“It remains the case that the single most effective way to evaluate whether a charter school is succeeding is to measure value-added growth over time, including how that growth, retention, and, yes, parent satisfaction compare to the same factors in the schools those students would otherwise be attending,” Allen wrote in the Center for Education Reform’s 2011 analysis of what works and doesn’t work in the realm of charter school performance accountability.

There’s judging schools, and there’s judging school laws, and the editorial unfortunately mashes the two together in its argument against changing Maine’s charter school law. Yes, “performance based accountability is the hallmark of the charter school concept”, but giving charter schools a chance to thrive depends on the quality and implementation of charter school law. Having a limit on the number of schools allowed is not an indicator of a strong charter school law. Limits stifle the chances for innovation and growth, thus stifling the potential for great schools (that can be held accountable and judged based on all the factors mentioned in the quote above!).

Just hours ago, Governor Phil Bryant signed the Mississippi Charter Schools Act of 2013 into law.  When this legislation was first headed to the governor’s desk, the Center for Education Reform acknowledged this as a step forward for Mississippi, but emphasized that this legislation is not as bold or aggressive as the parents and students of Mississippi deserve:

“We join our colleagues in acknowledging that this is a step forward for Mississippi, but after sixteen years of debate in a state where only 21% of 8th graders can read at proficiency, parents and students deserve better and more aggressive action from their elected officials,” said Kara Kerwin, CER’s VP of External Affairs.

“Strong laws create strong schools. A conclusion we’ve made since 1996 evaluating the nation’s 43 charter school laws,” said Kerwin.

“Mississippi lawmakers had two decades of proof to see what works and what doesn’t in charter policy. They missed the mark on most of the key components of strong policy. Incrementalism is not good for all children.”

Click here to read the full press release

(Photo courtesy of Twitter)

His reports and allegations, of widespread problems in charter schools across the state, are misleading and plain wrong. For example, he alleges that most charter boards have conflicts of interest with those with whom they work or depend for services. But that would also suggest that the largest employer in the school system is riddled with conflicts. Who isn’t related to a teacher or a child or a board member or a vendor in any district? Everyone with a pulse has overlapping interests. The only time it’s a conflict is when their views and their work is at odds with what’s good for kids.

Conflict of interest is code for keep charter schools small and insignificant. Demands from opponents for accountability is code for shut them down.

The charters are efficient, effective, albeit underfunded public schools that are oversubscribed and, in most cases, achieving above and beyond the traditional public schools.

Why would you try to save money on schools that are already underfunded and over subscribed? Why not save money on schools that are failing on a system that has a larger administrator/adult -student ratio than most comparable districts?

Philadelphia District:
15-to-1 teachers to students
655 administrators making over $100,000/dollars a year! (100 of who are teachers)
2980 in total all education administrators — Average salary is $104K

There are about 150,000 students in district public schools – 50 students for every administrator! A charter school survives with half as many administrators – an average of 100 kids for every administrator! Philadelphia imposed a cap on enrollment that is in violation of the state charter school law. Despite the fact that 50,000 students are on charter school waiting lists in the City of Brotherly love.

Roebuck’s efforts, and those of many of his colleagues, seek to put more state and district strings on charters in an alleged effort to make them more accountable. If the state and local education agency control were the answer to solving how best to educate kids, we would not have or need charter schools or any reform to begin with. The states and local districts are not school creators. They are rules creators. They are in business to manage and regulate, not to design and educate.

That’s why the only kind of reform that’s necessary in the charter arena in PA today is a change to the law that permits independent multiple authorizers, like public universities, to create and monitor charter schools. High quality authorizers outside of the traditional school entities yield high quality, highly accountable charters. Just look at Central Michigan University and the State University of New York as two examples.

We hope that Harrisburg will step up to the plate and show leadership on this important issue. The opponents are sharpening their knives in the name of reform. Nothing could be more disingenuous than calling their attack “reform.”

by Jeanne Allen

It’s not surprising that Louisiana’s charter school authority expansion fell flat in its first year.

