Knox County parents and religious leaders, who oppose Wilberforce’s application, . 

The case, he wrote, has the “potential to reshape First Amendment jurisprudence in the educational context” and it wouldn’t serve the court or parties involved to not have “vigorous advocacy on both sides.”

Amanda Collins, a retired Knox County school psychologist, is among those who have signed up to fight against Wilberforce Academy. She has two children still in the district and one who graduated in 2024. She grew concerned about Wilberforce Academy when she learned the organization didn’t have a history of operating charter schools in the state and feels its attorneys are using the district to “merely force an issue up the ladder to the Supreme Court.”

“In Tennessee, we have plenty of things that are underfunded,” she said. “We don’t need to be wasting our local Knox County taxpayer money on somebody’s agenda that is not intended to promote the education safety and wellness of our public school students.” 

‘The clear constitutional boundary’

Another school that could spark a lawsuit over public funds for religious schools is Colorado’s , which advertises that it offers students a “Christian foundation.” 

The school operates “pretty much just like a charter school” said Ken Witt, executive director of Education reEnvisioned, the board of cooperative educational services, or BOCES, that contracted with the school. 

As , emails between the attorney for the Pueblo County district, which allowed the school to open within its boundaries, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative law firm, suggest the school was intentionally founded to test the legal argument over whether public schools can practice religion. 

After threatening to withhold state funds because of the school’s religious mission, the Colorado Department of Education funded Riverstone’s 31 students. But the state is also conducting a , which could take another year, before deciding whether it can legally provide money to the school. In the meantime, Riverstone had to close its building last week because of health and safety violations. It’s unclear whether students are learning remotely or in another facility in the meantime.

For now, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat running for governor, hasn’t issued an opinion on Riverstone, but his views on St. Isidore, the Oklahoma school, were clear. Last year, he in opposing state funding for the school.

In , he urged the Supreme Court “to preserve the clear constitutional boundary that protects both religious liberty and the integrity of our public education system.”

Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a Republican who is also running for governor, made a similar argument about St. Isidore before both the Oklahoma and U.S. supreme courts. 

But that’s where both he and Weiser split with the Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti. In his , Skrmetti states that categorically excluding faith-based schools from public charter programs violates parents’ rights to freely exercise their religion.

To Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the conservative Manhattan Institute, it’s a matter of equity. Higher-income families can move into wealthier neighborhoods or pay private school tuition, he wrote in a on the Wilberforce case. The state, he added, already funds religious schools through education savings accounts. 

“But families who rely on charter schools are told that their options must be secular,” he wrote. 

Black, with the University of South Carolina, said the issue comes down to who authorized the school to begin with. In both Oklahoma and Tennessee, either local or state boards approve charter applications.

“That explicit state involvement, to me, makes it clear that state action is involved,” he said, “and thus the Establishment Clause applies.”

New Jersey’s education department approved the renewal of five charter schools in Newark and the expansion of two schools, but denied an enrollment expansion for KIPP TEAM Academy in the South Ward after the city’s public school district raised objections.

Kevin Dehmer, the state’s education commissioner, renewed Great Oaks Legacy, LEAD, Robert Treat Academy, North Star Academy, and TEAM Academy charter schools to operate for the next five years, through Jan. 30, 2031, according to charter school decision letters obtained by Chalkbeat from the state education department.

Robert Treat Academy, with campuses in the North and Central wards, and North Star Academy, part of the Uncommon Schools network across Newark, received approval to boost their enrollment by the 2030-31 school year, but the state blocked TEAM Academy’s request to add just over 1,000 seats by 2030-31.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Kevin Dehmer, the state’s education commissioner, sent charter school decision letters on Jan. 16, before Gov. Mikie Sherrill was sworn in. The letters were sent to schools statewide that sought renewals or amendments to their charter agreements, including requests to renew charter applications, add a grade level, or increase seats. The education department evaluates requests by reviewing a charter school’s academic, operational, and fiscal standing, outlined by state guidelines.

State laws allow charter schools to be renewed for a maximum of five years, but signed this month, the education commissioner can grant 10-year renewals to charter schools that meet high-performing standards.

This year, 22 charter school requests were approved statewide, including the five in Newark. New Jersey renewed charter agreements for schools in Jersey City, Paterson, Hoboken, and Camden, and denied the expansion of Thomas Edison EnergySmart School in Somerset. Overall, nine charter school enrollment expansions were approved across the state.

The decisions charter school determinations made under former Gov. Phil Murphy to approve charter schools and deny expansions. Sherrill has not explicitly stated her plans for charter schools in New Jersey, but during , she generally opposed expanding school choice through vouchers or new charter schools. She has said she would support expanding the state’s program.

Newark Public Schools Superintendent Roger Leon asked the state to renew TEAM Academy’s charter without an enrollment expansion, citing the “fiscal impact” on the district, according to the state letter. Leon alleged that “the school does not enroll a proportional share of multilingual learners and students with disabilities,” according to a letter he submitted.

Leon also opposed expansions for North Star Academy and Robert Treat Academy, citing the same reasons.

The charter school decisions come as Leon continues to reclaim Newark public school buildings lost under the state’s 25-year takeover of the district. He has vowed to slow the spread of charter schools in the city. In 2024, the district that forced People’s Preparatory Charter School out of the Bard Early College High School. with Achieve Community Charter School to create a new K-12 school called BRICK Gateway Academy.

Newark Public Schools opposes charter school expansion

Founded in 2002, TEAM Academy was the first school operated by KIPP, a national charter network, in Newark. The school enrolls grades five through eight and requested to expand enrollment from 7,920 seats to 9,010 seats by the 2030-31 school year, according to its state decision letter this year.

After reviewing the school’s academic, organizational, and financial performance, the state found that TEAM Academy partially met standards in board capacity, school climate and culture, and access and equity. According to annual reports submitted to the state, the charter school board had not conducted formal evaluations. The board is expected to complete them during the next five years, according to the state letter.

The school also reported a 17% out-of-school suspension rate for school years 2021-22 through 2023-24, during which several kindergarten through second grade students received out-of-school suspension each year, the state letter read.

State officials said the high number of suspensions created “significant concerns” in the school’s ability to adhere to state law, which restricts out-of-school suspensions for those grade levels, TEAM Academy’s decision letter stated.

But the state found the charter school met standards in educating students with disabilities and multilingual learners, contradicting Leon’s allegations. TEAM Academy has roughly 939 students with Individualized Education Programs, with an average of 80 to 90 students with existing IEPs or Section 504 Plans enrolled annually, according to the state letter.

John Abeigon, the president of the Newark Teachers Union, the American Federation of Teachers, and the City Association of Supervisors and Administrators, among other unions and groups, also submitted comments opposing TEAM Academy’s enrollment expansion.

Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, along with council members Patrick Council and Anibal Ramos, submitted comments in support of TEAM Academy, expressing support for the charter renewal due to the school’s “strong academic record and the educational choice it provides to the Newark community,” according to the state letter.

By the 2030-31 school year, Robert Treat Academy will expand from 860 seats to 1,620 seats, while North Star Academy, with schools in the Central and West Wards, will boost enrollment from 7,792 seats to 8,556 seats after receiving approval this year.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

Correction appended Jan. 29

When The 74 started looking for Bright Spots — public schools that are beating the odds  helping low-income students learn to read — it was hard to miss how well charter schools performed. Charters made up 7% of the elementary schools in our national sample but 11% of those that we identified as delivering exceptional results, with reading scores that far exceed what might be expected given the poverty rates of the populations they serve.

Charters were even more overrepresented in New York. There, charter schools made up 9.5% of the state sample, but they earned 38.5% of the spots on our list of exemplars. 

By our metric, the 10 highest-scoring schools in the state were all in New York City — and seven of them were charter schools located in the Bronx. Another was a charter school in Harlem, and the other two were traditional public schools in Brooklyn.

Click on the yellow dots to see the details for each Bright Spot school. Click anywhere in the map to close the data box. (Map: Eamonn Fitzmaurice/The74)

All serve a high concentration of low-income students, with 66% to 92% of children qualifying for free- or reduced-price lunch. And yet, 90% to 97% of their third graders were proficient readers in 2024, the year of our analysis. In comparison, the proficiency rate for all third graders across the state was just 43%. 

The highest-scoring school by our metric was the Success Academy Bronx 5 Upper Elementary School. In 2024, despite a 90% poverty rate, 94% of its students scored proficient in third grade reading. In , its students did even better, with 96% scoring proficient in reading and 100% doing so in math.

In fact, Success Academy has 21 of its schools on our Bright Spots list. The Icahn charter network has five, South Bronx Classical has three and the KIPP, Zeta and Harlem Village Academy networks have two each.

But even beyond charters, it is clear that families with young children in New York City in particular are blessed with a variety of good options. Of the 143 exceptional schools across the state, 97% — 138 — are in the city, and 84 of those are traditional district schools. 

As one example, in 2024, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis elementary (PS 66) had 81% of its students qualify for free- or reduced-price lunch, yet 84% of its third graders read proficiently. It also did even better in , with 71% of students with disabilities, 84% of Hispanic students and 87% of all students scoring proficiently. These rates all far surpassed the statewide average.

These stats may be heartening, but New York City might soon be able to provide even better options for families.

As a district, the city is in the midst of sweeping changes to how literacy is taught. That initiative, called , requires schools to use one of three phonics-based reading programs with a track record of producing student gains. As that program continues to roll out, participating schools saw last year, and incoming Schools Chancellor Kamar Samuels to double down and make teaching vulnerable students how to read his “No. 1 goal.”

These are promising signs of progress. On the charter school front, it bears noting that there’s a on how many can operate in New York City, and as the maximum has already been reached, no new ones can open until that cap is lifted. According to the advocacy group StudentsFirstNY, New York City students are on charter wait lists. New Mayor Zohran Mamdani has charter schools’ expansion in the past, but he may need to reconsider, given their prominence among the ranks of Bright Spot schools.

Correction: An earlier version of this story misidentified one of the charter school networks with schools on our Bright Spots list. The networks are Success Academy, Icahn, South Bronx Classical, KIPP, Zeta and Harlem Village Academy.

The , published Jan. 13 from the , analyzed records from more than 1.7 million Michigan K-8 students who switched from a district to a charter school between 2013 and 2018. 

The nonprofit concluded that while students with disabilities spent more time in general-education classrooms and received less intensive services than their peers in traditional public schools, their standardized test scores increased along with those of their classmates who didn’t qualify for special ed.

Charter enrollment for students with disabilities has historically trailed behind that of public schools. While parents sometimes charter schools after poor experiences with traditional districts, charters also have a regarding special education. One found that charter schools may discourage parents from enrolling their children with disabilities because of concerns about how special education students impact overall academic performance and budgets.

But the results in Michigan show that children who receive special education services do well academically with fewer supports when they enter charter schools, “suggesting charters may have adopted, identified and developed approaches to teaching students with disabilities that warrant further study,” the research says.

“Charter schools can be a useful educational tool for parents with students with disabilities,” said Scott Imberman, one of the study’s authors. “They shouldn’t be quick to rule it out, because it does seem that, for at least a substantial segment of disabled students, charter schools are helpful for them — at least for their academic performance.”

The study found that math and reading test scores improved for both special education and general education students for at least two years after they enrolled in a charter school. Absence rates also decreased.

These findings match a in Boston, which revealed that children with disabilities who were accepted at a charter school through a lottery system were more likely to meet college-ready benchmarks than special education students in traditional public schools.

Imberman said that because children with complicated special education needs tend not to enroll in charter schools, the study’s results suggest students with less severe disabilities can thrive alongside the general-education population.

The study used students’ individualized education plans to see how special education services changed after enrollment in a charter school. Before switching, all students spent an average of 2.3% of their school day in a special education setting. The rate dropped to 1.2% immediately after entering a charter school but rebounded to pre-charter levels by the third year of enrollment.

Identification rates for special education students also mostly stayed the same — around 14.5% — when students switched, but then gradually increased. Two to three years after charter school enrollment, special education identification rates increased 1 to 2 percentage points.

The study also analyzed the use of resource and cognitive programs, two areas of special education services that are tailored to specific student needs. Resource programs often provide services to students who spend most of their school day in a general education classroom, while cognitive programs include more costly and intensive therapies, and students usually work with a designated special education instructor, according to the study. 

Once Michigan students with IEPs switched from a traditional public school to a charter, participation in resource programs increased by 4 percentage points, while cognitive programming decreased by 5 points.

A key limitation of the study is that the research only shows what was written in students’ IEPs and what changed post-enrollment in a charter. It does not reveal whether the school actually followed through with required services. 

“Our data also does not reflect the perspectives of students and families,” the study said. “It is essential that students with disabilities are included in future research on school choice to understand whether their needs are being met in different choice contexts.”

Recently, charter schools in and were found to have violated special education laws, and one in suspended students with disabilities at three times the state average.

Imberman said many charter schools aren’t set up to effectively serve some special education students, especially those with severe disabilities that require costly therapies and assistance.

“This is a large concern in the back and forth with traditional schools and charter schools, particularly when it comes to students with disabilities — that even if students with disabilities are entering charters, the ones who are most expensive are the ones who remain in the traditional public schools,” he said. “That creates a disproportionate burden on the traditional public schools.”

Rather than treating district buildings as contested territory, communities, districts and charter operators should view underused public space as an opportunity to expand access for students and make better use of the public’s investment in education infrastructure.

Experience from across the country shows that, even in a state at the forefront of education choice like Florida, legal frameworks aren’t enough to guarantee the equitable use of public resources. Charters’ access to public facilities also depends on local solutions and genuine collaboration between districts and charters.

In a co-authored by our organizations, the Florida Charter Institute and Momentum Strategy & Research, we analyzed 20 Florida counties that contain 90% of the state’s charter schools. Our findings show that enrollment in traditional district schools has steadily declined throughout the past decade, leaving over 645,000 seats available in district facilities. Charter school enrollment, meanwhile, has grown by more than 136,000 students over the same period. 

We estimate that 12% of all district facilities currently have the space available to house an average-sized Florida charter school. In fact, while falling student enrollment is a growing financial problem for Florida’s school districts, our research shows that the number of district-operated buildings slightly increased across the state during this period. 

Publicly available data shows that newly opened charter schools in Florida spend nearly one-quarter of their annual budget acquiring and maintaining suitable facilities. The state provides limited facility funding to defray capital expenses, but that covers only a portion of what charters pay toward their buildings. As a result, Florida charter schools rely on an industry of building developers, landlords and lenders, often placing them in commercial spaces that don’t meet students’ needs — even as hundreds of district facilities operate under capacity. 

We recently surveyed over 100 charter school leaders in Florida. Their responses indicate a growing need for solutions to the state’s facilities problem: 76% said their school was at or near enrollment capacity, and 52% responded they are exploring or planning to grow beyond their current facility. “Facility issues are the number one issue facing our ability to maintain or expand,” said one charter school leader in Naples, while an Orlando-based charter school referred to facilities funding as its “main source of concern.”

However, charters don’t appear to view district space as an option, as only 18% of survey respondents reported ever exploring the availability of underutilized district space. Those who do are met with resistance: The same Naples-based school noted that there was available capacity in nearby district schools but that “district leadership seems closed to the idea.” A charter leader in Miami commented that the district is “very averse” to facilities arrangements with charters. In fact, while Florida’s charter schools account for 14% of all public school enrollment in the state, only 4% operate in district-owned buildings.

