A growing sector

Over 40 percent of Newark students could attend charter schools within five years. Here’s how.

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

In 2008, less than 10 percent of Newark students attended charter schools. Today, one in three does.

After a decade of explosive growth, Newark’s charter schools have morphed from a sideshow to a parallel school system. Fueled by former Gov. Chris Christie and deep-pocketed donors, their expansion offered thousands of families new school options — with more-established charters sometimes vastly outperforming their district counterparts. But the spreading sector also ensured the demise of some neighborhood schools, blew a hole in the district budget, and often provoked ferocious resistance to further charter encroachment, which helped propel Ras Baraka into City Hall.

Note: Figures exclude pre-K and include non-resident charter students. Sources: NJDOE, NPS, Jesse Margolis/MarGrady Research, Julia Sass Rubin/Rutgers University Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Policy. Graphics: Sam Park/Chalkbeat

The charter proliferation is far from over. Within five years, nearly 27,000 students who go to school in Newark — well over 40 percent of the total — could be attending charter schools, according to a projection by Rutgers University associate professor Julia Sass Rubin based on school expansions approved by the state.

Yet whether those projections are met will depend on demand by families, charter-school capacity, and perhaps even the political climate. Still, some district-school advocates are already bracing for the worst — including more school closures and potential service reductions — if the charter sector keeps expanding.

“It’s growing at an alarming rate,” said school board member Reginald Bledsoe. “It’s going to have an impact.”

Today, about 33 percent of students who attend Newark schools — or roughly 17,000 students — go to charter schools. (More than 1,300 of those students live outside Newark, since some charters can enroll students beyond the district.)

The state has signed off on nearly 7,000 more charter seats to be available by the 2022-23 school year, according to state data compiled by Sass Rubin, who teaches at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning & Policy. If all those seats are filled and district enrollment stays flat at about 34,200 students, then the share of students who go to school in Newark and attend charters could climb as high as 44 percent.

That projection — which excludes pre-kindergarten students — is based on several assumptions.

First, it assumes the district’s enrollment will remain steady — which would require the district to add new students to replace those who decamp for charters, as it has in recent years.

Second, this scenario assumes that existing charters remain open. But the state education department forced the closure of three low-performing Newark charters last year and another in January. (Those schools are excluded from the enrollment count.)

Finally, it assumes the sector will reach the full enrollment permitted by the state — which hasn’t historically been the case. This year, about 85 percent of state-approved Newark charter seats are filled, according to data provided by Sass Rubin, who is working on a statewide analysis that compares charter approvals to subsequent enrollments.

“Just because they’ve been approved,” she said, “doesn’t mean they will actually happen.”

Critics say the excess seats suggest the supply of charter schools has started to outstrip demand among families, and that charters are requesting more slots than they need.

But charter proponents push back against that claim. They point to city enrollment data showing that 49 percent of Newark families applying to kindergarten last year listed a charter school as their top choice.

Demand was highest for North Star Academy and KIPP New Jersey, which each operate several schools in Newark. More than 550 families listed KIPP as their first choice for kindergarten though only 448 seats were available across the network, which includes eight Newark schools. (Demand was also high for several district schools, including Ann Street — which had the third highest share of families rank it first — a sign that parents may care more about schools’ track records and reputations than who runs them.)

Charter operators offer several reasons why they may not fill all the seats they applied for.

Some said it made sense to stockpile extra seats during the charter-friendly Christie administration, under which the number of charter students doubled. “While the getting is good, and Christie is approving just about anything that sounds stable, why don’t we just go and apply for additional charters so we can have those in our pocket?” asked one charter leader, describing the thinking of some of his school’s board members.

Others said growth plans sometimes bump up against human limitations. In order to open a new school, charter operators must first find an ample supply of strong leaders — a challenge that can bedevil district and charter schools alike.

“When we haven’t opened in the past, it’s been because we didn’t yet have a principal that we thought was ready,” said KIPP New Jersey CEO Ryan Hill, adding that incoming principals at KIPP go through a yearlong training and school-planning process. (KIPP currently serves about 4,100 students in Newark, but has been approved to grow to 7,800 students.)

