A lesson for charter school operators

At their statewide convention in Sacramento this week, charter school leaders are discussing whether to participate in Los Angeles Unified’s Public School Choice initiative in coming years. It’s not a conversation they were expecting to have. They lobbied for the reform, which at least on paper opens management of about 250 new or failing schools to outside operators.

But that’s not the way it worked in its first year. Only four -- actually, 3.5 -- of the more than 30 schools up for grabs went to charter groups. The school board knocked three of L.A.’s most respected charter operators out of the running after their applications had been given top ratings by the district administration. The vast majority of schools went to teacher groups.

What the board doesn’t seem to realize is that it might need the charter schools more than they need the district. True, the charter operators would benefit enormously if the district gave them school buildings, so they wouldn’t have to find and pay for them on their own; that’s a powerful incentive to participate in the initiative. But they made concessions in return, agreeing to take all the students in each school’s enrollment area rather than admitting them through a lottery system, which charters usually use. That would mean taking more students with learning disabilities, language barriers or less motivation to attend a school with higher standards. The charters also were willing to enter into labor agreements with terms that hadn’t yet been made clear. Why should they bother making such concessions in the future if their chances of winning a campus are practically nil, no matter how good a plan they put forth?

If charter operators opt out, the teachers will have no incentive to put forth their own plans, and the entire initiative falls apart -- one more good idea done in by school board politics. Nothing changes: Charter schools still get easier-to-educate populations, and public schools still flounder.

The charter operators showed their own weaknesses. They were unwilling to bid for older schools, applying almost solely for the new campuses. That might have alienated some board members; if charters want to be part of the reform effort, they must show a willingness to take on the more difficult burden of turning around failing schools. And the number of charter applications was relatively small. Parents in Los Angeles obviously like charter schools, many of which have long waiting lists, but charters are not ready to play a huge role in revamping the district. And the board just restricted that role further.