Florida law lacks enforcement mechanisms that would obligate districts to share space with charter schools, instead provide “surplus” or “unused” facility space for charters “on the same basis as it is made available to other public schools in the district.” Research shows that, across the country, laws intended to expand charter access to district facilities often due to similarly vague language.

This year, Florida’s legislature partially addressed the issue through a measure that allows specially designated, high-performing charter schools to . However, the new law provides virtually no incentives for districts and no process to resolve disputes with charters or among competing charter operators. Districts are as the law goes into effect. 

Shared facilities arrangements between districts and charters require more than legal nudges from the state. Several cities, in fact, have demonstrated that such partnerships can effectively support resource-starved public schools. In New York City, for example, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg and his first chancellor, Joel Klein, promoted co-location to encourage charter growth, guided by the premise that available public school space should . Close to half of New York City charters now operate out of district buildings, and suggests that these arrangements have not negatively impacted student performance. 

In San Diego, the citywide school district established a to support the planning and placement of charters in district facilities. In Washington, D.C., the city developed a successful to house new charters. In Indiana, the 2014 establishment of allowed districts to attract independently run schools, including charters, and promoted facilities sharing. More recently, the Indiana state legislature has pushed Indianapolis to share facilities and buses among charter and district schools. 

Starting in 2008, Denver Public Schools leadership pursued a strategy that encouraged charter growth by sharing the district’s underutilized facilities. By 2017, the district had more charter and “innovation” schools — district-run schools that are afforded increased autonomy —, a strategy that led to “significant, sustained, systemwide improvements in learning.”

While our research revealed untapped opportunity in sharing school facilities, public data does not tell the whole story of whether a given building is suitable for a specific charter — making local agency even more necessary for working out where these opportunities lie.National charter leader Nelson Smith once school districts’ “monopoly” over public school facilities as “an accident of history.” In states like Florida, where charter schools are an enduring part of public education, sharing unused district space with charters is an untapped opportunity, but weak laws and local obstinacy remain obstacles. Stronger legal mechanisms from the state can open the door for change, but it is up to local leadership to implement those changes and, ultimately, rethink how we manage the public schoolhouse.

In 1971, Derrick Bell became the first Black man to be awarded tenure at Harvard Law School. As part of his teaching load, he developed a civil rights course that focused on race. In order to meet its topical requirements, Bell wrote an accompanying textbook, , which is foundational in critical race theory. It holds that racism is an ordinary and permanent feature of American society. His claim was viewed by many colleagues at the time as a radical statement, and it remains so for many today. Yet, it carries forward a certain truth that the history of school choice persuasively illustrates.

Having served as a federal attorney litigating desegregation cases, Bell had grown skeptical about forced racial integration and whether it would actually improve student learning. The original edition of his 1973 textbook included a chapter outlining “Alternatives to Integrated Schools” by which “black children might receive the long-promised equal educational opportunity — in predominantly black schools.” The chapter included a discussion of tuition vouchers.

Bell argued that for vouchers to work, poor families would need to receive substantially larger grants than the more fortunate. He also mentioned “free schools.” These were small, private institutions in poor areas supported by foundation grants, fundraising and, sometimes, public dollars. Tuition was charged on a sliding scale, and students whose parents could not pay attended for free. Many of these schools began “deep in the black community.” For example, Bell mentioned a system of schools operated by the Black Muslims that emphasized racial pride, self-discipline and self–sufficiency. He explained that such virtues are not commonly celebrated in the neighborhood public schools Black students attended. He pointed out that students at the Muslim schools performed several grade levels above most Black teenagers who attended public schools. 

Bell saw school choice as the culmination of a series of disappointments in the fight for educational equality. He understood it as a dramatic manifestation of the ways the Black community was losing confidence in its public schools. After numerous false starts to achieve desegregation and equalized funding, many Black activists turned to demands for community control. In 1968, a group of local parents and residents in Brooklyn’s Ocean Hill-Brownsville neighborhood wrested local control of their school board. When a similar eruption took place in Milwaukee in 1988, those involved issued a call to action — commonly referred to as the — demanding that the state allow them to establish an independent school district. 

To lend a helping hand, Bell traveled to Milwaukee and wrote an op-ed for the Milwaukee Journal. Published under the headline “Control Not Color: The Real Issue in the Milwaukee Manifesto,” it took issue with the better-off liberal activists who condemned the plan. “Can we whose children are not required to attend the inner-city schools honestly condemn the Manifesto writers and their supporters?” Bell wrote. “After all, when middle-class parents — black and white — lose faith in the administration of a public school, we move to another school district or place our children in private schools. Inner-city black parents who can’t afford our options seek as a group a legislative remedy that may after a long struggle enable them to do what we achieve independently by virtue of our higher economic status.” 

Soon after, in 1990, the same Black activists in Milwaukee joined forces with their white Republican governor, Tommy Thompson, and his conservative legislative colleagues to pass the nation’s first school voucher law. The original Wisconsin vouchers were targeted at low-income students stuck in chronically failing public schools. Five years later, Wisconsin became the first state to expand its voucher program to include religious schools.

Bell revisited the topic of school choice in (2004). By then, vouchers had been adopted in Cleveland and Washington, D.C., among other places. He acknowledged that vouchers were “probably the most controversial of educational alternatives to emerge in the last decade,” but that they were also growing in popularity. He understood that many opponents were liberal Democrats with long histories of civil rights activism. These critics alleged that minority parents were being duped, that the real beneficiaries of such programs were private religious schools gaining enrollment. 

Bell recognized these criticisms but was also sympathetic to arguments by free-market advocates who believed that the competition fostered by choice would incentivize floundering public schools in Black communities to improve. He did not deny that the Catholic Church had become a major player in the choice movement to address its own declining school enrollments. But Bell was more impressed with how many Black and Hispanic parents chose Catholic schools over public schools because of their more disciplined learning environments and better academic outcomes. He cited one particular Catholic school in Milwaukee, where 80% of the students were not Catholic and the voucher covered most of the tuition.

Silent Covenants also delves into the topic of charter schools. Bell lauded them as innovative institutions that give options to all students, not just the wealthy who can afford private school tuition. He rejected claims by liberals that the institutions would become bastions for middle-class families who were better prepared to work the system, citing evidence that two-thirds of charter students nationwide were nonwhite and more than half were from low-income families. Critics had also raised concerns that charter schools would discriminate, become racially isolated and drain resources from regular public schools. Bell, unmoved by these claims, was more concerned that charters were receiving 15% less funding than other public schools.

Now, 30 years after the Milwaukee breakthrough, the school choice movement has taken off in a new direction. Republicans who once allied with Black advocates to demand better options for low-income students now rally behind appeals for universal choice, which provides such benefits to all students regardless of family income. Eighteen states have enacted such programs. When awards do not cover the entire cost of tuition, they end up subsidizing better-off families and neglecting those unable to make up the difference. As demands for private and religious schools grow, so does the competition for seats and the incentive to raise tuition. Yielding larger numbers of applications from a stronger pool of students, these initiatives can function more to enhance the choices available to school admissions officers than the most needy students.

A that President Donald Trump signed this year allows a tax deduction of up to $1,700 for anyone who donates to an organization that gives scholarships for students to attend private or religious schools. Like the state-level universal choice programs, the federal initiative does not target low-income students. Assistance will be available to any family whose income is below 300% of the average for their area.

Here is the underlying political irony to the choice debate: For years, when programs were designed to help the most vulnerable students, the major opponents were activists who historically have identified with progressive causes. Now, conservatives are spending with abandon — in many cases, with limited public accountability — on programs that can create opportunities for students who need them the least. In either case, those who get hurt remain the same, and they are disproportionately under-resourced students of color. Derrick Bell would not be surprised. 

In 1980, Bell wrote an for the Harvard Law Review advancing a concept referred to in the scholarly literature as the “interest convergence dilemma” that is fundamental to critical race theory. It holds, “The interest of blacks in achieving racial equality will be accommodated only when it converges with the interests of whites.” Not very trusting of white collaborators hailing from either the left or right, it deems political alliances temporary and subject to the competing priorities of all pertinent parties, anticipating eventual abandonment. 

And so, that’s the way it is.

Those classes included three players who would shape the future of District of Columbia schools: Michelle Rhee (future D.C. chancellor), Kaya Henderson (Rhee’s successor) and, perhaps most importantly, Susan Schaeffler, 55, who is retiring after 25 years as the founder of the KIPP DC Public Schools charter network.

It was Schaeffler (pronounced SHEFF-ler) who proved with her 2001 launch of KIPP KEY Academy that hiring highly motivated and skilled teachers could make academic success stories out of high-poverty children with multiple at-risk flags. Six years later, standardized math and reading tests in grades 5-8 would show KIPP students outscoring their D.C. Public School peers, particularly in eighth grade and most strongly in math.

In a few years, Rhee would choose the same strategy, pushing hard on teacher quality. And Henderson would do the same.

It was Schaeffler who showed that her one school was not a fluke. By 2006, she ran three successful middle schools with long waiting lists: Today, there are 20 KIPP schools in D.C. that educate roughly 7,300 students, of whom nearly 70% meet the at-risk definition (students with families on income or food support and those who are wards of the state, homeless or overage in high school).

In the early KIPP years, veteran education reform expert Andrew Rotherham recalls leading a tour of mostly charter skeptics when they visited one of her schools. “Susan was giving a talk on how they do things and one guy thought he was really going to dunk on her, so he said: ‘I heard you talking about performance, fundraising and management, but I haven’t heard you talking about loving children.’”

That was a mistake. 

Schaeffler paused, looked at the guy, and as Rotherham recalls, firmly responded: “Let me tell you something. The way you show you love children isn’t talking about it. It’s building effective places for them to be and that means knowing how to raise money, deploy money, manage people, all of it. Doing things really well for them is how you show children you love them.”  

Don’t be thrown off by Schaeffler’s blonde suburban look: She’s got a very sharp edge, world-beating relentlessness and a mind that doesn’t shy away from the unconventional.

Shannon Hodge, who is taking over at KIPP DC’s helm, said before she met Schaeffler she asked around about her and was told: “You’ll be in a meeting discussing something and Susan will have five ideas. Two of them will be illegal, two of them will be impossible — but the last one will be the visionary thing no one ever thought of.”

Finally, it was Schaeffler and other charter operators. working with first Rhee and then Henderson, who forged the crucial compete-but-play-nice stance in D.C. that’s missing between charter and district schools in most cities.

All the experts agree: That competitive cooperation and the unwavering focus on teacher quality on both sides are the biggest reasons why D.C., across multiple school-quality measures, from the percentage of 3- and 4-years-olds enrolled in pre-K to fourth- and eighth-grade scores on the highly watched National Assessment of Educational Progress, shot  

“Part of D.C.’s story is that it is one of the few places where the charter sector and the district came together and created a culture of putting kids first,” KIPP national co-founder Dave Levin told me last week. “Susan modeled that from the start, pushing for things that were good for D.C. as a whole.”

This strategy could have happened in other cities. But for the most part, it hasn’t.

Teachers with ‘the whatever-it-takes mindset’

That Baltimore TFA experience was wild: Rhee and Schaeffler slamming into the brutal realities of urban teaching in Baltimore. It was from that time that I got the title for my book about Rhee, , after she swatted and swallowed a bee her kids were crazily chasing around the classroom.

After Baltimore, Schaeffler gave teaching in a traditional D.C. elementary school a try, but her desire to give her students the option of staying longer than the dismissal bell to allow them to catch up ran into a stone wall. It worked for a bit, but not for long. We just don’t do that here, she was told.

“I got to the point where the system was preventing me from doing what I knew needed to happen to make sure our kids are ready for college, or ready for the next grade,” Schaeffler told me in a recent interview.

The KIPP founders in Texas heard about her, sent plane tickets to come to Houston and convinced her to start a KIPP school. Their preference, Atlanta, got rejected by Schaeffler. D.C. is home, she said, and being able to tap into the talent network she knew there was crucial.

The founders relented, and soon Schaeffler was recruiting the handful of teachers who would launch KEY Academy. “I definitely wanted to recruit teachers who had the whatever-it-takes mindset. We were going to be creating and implementing and revising all at the same time.”

Schaeffler looked to the Teach for America network and then expanded by interviewing friends of friends. ”You would say, ‘I need a teacher who can work long hours, has great classroom management and gets results.” Before hiring anyone, she observed them in the classroom.

It would appear Schaeffer recruited well. Among that first small group of hires for KIPP KEY were several who in the future would launch their own new KIPP schools. 

‘The school down the street is outperforming us’

Now entering the D.C. picture in 2007 was newly appointed Chancellor Rhee, who took note of the rising quality challenge presented by Schaeffler’s KIPP network and other charter operators and stomped the accelerator on school improvement. And by school improvement I mean teacher/principal quality.

Rhee took over a bona fide mess of a school district, one that regularly was described – — unchallenged — as the worst (and most expensive) in the nation. In my book, the chapter where I recite the dismal outcome data for D.C. students is titled, “Welcome to the Nation’s Education Superfund Site.”

The city’s corrupt mayor, Marion Barry, used the district to stash political buddies. The former teachers union president got sent to jail for embezzlement. Even simple tasks such as delivering textbooks didn’t happen. There was no curriculum. In comparison to other urban districts, D.C. lagged far behind. 

Rhee moved into her role as chancellor with a bullrush, much to the distaste of many in Washington, especially teachers who preferred the status quo. Rhee told everyone that she wanted teachers with “snap.” Teachers soon learned what that meant: a mashup of energy and effectiveness that creates classroom magic.

That didn’t always go over well.

I accompanied Rhee on many school visits, and while sitting in the back of the room watched teachers dramatically roll their eyes in protest. Many teachers appeared to see their role as more social workers than academic instructors, which probably explained the abysmal test scores.

One elementary school had this sign posted: “We’re doing the best we can with the children sent our way.”

But Rhee’s vision was made easier to explain to others by the example Schaeffler set. “In community meetings,” Schaeffler told me, “I heard Rhee say that the school down the street is outperforming us.” And “that school” was KEY Academy. 

In 2007, when Rhee arrived, 100% of KEY eighth graders scored proficient on D.C.’s standardized math test, compared to 34% of district students.

There’s another aspect to KEY’s success: When researching my book , I searched nationally for schools where boys were succeeding at the same rate as girls, and KEY turned up as one of the few where that happened. I approached Schaeffler in 2006 for permission to observe, and she gave me full access to KEY. In short, teacher quality (and a relentless push on literacy skills) explains the gender equality.

Thus began Rhee’s own full-on press for principal and teacher quality, a process that would lead to several hundred teachers getting fired along with lots of principals. Those firings, however, were accompanied by the newly designed IMPACT teacher evaluation system, a first-in-the-nation attempt to define, measure and boost teacher quality — a plan that handed out bonuses to the highest-performing teachers.

The reforms began to take hold, but Rhee’s fierceness why Adrian Fenty, the mayor who appointed her, lost reelection in 2010. The new mayor, Vincent Gray, quickly fired Rhee. 

But then something interesting happened: Not only did Gray promote Kaya Henderson, Rhee’s deputy, as the new chancellor, but IMPACT survived, despite intense teacher opposition (The American Federation of Teachers to ensure Rhee and IMPACT would disappear.)

Why did the new mayor allow Rhee’s reforms to survive? When the chancellor got fired, IMPACT was only about a year old, and thus too young to measure its effectiveness. But its potential was clear to everyone.