Louisiana’s experience is proof that not all efforts to improve laws are created equal. Strong charter school laws do not require new groups to apply to become authorizers. It is actually a disincentive to do so.

Strong laws permit universities and other publicly accountable non-education entities to become authorizers without asking permission and hold them accountable for the outcomes of their schools. That’s because the purpose of independent and multiple authorizers is to establish new pathways for school creation and oversight separate from existing state and local education agencies.

States that allow for truly independent authorizers, granted by law to operate with unbridled freedom, yield greater charter school growth and quality.

Bleary-eyed charter schools supporters took a few minutes to bask in a big victory early today, but were quick to acknowledge that the fight’s not over.

The Mississippi House voted 64-55 to pass House Bill 369, which would expand charter schools in the state. The vote came after more than seven hours of debate and three hours of a computer reading the 251-page bill.

Last year, proposals for charter schools — public schools that agree to meet certain standards in exchange for freedom from regulations — never reached the House floor. This year, House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, muscled a carefully tailored bill through his chamber. The bill’s managers conceded enough changes that even a group that had fought the proposal swung over to endorse it during debate yesterday.

“I’m proud we could deliver this for Mississippi children, but we’ve still got a long way to go,” Rep. Charles Busby, R-Pascagoula, said after the debate. The freshman was tapped to handle the bill on the floor, enduring hours of sometimes repetitive questions from mainly Democratic opponents.

Now come negotiations with the Senate, which passed a broader bill last week. The House and the Senate must agree on a version before it can go to Republican Gov. Phil Bryant, who during his State of the State address Tuesday reiterated a desire to sign an expanded charter law.

The House version differs from the Senate bill, limiting charters to 15 a year, giving school boards in districts rated “A,” ”B” or “C” a veto, and prohibiting students from crossing district lines. The Senate bill doesn’t impose a limit, doesn’t give a veto to C-rated districts, and allows students to cross lines statewide. Gunn offered concessions to opponents because charter opposition is stronger in the House.

Rep. Pat Nelson, R-Southaven, said the endorsement of the bill by The Parents Campaign, which had been lobbying against it, as one factor that pushed it toward passage. As debate began yesterday afternoon, authors amended the measure to bar charter school boards from hiring for-profit management organizations to run schools.

The lobbying group, which had voiced fears of for-profit groups, announced its support after the nonprofit amendment was adopted.

“We are close to getting a bill that can provide good charter schools for our children who need them — those trapped in chronically underperforming schools,” executive director Nancy Loome wrote in an email to supporters urging them to call lawmakers and tell them to vote ‘yes.’

Still, Nelson and five other Republicans ended up voting against the final bill. But some of those opponents voted to protect the bill against hostile amendments. Republicans managing the bill confirmed an agreement with GOP opponents to vote against amendments proposed by Democrats before voting against the final bill.

Members voted down 17 amendments after approving the first one. Statewatch, a bill-tracking service, said that was the largest number of amendments offered to any proposed legislation in at least six years. Among rejected proposals were ones mandating that charter school teachers join the Public Employees Retirement System, allowing for public referendums before charter schools could be set up, or requiring lawmakers to fully fund the Mississippi Adequate Education Program before setting up charter schools.

The debate was the longest since Republicans took over the House in 2012. Rep. Bob Evans, D-Monticello, forced the 251-page bill to be read, delaying the vote until 12:52 am.

That marathon was still ahead of House members when Busby started the debate by asking: “What will we do today that is different than yesterday that will put our children in a better place tomorrow?”

Busby joined the Education Committee when House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, kicked charter school opponent Linda Whittington, D-Schlater, off the panel. He quoted former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as saying there is no time for evolution in education.

“I want you to help me start the education revolution in Mississippi today,” he said.

But a number of black Democrats said they mistrusted Republicans’ claims of wanting to improve education for black children, a current that flows strongly through their opposition to charter schools.

Several became indignant after Rep. Brad Mayo, a white Oxford Republican, compared his father’s segregated schooling in the Sunflower County town of Drew to the struggling state of schools there today. State education officials forced a merger of the Drew district and the Sunflower County district in July, closing Drew High School, which graduated Archie Manning.