Another obstacle is securing space, as charter schools do not get state money as district schools typically do for facilities. Charters may also face political resistance: In 2012, the Newark school board voted against plans to lease four district buildings to charters — though at that time the board’s votes were non-binding.

Newark’s charter sector grew rapidly over the past decade. Sources: NJDOE, NPS, Jesse Margolis/MarGrady Research. Graphics: Sam Park/Chalkbeat

Now that the board has regained control of the school system, it’s possible charters could have a harder time securing space in district buildings. Bledsoe, the board member, said he supports parents who choose charter schools — still, he would rather reserve district buildings for district schools.

“I don’t believe in the idea of allowing network schools to expand and we’re not expanding,” he said.

If Newark’s charters do keep spreading, more money will flow out of the district’s budget.

This school year, the district will transfer about $237 million — or a quarter of its budget — to charter schools, up from $60 million in the 2008-09 school year. Gov. Phil Murphy has proposed boosting Newark’s budget by 5 percent next year, but lawmakers must still sign off.

Newark Public Schools spokesman Paul Nedeau said the district will be able to keep investing in its schools if the state sends more money its way. He said the district is focused on “continuing to improve the quality of all schools in Newark” — charter and district — and that “the last few years show that with collaboration and thoughtful management this is an achievable goal.”

Hill of KIPP New Jersey agreed. He said his network was committed to being a “good neighbor” to the district, which was one reason why it lobbied the state for more school aid alongside Newark officials — including Mayor Baraka, who has shown a willingness to partner with the charter sector since taking office.

But even as KIPP tries to ease its impact on the district, “our first responsibility is to the families of Newark and to give them good options,” Hill said.

“If there are families who are still asking for KIPP schools that don’t have access to them,” he added, “then we’ll continue to grow.”

Do you get Chalkbeat Newark’s weekly newsletter? If not, sign up here.

Immigration fears

Chicago on Trump administration changes: ‘A sicker, poorer and less secure community’

PHOTO: Scott Olson/Getty Images
A scene from an August immigration rally in downtown Chicago. Mayor Rahm Emanuel submitted a public comment on the proposed public charge rule changes on Monday.

The possibility of tougher rules on immigration and citizenship has provoked “tremendous fear” and plummeting participation in publicly funded daycare programs and afterschool care, according to a federal memorandum the City of Chicago submitted Monday.

The Trump administration has proposed changes that would weigh participation in programs such as Medicaid, food stamps, or housing assistance when granting residency and citizenship.

The changes could be devastating, the Chicago memorandum warns.

They could affect 110,000 Chicago residents, according to the filing. One in three Chicago residents receives Medicaid benefits, which the proposed changes would affect.

Chicago and New York led a coalition of 30 cities that filed comments to the Department of Homeland Security over changes to the so-called “public charge” rule, which is used by immigration officials to decide who is allowed entry and permanent residency in the United States.

“History teaches that, given this choice, many immigrants will choose to forgo public aid, which will make them a sicker, poorer, and less secure community,” according to the City of Chicago’s comments. You can read the entire document below.

Already, the city said, a group called Gads Hill that operates child care centers in Pilsen and North Lawndale has struggled to enroll children because of families’ worries about the impending rules.

Another operator, Shining Star Youth and Community Services in South Chicago, saw families start to keep children home since the proposed changes were announced.

The Boys & Girls Clubs of Chicago told the city that participation in its after-school programming also has taken a hit, the filing said.

The changes to the proposed rule do not specifically mention Head Start or any of the publicly funded child care programs. But many families are fearful that participation in anything offered by the government — from child care to health care to even food programs — would bring them to the attention of immigration authorities.

Early childhood advocates shared similar concerns at a November meeting of the Early Learning Council, an influential group of policymakers who help set the state agenda for children ages birth to 5.

“Families are very confused about the changes,” Rocio Velazquez-Kato, an immigration policy analyst with the Latino Policy Forum, told the group. “They think that by enrolling in Head start or free and reduced-price lunch at school — that it will factor against them.”