“My last major public event before I left DCPS was “Standing Ovation” which we held at the Kennedy Center to honor the highly effective teachers in the district,” Rhee told me in a recent interview, referring to the first group of top teachers identified by the evaluations. “Watching a bevy of teachers dressed to the nines, giddy at the recognition they were receiving, made me know what we put in place with IMPACT was working and made everything worthwhile.”

That meant that the twinned philosophies of pushing teacher quality and collaborating with the charters, pioneered by Schaeffler, became permanent fixtures in D.C. One prominent example: , launched in 2017, an application/lottery system shared by parents seeking seats in either system.

There was also the leadership training program for both charter and district teachers at Georgetown University. Schaeffler’s top example: During the pandemic, everyone on both sides held hands to figure out how to teach remotely and when to return to school.

Finally, the D.C. mayors have a great incentive to make sure the two sides work together. “We can’t have half the kids not be successful,” says Schaeffler.

Two leaders who quickly bonded

Fervent D.C. school advocates at the polar opposites hate the suggestion that D.C. charters and district schools get along. They see great injustices aimed at their side. What they miss, however, is that their quibbles pale compared to the destructive hatred between the two sectors in other cities. 

Boston has some of the highest-performing charters in the country (see Edward Brooke Charter Schools), and yet the state’s powerful teachers unions ensure that those charters can’t expand to take in more students. In Los Angeles, charter leaders and district leaders talk to one another mostly through lawyers in courtrooms. 

New York City and Newark are home to what may be the nation’s most successful charter network, Uncommon Schools, that pulls disadvantaged minority students into its classrooms, who then experience college acceptance and college graduation rates close to well-off white students.

How could any district not want to tap into that expertise?

Years ago, I sat through some small-scale Uncommon collaborations in New York and Newark, which seemed promising. But those have disappeared — no teaching collaborations in New York since 2020. 

There is no way Rhee and Schaeffler would have let that opportunity slide by.

When Rhee arrived in D.C., the two leaders bonded quickly. Rhee told me she had been on the job only a couple of days when she took an urgent call from Schaeffler: “We’re starting a summer school (in a district building) and it’s 90 degrees and we have no air conditioning!”

Rhee immediately called maintenance, sent them hustling over to the summer school site and got the AC working. The next day Schaeffler called back incredulously. “Holy crap, they came out and fixed it.”

Rhee knew KIPP ran quality schools, so she never fought against them.

 “I was open to giving charters our buildings,” Rhee said. “Why would we deny families of Wards 7 and 8 (D.C. ‘s highest-poverty) schools like [the ones] KIPP runs? Everyone would want to send their kids there.”

Rhee’s memories of Schaeffler? “Throughout the time she was so helpful, so supportive.”

School choice now part of D.C.’s DNA

Today, D.C., parents embrace school choice as an unquestioned right, whether it’s choosing a charter or a non-neighborhood district school. Only about a third of D.C. parents select their neighborhood school. What that means is that choice is embedded, with schools vying to outperform and, therefore, attract students. 

In the mostly white, highly affluent 3rd Ward, there are no charters and parents send their kids either to local elementary schools, where they are surrounded by other children from well-off families, or private schools. In the 7th and 8th Wards, charters are the go-to places. Where it gets interesting are the rapidly gentrifying in-between wards, where charters often get selected by well-off “progressive” families, many of whom may frown upon charters as a concept, but love having a close-by high-quality school.

Overall, s, or about 48% of all D.C. students, attend its 133 public charter schools. D.C’s gentrification may explain why district students now outperform charter students in both math and reading (45% of district students are at-risk, compared to 69% of charter students).

“Competition between sectors is healthy,” said Schaeffer. “It pushes both sectors to get better for students. Over the last two and a half decades, that dynamic has raised the bar across the city. As the city has changed, so have the needs of our students.”

KIPP and other charters are still struggling to raise scores, she said. “At the same time, the long-term outcomes tell an important story and remain strong. Year after year, our graduates enroll in and complete college at higher rates than the city … The forward momentum between the traditional and charter schools is promising and should be celebrated. Both sides are seeking the best ways to educate and prepare our students for success.”

Where next for Schaeffler?

 “I haven’t looked around in 25 years to see what’s out there for me. I am energized to find my next thing but my priority is a successful transition. I will be transitioning from CEO in February to a special advisor role. I will always be a cheerleader for the amazing staff and students at KIPP DC.”

The bottom line remains: worst to most improved. Twenty years ago, no one could have foreseen this outcome. This could have happened in cities such as L.A., but it hasn’t — and doesn’t appear to be in their future.

�ҵ���DzԳ���ɲ���’

When Scott Pearson took over the D.C. charter board in 2011, and became KIPP’s overseer, he recalls visiting Schaeffler at her office and finding her and KIPP DC President Allison Fansler sharing an office.

 “Many great charters are like great British rock and roll bands. They always had two key people, and it was the genius between the two that made the band great,” he said. “Here you had the CEO of a multimillion-dollar organization and she shared an office. It wasn’t five minutes that went by that they didn’t talk to one another. Constant interaction.”

Fansler shared an office with Schaeffler for 16 years. Whenever a call came in about a problem at a school site, Fansler said Schaeffler would immediately grab her coat and head out. The two of them, no matter which bolted for the door, shared a text code for that: Imonmyway.

Deputy Mayor Paul Kihn said when he sees his cell phone light up with Schaeffler’s name, “I know I am going to get an earful on behalf of her students. She is going to tell me the real story about how something is working and what I need to do to fix it. I am incredibly sorry to see her go.”

Of all the reformers who helped with D.C.’s recovery, Rhee and Schaeffler probably qualify as the fiercest. As Kihn puts it, “Susan is a force of nature.”

All you need is the patience to wait for that fifth idea to pop up.

Disclosure: Andrew Rotherham sits on The 74’s board of directors. He played no role in the reporting or editing of this article.

A panel ordered by the state legislature is hurrying to recommend by the end of December how the Indianapolis Public Schools and charter schools could work together to make busing and unused school space open to charters.

It’s the latest battleground in the decades-long fight between charter schools and school districts nationally over who has control of schools and the tax money that supports them. In Indiana, where state leaders strongly support school choice, power has shifted more and more to charters, which now educate more than half of Indianapolis students.

The panel won’t make its final recommendations until Dec. 17, but is leaning toward creating a new governing body to oversee sharing of schools and buses. Last week the panel narrowed its debate to two approaches, both of which give more power to charters and take it from the district’s elected school board.

The first would create a “collaborative compact advisory board” of appointees from the district, mayor and charter schools. The second would create an Indianapolis Education Authority with a mayor-appointed board and new city secretary of education.

The panel’s vote to focus on these two options, rather than letting the district take the lead, drew boos from residents who want an elected board to make decisions, not an appointed one.

Despite the boos, there’s strong support for expanded busing for charter school students in the city, where charters are not required to pay for buses, and usually don’t, to save money for teachers and books. The panel, however, has already rejected offering buses to every student to attend any school, anywhere in the district they want, as too expensive, so there will be limits.

How many students will be affected also depends on another key issue to be resolved — whether all Indianapolis charters would have to opt into the new collective plan. Some of the proposals require participation and others don’t, which looms as a potential fight as the plan is finalized. The Indianapolis Local Education Alliance will make final recommendations Dec. 17. 

Any new plan will likely need approval from a heavily Republican and pro-charter state legislature, whose leanings are a backdrop to the debate.

But though some shift of assets to charters is now all but certain, gains for those schools won’t come without strings. District schools and charter schools will have to give up some autonomy in return for a piece of the collective pie.

Scott Bess, founder of the successful Purdue Polytechnic charter high schools and of the Charter Innovation Center advocacy group, called that tradeoff a “grand bargain.”

“You’re going to have to have some standardization,” said Bess, who’s watching the panel closely. “That’s the bargain.”

Charter schools’ will likely have to adjust their daily schedules and yearly calendars to fit a broader busing plan that aligns vacation days and school opening and closing times so buses can take more than one load of students to school each day.

And charters that have built their own schools or leased them for years may have to turn those buildings and leases over to the new body, which could then decide to close a school and give the building to another operator.

There’s also debate whether charter schools in the city should even have a choice to be part of a collective plan. Early indications are that the state legislature would not back requiring charter schools to join.

Indianapolis Public Schools Superintendent Aleesia Johnson told the panel last month that if the goal is to make sure all students have transportation, then schools shouldn’t be allowed to opt out.

“If schools are given the option not to participate, and enough schools don’t, then you don’t have a system anymore,” she said.

Angela Smith-Jones, Indiana University’s associate vice president for state relations and a member of the panel, also called for mandatory participation for all charter schools.

“Then it’s really solving the problem,” Smith-Jones said at the same meeting. “All schools are actually getting the exact same thing. Seems fair and equitable.”

Bess,who’s also a member of the Indiana state school board and of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, wants the panel and state to give schools a choice. He said school leaders are weighing, even as the plans are being developed, whether giving up control for more resources makes sense for them.

“The devil is clearly in the details,” said Bess. With school buildings, Bess said, schools have to weigh their own budgets, building debt and repair needs against giving an asset to an outside authority that could delay building upgrades or even shut a school down.

“Local property taxes (could pay) for all those improvements and maintenance and all the things that go with it,” Bess said. “But with that comes this grand bargain that we have to perform academically to a standard that is accepted across the city.”

“As I talk to a lot of charter school leaders, they’re looking at this saying, ‘Man, I don’t know that. I want to give up my full autonomy,'” he said.

Schools are also weighing whether a central, but more standardized busing schedule for all schools might mean giving up early dismissal days or other schedule differences.

“Some schools that I’ve talked to said ‘That’s not worth it to me,’ like ‘I’ll walk away from the money, because my schedule and my autonomy on how I operate is really important to me’,” Bess said. “Other schools said, ‘Oh, wow, you mean I could actually provide more transportation for more kids, and all I’ve got to do is give up a little bit of my quirky schedule.’”

Tommy Reddicks, CEO of the successful Paramount charter school chain, has opposed any changes to charter school autonomy, including demands from some residents that the state block new charters. He told the panel last week he also opposes forcing charters to be part of a transportation authority.

“Requiring districts or agents to control charter transportation in any mandated form, strips operational independence,” said Reddicks, whose schools do not provide buses to save money. “Mandates that limit charter autonomy violate the very reason the (panel) was created.”

But there’s a big financial incentive to join – a share of tax dollars the state legislature has already voted to give charters. The legislature voted this spring to give charter schools a share of local property taxes that have traditionally gone to districts starting in 2028, but some state officials have slated that money to go to the new collective busing and building effort — not to individual schools in addition to it.

That legislation, Senate Bill 1, would give charter schools $2,050 per student in local property taxes in 2028, rising to $3,750 per student by 2031.

“In Indianapolis, instead of having (property tax) transfers from IPS (the district) to the charters, that transfer is going to happen through the authority,” said Indiana House Education Committee Chairman Robert Behning.

“(If) you want to have access to that funding, then you need to participate in the authority,” he added.

Behning said one limit the school district and some other advocacy groups have sought — limiting the number of authorizers that can approve new charter schools in the city — is unlikely to win support from the legislature.

Behning said he would never want only the city mayor’s office to authorize new schools because that would make the ability of new schools to open dependent on who wins the latest mayoral election. 

“Whatever happens, we have to make sure that it can’t be changed by the next election,” he said.

They were right.

In Tennessee, the nonprofit Wilberforce Academy is suing the Knox County Schools in federal court because the district refuses to allow a Christian charter school. Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti is on the school’s side. He issued last month that the state’s ban on religious charter schools likely violates the First Amendment. 

“Tennessee’s public charter schools are not government entities for constitutional purposes and may assert free exercise rights,” he wrote to Rep. Michele Carringer, the Knoxville Republican who requested the opinion. 

The legal challenge in Tennessee comes as a Florida-based charter school network prepares to submit an application to the Oklahoma Charter School Board for a Jewish virtual charter high school. Peter Deutsch, the former Democratic congressman who founded the Ben Gamla charter schools, began working on the idea long before the case over St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School even went to court. The 4-4 tie in May means that an Oklahoma Supreme Court decision blocking the school from receiving state funds still stands. 

“The prior decision shows that there’s an open question here that needs to be resolved,” said Eric Baxter, vice president and senior counsel at Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a law firm representing the National Ben Gamla Jewish Charter School Foundation. “We hope the court will get it right this time. We hope the federal courts get it right without having to go to the Supreme Court.”

Idaho also confronted the issue earlier this year. The state’s first charter, Brabeion Academy, initially the school as Christian. But it in August as a nonreligious school and will open as such next fall. 

Deutsch, Skrmetti and other supporters of faith-based charter schools base their argument on three earlier Supreme Court rulings allowing public funds to support sectarian schools. They say that excluding religious organizations from operating faith-based charter schools is discrimination and violates the Constitution. But leaders of the charter sector and public school advocates argue that classifying charter schools as private would threaten funding and civil rights protections for 3.7 million students nationwide.

“Unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court takes up a future case and rules otherwise, we advise all charter school associations and public charter schools to adhere to the letter and spirit of the law in their respective states,” Starlee Coleman, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, said in a statement.

‘Not on our watch’

When the Supreme Court considered St. Isidore, Deutsch, was prepared to advocate for Jewish congregations to open schools that not only teach their language, but also their faith. He called the case “a historic opportunity” to bring Jewish education to thousands of children.

To Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond, the debate is settled, for now. In November, he said his office would “oppose any attempts to undermine the rule of law.” 

Americans United, which advocates for maintaining church-state separation, has also issued a warning over the new school. The organization represented parents and advocates in a separate case over the school. 

“Religious extremists once again are trying to undermine our country’s promise of church-state separation by forcing Oklahoma taxpayers to fund a religious public school. Not on our watch,” Rachel Laser, president and CEO, said in a press release.

The legal fight over religious charter schools began in 2023, when the Oklahoma Virtual Charter School Board voted 3-2 to approve a charter for St. Isidore, setting off a closely watched case that spanned two years. At the time, the Jewish Federation of Greater Oklahoma City, a nonreligious group, called the charter board’s decision unconstitutional. Rachel Johnson, the group’s executive director, didn’t return calls or emails requesting a comment on Ben Gamla’s proposal.

None of the members who originally voted on St. Isidore serves on the state’s new Oklahoma Charter School Board. But for one person involved with Ben Gamla’s application, this is familiar territory. Brett Farley is on the proposed school’s board, according to a letter of intent the foundation submitted to the charter board in November.

Farley once held a top position with the and is also executive director of the Catholic Conference of Oklahoma, which focuses on public policy issues involving the church. While preparing the St. Isidore application, with Notre Dame law Professor Nicole Stelle Garnett, whose scholarly work formed the basis of the legal argument for the school.

�Ҳ����Ա�ٳ�’s is that nonprofits running charter schools are like private contractors, and as with other publicly funded programs, can’t be excluded just because they are religious. She’s also close friends with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who recused herself from the St. Isidore case. Experts speculated that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the three liberals on the court, resulting in the 4-4 tie.

‘Passion for religious freedom’

The virtual school, the intent letter says, would initially enroll about 40 students, focusing on “college readiness, while developing deep Jewish knowledge, faith and values within a supportive learning community.”

But some are surprised Deutsch isn’t making his bid for a Jewish charter school in Florida, where his existing, non-religious charter schools have thrived.