“I don’t believe for one second that you care about improving the plight of our children,” said Rep. Adrienne Wooten, D-Jackson.

A bill to expand charter schools in Mississippi easily cleared the Senate on Wednesday, and attention shifts to the House for the second year.

In a 31-17 vote, the bill had two Democratic supporters but no Republican opponents. The vote came after more than three hours of debate, a day after Senate Bill 2189 was introduced and passed by the Senate Education Committee.

Charter schools are public schools that agree to meet certain standards in exchange for freedom from regulations. Mississippi has a charter school law that allows a small number of its schools to convert to charters, but none has done so.

Wednesday, the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group based in Washington, called Mississippi’s law the “worst charter law in the country.”

Proponents said charter schools can improve achievement in Mississippi. “I think more than anything this is about closing the achievement gap in our state,” said Senate Education Committee Chairman Gray Tollison. The Oxford Republican wrote SB 2189.

Opponents, though, fear charters will weaken traditional schools by skimming motivated students and money. “The overriding concern is what is going to happen to school districts when you start separating students out,” said Sen. Hob Bryan, D-Amory.

Coast officials weigh in

Superintendents in South Mississippi had mixed reactions to the Senate’s bill.

Wayne Rodolfich, superintendent in Pascagoula, said he thinks the state should concentrate on improving the failing schools rather than open more schools.

“If you have a magic way of improving education, give us all that flexibility,” he said. “Let all of us do it.”

He also is concerned about money for current programs.

“Funding is going to be a major issue,” he said. “I think it’s important that we don’t destroy existing programs for charter schools. You can’t underfund education and then expect it to excel.”

Arthur McMillan, superintendent in Biloxi, agreed, adding a district shouldn’t open a new school for a small percentage of students.

“If charter schools work and you have a failing school, why not turn the whole school into a charter school?” he said.

Gulfport Superintendent Glen East said he would be willing to try charter schools if they would help students in failing schools.

“I’m not opposed to anything that’s going to help children,” he said. “If we can help children who want to be in an outstanding school, then let’s do it. I’m tired of being 50th (Mississippi’s ranking among the nation’s schools).”

The bill would give districts rated A or B a veto over whether charters can be put there, but those rated C and lower districts wouldn’t get a veto.

Most school districts in South Mississippi wouldn’t be required to allow a charter school to open under the bill.

In South Mississippi, it would apply to three school districts: Moss Point, Pearl River County and Picayune.

The state Department of Education has said it would like to see the rule apply only to districts that received a D or an F.

Governance, financing

A seven-member board would approve charter schools and oversee them, with three members appointed by the governor, three members appointed by the lieutenant governor and one member appointed by the state superintendent.

Students would be allowed to cross district lines to enroll in charter schools, and a local tax contribution from the home district would go with charter students, as well as state aid.

On to the state House

No House bills regarding charter schools had yet been introduced Wednesday evening. But many House members favor allowing C-rated districts to have vetoes as well, and House Speaker Philip Gunn, R-Clinton, has said the House bill imposes a limit of 15 charters a year.

Lt. Gov. Tate Reeves, also a Republican, fought to deny vetoes to C districts last year. He said after the vote Wednesday it is important to have a law “that allows for the largest number of students possible having a public charter school option.” But he didn’t rule out a compromise.

Supporters Wednesday included two black Democrats, Sampson Jackson of Preston and Willie Simmons of Cleveland. Simmons said Tollison made changes that won his vote. He said the charter school law might dovetail with Simmons’ proposal to create a model school in Sunflower County to bolster parent involvement and social services for students.

“It will give them an option at the local level if they desire to utilize the charter school option,” Simmons said after the vote.

Changes from last year

Among the changes Tollison made between 2012 and 2013:

- Requiring applicants to show evidence of “adequate” community support and to analyze the impact on other public and private schools in an area.

- Explicitly banning private school conversions or new charter schools created by private school groups.

