D.C. Charter school successes, at $12,000+ per student

Washington D.C. has lots of charter schools, and a Washington Post article says their students are surpassing the regular public school students in test scores.

If so, they're accomplishing something that hasn't been accomplished elsewhere, since most studies say charters don't exceed other public schools in student achievement. I don't know how rigorous the D.C. studies are. It's tough to create an equivalence between students whose parents choose to put them in a charter and students whose parents are possibly more passive about their children's education. But let's assume for a moment that the article is right about the improved achievement of the kids in the charters. Let's see why it might have happened.

Here's a hint. The charters are not on a level playing field with the public schools. Many of them have lots more money to play with, and the right to get rid of students they don't want.

According to the article, a D.C. charter gets $11,879 per student in tax dollars. That's roughly the same amount that follows D.C. students to the traditional public schools. But $3,000 of that is supposed to pay for buildings, and some charters are housed in facilities that cover all or part of the building costs. They get the dollars anyway. That can add up to a surplus of as much as $3-4 million per year — a hell of a lot of money considering most charters are fairly small — which can be used to hire extra staff and pay for things like white boards in preschool classes, laptops for every student, and value-added items of that sort.

On top of that, the charters get lots of grants from foundations like those set up by Bill Gates and the family that owns Wal-Mart, along with others. And they get loans from the D.C. Public Charter School Credit Enhancement and Direct Loan Funds Committee that can also add up to serious dollars.

The $11,879 taxpayer money per student is only a starting point for their funding.

Excuse me for using a phrase I despise, but don't conservatives who will soon be trumpeting the successes of the D.C. charters call this "throwing money at education"? (Are you listening, Arizona Republican legislators?)

And the charters can expel students who are behavior problems. And some charters like the KIPP schools (KIPP runs many of the charters. Their schools around the country are deservedly credited for their educational excellence) are known for high student attrition rates and the number of teachers who leave after a year or two because the demands made by the schools are too great.

I like the idea that some D.C. kids have the chance to get an excellent education. The traditional public schools there have an awful reputation, and some of the charters clearly offer a viable alternative which can change a child's life for the better. But keep in mind that the charters have advantages, like more money for extras, the ability to demand the strictest cooperation from students — and from parents who often have to sign contracts saying they will work with their children every night, attend regular conferences, etc. And if a student or parent doesn't cooperate, the kid is gone, back to one of the regular public schools.

There are lots of lessons to be learned here, I think. But they're not easy to sort out. You can be sure, however, the charter/voucher proponents will be saying this proves that charters are superior to traditional public schools and vouchers would make things even better. They're not likely to include the caveats I've mentioned, all of which are in the article.