“I think Florida could be a good option given the new attorney general’s passion for ,” said Daniel Aqua, the director of special projects at Teach Coalition, a nonprofit that advocates for Jewish education

The demand for a Jewish charter school would be much higher in Florida, which has Jewish population of nearly 762,000, compared with about 9,000 in Oklahoma. 

Charter founders in Florida submit their applications to local school districts first. The state recently added as authorizers, but Oklahoma, where organizers directly with the state charter board, offers a more streamlined process. 

‘Public Christian school’

But efforts to create publicly-funded religious schools are not limited to the charter sector. A new school in Colorado, Riverstone Academy, calls itself the state’s “first public Christian school.” Now serving 30 students in Pueblo, south of Colorado Springs, Riverstone is what is sometimes referred to as a “contract” school because districts sign agreements with private organizations to provide education services. In this case, Education reEnvisioned, one of the state’s 21 boards of cooperative educational services, or BOCES, authorized the school. 

In October, the Colorado Department of Education warned Ken Witt, the BOCES’ executive director, that the school’s per-student funding is at risk because it is “not operating in a nonsectarian nature.” The letter also went to District 49, near Colorado Springs, one of Education reEnvisioned’s member districts. 

In a response, Witt wrote that he was “alarmed at the threat” that the school might not receive funding. “We did not and legally cannot discriminate against this school on account of its religious affiliation,” he wrote. Examining Riverstone’s curriculum to determine if the school is truly sectarian, he said, would be “unconstitutionally entangling and discriminatory against different forms of religion.”

Witt told The 74 that funding usually doesn’t flow from the state to a new school until January, so it’s too soon to know whether officials will withhold funds.

‘Keep coming back’ 

“You’re going to see those within the charter sector and outside of it basically taking the same approach” — arguing that private groups delivering religious instruction can’t be denied public funds, said Preston Green, an education professor at the University of Connecticut. 

To Green, Riverstone’s identity as a “contract” school calls to mind a 1982 case, one that Garnett and other proponents of religious charter schools often highlight when they say that charters are not “state actors.” In , the Supreme Court said a Massachusetts private school that received public funds for educating teens with behavior problems did not act under the “color of state law” when it fired six employees. 

The question, experts say, is not if, but when the Supreme Court will eventually see another case about religious public schools Justice Barrett won’t have the same reason to recuse herself, Green said, and he’s not convinced that Roberts would side with the liberals a second time.

The advocates, he said, “keep coming back at this because they think that they’ll get the votes.”

Seldom listed among the nation’s top K–12 performers or its most aggressive reformers, the Ocean State was nevertheless home to a relatively powerful school choice sector. According to the study, students at Rhode Island charters gained the equivalent of 90 extra days of learning in English, and 88 extra days in math, per year.

With the U.S. still groping its way back from massive pandemic-related learning loss, the New England-specific finding generated little focused attention either locally or nationally. But in October, CREDO released that suggests the impressive results may be rooted in the state’s approach to opening and evaluating charters.

Rhode Island’s charter regulations are “instrumental in driving” student success, CREDO argues, pointing to a 2017 overhaul of accountability procedures that simplified the conditions for schools to be rated and renewed. According to interviews with over a dozen key figures from the charter world, the Rhode Island Department of Education, and the governor’s office, the change in law improved relationships between schools and state authorities and reduced uncertainty in how schools were assessed.

“There has been a change from chaotic beginnings to more structured, standardized practices,” said Marzena Sasnal, the lead author of the report and a senior research associate at Stanford. “Participants see this as an improvement.”

Yet the local debate around school choice remains fractious, with charters often seen as competing with districts for students and education funding. Within the last few years, lawmakers considered enacting a moratorium on further charter growth, while leaders of the state’s largest district skeptical of charter expansion.

Justine Oliva, the director of research and policy at the nonpartisan , called the matter of charter schools in the state “contentious,” particularly given in K–12 enrollment since the disruptions of COVID-19.

“With declining enrollment, I do think it’s likely that the issue continues to be a live one, particularly with the proposal for new charters moving forward.”

Charter leaders ‘in the dark’

Rather than directly addressing the often-frayed politics of school choice, or even the inner workings of charters themselves, the CREDO report focuses on the more technical subject of charter school authorization — the process by which new schools are approved, kept open, or, if necessary, shuttered completely.

The state, which legalized charter schools in 1995, established a formal framework for evaluating them 15 years later. But according to the educators and bureaucrats who spoke with Sasnal, the flaws in that review mechanism led to low trust on both sides and a degree of unpredictability when the time came to decide whether schools would be allowed to continue operating. 

With renewal decisions spaced at intervals of five years, charter leaders told CREDO they often felt as though they were acting “in the dark,” without receiving timely feedback on their academic performance or organizational health. Even annual data from standardized tests didn’t give a clear picture of how schools would be judged, some complained.

“The criteria for renewal were so ambiguous and complicated,” said Macke Raymond, CREDO’s director and a co-author of the report. “It didn’t even matter what your state test scores were because you didn’t know what the authorizer’s standards of evaluation were going to be when you came up for renewal.”

The atmosphere was clouded further by political and legal pressure that sometimes developed when regulators made their decisions. When Blackstone Valley Prep, one of the top-performing charter organizations in the state, was greenlit for renewal in 2011, several members of the Rhode Island Board of Education with connections to teachers’ unions . A few years later, three districts the opening of a new school, alleging that community opposition to the move had been ignored.

Following the 2017 reforms to the performance review system, however, CREDO’s interview subjects agreed that the steps to approval and renewal are more legible both to schools and community members. Charter applications are published online, and in communities from which students would likely be drawn. School officials said they had a clearer understanding of the outcomes they would be held responsible for, including both academic performance as well as financial and managerial indicators. One leader said his charter school had been able to identify problem areas early and “put in place a corrective action plan.”

Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University, said the updated framework played “a key role” in stoking improvement in the state charter sector.

“The review system integrates national standards, such as standards established by the , to sharpen the focus on performance-based accountability, data transparency, and quality monitoring.”

Tensions remain

Still, whatever tensions have been alleviated by the revamped system of charter regulations have not dissipated completely.

Elections last year in Providence — by far the largest city and school district in the state — elevated three candidates endorsed by local teachers’ unions to the newly re-established school board; just one charter advocate won election. This summer, the city council appeared poised to permit the Excel Academy charter organization to obtain a lease on a shuttered district school, in the face of public outcry. It was the second year in a row that a version of the deal, brokered by Providence’s mayor, .

The back-and-forth follows a legislative push for a statewide moratorium on new charter growth that stalled in 2021. The state’s governor, Democrat Dan McKee, is a noted supporter of school choice currently seeking reelection. But , and the future direction of policy in the state is unclear. 

Representatives from both of Rhode Island’s major teachers’ unions declined to comment for this story.

Total charter enrollment in the state is comparatively high, with roughly 10 percent of all K–12 students attending a charter school. Even beyond that figure, however, much of the demand from families is unmet: Nearly 30,000 students submitted applications for in the 2023–24 school year. 

RIPEC’s Justine Oliva, pointing to on overall charter enrollment and performance in Rhode Island, called the schools “a bright spot” in the state education mix, overwhelmingly attracting students from disadvantaged communities and delivering significantly better academic results than the school districts they would otherwise attend. Children attending Achievement First charters — currently enrolling over 20 percent of all charter students in the state — were twice as likely to score proficient on state reading exams, and three times as likely on math exams, as those in their sending districts. 

“Not all charters have great outcomes,” Oliva said. “They may still have a lot more applicants than get in, but they don’t all have great outcomes. However, our largest charters have outcomes that outperform the sending districts, as does the charter sector overall.” 

For , Lower Lab, an Upper East Side Gifted & Talented school was ranked number one by US News. Also in the top 10 were four citywide G&T programs. Each school exclusively accepts students who have been designated as “gifted.”

Rounding out the top 10, however, are Success Academy – Bushwick and Success Academy – Bensonhurst, public charter schools that accept students by lottery, while also prioritizing English Language Learners (ELL).

On the surface, these schools couldn’t be more different. Number one, , has only 13% of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL), and 1% ELLs. Number 10, , conversely,  has 65% of its students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch, and 26% who are English language learners. 

But the selective G&T schools and the unscreened charter schools have one characteristic in common: An expectation that their students can succeed.

The book, describes an experiment where “researchers falsely told teachers some of their students had been identified as potential high achievers. The students were in fact chosen at random.”

At the end of the year, the “students that were chosen were more likely to make larger gains in their academic performance,” with those “7-8 years old gaining an average of 10 verbal IQ points.”

This study concluded that “when teachers expected certain children would show greater intellectual development, those children did show greater intellectual development.”

At the G&T schools, teachers have every reason to believe their students are capable of performing at the highest levels.

Parents have seen this firsthand.

“I strongly believe that when teachers are told their students are gifted, they begin to treat them as gifted — and this changes everything,” asserts mom Natalya Tseytlin. “In a gifted classroom, if a student struggles, teachers don’t assume it’s because of laziness or inability; they respond with patience and extra attention. In a regular class, that student might not receive the same support or challenge, because the teacher sees the child as average. 

Tseytlin said her son started his first grade gifted and talented program with limited English skills. But because his teacher offered consistent support and believed in him, he excelled. 

“Today he is performing at the same level as his peers,” she said.

“I don’t think the expectations at (my child’s) G&T school are so high that only gifted kids can meet them,” another parent, who only asked to be identified as M.K. opined. “Regular schools don’t ‘push’ kids enough to reach their potential. Those G&T schools that do push, get results because most kids are capable of this level of learning without being ‘gifted.’ If teachers treat students as capable, students will indeed meet expectations.”

The belief that all students can perform at a “gifted” level is sacrosanct at Success Academy.

“Success Academy is Gifted for All,” CEO Eva Moskowitz affirms. “When adult expectations are high, our scholars — mostly low-income, Black and Hispanic — can meet the highest academic standards.”

The same is true at Harlem Academy, a kindergarten through 8th grade private school for students whose potential might otherwise go unrealized. 

“It’s tough to decouple the influence of high-quality programming from high expectations,” concedes Head of School Vinny Dotoli, “but authentically challenging students is central to the ethos of our school. When great teachers set ambitious goals and provide the structure and support to reach them, it almost always makes a lasting difference in student achievement.”

Parents with children in schools where high expectations aren’t the norm would love to see changes. 

“I have a daughter in a dual language program in East Harlem,” Maria McCune relates. “A neighbor who used to attend our school changed his daughter to a G&T program at another school in East Harlem. He immediately noticed a difference in the quality of instruction and in his daughter’s performance (MUCH improved). I participate in my daughter’s School Leadership Team and I have seen the apathy teachers there exhibit. It is concerning. When I tried to provide feedback about improving the educational experience, teachers/staff often became defensive. It is this that leads me to want to pursue G&T for my daughter.”

For Tiffany Ma, the solution is obvious. “Our second grader that transferred into G&T writes much neater and does her homework much more happily since she’s in an environment where academics and homework is valued by other classmates and parents. We should expand G&T programs. It’s regular programming that shouldn’t exist.”

Yet New York City seems headed in the opposite direction. Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani has vowed to get rid of elementary school G&T programs  that begin in kindergarten. He would wait until students enter third grade, even though the research referenced above specifically mentioned children 7 and 8 years of age( i.e. second graders), as being the biggest beneficiaries of high expectations. , as well. 

This move would lower the academic standards and expectations of all schools, which deeply concerns parents like McCune. She fears “Children like my daughter may be left as collateral damage of an educational experience that falls short of setting them up for significant academic success.”

The top schools in NYC have repeatedly demonstrated that high expectations are key to helping all students reach their full potential.

We need more such schools, be they public G&T, charter, or private. And more teachers who believe in all our kids.

Senate lawmakers on Monday advanced legislation that would launch the most comprehensive overhaul of New Jersey’s regulation of charter schools in 30 years.

advanced by the Senate Education Committee on Monday would outright ban for-profit charter schools, require them to post a range of documents online, and impose residency requirements for some charter school trustees.

“We have not looked at charter schools as a whole legislatively in this committee since the 1990s, so this is an opportunity where we’re trying to do that,” said Sen. Vin Gopal (D-Monmouth), the panel’s chair and the bill’s prime sponsor.

The bill comes as New Jersey charter schools have faced scrutiny after reporting revealed top officials were paid at traditional public schools, including, among others, a Newark charter school CEO who was paid nearly $800,000 in 2024.

The proposal, which Gopal said was the product of a year of negotiations, would require charter schools to post user-friendly budgets that include the compensation paid to charter school leaders and school business administrators. They must also post existing contracts.

Charters would be required to post meeting notices, annual reports, board members’ identities, and facility locations online. Some critics have charged that charter schools routinely fail to provide notice of their public meetings.

The legislation would also require the state to create a dedicated charter school transparency website to host plain language budgets, 990 disclosure forms filed with the IRS, contracts with charter management organizations, and a list of charter schools on probation, among other things.

It would also ban fully virtual charter schools.

“We support the bills as a step forward in holding all public schools in our state accountable for fiscal and transparency requirements that will ultimately best serve our students,” said Debbie Bradley, director of government relations for the New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association.

The two sides remained at odds over the membership of charter school boards.

Charter critics argued residency for those positions — which, unlike traditional public school boards, are largely appointed rather than elected — should mirror those imposed on regular public schools.

In New Jersey, school board members must live in the district they serve. That’s not the case for charter schools, whose trustees face no residency or qualification limits under existing law.

The bill would only impose a residency requirement on one-third of a charter school’s trustees, and rather than forcing them to live in the district, the bill would require charter trustees to live in the school’s county or within 30 miles of the school.

That language was criticized by statewide teachers union the New Jersey Education Association, which has called existing law governing charter schools outdated and flawed.

“School board representation should remain primarily local, and when we mean local, we don’t mean within a 30-mile radius. A 30-mile radius of Newark could include Maplewood, South Orange, communities that don’t necessarily represent what Newark looks like as a community,” said Deb Cornavaca, the union’s director of government relations.

Charter school supporters said their boards need flexibility because their leadership has broader responsibilities than counterparts in traditional public schools.

“Running a charter is a little different than running a traditional district. You need experience in school finance. You need to fundraise a bunch of money on the front end because you’re not getting paid on the front end,” said New Jersey Charter School Association President Harry Lee, adding they also needed familiarity with real estate and community experience.

Amendments removed provisions that would have required charter school board members to be approved by the state commissioner of education, though the commissioner retains sole power over whether to allow the formation of a new charter, a power that gives the commissioner some veto power over a charter’s board.

Gopal acknowledged the 30-mile residency rule was a sticking point and said legislators would discuss it before the measure comes before the Senate Budget Committee. Earlier, he warned the bill was likely to see more changes as it moved through the Legislature.

Some argued enrollment in charter schools should be more limited by geography, arguing that out-of-district enrollments that are common at New Jersey charters could place financial strain on the students’ former district.

Most per-pupil state and local funding follows students who enroll in charter schools, even if their departure does not actually decrease the original district’s expenses because, for example, those schools still require the same number of teachers and administrators.

Charter operators said that would make New Jersey a national outlier and argued that a separate provision that would bar new charter schools when there are empty seats in existing area charters should come out of the bill.

“It could be read as a moratorium on charters, so we want to revisit that provision,” Lee said.

Such vacancies could exist for various reasons, they argued, including student age distributions.

Alongside that measure, the panel approved separate legislation that would bar charter schools from setting criteria to enroll students, ban them from imposing other requirements on a student randomly selected to attend, and place new limits on how such schools can enroll children from outside their district.