- Requiring charters to serve a proportion of under-served students at least 80 percent as large as the share of under-served students in the charter’s home district. The bill defines under-served as students with low family incomes, poor academic performance, special education needs or limited fluency in English.

- Ordering that the authorizing board must close a charter school if it is rated F for two consecutive years or if the school’s performance is the bottom 20 percent of all schools statewide when the five-year contract runs out. Charters could get reprieves for “exceptional” circumstances.

- Requiring 75 percent of teachers to be certified, and the remaining quarter to earn certification within three years. Last year, the Senate bill required only 50 percent of teachers to be certified.

Tuesday, senators amended the bill to require a shutdown after two years of F ratings. Tollison’s draft had said three. The Education Committee amended the bill Tuesday to ban schools that operate entirely online.

Great Hearts Academies’ decision to pull out of Tennessee until state law creates an impartial charter school approval process is setting the stage for a legislative battle over who will grant approvals in the future.

After the Metro Nashville school board denied a charter to Great Hearts for the third time, the Arizona-based charter school company released a statement Wednesday saying it was withdrawing from the state.

However, Great Hearts said it might apply for a charter “when Tennessee’s laws and charter approval process more effectively provide for open enrollment, broad service to the community and impartial authorizers.”

The idea of creating a state agency to grant charters has been discussed in Tennessee and elsewhere. The Tennessee Charter School Association is researching methods used in other states to take politics out of the conversation.

“Every application should not be a brand-new political discussion,” said Matt Throckmorton, association executive director. “It is the children of Nashville that lose out to adult problems, again.”

Throckmorton called the state charter school law “flawed” and hopes to find a system that will allow charter applicants to work with local boards of education during the application process, but will not allow politics to affect the decision. That model will probably find its way into the association’s legislative agenda for January, he said.

“We are going to have charter schools — the law has been written,” he said.

Metro Nashville board members don’t consider their decisions to deny a charter to Great Hearts three times to be political. They have said the main issue was whether the school would cater to an affluent, largely white population or work to create a more diverse student body by providing transportation to students from other areas of the city.

Great Hearts, on the other hand, believes politics was the deciding issue because it claims to have a diversity plan that meets or exceeds Metro’s own plan.

Great Hearts accused the Metro school board of violating the law in its denial of a charter and said “we are hopeful that the state will take action so that, in the future, Great Hearts can reapply to a different, impartial charter authorizer.”

The school board’s vote on Tuesday defied an order by the state Board of Education directing that the charter application be approved. Great Hearts had appealed to the state after being denied twice by Metro.

Great Hearts said the “hostile” nature of the school board would make a successful school opening impossible even if a charter were granted at this point.

Mayor Karl Dean, a charter schools supporter, described the decision as “a sad day for the children of Nashville who would have benefited from the high-quality education Great Hearts was ready to offer.”

Local control
Newly installed Metro school board members Amy Frogge and Jill Speering voted differently on Great Hearts — Speering in favor and Frogge against — but both said they oppose removing charter school decisions from local school boards.

A new charter-approval group would be answerable to the person who appointed the members, and that would create a new political agenda, they said.

“I am concerned about the idea that this might become a state issue,” Frogge said. “We need to keep it local. We have the best perspective on how a school might impact a community.”

Speering wants parents to make their wishes known before the legislative session begins in January. She voted in favor of Great Hearts because “we don’t have a clear diversity plan,” she said. “Because of that, we are partly at fault that there are misunderstandings between us.”

She and other board members hope to create a formal diversity plan that can be viewed by charter applicants in advance so they know what Metro officials are looking for in a new charter school.

Schools spokeswoman Meredith Libbey said the district “will learn from this experience,” adding, “It is important that we work collaboratively and set a clear vision and mutually understood expectations.”

