New York City just handed school-choice advocates another argument: Charter schools can deliver strong results for students.
Read more Jeff Bezos talks about growing the population but tip-toes around the obvious
On the latest state exams, Success Academy, the city’s largest charter network, posted 96% proficiency in math and 91% in English language arts. Twelve of its schools had every tested student score proficient in both subjects. Meanwhile, only about half of students in traditional New York City public schools were proficient in English, with city reading scores falling sharply from a year ago.
Success Academy serves a heavily minority, largely low-income population. Other charter networks also posted strong results.
The usual response from charter critics is that test scores do not tell the whole story. That may be true, but when the same pattern keeps appearing, it becomes harder to ignore the results.
Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes reached much the same conclusion in its most recent national charter-school study. Using data from 29 states, Washington, D.C., and New York City, researchers matched charter students with similar students in traditional public schools. The charter students gained the equivalent of 16 additional days of learning in reading and six in math during a school year. Black and Hispanic students and students living in poverty showed stronger growth in charters than comparable students in district schools.
Not every charter school is a success story. Virtual charters, in particular, have had serious performance problems. But that is part of the point of the charter model; schools are supposed to earn the right to stay open.
Read more Americans deserve accurate voter rolls
Traditional school systems operate differently. A failing neighborhood school can remain a failing neighborhood school for years while officials announce a new initiative, change the curriculum, hire another layer of administrators and ask taxpayers for more money.
Charters, on the other hand, typically have more freedom over curriculum, staffing, schedules and discipline. In New York City, many run longer school days and school years. They can build a culture around academic expectations.
Parents notice the results. When a charter has more applicants than seats, admission is typically decided by lottery. Families are not being dragged through the doors. Rather, they are lining up to get in.
The argument for charters is not that putting the word “charter” on a school magically makes it good. It is that competition, autonomy and accountability can produce schools that work — especially for children whom the traditional system has failed. That is the core case for school choice.
New York’s latest scores pose a good question for charter opponents: If these schools are getting better results with many of the same children, why are politicians still trying to limit them?
Read more Leftist Judges Fighting a Losing Battle