Biden’s New Charter-School Rules Are a Mistake
(Bloomberg Opinion) -- Among the few encouraging trends in American education during the pandemic has been the growth of public charter schools. While public schools overall have seen the biggest enrollment drop in decades, the number of students attending charter schools rose by 7%. The message seems simple: Fed up with underperforming public schools, parents are voting with their feet.
Unfortunately, President Joe Biden's administration appears intent on ignoring this warning sign — and pandering to teachers' unions and school-district administrators instead.
Despite educating 7% of all public-school students, charter schools account for less than 1% of total federal spending on K-12 education. In its recently passed spending bill, Congress appropriated $440 million for the federal charter-school program — the same level it's been for the past four years, during which time charter-school enrollment increased by 13%.
The Biden administration may well worsen this disparity. The Department of Education recently proposed rules that would require charter-school operators to conduct a “community impact analysis” before qualifying for federal funds. Charters would be eligible only if they could prove they're operating in communities where there is “unmet demand,” meaning that existing public schools are over-enrolled and can't accommodate all the students in the community.
In other words, charter-school operators would be barred from receiving federal support if they opened in areas seeing declining public-school enrollment — the very communities where, after two years of disrupted learning, dissatisfaction with public schools is boiling over. In effect, the Biden plan would discourage charters from opening in low-income districts where students are most in need of better options. It could result in tens of millions of congressionally mandated dollars going unspent.
It's a flagrantly wrongheaded policy. But it happens to reflect the views of powerful teachers' unions, who falsely argue that charters drain money from underfunded (and unionized) public schools. In fact, the evidence suggests that charters help to improve existing public schools. The presence of high-quality competition both lifts academic achievement in nearby schools and drives increases in overall per-pupil public spending. Contrary to the claims of their opponents, moreover, charter schools overwhelmingly benefit Black, Latino and low-income students.
At a minimum, the administration should scrap the requirement that charter schools demonstrate “unmet demand” based on enrollment at traditional schools to receive federal funds. If the government wants to determine whether there's sufficient demand for new charter schools in a given community, it should instead look at wait lists for existing charters and the availability of seats at high-quality neighborhood schools — not underperforming ones. In allocating federal dollars for charters, priority should be given to charter-school networks with a demonstrated record in underserved areas and in raising achievement among poor and minority students.
Charter schools can't fix all of the problems facing the U.S. public-education system, but they're a lifeline for millions of students trapped in failing schools or at risk of dropping out — kids who could face a lifetime of lower wages, higher unemployment, reduced life expectancy and a greater likelihood of ending up in jail. Biden should show he's on their side.
More From Other Writers at Bloomberg Opinion:
Colleges Should Be Grateful for ‘Zoom School' Lawsuits: Stephen L. Carter
Can Educational Migration Save the World?: Tyler Cowen
Why Do ‘Untrustworthy' Students Choose Finance?: Tyler Cowen
The Editors are members of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board.
©2022 Bloomberg L.P.
-
Talking Points This Week: Tech Nerves, FII Buying, And A Faraway Banking Shock
The global markets are not shining this Diwali. The exception in the large markets is, India.
-
Midterm Rally Lasted A Day. The Hard Reality Of A Divided US May Last Two Years | Opinion
Between a contested AI boom, a debt ceiling that arrives in 2027 and a president with every incentive to act alone, the next two years may prove more volatile than the first day's rally suggests.
-
Blue Wave Will Derail the AI Trade but Won't Dismantle the AI Era | Unhedged Position
The Democrats' sweep of the US Congress will see politics collide with economic forces both over the long and short term.
-
It's Time To Take The GST Council's Bet On Trust Global
Payment records can prove India's services exports, and clear, proportionate rules can bring foreign digital sellers into the tax net.
-
Opinion | India at 38: From Innovation Overperformer to Innovation Powerhouse
India now has 453 VC-backed deep science startups, 18 of them late-stage, after 117 percent growth since 2020. Laurus Labs, at USD 9.3 billion, is the most valuable deep science company in any middle-income economy outside China.
-
Navigating Energy Crossroads: S Jaishankar's Call For Diversified Supply Chains At G20 Ministerial Meeting
As geopolitical fault lines continue to test maritime trade routes and commodity flows, Jaishankar's message remains pertinent: true economic resilience requires open markets, protected transit lines, and a genuine commitment to multilateral cooperation rather than coercion.
-
Indians Are Travelling, But Not Every Journey Is A Holiday | The Week In Whys
Pilgrims, patients and working women are the real travellers, and the system hasn't quite caught up with them.
-
Getting To Work Costs Women More | The Reason Why
It is not just about women paying more than men. It is about women paying much more in cities than in villages.
-
AI Bias In Investing Cannot Be Eliminated, But It Can Be Governed
Framing is a particularly important example as identical financial information presented in terms of gains rather than losses can lead an LLM to reach a different assessment.