NO OSCAR, YET. Finally, the state of Maine enacted a charter school law, with collective applause from around the country. But, it’s too soon to give the state star status in the charter school world. CER’s Alison Consoletti, vice president for research, told the Kennebec Journal, in a strong article on Maine’s foray into charters, that the state’s Charter School Commission, appointed by the State Board of Education with three members overlapping between both boards, does not pass muster. “If you have the strong, independent authorizers, they can hold the charters accountable,” explains Consoletti. “So the schools tend to be higher quality and better managed.” Consoletti also points out that the state’s law is so new, it is unclear precisely what the climate will be to instill flexibility and accountability in charters statewide. “All we really have to go on is what the law says,” according to Consoletti. “While some pieces, like the funding, seem to be better than average, it’s still difficult to see until a charter school is open how funding flows; how the law is going to work.” Calling on Maine charter fans to do what it takes to ensure a strong charter program is created and maintained with appropriate authorizers.

BOOOORING. Students nationwide are not challenged by school. Yes, there is a sliver of kids stressed out over mountains of homework, seeking the Holy Grail of an Ivy League education, but, in general, students say they are not expected to rise to higher standards in the classroom, according to a study just released by the Center for American Progress titled “Do Schools Challenge Our Students.” Pivotal in the survey of students is an “increasing be[lief] that student surveys can provide important insights into a teacher’s effectiveness.” The report’s authors, Ulrich Boser and Lindsay Rosenthal, refer to the Gates Foundation’s Measure of Effective Teaching Project that finds student feedback better predicts teacher performance than whether or not that teacher holds a master’s degree, for example. A totally expected finding is that students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to have rich academic experiences and learning opportunities…which is why parental choice is essential to quickly move children from schools that fail to rich, learning environments that ooze success.

SPEAKING OF AN OPPORTUNITY GAP. Harvard Professor Robert Putnam released research that reveals a growing divide between children of the affluent and those less well-off when it comes to various opportunities. Coupled with the student surveys above, the urgency to offer all students a top-notch education takes on new meaning, with charters and choice leading the way.

NOW, HERE’S AN OPPORTUNITY. Shearwater High School, a charter sponsored by Saint Louis University, was anointed by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon as a model for other charters to replicate. On top of that, Emerson, a manufacturing and technology company, donated $500,000 to the school for its “groundbreaking” work. Shearwater targets students who have left or were suspended from traditional public schools. The St. Louis-Post Dispatch writes that nearly all of the students enter Shearwater with elementary school levels in reading and math and the staff dedicates itself to getting these kids on the college/career path ASAP. “I will not settle for less when I can do so much more,” said one of Shearwater’s graduating students. And, that pretty much sums up why far too many students don’t feel challenged in their zip code-determined school.

When one to four charter schools open their doors this fall, they will be paving a new path for Maine, guided by a new law and accompanying regulations.

Outside Maine, however, the charter school movement is more than two decades old and has many lessons and examples to offer.

Based on that history, national pro-charter organizations say the policies Maine has on the books have strong points but also important drawbacks that could limit the development of high-quality charter schools.

Maine’s charter school law, passed last year, was rated best in the nation by the National Association for Public Charter Schools and is also well-regarded by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

The Center for Education Reform, on the other hand, gives Maine a C-minus and says it’s too soon to tell what kind of environment state policies will create for charter schools.

All three groups said it’s key for states to balance strong authorization and accountability practices with autonomy for charter schools. Concerns include a cap on the number of charter schools initially allowed in Maine and the funding available to them.

The Maine Charter School Commission is negotiating a charter for the Maine Academy of Natural Sciences in Fairfield and will meet July 17 to consider the proposed Baxter Academy of Technology and Science in Portland. It also may reconsider an application for an elementary school in Cornville that was rejected last week.

The commission has yet to take action on the latest application, for a primary school in Gray called the Fiddlehead School of Arts and Sciences.

Based on the model

Charter schools are public schools that are relieved of some of the regulations and restrictions on traditional public schools. Proponents say they offer much-needed alternatives to traditional public schools and foster educational innovation.

Out of the District of Columbia and the 41 states with charter school laws, Maine is No. 1, according to the National Association for Public Charter Schools, or NAPCS.

That’s because Maine’s law conforms most closely to the organization’s model law, published in 2009.