That bill would also bar charter schools from encouraging students to break with the district. Some opponents have charged that charter schools push out low-performing students to boost their metrics.

The committee approved the bills in unanimous votes, though Sens. Owen Henry (R-Ocean) and Kristin Corrado (R-Passaic) abstained from votes on both bills, saying they are broadly supportive but need more time to review amendments.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com.

The U.S. Department of Education is expected to reopen for business Thursday after the in history. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is likely to pick up where she left off 43 days ago, reshaping the federal role in school policy and trying to phase out the agency.

The staff won’t be as small as the Trump administration had hoped. McMahon gutted the offices overseeing special education, K-12 and civil rights at the start of the shutdown, but a federal judge paused the job cuts and the reopening agreement in Congress . The deal to end the shutdown prohibits any additional terminations through Jan. 30, the next deadline for lawmakers to finalize the 2026 federal budget. 

Two more top officials will also soon join McMahon’s team. In October, the Senate confirmed Kimberly Richey to lead the Office for Civil Rights and Kirsten Baesler as assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. Neither could be sworn in during the shutdown. 

Baesler, former North Dakota education chief, is likely to take the lead on considering waiver requests from Indiana and Iowa and managing other “administration-wide priorities, like moving away from ‘DEI’ and increasing the use of AI,” said Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs with The Bruman Group, a Washington law firm. 

and want the department to distribute federal funds as a block grant with fewer requirements on how to spend them. In September, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds pointed to an to make the case that states can be trusted to manage federal funds without the Education Department.

Margaret Buckton, a school finance expert and the executive director of the Urban Education Network in Iowa, generally supports the state’s plan. She explained that funding from one federal grant is often not “significant enough to move the needle on school improvement.”

But say that the Every Student Succeeds Act, which includes funding for high-poverty schools and several other targeted programs, already allows ample flexibility and warn that blending the money could mean districts won’t spend it the way Congress intended. 

Indiana also wants to change the way it grades school performance by highlighting qualities such as developing students’ work ethic and financial literacy. Anne Hyslop, director of policy development at All4Ed, an advocacy group, said the request is premature because the state is still on its new accountability plan. She questioned whether the new design would still include measures like graduation rates and progress for English learners. 

“There are particular accountability requirements that are really important,” she said, “and have always been really important for the last 20-plus years.” 

Here are a six other areas that were affected by the budget impasse.

1. Moving special education to HHS

In trying to fulfill her goal to eliminate the department, McMahon has taken steps to transfer oversight of special education programs to the Department of Health and Human Services despite having no authorization from Congress and strong opposition from advocacy groups. 

“The department is exploring additional partnerships with federal agencies to support special education programs without any interruption or impact on students with disabilities, but no agreement has been signed,” spokeswoman Madi Biedermann said in an Oct. 21 statement. “Secretary McMahon is fully committed to protecting the federal funding streams that support our nation’s students with disabilities.”

Opponents of the move say the department is turning its back on students with disabilities.

“This isn’t about handing power to states,” Jacqueline Rodriguez, CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities, said last week during a call with reporters. “It’s about walking away from our responsibility to children and hoping that no one notices.” 

For families, the past several months have created confusion over whether their children will continue to receive the services they need, and advocates have discovered broken links and missing documents about civil rights investigations and state monitoring reports on the department’s website. 

“Moving [the department’s] digital infrastructure to another agency could mean months — or years — of lost access to critical records,” Callie Oettinger, an advocate in Virginia, wrote this week in her blog, . 

But some parents say states might be more responsive than the federal government when conflicts with districts arise.

“I feel like if you push the oversight closer to the community, then you can get better results,” said Tricia Ambeau, an Arkansas mother of two whose eighth grader Emma has Down Syndrome and autism. A conservative, she previously served on the board of Disability Rights of Arkansas, but stepped down during the pandemic. State officials, she said, “can make a two-hour drive to a school district and knock on the door and say ‘What’s going on here?’ You’re never going to get that at the federal level.” 

2. Food stamps

While the Department of Agriculture, not Education, runs the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the shutdown and a court battle over whether the government would distribute full benefits has caused stress and chaos for families with school-age children. 

The end of the shutdown means recipients’ electronic benefit transfer cards should be refilled as normal. 

School districts across the country, like and , increased efforts to distribute food to needy families and served additional meals. encouraged parents to apply for free- and reduced-price lunch if their kids were not already on the program.

“It is important to remember that these families were not given the opportunity to plan and budget for this moment. How do you shop for groceries without knowing how many days or months you need the food to last?” Chastity Lord, president and CEO of the Jeremiah Program, said in a statement. The nonprofit supports 2,000 single mothers across nine cities.

3. Proposed rule change on racial disparities in special education

While the government was closed, the department continued to receive comments on a proposed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The department wants to lift the requirement that states submit data on racial and other disparities in special education services, including whether students with disabilities disproportionately receive harsher discipline.

In the announcement, the department said the change would “reduce the burden on respondents when completing the annual state application.”

Data shows that Black students are for some special education categories, like intellectual disabilities and behavioral disorders, but underidentified for other services like dyslexia and autism. Students with disabilities are also suspended and expelled at higher rates than other students, government . The department’s recommendation would align with Trump’s that discourages schools from focusing on equity in school discipline and using less-punitive practices like conflict resolution. 

The department received over 100 comments on the proposal, with many opposed to the idea of suspending the requirement. The current rule “ensures transparency and promotes fairness in educational opportunity for all students,” EdTrust, an advocacy organization, wrote in .

Michael Petrilli, president of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute, has for policies that remove disruptive students from the classroom. 

“But the answer is not to kill the data collection,” he said.

4. Charter school grants

One way that McMahon has promoted the administration’s school choice agenda is by highlighting and increasing spending on charter schools. Weeks before the shutdown, the department awarded $500 million in grants to charter schools, which included an additional $60 million over the current $440 million for the Charter Schools Program.

But just as the funds went out to states, charter networks and schools, the shutdown began, cutting off new grantees’ access to start-up support during a “crucial window,” said Brittnee Baker, communications director for the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

In , which received $30 million, the disruption has delayed progress toward launching several new schools and expanding others. But some critics argue that the department is boosting funding for the sector at a time of slowing growth and charter closures. 

“Politics, not need, now drives program expansion,” said a from the Network for Public Education. Diane Ravitch, a former Education Department official during the H.W. Bush administration, co-founded the advocacy organization.

5. Prayer guidance

The shutdown also interrupted work on school prayer guidance that President Donald Trump said the department would issue as part of a on “protecting our religious freedoms.”

Officials last following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kennedy vs. Bremerton, which held that a Washington school district could not stop a football coach from praying on the 50-yard line after games. 

The document clarified that school employees have a right to personal prayer or other forms of religious expression, like wearing a cross, during school hours, but they cannot “compel, coerce, persuade or encourage students” to participate.

The 2023 guidance has “served to help schools and community members understand their rights and responsibilities under the First Amendment,” said Maggie Siddiqi, senior fellow at the Interfaith Alliance, a nonprofit counteracting the religious right. She worked on the update when she served as director of the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships at the department during the Biden administration. 

As the Trump administration appeals to Christian conservatives, it “does not have authority to do away with the First Amendment” through guidance, she said and warned that parents and educators should watch for any language that allows schools to impose “one specific religious view on their entire student body.” 

As a refresher, AASA, the School Superintendents Association, addressed the topic in its . The issue features a on religion in public schools from the Freedom Forum, a nonprofit focusing on First Amendment rights. With the administration and state leaders often emphasizing Christianity over other faiths and some states passing laws that set aside , the document answers 23 questions about what the law says. 

6. McMahon’s 50-state tour

The secretary still has 40 states to go on her “Returning Education to the States” tour, which kicked off in August. 

While she primarily highlights charters and private schools on her visits, she has hit a few district schools on her route, including in Clinton, Tennessee, and in Bozeman, Montana.

McMahon said she’s gathering examples of promising practices for on issues such as literacy and school discipline, that the department will issue to states. But Cara Jackson, immediate past president of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, said the department wants to “take credit” for some of the work that was in progress when it canceled funding for research. The association was among the groups that to the Institute for Education Sciences and the termination of regional education labs. The cases are ongoing, but of the contracts were later reinstated.

Proponents of eliminating the department don’t see the point.

“The information might be useful, but it is contradictory to shutting down the U.S. Department of Education,” said Neal McCluskey, director of educational freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute. “Why do it if you don’t think the department should exist at all?”

��ǰ����𳦳پ��Dz�:��An earlier version of this article misstated the number of comments made on a proposed rule change to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which was provided by a government website. The correct number of comments was 100.

Three times a week, the young students struggling the most with reading at each of Milwaukee College Prep’s four campuses go to a dedicated classroom, don their headphones, and log into a virtual tutoring session.

For the next 30 minutes, each student gets one-on-one attention from a certified teacher who might ask them about their dog or their baby sister before diving into the lesson.

Virtual tutoring — in this case through a provider called OpenLiteracy — is the only way Milwaukee College Prep could provide so much tutoring for so many children and from such experienced educators, said Erica Badger, director of curriculum and instruction for the 2,000-student charter network.

“We have a hundred kids on at once,” she said. “Being able to have that many adults come into the school building? I can’t even imagine.”

For these reasons and others, virtual tutoring has remained part of the toolbox of American schools long after students returned to in-person classes. It costs less than in-person tutoring, scheduling is more flexible, and providers aren’t limited to hiring in the surrounding community.

But it doesn’t always work smoothly.

Two studies from Stanford University’s National Student Support Accelerator released Wednesday used natural language processing technologies to review transcripts from tens of thousands of hours of virtual tutoring sessions. Their goal: to better understand exactly what happens between tutors and students in these sessions.

as revealed through tutor comments, such as “You can’t see me? I’m not sure why you can’t see me” or “Sorry. Did you say something? It was hard to hear.”

Researchers found that 19% of available time was lost to disruptions, whether from technological issues, distracted students, or background noise. Time lost to disruptions was even greater when tutors were working with more than one student, especially if one of the students entered the session late.

The with students in one-on-one sessions and in sessions with two students.

Students were randomly assigned to either an individual tutor or to work with the tutor and another student. Tutors spent more time talking overall when they were working with two students, but only about 21% of tutor speech was individualized content instruction, compared with 65% one-on-one sessions. The tutors in the one-on-one sessions also used more phrases associated with motivation and relationship-building.

Both studies involved young students working on early literacy skills.

High-intensity or high-dosage tutoring, generally defined as occurring at least three times a week and for 10 weeks or longer, emerged as one of the most high-profile and effective interventions to address pandemic-related learning loss. .

The new studies shed light on why virtual tutoring in particular has a mixed track record, according to studies. They also suggest ways schools and tutoring providers can make these sessions more effective. That’s especially important now that federal pandemic relief has expired, and schools have less money to spend.

“There are specific features that effective tutoring programs tend to have, but what is actually driving effectiveness is kind of a black box,” said Carly Robinson, a co-author on both papers and director of research at Stanford’s SCALE Initiative, which runs the National Student Support Accelerator.

The emergence of virtual tutoring provides new opportunities to provide answers, because new technology allows audio and video from these sessions to be analyzed at scale, Robinson said. Previous research using similar techniques found, for example, that tutors tend to , unless that student was a girl paired with a higher-performing boy. In those cases, the boy still got more attention.

Robinson said the research findings shouldn’t deter schools from using virtual tutoring or even from using small group sessions. That 81% of tutoring time was productive even when working with very young children is a “positive finding,” Robinson said.

Students experienced more disruptions when they worked in the corner of a classroom than in dedicated tutoring spaces. Small schools experienced more disruptions than large schools did as they added tutoring sessions. And the youngest children, kindergartners, experienced significantly more disruptions than second graders.

Researchers suggest that schools find a quiet dedicated space for children to work if possible; have an adult on hand to handle tech issues; and be realistic about each school’s capacity to host a lot of video calls at once.

The study on one-to-one versus two-to-one tutoring suggests that tutors may need different techniques, including strategies from in-person small group instruction, to ensure both students get the most possible from each session.

OnYourMark Education, the tutoring provider that was involved in that study, has already overhauled its 2:1 tutoring, CEO and founder Mindy Sjoblom said. Some of these changes were subtle, just as having tutors ask a question and then call on a child, so that both students have to pay attention to the question and think about the answer.

The study took place in OnYourMark’s second year of operation. Now in its fourth year, OnYourMark still offers one-to-one tutoring in , but when districts are paying out of pocket, they’re mostly opting for two-to-one sessions, she said. The company has lost some clients who decided they could no longer afford tutoring.

OnYourMark is piloting a program that has students work independently on an adaptive tech platform three days a week and meet with a tutor twice a week. If it’s successful, it would cost about 60% as much as two-to-one tutoring.

“If schools can’t afford to implement it, we’re spinning our wheels,” Sjoblom said.

Thinking beyond a tutoring ‘gold standard’

A lot of research on tutoring points to a “gold standard,” said Liz Cohen, vice president of policy at 50CAN, an advocacy group, and the author of “The Future of Tutoring: Lessons from 10,000 School District Tutoring Initiatives.” But schools might also be interested in what a silver standard or a bronze standard looks like.

The two new studies help identify trade-offs in a granular way that can shape training and program design, she said.

“It’s really important research because a big part of making tutoring more effective is figuring out how to scale it and make it more affordable,” she said. “That means figuring out how to make the most out of the tutor’s time.”

But Ashley Jochim, a principal at the Center for Reinventing Public Education, said perfecting tutoring programs won’t have much impact if schools don’t also pay attention to their core instruction.

“What does it mean to do high-impact tutoring in a school system where the classroom instruction has not been optimized?” she said. “This is a huge liability. We optimize too much on these design-based studies without thinking about the system as a whole.”

Milwaukee College Prep originally targeted a small group of fourth graders for extra reading help, but Badger said the network school realized that was too late and not enough. A donor approached the school about wanting to fund something that would really move the needle on student outcomes. A gift of $500,000 a year over three years allows the network to provide one-on-one tutoring for 30 minutes a day, three times a week to 200 first and second grade students.

Sarah Scott Frank, CEO of OpenLiteracy, the tutoring provider at Milwaukee College Prep, said she believes strongly in one-to-one tutoring. When students don’t work at the same pace, it can be “crushing” for the slower student, Frank said.

“One kid would be zooming along, and the kids are very perceptive, and they see that, and they think ‘see, I can’t do that,’ and it reinforces that negative identity,” she said.

One-to-one tutoring costs more up front, she said. But she believes it’s more cost effective because it works.

The charter network already had a classroom aide providing small-group instruction in addition to the lead teacher in every classroom. The charter network has also upgraded its literacy curriculum to add more phonics. Tutors and classroom teachers use the same curriculum and can share data easily.

Teachers practice the transition to the tutoring room and do trial runs with the platform so that students can log in smoothly two minutes before the session is supposed to start. An adult is on hand to troubleshoot tech problems. Attendance is measured in minutes.

“It’s not a quiet environment,” Badger acknowledges. “But it’s this hum and excitement of learning.”

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Meanwhile, a friendlier bid for schools to voluntarily cooperate has enlisted a few participants — a microschool chain, Indianapolis charter schools and schools in and near South Bend. 

The first proposals from the panel tackling the issue, the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance, will be presented later this month, with recommendations to the city and state legislature due in December.

