Progressive Policy Institute Weighs in on DC Education Reform

September 15, 2015

Today, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) released a report asserting that the collaboration and competition fostered by education reform and the existence of both a traditional public school system and a public charter school system make for an overall healthier education system.

Through his research, David Osborne, author of the report and director of the institute’s Reinventing America’s Schools Project, found that DC Public Schools are not equipped to improve its lowest-performing schools and as a result should have the ability to convert the schools into public charter schools and that the governance model is the “most important difference in the larger gains.” The study determined these results by looking at the history of education reform in the city and included several references to research that showed academic improvements in charter schools as well as comparisons of DC test scores with national test scores—the results showing bigger gains for charter schools, particularly among African American and poor students.

Other highlights from the report include:

In Ward 5, Ward 7, and Ward 8—D.C.’s poorest—charters perform dramatically better than DCPS.
They [Charter Schools] excel because their governance framework—which includes school autonomy, full parental choice, and serious accountability for performance—is superior to the more traditional DCPS approach. It creates an environment in which the extraordinary measures necessary to effectively educate poor, minority children are not only easier to implement, they are virtually required if schools are to survive.

Osborne found there were 4 main differences between charter schools and DC public schools:

1. LEA Governance: The Charter Board contracts with organizations to operate schools, rather than employing all school staff. This gives it the political freedom to do what is best for the children, even when that conflicts with adult interests.

2. School-level Autonomy: Charters were invented in part to counter the common human tendency to assume there is one best way to run a school. Different children learn differently and flourish in different environments, but to teach them differently, schools need autonomy. Being empowered also helps motivate school leaders and staff, while removing the usual excuse used by low-performing schools: We’re trying hard, but the central office ties our hands.

3. Diversity of Choice: Charters are also free to offer a greater diversity of choices, which helps them serve a greater variety of students.

4. Entrepreneurial Drive: Educating poor kids in the inner city is so challenging that it often requires leaders to redesign the traditional educational process. Those who open charters tend to be driven by such bold visions, whether it is for residential schools for kids whose home lives are difficult or for internships for high school students, which often help them develop greater motivation.

Osborne predicts that in 30 to 50 years, most urban districts will have mostly public charter schools or schools that have greater flexibility that are expected to perform or face closure. As he mentioned in an interview with the Washington Post, “the magic is not in the word ‘charter,’ it’s in that arms-length relationship with the system.”

To read the full report, click here.