A group of charter school leaders from across the country wrote the model law based on their experiences and the research that existed about the effect of state policies, said Todd Ziebarth, vice president for state advocacy and support.

“The goal was to create a model law that would help support both the growth of charter schools in the state, as well as the quality of those schools that were created,” Ziebarth said.

He said NAPCS worked closely with the Maine Association for Charter Schools and the legislation’s sponsors to write a good law in Maine.

“I think they did what more policymakers should do, which is, ‘Let’s take a look at best practices out there and use that as a starting point,’” Ziebarth said.

Under Maine law, local school boards and the state Charter School Commission are authorizers, meaning they can establish contracts with charter school operators. Authorizers set standards for charter schools and monitor their performance and compliance.

Ziebarth said Maine’s law requires performance-based contracts and provides for a rigorous application process, transparent oversight and fair renewal practices. At the same time, it gives charter schools a blanket waiver exempting them from most local and state regulations, with the exception of health and safety and civil rights laws.

Maine thus strikes a balance between flexibility and accountability for charter schools, Ziebarth said.

NAPCS opposes caps like the one Maine has imposed on the Charter School Commission. While schools authorized by local school boards are not limited, the commission can issue only 10 contracts in the first decade.

The commission received nine letters of intent and six applications this year.

“I think if you just look at the initial reaction in the number of letters of intent just in the first year, I think there’s a pent-up demand in the state for more options, both from families and educators,” Ziebarth said. “My guess is that in five years or so, or sooner, the state’s going to be up against that cap of 10 state-authorized schools and will need to revisit it to provide more options.”

Another downside of Maine’s law, in the view of NAPCS, is a lack of equitable funding for charter schools.

They can receive neither money for facilities nor the local additional funding that voters can choose to spend on district schools above what the state requires.

“Political decision?”

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers, or NACSA, which assists the entities that approve charter schools, agrees with most of the NAPCS recommendations on authorizers.

By NACSA’s evaluation, Maine’s law ranks among the best in the nation, along with laws in the District of Columbia, Hawaii and Louisiana, said Alex Medler, vice president of policy.

One drawback, Medler said, is a provision of the law stating that a charter may be revoked or allowed to lapse if the school “failed to meet or make sufficient progress toward the performance expectations set forth in the charter contract.”

About half of charter school laws include an absolute requirement that schools meet performance standards, while the other half include “progress” language like Maine’s.

“It sounds like a little phrase, but what it turns into is that the authorizer has to prove that there is no progress to close it,” Medler said. “You end up with, frankly, a more subjective, political decision. If it has improved in the last two years, it will argue that it’s making progress.”

In general, according to NACSA, it is too hard to close failing charter schools.

The pro-charter Center for Education Reform, or CER, also places a strong emphasis on authorizers. In fact, vice president for research Alison Consoletti said having strong, independent authorizers is the single most important factor in creating quality charter schools.

The center advocates for state commissions that are fully independent from other state agencies or universities and have their own funding and staff. Consoletti gave two examples: The Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University and the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board.

The seven members of the Maine Charter School Commission are appointed by the State Board of Education, and three members overlap between the two boards. The Legislature did not appropriate funding for the commission.

In CER’s view, that is not adequate, and it is part of the reason Maine’s law ranked 27th in the country, receiving a C-minus.

“If you have the strong, independent authorizers, they can hold the charters accountable,” Consoletti said. “So the schools tend to be higher quality and better managed.”

CER also opposes caps and wants charter schools to receive the same per-pupil funding as traditional public schools, including for facilities.

Beyond those identifiable drawbacks, the newness of charter schools in Maine counts against the state in CER’s grades, which take into consideration implementation. Some states have charter school laws but few or no schools operating.

“All we really had to go on was what the law said,” Consoletti said. “While some pieces, like the funding, seem to be better than average, it’s still difficult to see until a charter school is open, to see how the funding flows, how the law is going to work.”

Virtual on hold

Maine’s implementation already has raised concerns. Consoletti noted that the Charter School Commission — the only authorizer of virtual schools — decided to hold the two virtual-school applications it received for next year.