But families, education advocacy groups and the Indianapolis school board are already at odds over hot-button issues such as which students should be offered school buses, or whether district or charter schools get to use old and empty school buildings. 

There’s also conflict over whether any more charters should open in Indianapolis, or whether the school board, the Indianapolis mayor or some new panel should referee competing claims for assets.

To some, the entire process is an attack on the Indianapolis school district and an attempt to dilute its power in favor of charter schools. 

“Few of us want to feed the goals of the far right MAGA legislators who want to divide and ruin Indianapolis schools,” resident Kate Scott told the panel last month. “This gives them an excuse to strip us of our rights to make community decisions, and to then force an all charter and voucher landscape… and floods of public funding for privately run religious schools.” 

Others view the effort as overdue, since more than half the students in Indianapolis attend charter schools. Most Indianapolis charter schools do not offer buses to students, saying that paying for them could mean cutting teachers.

“We need to listen to what the families want for transportation,” resident Kim Graham told the panel at its October meeting. “It doesn’t need (the district) or charter running the bus system. We need to elect a whole new board that does know transportation, that will be able to figure out how our children can get to school.”

Meanwhile, a separate push by the legislature to encourage schools to share resources is advancing in a much friendlier way since it’s voluntary and not an order. The Indiana Department of Education gave the OK in October for three partnerships between charter schools and districts — in Indianapolis, South Bend and one a microschool network that hopes to expand statewide — to start sharing services as a three-year pilot starting in the fall of 2026.

In the higher stakes charter vs district debate in Indianapolis, the alliance has two task forces, one looking at transportation issues and the other at school buildings, which have been meeting privately and will share their recommendations with the full panel Nov. 19.

The thornier matter of who would oversee sharing is also in play. The board heard Oct. 22 from representatives from Denver and Washington, D.C., about how those cities put single boards in charge of funding, school quality, transportation and creation of new schools for both charter and district schools.

Looming in the background are several real threats, including legislators that proposed wiping out the school district in favor of charters, a declining population that leaves schools fighting for students to stay afloat, and the district’s budget woes. The Indianapolis Public Schools has closed several schools in recent years. A tax that brings in about $40 million a year will expire in 2026, needing voter approval to continue.

One incentive for the sides to strike a deal is that voters with children in charter schools could be more willing to pass a tax for the district if their children also benefit.

Varying groups have pressed dueling requests to the Alliance, including the IPS school board, which called Oct. 3 for a moratorium on new schools starting in the city, in response to 9,000 seats in charter and district schools sitting open.

“There are currently 103 schools serving approximately 41,000 students,” the . “Too many schools competing for a limited pool of students and resources undermines the health of our entire system.”

“We do not need any more schools in the IPS boundary,” the board continued. “The long-term success of Indianapolis students depends on right-sizing the number of schools within the boundary—ensuring we have the right number of schools, in the right places, to serve all students effectively.”

Other requests include:

• The pro-charter advocacy group Stand For Children delivering to the Alliance in September calling for transportation for all students and for a new school board to oversee charter and district schools.

• RISE Indy, another pro-charter advocacy group, has also to make sure charter school interests are considered.
• The district’s calling for a moratorium on new charter schools, for the elected school board to keep its powers, for repeal of a state law allowing charters to buy closed school buildings for $1 and for other limits on charter school power.
• The Central Indiana Democratic Socialists of America against any control of the district going to the mayor or any new appointed panel.

The second effort to have Indiana schools share resources is moving forward too with three partnerships, though without the same debate.

The Indiana Microschool Collaborative, which started this fall and hopes to offer an efficient way for microschools to launch across the state, will be one of the three. The model, created by the Eastern Hancock school district, calls for the microschools — independent schools with only a few students — to save money by using the Eastern Hancock central office for its human resource and other administrative needs.

The second has the Mishawaka school district near South Bend collaborating with the Career Academy Network of five charter schools in South Bend and the Boys & Girls Clubs of the Northern Indiana Corridor.

The charter schools and district already have students attending the same afterschool and summer programs, said Jeremy Lugbill, CEO of the charter network. And the Boys and Girls Clubs help run one of the network’s schools located at a Boys and Girls Club facility.

The schools will likely all participate in a joint school for students with academic troubles, among other ways of collaborating.

“I’m optimistic,” Lugbill said. “Have we done it before? No, but I believe that people are starting to see the value in collaboration. The bottom line is that a rising tide lifts all boats. We can make each other better.”

The third partnership already has 54 charter schools in the Indianapolis area joining together under Andrew Seibert, the former executive director of the KIPP Indy charter schools who left in September to join the TogetherEd nonprofit for this effort.

Seibert said cooperation between schools already happens, with some charter schools already sharing the same building or sharing with district schools. 

Schools, Seibert said, could share buses if they are close by, possibly just for afterschool programs or for homeless students or students with disabilities. Schools that have a good gymnasium or auditorium could let other schools use them for events.

“There are certainly discrete examples of success that we can point to and to learn from,” he said. “But in a lot of ways, this is going to be new ground that we’re breaking.”

The partnership is also sparking speculation, however, that TogetherEd is positioning itself as the body that could take control in the larger Indianapolis effort to share buses and buildings between charters and the Indianapolis Public Schools.

Seibert said it is too early to know what the Alliance will recommend and what TogetherEd’s role will be, but that it is important to start a culture of cooperation between schools now.

“Whatever the future state that we’re building towards is like, we have to start building muscle and getting experience now on it,” Seibert said. “What I’m hopeful…is that by establishing the environment where collaboration is happening and it’s happening consistently with concrete outcomes… we can learn important things and contribute to whatever the shape of the future landscape needs to look like.”

When they first walk into Match Charter Public High School, students confront a purely physical challenge: its steep marble staircase.

Erected in 1917 as part of a three-story auto accessory and, it frames the main hall of Match, one of Boston’s — and the nation’s — longest-surviving charter high schools. With its wide, sweeping opening and challenging rise, it offers an implicit message, students and teachers say: “You must demonstrate a basic level of dedication simply to get to class on time. Come on in. This will be hard, but stick with it.”

“It’s just a thing that happens for everyone who comes into the school,” said senior Caleb Tolento. “You have to get used to the stairs eventually, because you have to go through all the different levels of the school.” 

But alongside the challenge is an unprecedented level of support, students say. 

Founded in 2000 as the uppercase MATCH: Media and Technology Charter High School, after 25 years it remains stubbornly small and intensely personalized, offering a stunning contrast to how many other charter organizations have developed: Each morning, just 266 students from all over Boston — many of whom ride the bus or subway for more than an hour — crowd into the trim three-story edifice.

Once inside, students enjoy a college-prep curriculum and four years of classes in a place that both pushes and nurtures them. 

“You grow up with this community of people that stay with you,” said alumnus Jeffrey Vittini, who graduated in 2023 and now attends Northeastern University. “You get to know everyone.”

In 25 years, Match, which also operates an elementary and middle school elsewhere in the city, has resisted expanding to other neighborhoods, let alone other cities. For the past 22 years, it has occupied the same space that until 2001 housed Ellis the Rim Man. The front corner of the building, facing bustling Commonwealth Avenue, once housed a mobile phone store — it’s now the school’s college counseling office, but everyone still calls it “the cell store.”

Match has kept itself intentionally small, even as a handful of innovations piloted there have spun off.

“We’re not a company,” said Jay Galbraith, the network’s managing director of academics, who offered something approaching Match’s credo: “If we have a good idea that works, share it.”

Since its founding, Match has seen its staffers found , a curriculum company, the coaching nonprofit and , a nonprofit tutoring provider. But it hasn’t expanded its schools portfolio, Galbraith said, “especially if that would come at the cost of not serving our kids as effectively.”

With just three schools, he said, “We can make faster moves,” changing curriculum, services or whatever needs tweaking. “We’re not trying to steer a ship of 100,000 kids.”

This fall, however, political realities are threatening Match’s model, which for a quarter-century has been built partly on intensive tutoring for nearly every student.

What comes after ‘no-excuses’?

Like many charter schools that serve predominantly low-income students of color, Match has spent the years since the outbreak of the COVID pandemic and the Black Lives Matter protests searching for a balance between its no-excuses roots and what many consider a more humane pedagogical and disciplinary approach. 

That, several educators and students said, is a work in progress.

“What we’ve given up is high behavioral expectations that lead to exclusion,” said principal in residence Jermaine Hamilton. So while detention is back on the menu after administrators nixed it during the pandemic, out-of-school suspension isn’t coming back. “We don’t believe excluding our students sends the message that they are welcomed here, that we want them here, and that they are allowed to make mistakes and grow here.”

In the bargain, the school’s disciplinary team has grown from one “dean of school culture” to two.

In interviews, students welcomed the shift, which also meant the end of school uniforms in favor of a moderate dress code. 

Nearly all stressed that close-knit relationships make the school tick.

“They started to realize that the community they’re building up, that’s the biggest aspect of Match that makes it what it is,” said Tolento, 17. “And they’re kind of leaning more into that, especially in the high school.”

In the absence of no-excuses discipline, Match has doubled down on personal relationships and the importance of teachers simply getting to know students. 

“For a time, we replaced ‘no excuses’ with ‘all the excuses,’” said history teacher Andrew Jarboe. While that was challenging for teachers, he said, “Now I feel we’re in a place where we’re sort of correcting and finding the balance.” 

Among the interventions that remain: intensive therapy sessions, extensive academic tutoring and college counseling services that would make a private school headmaster blush.

Nearly half of Match students sit for one-on-one therapy sessions of up to 50 minutes weekly, said Kerry Sonia, one of the school’s four full-time counselors. That reality creates “a culture around counseling where students are super-comfortable with us,” she said. Match students “love talking about their feelings, which is nice.”

A Match alumna herself, Sonia attended both the middle and high school, where she was often the only white student in the building. She recalled that as a student, she often felt that adults, in their attempts to get students to sit up straight, track speakers’ eyes and not dawdle in the restrooms, were quietly offering a kind of implicit character education. But to students it often felt more like behavioral conditioning.

Years later, she sees that approach as dehumanizing. “If someone was trying to track how long it took me to go to the bathroom every day, that would also annoy me.”

The pivot, she said, should be more properly understood as going from “no excuses” to “high expectations and high supports,” emphasizing both more student accountability and self-advocacy.

So even as the school has followed the lead of many high schools in instituting a cell phone ban, seniors may keep phones this fall. It’s a bid to give them a measure of control before they take off for college and careers.

Jarboe, for his part, is delighted. “This is my first year in more than a decade where the cell phone is not ubiquitous,” he said. “My first week of teaching this year was actually quite remarkable. Students were laughing at my jokes again. They were paying attention again.”

He added, “It feels like I’ve got my students back.”

Tutoring takes a hit

One recent morning, tutor Saul Escorza, a recent University of Pennsylvania graduate, sat at a high-top table on the school’s open-concept third floor, as a series of students approached for extra help with geometry. In his first five weeks, he has noticed that many students struggle to keep up with classes that simply move too quickly. 

“If you’re in an environment where they give you a day or two for the concept and then move on, but you need more, you’ll start to fall behind,” he said. “So for me, it’s just trying to figure out where they started falling back.”

Many students are capable of learning math but struggle to recall the basics. “So it’s just making sure that their foundation is solid, and then hopefully from there it becomes much more easy for them to grasp the higher-level things.”

If Match is known for anything, it’s this. It was one of the first charter schools to pilot intensive tutoring for nearly all students. The policy far predated the COVID-19 pandemic — a recent book on the topic called Match “patient zero for tutoring at scale.”

The program began as a partnership with MIT students, who earned federal work-study salaries to tutor Match students a few times a week. By 2003, offered every student two hours of tutoring daily.

But this fall, Escorza is lucky to be here. Federal funding cuts have forced the school to trim its tutoring — each fall, it typically opens its doors with an eye-watering 20-person, full-time tutoring staff. Due to the Trump administration’s nearly $400 million in cuts to the program, Match has had to scale back to just nine part-time tutors.

About 30 Match sophomores — somewhere between 40% and 50% of the class — now get geometry tutoring every day. A few tutors work on life skills for students who need them, while others help students catch up on missed classwork.

Devin Baker, who directs Match Corps, said she’s working on ways to bring it back to its former glory, perhaps by hiring local graduate students. Most years, virtually every freshman and sophomore sits with a personal tutor several times a week. That in particular has long helped Match stand out, since for many students it can mean the difference between taking basic coursework and tackling Advanced Placement courses.

Tutors attend meetings with students’ classroom teachers and special ed staff and are “uniquely positioned to get to know the kids and advocate for the kids on a level that classroom teachers just can’t get to in the same way,” said Baker, herself a tutor as a member of City Year, the AmeriCorps program that until this fall underwrote Match’s tutoring.

Several teachers said the loss of funding carries bigger stakes than just a smaller tutoring corps. It’s “the foundation and the fabric that weave this place together,” said Kyle Winslow Smith, Match’s director of curriculum and instruction for the humanities.

He and colleagues have relied on tutors not just for boosting kids’ math skills but for helping students with executive functioning and planning. It’s also a key pipeline for Match teachers — more than a dozen current teachers started as tutors.

The AmeriCorps funding cuts, Smith said, are devastating to a community like Match. “Because Title I charter schools and AmeriCorps serve communities of color, it is a systematically racist policy that they’re imposing upon these schools,” he said. “And it seems like it’s an intentional move to deconstruct a system that is helping communities of color.”

‘It’s so easy to get help’ 

Asked what they like most about the school, virtually all students say some variation of this: The place is crawling with adults offering assistance.

“The school being so small, it’s so easy to get help,” said senior Brianny Pimentel, 17, who prefers to be called by her nickname: “Zero.”

“If you really need help with homework, or if you really need time to finish a test or a quiz, it’s so easy to look for that help,” she said. “There’s so many teachers and tutors around that can help you.”

Between classes, virtually the entire staff emerges from classrooms to shoo students to their next period. After the last bell, many students stay to socialize, get extra help and chat with teachers, said Devon Burroughs, the school’s vice principal. “They’re just hanging out with each other in the lobby, or they’re sitting with a teacher and just talking about life — not necessarily academics, but just to be around a person. Sometimes we have to [say], ‘O.K., it’s 5:40.’” Even then, he said, students linger in the park near the school, reluctant to go home.

Once they get to junior year, Match students gain access to a five-person college counseling staff that rivals those of elite private schools. Each counselor’s case load typically ranges from just 15 to 20 students, and counselors often help families, tax returns in hand, fill out the federal Free Application for Federal Student Aid. 

Over four years at Match, the typical student receives about 400 hours of college counseling, the school says. Most end up visiting more than 20 colleges.

That support typically pays off: 92% of the class of 2025 attend college, with 83% enrolled in four-year institutions. About 50% of alumni who attend college complete a degree within six years. That’s high compared to other charter organizations such as KIPP, which boasts a . 

Senior Tolento, who first attended Match in sixth grade, has his eyes on “a lot of high-end schools,” including Cornell University. Match, he said, is “advocating for me to keep pushing myself upward.”

This spring, his classmate Pimentel will be the third in her family to graduate from Match. Though admission is by random lottery, students with siblings already attending get a leg up. She’s looking at studying business or early childhood education, possibly at Framingham State University.

“Since Day One, since you’re a freshman, they immediately are like, ‘Put in all your effort,’” she said. “They’re really adamant about you trying the hardest you can to accelerate every year, and this year specifically they’re really putting in the work to help us.”