Public comment on the proposed rule change was due Monday. The 60-day public comment period is required by law before the federal government delivers a final recommendation.



on the move

Lack of transportation, conflicting deadlines put school choice out of reach for some, study finds

PHOTO: Denver Post file
Fourth-graders Kintan Surghani, left, and Rachel Anderson laugh out the school bus window at Mitchell Elementary School in Golden.

More Colorado students use school choice to opt into traditional district-run schools than use it to attend charter schools. Those who do so are more likely to be white and middle- or upper-class than their peers. And transportation continues to be a barrier for students who want to go somewhere other than their neighborhood school.

Those are the findings of a report on choice and open enrollment in the traditional public school sector put out by Ready Colorado, a conservative education reform advocacy group that supports greater access to school choice.

The report, “Open Doors, Open Districts,” looked at the roughly 49,800 Colorado students who attended school in a district other than the one in which they resided during the 2016-17 school year and another 95,600 who used school choice within the 12 largest districts in the state. Together, these 145,400 students make up roughly 16 percent of all Colorado students. Another 13 percent of state students attend charter schools.

Since 1990, the School Choice Act has allowed students to enroll in any public school they want, without paying tuition, provided there is room — and that the school provides the services that student needs, a sticking point for many students who require special education services.

The number of students using this system to attend school in another district increased 58 percent over 10 years to 49,800 in 2016. Roughly 6,000 of those students attend multi-district online schools.

The students taking advantage of inter-district open enrollment are more likely to be white than Colorado students as a whole — 58 percent are white compared with 54 percent of all students. They’re also less likely to come from low-income families (36 percent, compared with 42 percent of all students), to speak a language other than English at home (8 percent compared with 14 percent statewide), or to have a disability (8 percent compared with 11 percent).

“It is important to understand these differences so that policy leaders and educators can work to ensure that open enrollment opportunities are more accessible for all Colorado families,” the report said. “The underrepresentation of Hispanic/Latino students and English learners suggests there may be some unmet needs in Spanish-speaking communities around inter-district choice — either in information, accessibility, or appropriate services for students.”

The report highlights two major barriers to more students using school choice.

Most districts don’t have the kind of common enrollment system that Denver pioneered or that Jeffco is rolling out each year. Most districts require parents to turn in paperwork at a particular school. Not only do districts not share the same deadlines as each other, often different schools in the same district have different deadlines.

The other is transportation. 

“Time spent driving students to school can conflict with work schedules for parents, and public transit options can be scarce in many areas, making open enrollment functionally impossible for families without a transportation solution,” the report said. In one rural district, a group of parents banded together and hired their own school bus to take students to another district.

A bill sponsored last year by state Sen. Owen Hill, a Colorado Springs Republican, would have addressed both issues, encouraging the creation of more consistent deadlines across the state and allowing districts to cross boundaries to provide transportation. That bill was defeated in the Democratic-controlled House after some school districts said it would set the stage for larger, wealthier districts to poach students.

The transportation provision was later added to an unrelated bill in the final days of the session, a move that led to a lawsuit in which a judicial decision is pending.

Democrats now control both chambers of the Colorado General Assembly, and it’s not clear how any attempts to expand school choice would fare. Both school choice and charter schools have enjoyed bipartisan but not universal support in Colorado.

By highlighting the prominence of traditional public schools in how Colorado students use the choice system, advocates hope to separate choice and the popular idea that parents should be able to find the school that best meets their child’s needs from the more divisive debate about charter schools, which critics see as siphoning scarce dollars from other schools while not serving all students.

The report recommends developing more consistency between and within districts, providing more information to parents, and removing barriers to transportation.

Districts with higher ratings, which are determined primarily by results on standardized tests, tend to get more students than those with lower ratings, but some districts, particularly in the Denver metro area, send and receive large numbers of students, reflecting that parents and students are making decisions at the school rather than at the district level.

Metro area districts that have struggled to raise student achievement are losing large numbers of students to other districts. A quarter of students who live in Adams 14, whose low test scores prompted a state order for external management, attended school in neighboring districts in 2016. In Westminster, which just came off a state watchlist for low-performing schools this year, that number was 29 percent.

Ready Colorado found no clear relationship between districts that spent more per student and districts that attracted more students — but districts with higher enrollment get more money from the state for each student, creating incentives to compete for students.

Read the full report here.