Ziebarth agreed that a good law is not sufficient but said it is necessary and that Maine is starting from a good place.

“I’m cautiously optimistic about how things will go in Maine,” he said. “One of the things that wasn’t, unfortunately, provided was some start-up dollars for the commission, which led to them getting off to a slower start than some people would have liked; but it seems that they’re taking their job very seriously.”

The commission has not worked quickly enough for Gov. Paul LePage, who objected to the delay in consideration of the virtual schools and suggested that commission members resign if they cannot manage their duties.

Citing an urgent need for alternatives to a public school system in crisis, LePage and his staff recommended approving the virtual schools, which are well-established in other states, and using the commission’s oversight powers to ensure school quality.

Medler, of the national authorizers group, said that would not be wise.

“There is a traditional public school system in state, and yes, there’s great urgency to create innovation, but they’re better served by slow and steady and good,” Medler said. “If it takes a little longer in the first year or two, that’s better for kids. Do not approve schools up front and give them the benefit of the doubt that they’ll succeed and evaluate them later.”

There will be at least one and at most three charter schools in Maine this fall.

Medler said it is not unusual to see a lot of weak applications in the first year, and applicants soon learn what authorizers are looking for.

“I’m optimistic in the long run for Maine,” Medler said. “I think you’ll have a vibrant charter sector. Let people learn how to do this; let them put in place procedures and such. Quality will build quantity, not the other way around.”

So Florida gets a B for the unfettered way in which it allows its charter schools to operate.

It’s too bad that the performance of those schools isn’t above average as well.

The Center for Education Reform, a pro-voucher, pro-charter school organization in Washington, D.C., recently graded the state a B and ranked it eighth highest in the nation for its laws that govern the creation and operation of charter schools.

Among other things, the center lauded Florida for having blanket waivers for most state rules and regulations governing traditional public schools and for exempting charter schools from most local school rules and regulations.

It also cites the Pembroke Pines charter school system as an example of how all that operating freedom can work to the benefit of students: It consistently earns As on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test and has a waiting list of around 11,000.

It’s understandable that the center would grade states on how easy they make it for charter schools to proliferate.

That’s because the main promise behind those schools is that if they’re allowed some flexibility to teach students without being hamstrung by rules that other public schools have to abide by, they can produce better students.

So Florida has given charter schools a lot of flexibility, but it’s hard to see how that flexibility is working for students.

In 2009, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University did a study that found that charter school students in Florida, Arizona, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas posted lower academic gains than their peers in traditional public schools.

Then last year in Florida, charter schools received 15 out of 31 of all the failing FCAT grades that went to public schools. Charter elementary and middle schools were seven times more likely to get an F than traditional public schools.

Even KIPP Impact Middle, a charter school that has been nationally praised for its success with underprivileged students, scored an F after its first year.

All of which says that measuring a state on how easy it is to operate a charter school isn’t as important as how to gauge its accountability.

That’s not happening enough. And it’s troubling.

The Stanford report also noted this. It states: “If the charter school movement is to flourish or indeed to deliver on promises made by proponents, a deliberate and sustained effort to increase the proportion of high quality schools is essential.

“The replication of successful school models is one important element of this effort. On the other side of the equation, however, authorizers must be willing and able to fulfill their end of the original charter school bargain: accountability in exchange for flexibility. When schools consistently fail, they should be closed.”

But in Florida, that bargain has been all but forgotten.

KIPP Jacksonville has applied to open two new elementary schools even though it has yet to rid itself of the F grade at its middle school.

Also, according to the Times-Union, during a meeting of charter school authorizers at Amelia Island last fall, Education Commissioner Gerard Robinson said that performance didn’t have to be addressed when charter operators apply to the state to open new schools.

Charter schools are supposed to offer students, especially students in struggling schools, a better chance to succeed academically. But that isn’t happening.

I don’t doubt that Florida’s B from the education reform center is well-deserved. But that grade would mean so much more if students in the state’s charter schools were achieving as highly — and not because most of the schools they are failing in are easy to set up.