Parents navigate charter schools, vouchers and a growing marketplace of education options every day. For some families, these opportunities open doors that traditional systems have long kept closed. For others, they widen gaps, creating new advantages for those with time, knowledge, or resources to navigate complex systems. 

That’s the fork in the road: Will school choice become a lever for equity or another layer of inequality? What happens next depends less on whether choice exists and more on how leaders, policymakers and practitioners choose to design, regulate and support it.

As a principal of a nontraditional high school in Tennessee built to give juniors and seniors a second chance at graduation, I saw firsthand how transportation made “choice” inequitable. Our school was open to all students in the district, but the catch was that families had to provide their own way there.

Over time, as the demographics of our community shifted, we saw more students enrolling from affluent schools while fewer came from inner-city and Title I schools — the very students who stood to benefit most. Day after day, I sat with families who desperately wanted the opportunity but were unable to access it. The lesson was clear: Choice without infrastructure only stands to reinforce privilege rather than broaden opportunity.

The strongest critiques of school choice aren’t about the principle of offering families more options; they’re about access. For choice to deliver on its promise, access has to mean more than an open seat. It has to mean that every family, regardless of income, language, or need, can truly participate. Without that, choice stops being an opportunity and starts being just an illusion of opportunity. 

Transportation is just one of the barriers, affecting families without cars, flexible jobs or reliable public transit. Enrollment processes add another layer of inequity: complex paperwork, limited multilingual communication and opaque lotteries often shut out families who already face systemic disadvantages. For students with disabilities and English learners, the inequities deepen. Research shows charter schools often provide patchy services with weak oversight, while private schools in voucher programs may decline to serve these students altogether since they aren’t bound by the same legal protections.

Funding and accountability form the final fault lines. When dollars follow students out of neighborhood schools without adjustments, budgets destabilize and fewer resources for the children left behind. And even within schools of choice, oversight is inconsistent. Too often, leaders track test scores but not who is being served, allowing schools to avoid providing the services students need.

These patterns suggest that the risks of choice lie not in the idea itself, but in how unevenly families can access and benefit from it, and how lightly systems hold schools accountable for equity. The way forward isn’t to fight the existence of choice but to shape its design. Equity has to be built into the foundation: guaranteed transportation, simplified and fair enrollment systems, real accountability for serving all students, and funding models that strengthen rather than destabilize public schools. Otherwise, choice risks reinforcing the very divides it claims to close.

If school choice is going to expand, policymakers have a responsibility to make equity part of the design, not an afterthought. That starts with four commitments:

• Transportation Access: Guarantee funding and infrastructure so families without cars or flexible work schedules can actually reach the schools they choose. In Indianapolis, for instance, some public charter schools pay as much as $1 million a year to provide bus services. A law that passed in April requires Indiana school districts to work with charters on transportation and facilities plans. More states should follow suit.

• Equitable Enrollment & Family Support: Simplify and standardize application processes, require multilingual communication, and provide “choice navigators” or resource centers so families with less social capital aren’t left behind. Some school districts, particularly, and Philadelphia, provide strong lottery systems with support from navigators in several languages. But such support shouldn’t depend on individual districts. It should be built into state and federal policy.

• Special Education & Student Services: Hold charter and private choice schools to the same expectations as public schools when it comes to serving students with disabilities, English learners, and students requiring additional support that schools of choice do not always provide.
  
• Accountability & Funding Fairness: Track not only test scores but also who is being served. Are low-income families, English learners, and students with disabilities represented equitably? Are schools counseling students out? And are funding models strengthening, not destabilizing, the public schools that remain?

School choice is not going away, but its future shape is still undecided. 

Public education has always been the surest path to opportunity, and I see it as the key to unlocking success for all kids. Whether school choice narrows or widens opportunity is up to all of us. If the goal is equity, then the focus has to move beyond fighting choice itself and toward shaping policies that make it fair, accessible, and accountable. That’s the only way to ensure choice strengthens, rather than fractures, the promise of public education.

If policymakers, advocates, and practitioners want choice to be more than a slogan, they have to design it with equity at the center. That means treating transportation, special education, family support, accountability, and funding fairness not as side issues but as nonnegotiables. 

The future of school choice is being written right now. It can open doors, or it can reinforce walls.

Nearly all staff members in the Office of Special Education Programs and the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education were affected when the department began issuing termination notices Friday. The Office for Civil Rights also saw new cuts after losing half of its staff earlier this year.

“The track record for challenging [reductions in force] in the courts hasn’t been great,” Emily Merolli, a partner with the Sligo Law Group and a former attorney in the department’s general counsel’s office, said during a call with reporters after the hearing. “We still very much consider these offices and these programs to be in immediate danger.”

She was among those eliminated in the mass layoffs in March, which were upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in July while the case moves forward. In a second case, an appeals court last month gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon the OK to lay off roughly 250 OCR staff and attorneys.

In her ruling Wednesday, Judge Susan Illston from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, a Clinton appointee, said the that sued over the layoffs are likely to prove that the administration had no authority to let staff go while they were furloughed during a shutdown. Later this month, she’ll hold a second hearing on whether the employees can remain on the job as the court considers the merits of the case. 

It is “far from normal for an administration to fire line-level civilian employees during a government shutdown as a way to punish the opposing political party,” . During the hearing, she said the department’s “ready, aim, fire approach” to reform would be “enormously disruptive” to students.

On Tuesday, President Trump that he’s using the current government shutdown to slash “Democrat programs that we want to close up or we never wanted to happen.” Advocates have described the cuts as an attack on vulnerable students, including the more than who receive services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act. Late Tuesday, nearly 400 organizations issued demanding that the administration “reverse course immediately and restore staffing and transparency at the U.S. Department of Education.” 

In a separate , state special education directors said they were “confused and concerned” by the cuts and worried IDEA funding could lapse with fewer staff ensuring the payments go out on time. McMahon responded Wednesday, saying that the shutdown has not interrupted funding, including money for special education.

“Two weeks in, millions of American students are still going to school, teachers are getting paid and schools are operating as normal,” she . “It confirms what the President has said: the federal Department of Education is unnecessary, and we should return education to the states.”

But Michael Anderson, a lawyer at Sligo and a former department attorney who focused on major grant programs like Title I said the secretary’s statement “loses sight of the big picture.”

Staff cuts are like “deferred maintenance on a car or a home,” he said. “Over time, the effects of not having experienced, knowledgeable staff administering federal education programs” could lead to significant problems. 

Even proponents of eliminating the department were taken aback by this latest round of cuts. Neal McCluskey, director of educational freedom at the libertarian Cato Institute, has been a vocal supporter of closing the Education Department and said the president has the authority to cut employees as long as he keeps enough staff to do the work mandated by Congress. But he said he didn’t understand how the administration could use the shutdown to justify additional layoffs.

The standoff between Democrats and Republicans over the shutdown “feels like a game of chicken, which is bad public policy,” he said. “But [it] seems to be increasingly how federal politics works.”

‘Disability doesn’t fly a flag’

News of the cuts over the weekend left parents and advocates feeling betrayed after Trump and McMahon vowed not to cut “anything that was going to harm or infringe upon the rights of kids with disabilities,” said Jennifer Coco, interim executive director of the Center for Learner Equity. The center advocates for students with disabilities who attend charter schools, which often struggle to provide students with disabilities a better education than they’d receive in a district school. 

The staff who received layoff notices, she said, “represent decades of expertise in understanding what folks in the field needed … to make things better for kids.”

In March, as part of his effort to close the agency, Trump said it would “work out very well” to move the administration of IDEA to the Department of Health and Human Services. But his administration cut in the Administration for Children and Families in April, and plans to eliminate additional , including those to improve preschool.

Ensuring that states follow IDEA is one of the core functions of the Office of Special Education Programs, or OSEP. Earlier this year, the office put in the country on notice that they were failing to adequately serve children with disabilities. 

struggled with timelines for evaluating students for special education services. Michigan saw a of complaints from parents of children with dyslexia who weren’t receiving the reading help they needed. And an investigation found the District of Columbia often delayed services to young children, forcing parents to file lawsuits in order to get services.  

With or without federal monitoring, states “still have the obligation to make sure that the laws are followed,” said Denise Marshall, CEO of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates. 

But parents often look to OSEP for help. In fact, positions slated for elimination include those who take calls directly from parents of children with disabilities “who probably feel like they have exhausted all of their resources at the state level at the local level,” said Becca Walawender, the former director of policy and planning in the department’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services. 

She took offense at the president’s characterization that special education is a “Democrat program.”

“Disability doesn’t fly a flag,” said Walawender, now a senior adviser to Sligo. “People with disabilities exist in all states, red or blue, across socioeconomic lines, across races, religions. Rural, urban — it doesn’t matter.”

Julie Melear, a parent who has navigated special education systems in Colorado, Virginia and Idaho, sought help from federal staff multiple times when she felt her two boys weren’t getting appropriate services for dyslexia. It took OSEP to require the Fairfax County Public Schools to reimburse her for tutoring services the district was required to provide following the pandemic. Now she has a complaint against the Colorado Department of Education. She argues that the state has refused to investigate districts for failing to reimburse parents at market rates when they seek outside evaluations for their children.

“I am concerned that [the department] essentially is turning over federal dollars to let Colorado do whatever it wants,” Melear said. Colorado is that “needs assistance” from the department, according to federal officials. 

A Colorado department spokeswoman said officials had not received the complaint but that districts can “set reasonable cost limits” as long as they don’t prevent parents from getting an outside evaluation.

‘Be careful of what you ask for’

Other parents with a long history of filing state and federal special education complaints point to problems at the federal level. Officials often “moved slowly and allowed noncompliance to continue for too long,” said Callie Oettinger, an advocate in Virginia. There are some parents, she said, who have no problem with federal employees losing their jobs. 

“At the same time, they’re terrified because, as problematic as some staff members were, they did more than the states,” she said. “It’s a case of be careful of what you ask for.” 

It took federal officials, she said, to force Texas in 2017 to lift on the number of students receiving special education services. The limit meant that schools often denied special education services to students with autism, ADHD and epilepsy or offered cheaper accommodations. Gov. Greg Abbott blamed teachers, while educators insisted they were following the Texas Education Agency’s instructions to identify fewer students for special instruction.

“Can you imagine Texas without OSEP’s monitoring?” Oettinger asked. “Not even major investigations by the and others, which made the noncompliance public, resulted in the state making its own changes.”

‘Without any recourse’

The special education office often works hand-in-hand with the Office for Civil Rights when schools violate student rights. In fact, despite the investigations that make the news, nearly 70% of the complaints OCR handles are related to disability, said Beth Gellman-Beer, co-founder of Evergreen Education Solutions, a consulting firm, and a former regional director for OCR’s Philadelphia office.

One OCR attorney who received a layoff notice said she’s “deeply concerned” about how the potential layoffs could affect students.

“The mass elimination of OCR offices that have over 25,000 open cases leaves those complainants without any recourse, let alone answers as to if their case will move forward,” she said. She asked to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation. “States are not prepared to handle these concerns.”

States could also see cash flow problems if the department can’t process grant payments in a timely manner because it doesn’t have enough staff, experts said. States and districts have to spend money up front on salaries, supplies and vendor contracts and then request reimbursements from the department.

Small districts, charter schools and rural districts are often “operating payroll to payroll,” Catherine Pozniak, a consultant and former assistant state superintendent in Louisiana, said on the call with reporters. “They cannot afford to wait for weeks to get their reimbursements.” 

The Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, which administers the complex Title I program and and other grants for K-12 schools, was among those hardest hit, losing 132 employees according to an email from the Office of Management and Budget shared with The 74. 

The downsizing could affect one of the department’s top priorities: charter schools. In late September, McMahon announced she was releasing $500 million in grants for charters. But if the charter office is gutted, “who’s going to administer those grants and run grant competitions in the future?” Anderson asked. 

The proposed cuts also come as states, such as Iowa, Indiana and Alabama, seek waivers from laws related to funding, testing and accountability. In general, states don’t lean on the office for “day-to-day guidance,” said Dale Chu, an independent consultant who focuses on testing and accountability. 

But before he resigned Oct. 1, former Oklahoma state Superintendent Ryan Walters was preparing to submit a request to cancel all tests required by the Every Student Succeeds Act — a proposal that federal officials said McMahon was unlikely to approve. It’s unclear whether Superintendent Lindel Fields, his replacement, will follow through with the request. 

“If something like Oklahoma’s waiver proposal were on the table, you’d want a functioning federal partner to keep things tethered to the law,” Chu said. He also feels bad for Kirsten Baesler, confirmed last week as the new head of elementary and secondary education. She’s potentially “walking into an office that’s been hollowed out, and she’ll need to rebuild trust and capacity once the lights come back on.”

‘Meaningful work’

After McMahon let over 1,300 people go in March, some career employees knew they were vulnerable. Andrea Falken has spent 15 years working in the Office of Communications and Outreach, where one of her signature accomplishments was running the department’s , which recognized schools for saving energy and encouraging sustainability. 

“It pleased a lot of people across the country, in red and blue states alike,” she said. “We received scores of notes and even several awards for this work.” 

With an administration that plans to to improve air quality and reduce pollution, the department . Falken was reassigned to handle public records requests and draft a weekly newsletter. The office has dropped from about 80 employees to a skeleton crew mostly working on social media, videos, and the department’s website, she said. 

“They were not effectively utilizing my 20-plus years of professional experience, graduate degrees or multiple languages,” she said. “They were not using us for meaningful work. They did not want us to do anything, really.”

Kristine Kaneichi enrolled her oldest son in Waikīkī Community Preschool eight years ago, drawn to the center’s low cost, safe facilities and flexible hours that accommodated her schedule as a college student. 

She went on to send her two younger kids to the center. The youngest, now 3, is still a student there but, for the first time in years, Kaneichi doesn’t have to worry about paying tuition or applying for state tuition subsidies. 

Last month, Waikīkī Community Preschool became the first program to make the transition from a private to charter school in Hawaiʻi. As a result, the school reports to the State Public Charter School Commission, receives state funding — and is tuition-free.  

“This helps a lot,” Kaneichi said. 

Waikīkī Community Preschool is part of the state’s ongoing strategy to involve more charter schools in its ambitious goals to provide all 3- and 4-year-olds access to preschool by 2032. Charter schools currently operate 33 preschool classrooms in the state, including six at Waikīkī Community Preschool, said Deanne Goya, who oversees early learning programs at the charter commission. 

The state opened an additional 26 preschool classrooms this fall on Department of Education campuses and plans to add around 25 more next year. Roughly 6,700 children don’t have access to preschool, meaning that Hawaiʻi needs to open around 330 classrooms over the next seven years, according to . 

Preschool directors and advocates say charter preschools can help solve the state’s long-time shortage of early educators. Private preschools typically struggle to hire staff and increase teacher wages because they’re reliant on tuition payments and don’t want to raise the prices for parents, said Malia Tsuchiya, early childhood policy and advocacy coordinator at Hawaiʻi Children’s Action Network. 

Converting private preschools to charters creates a steady source of state funding for providers and often ensures higher wages for teachers, making hard-to-fill jobs more attractive, Tsuchiya said. Teachers working for charter preschools are state employees and receive the same benefits and salaries of educators working in K-12 public schools. 

The current funding model makes it difficult for other programs to follow Waikīkī Community Preschool’s lead, however. Charter preschools receive $171,000 in state funding per classroom, which Tsuchiya said falls short of what schools need to cover staff, rent, facilities and other expenses. Most charters run small preschool programs, she said, so it’s harder to spread the costs across multiple classrooms.

The Waikīkī preschool is counting on its nonprofit partner, Waikīkī Community Center, to help fundraise thousands of dollars to make up the shortfall of state funds this year.

A New Type of School

Waikīkī Community Preschool always focused on serving low-income families, drawing parents who worked in the tourism industry and sometimes held multiple jobs, said Caroline Hayashi, president of the Waikīkī Community Center. In recent years, the preschool charged low-income families around $500 a month but only after extensively fundraising to lower the costs. Families covering the full tuition paid around $990 a month. 

“We’ve been really trying to do what we can as a nonprofit to help make quality early education affordable,” Hayashi said. “We have been successful, but always kind of struggling to subsidize.” 

When the state started looking for private preschools interested in becoming charters, the center jumped at the opportunity, Hayashi said. The school wanted to be tuition-free, she said, and receiving state funding would alleviate some of the pressure of fundraising. 

In addition to eliminating tuition costs, becoming a charter school also allowed the center to operate at full capacity for the first time since the Covid-19 pandemic, Hayashi said. 

When it reopened after Covid, the school wasn’t able to staff one of its classrooms and could only serve 85 students. More educators seem willing to work for a charter preschool, Hayashi said, likely because they can receive the same pay as K-12 public school teachers with more flexible work schedules. 

Now, the school operates at its maximum capacity and is serving 98 kids this year, with a waitlist typically of between 10 and 30 students. 

Private preschools often struggle with staffing and increasing teacher pay because they don’t want to raise tuition for families. In 2021, preschool teachers in Hawaiʻi earned an  of roughly $37,000. In comparison, licensed public school teachers – including those working in charter preschools – have a  of $53,390 this year. 

Charter preschools can offer more stability and state benefits for staff members, Hayashi said, but it also raises the bar for teacher qualifications. Teachers working in private, licensed preschools must hold an associate degree or credential in early childhood education. But charter schools require educators to be licensed, meaning that they must have completed both a bachelor’s degree and a teacher preparation program. 

It’s a hard requirement to fill amid a statewide shortage of early educators, Hayashi said. Five of her six lead teachers are emergency hires, meaning that they have three years to complete their licensing requirements. Once they meet those requirements, they’ll be eligible for higher salaries. 

Complicating staffing challenges, Hayashi said, several preschool teachers also work as after-school care staff. The after-school program runs separately from the charter school and is offered through Waikīkī Community Center for $200 a month. 

It’s sometimes difficult to offer after-school care when teachers have afternoon staff meetings for the charter school, Hayashi said, but it’s the best solution she’s found to meet the needs of working families. 

“It’s just been an adjustment,” she said. “The only way that it works so far is that we have a lot of our staff that have been willing to have basically a second job.” 

Short On Funding

Like K-12 public schools, charter preschools rely on state dollars — but the current funding levels aren’t enough to sustain these programs, Goya said. 

The state provides  up to $1,500 for low-income families attending private preschools, Goya said, meaning that these programs could receive up to $300,000 annually in state funds for a classroom of 20 students, compared to the $171,000 for a charter classroom. 

DOE schools receive less money — around $146,000 for every preschool classroom they open on their campus — but they also need to cover fewer costs than charters. For example, Tsuchiya said, DOE schools already have money set aside in their budgets for principals and janitors, regardless of whether they add a preschool classroom to their campus. 

On the other hand, she said, set costs for administrators’ salaries and facility maintenance are spread across just a few classrooms in charter preschools, which typically have smaller programs and fewer kids. Most charters face the additional expenses of rent and facilities since they aren’t located on state land. 

Hayashi estimates Waikīkī Community Preschool will face a budget shortfall of around $150,000 to $200,000 this year, although she’s confident the school can raise enough money with the support of the community center, which has raised similar amounts of money for the preschool in the past.   

Another charter, Parkway Village Preschool in Kapolei, is also facing budget shortfalls after  earlier this year. While Parkway originally projected it would have an annual deficit of $34,000 per classroom, it’s now up against shortfalls of closer to $50,000 to $60,000 per class as it grows its staff, said Ben Naki, who oversees early learning programs at Parents And Children Together, the nonprofit associated with the preschool. 

The school is prepared to make up the difference through fundraising and support from foundations, Naki said, and hopes to participate in a federal meals program that can help reduce the costs of producing lunches. But the current levels of funding make it difficult for small programs to become charter schools, especially if they’re not partnering with outside organizations that can provide administrative support or help with major fundraising efforts. 

“We’re committed to it with the notion, or, I guess, hope, that funding will increase on the charter side, because that would be huge,” Naki said. 

Earlier this year, the state received only two applications from prospective charter preschools — Waikīkī Community Preschool and Mana ‘Ulu Montessori Charter Lab School. Mana ‘Ulu planned to build on existing partnerships with Chaminade University’s lab school, which has its own private preschool, but its application was not approved.

Turning privately owned programs into charters won’t necessarily add new preschool seats for the state, Tsuchiya said. But, with enough funding, the charter model can stabilize existing programs at risk of closing by providing them a steady stream of state funding and incentivizing educators to earn their teacher licenses and qualify for higher pay. 

At the same time, Goya said, the commission is working with K-12 charter schools to add preschool programs to campuses with available space. Currently, she said, the commission is planning to add 15 more preschool classrooms by fall 2028. 

The School Facilities Authority, the state agency in charge of preschool construction, recently received $20 million to build more preschool classrooms over the next three years, but the funding can only go toward adding classrooms to schools on government-owned land.

Since many charters are on private property, not all schools qualify for the money, authority director Riki Fujitani said. But the agency was still able to renovate three preschool classrooms at Waiʻalae School this summer and is working on preschool projects at an additional four charter campuses. 

“Charters,” he said, “have really been quick to embrace pre-k.”

Civil Beat’s education reporting is supported by a grant from Chamberlin Family Philanthropy.

Two decades after Hurricane Katrina, the legacy of New Orleans’ radical education experiment is still contested. Was it a success? The final episode of Where the Schools Went grapples with this question head on.

Doug Harris, chair of Tulane University’s Department of Economics and founding director of the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans, has led the team studying the city’s schools for years. Their findings show both real progress and persistent gaps: higher graduation rates, more students going to college, stronger test scores, but uneven results and questions about whether the momentum can last. 

We talk with Doug about how to make sense of this data and what lessons other cities might take from it:

But of course, data can only go so far. In the second half of this episode, we return to voices you’ve heard from throughout Where the Schools Went to test those findings. 

Chris Stewart reflects on how New Orleans became the center of a national fight over education policy, with critics and champions battling on social media and in statehouses over whether the “system of schools” model would spread. 

Former principal and school founder Alexina Medley, who led a school both before and after Katrina, describes her pride in how far the city has come, but also cautions that the impact of COVID means it now faces a new crossroads. 

Dana Peterson, CEO of New Schools for New Orleans, calls accountability the city’s greatest legacy while cautioning that progress should not be mistaken for success. 

And John White, the former state superintendent, argues that the deepest lesson is about the importance of coherence and its ability to empower educators, hold them to clear standards, and resource schools fairly.

Finally, I share some of my own reflections. As a veteran of the education wars who left school leadership burned out, I found that reporting for this series helped me to reconnect with the purpose of schools and the people who run them. This story, and the city of New Orleans more broadly, offers a lesson not only in how to build better schools, but also in how to practice a better kind of politics.

Listen to the final episode above. 

Where the Schools Went is a five-part podcast series from The Branch, produced in partnership with The 74 and MeidasTouch. Listen at or .

During that time, he made national headlines for changing the state’s school accountability system, for steering the conversion of virtually all New Orleans schools to charters and for defending Louisiana’s then-small voucher program from pushback by President Barack Obama’s administration. 

He also dug in in less sexy arenas, making changes to teacher training, improving — often amid vociferous opposition — standardized assessments and surviving demands from governors of both parties that he act more politically and less pragmatically. 

Less than a month after White’s far-ranging 2020 conversation with The 74, the world changed dramatically. As he was clearing out his desk, COVID-19 forced the shutdown of schools everywhere, throwing up hurdles unforeseen even in a state where school is regularly interrupted by disasters. 

Today, White is the CEO of Great Minds, which makes some of the curricula he championed as state superintendent, taking a carrot-and-stick approach to getting schools to adopt evidence-based classroom materials.  

On the 20^th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, with seemingly everyone in education policy circles taking a fresh look back at the school reforms undertaken by White and his colleagues, we asked to revisit his exit interview. 

The conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

When last you and I spoke, as you were wrapping a decade focused on improving schools throughout Louisiana, you talked about changes needed to enable students everywhere to flourish. One of the things you called for were stronger child and family policies. Update us. 

We’ve been working on those issues in New Orleans, and there’s evidence of some success. But on some of those issues, there hasn’t been a lot of progress — not just in New Orleans, but across the country. There are some obvious concerns posed in the new environment.

You could argue that that child and family policy is an issue of greater focal discussion today than it was 10 years ago, because there is a stronger and more prominent kind of division between the Republicans’ theories of family and community and the Democrats’ perspective on that than there was then. In that sense we can say, yes, there are promising signs of public attention.

On the other hand, I think you’d be hard pressed to argue that some of the essential momentum that was being achieved across the country — on access to child care, for example, the wages of child care workers and the quality of child care, Head Start and pre-kindergarten experiences —has taken quantum leaps forward.

There at least was an emerging consensus on the path toward public-private systems of regulated child care, Head Start and pre-kindergarten that has slowed. There have been moves to divest from some of those systems in recent years. And very serious conversations about divestment that are quite worrisome.

Those decisions would have had a serious impact on communities like New Orleans. I could point to plenty of positive indicators and a lot of progress in New Orleans and Louisiana. But there is some peril. There’s debate — which is good — but there’s some peril wrapped up in that debate these days in our country as well.

Can you point to a couple of successes? 

When you and I talked in 2020, we were just really getting off the ground the New Orleans Early Education Network, which had been started out of a local nonprofit, The Agenda for Children. It was an attempt to create a parish-level — county-level — model that provided financial support, professional learning support and a unified enrollment function across private pre-K, public pre-K, child care and Head Start centers. 

It’s a great example of a public-private partnership launched to exert a kind of soft governing power over a highly diverse sector of small businesses, non-governmental organizations and government-run centers, to the effect of providing more seats. It’s generated additional investment from the city taxpayers. It has really raised standards for care — especially for infants and toddlers, where very often the professional learning has been [missing from] the discussion.

There is something about a 20-year trajectory of going to a charter school system that’s very nimble and then discovering where there needs to be points of unification. This system allowed early childhood to move faster.

One of the extraordinary benefits of not having one single operator of all core education and care services from, let’s say ages 3 to 18, is that [in New Orleans] all operators of early childhood and K-12 services have to routinely justify their ability to continue to serve kids, because they’re on a contract.

Every child care center is rated and subject to an enrollment process, as is every school. That means parents might not choose it.

The school board isn’t operating every school and therefore can’t essentially assure that all schools, or all child cares and pre-kindergartens, remain in operation.

With that sometimes comes the [public] presentation of our struggles and frailties. That makes the system more open to critique because it’s doing more to lay bare its challenges. Every school has to come forward in front of a board and argue that it should continue its contract. That opens you to critique — a good thing in the public sector. 

It also makes you humble about your limitations and hungry for solutions. You’re not as a system constantly trying to protect your singular role as the one operator. You are adaptive because you recognize where there is need.

Maybe you’re willing to admit that schools aren’t always in the best position to solve some of those concerns. Among those are schools as providers of pre-natal, postnatal and child care services, schools as excellent providers of nutritional solutions, schools as providers of health solutions, schools as providers of post-secondary and career-driven solutions.

While New Orleans is very far from figuring out all [these] issues, it is germinating unconventional and promising solutions at a systemic level. For example, schools have said, We’re not going to do all the career and post-secondary pathway planning. We’re not expert in that. We’re going to have one center that is responsive to the local economy’s needs, that is responsive to the latest in career training for what is now literally thousands of young people who come from high school to go [to the ] every day. 

That approach has generated lots of private-sector involvement, including $35 million in the restoration of the [old] McDonough 35 High School building in the 7th Ward. It’s an example of where an unconventional approach led by a nonprofit has created the possibility of scale because of a humble admission on the part of schools that they needed help. 

New Orleans still has myriad challenges: an increasing English learner population and a population of kids traumatized from years of poverty, violence, family disruptions and man-made disasters. These are not easy things to solve at scale. New Orleans is still wrestling with how you incubate solutions.

But it’s an easier district with which to have conversations about challenges, because the presentation of facts is in the DNA of the system. The transparency and the vulnerability that comes with acknowledging areas of struggle is part of the deal.

Another item we talked about was your work to create state programs to identify high-quality instructional materials and encourage schools to use them. 

I recognized early on that the same tools are not present in many places as they are in New Orleans. Therefore, we needed the ability to achieve some scale and coherence in teaching and learning quality in classrooms beyond the 7% of kids that are from Orleans Parish. And more than standards and more than tests, curriculum was the road map we found.

It was the road map to kids getting a rich education every day, to us being able to define what we meant by excellent teaching and what we meant by the daily skills and experience and knowledge that a child should gather, more than standards were. And so our reforms across the state were really curriculum-based reforms.

I don’t think that efficacy in the classroom should ever be thought of, though, as just a function of the curriculum. It is the behavior of the teacher using the curriculum and the way that kids are organized and focused on using the curriculum that very much determines the efficacy.

Therein is the great challenge for the education product industry. One, how do you make yourselves equally accountable for student learning as the schools are? And two, what role do you play beyond just dropping off books and software licenses to help principals and teachers embody the promise of the curriculum?

What is your wish for the next 20 years?

Since the first day that the schools integrated in New Orleans, its education system has been on a protracted march toward achieving a basic civil right. Which is the guarantee that, given reasonable effort, all children will learn to read, write, do math and make friends in the schools of our city.

By most measures, New Orleans is doing better at that today than it was 20 years ago. So, one way of answering your question is that New Orleans will be a lot closer to that basic promise in 20 years.

But New Orleans is trying to achieve that civil rights mission in the context of really challenging conditions. When I say its population is poor and historically disadvantaged, it goes well beyond what most American cities experience.

It’s experienced challenges of violence, of prejudice and of disaster that very few cities have experienced. There is a sensitivity to issues of difference and of fairness in New Orleans that go way beyond the school system. Really into the fabric of the city. 

In 20 years, I would also hope it would be true not just that many, many more kids are reading, writing, doing math and making friends, but also that students who bring to the classroom unique and extraordinary needs will find schools that have the tools to immediately recognize those needs and to serve them, irrespective of how exceptional the needs are. 

These two goals are completely linked to one another. They’re not different projects. New Orleans is talked about in the first category — you know, did the randomized controlled trial or the quasi-experimental study indicate that there’s some level of progress in reading, yes or no?

But in fact, I think if you ask most school leaders, they would say that they’re equally involved in the second project, which is figuring out how to achieve that in the context of high levels of need — and a great diversity of need.

In New Orleans, we are uniquely positioned to do that not just because of the level of need, but because of this idea that schools are laying bare their challenges. The public can see them. It’s not cloaked the way it is in so many other places.

Is every child given a set of supports needed for them to thrive and to be positioned to achieve the first civil rights mission? That’s just as much a part of our project.