Good morning, CharterFolk.
Today we’re pleased to share another Contributor Column from Brandon Brown, CEO of The Mind Trust in Indianapolis.
We provide a bio for Brandon below:
Since 2018, Brandon Brown has served as CEO of The Mind Trust, leading the organization’s groundbreaking work to provide every Indianapolis student with the opportunity to attend an excellent school.
He formerly served as The Mind Trust’s Senior Vice President for Education Innovation, primarily focusing on The Mind Trust’s Innovation School Fellowship, a unique partnership with Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS) to incubate excellent Innovation Network Schools that serve all students well.
Before joining The Mind Trust, Brandon served as the city of Indianapolis’ charter schools director under former Mayor Greg Ballard. As charter schools director from 2012 to 2015, Brandon oversaw 35 charter schools and four turnaround schools serving nearly 15,000 students. Also under his watch, the Mayor’s Office opened 15 new charter schools and gained oversight of four turnaround schools. He also served in several leadership roles with Teach For America, including managing director of community partnerships in the Indianapolis office.
Brandon was previously a Teach For America corps member and taught English at Carnahan High School in St. Louis. Brandon was selected by Indianapolis Business Journal for its “40 Under 40” class in 2019. He earned his bachelor’s degree from Washington University in St. Louis and master’s degree in secondary education from the University of Missouri-St. Louis.
He currently serves on the Marian University Center for Vibrant Schools Board of Visitors, is a board member for both the Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee and Indiana Charter Innovation Center, and is also a member of the Indiana Girl Advisory Council. He has been an advisory board member for Teach Plus-Indianapolis; statewide council member for the Indiana Center for Family, School, and Community Partnerships; and member of the Central Indiana Education Alliance; and on the community advisory committee for the Indianapolis eLearning Fund.
Call a Spade a Spade: The Case Against School-Type Agnosticism
Education Next recently ran an interview that Terry Ryan of Bluum conducted with Steve Farkas, a researcher with extensive experience studying public opinion in education. It stopped me in my tracks. Farkas didn’t mince words.
“Reformers come up with new names for rehashed reform. They trademark and they have to dance to this new language, but it’s all fake. Nothing really happens… My conclusion is that school reform is impossible. It’s impossible for traditional schools to get better. Not because there are no good ideas. There’s no lack of great ideas, but the politics will always destroy any reform of a school district.”
Even for someone who has spent my career trying to “reform” the system, I’ve never heard a synopsis so direct. While I might not use the same words as Farkas, it did make me wonder if the charter movement has become too wishy-washy in our assessment of the current system and our diagnosis of what needs to happen to create an education system that truly works for all children.
In education reform, we often say we’re “school-type agnostic.” I’ve said it many times myself. I thought a lot about this phrase recently as I worked alongside a coalition of advocates to push for historic charter school funding reform in Indiana, which was just signed into law last week. This legislation will ensure that local property taxes for school operations are shared at parity with public charter school students and thereby significantly reduce an almost $8,000 per-pupil funding disparity – something that was long overdue.
After a very heated legislative session where people came out of the woodwork to blindly defend the status quo, I’m now more convinced than ever that I’m not agnostic about a system that discriminates against public school students solely based on the type of school they attend. I firmly reject a system that would do that.
Do reformers claim we’re school-type agnostic as a rhetorical tool because we think it makes us sound inclusive to our traditional public school brethren? Or do we really believe it? Are we genuinely agnostic about a system that says some kids are worth more than others?
How can we be indifferent about a school system that, by its very design, perpetuates inequality? How can we effectively advocate for charter schools while being noncommittal about the incumbent school system? Better yet, why are we even in education advocacy if we’re truly agnostic about the type of school children attend?
I know one thing: Teachers unions aren’t agnostic about charter schools. They want them destroyed.
In Indiana, every Senate Democrat present for the floor debate on the charter school funding reform bill voted for an amendment that would have dissolved 70% of the charter schools in the state. They clearly aren’t agnostic about charter schools.
So can CharterFolk agree on a few things?
- We’re not agnostic about a public school system that auctions off seats via the housing market.
- We’re not agnostic about a public school system with attendance boundaries that mirror redlining maps from the 1930s.
- We’re not agnostic about a public school system where your race and family’s income predict your academic outcomes.
- We’re not agnostic about a public school system that prioritizes teacher seniority over performance.
- We’re not agnostic about a public school system where a far-away central office dictates decisions rather than educators closest to students.
Now this doesn’t mean there aren’t great traditional public schools. And it certainly doesn’t mean the people working in the traditional system are anything other than hard-working professionals who want the best for their students.
But think about it this way: If we were to create a school system from scratch that served students well in today’s world, would we re-create the system as it is today? Of course not. So why are we so beholden to it? Why are even charter advocates afraid to call a spade a spade?
We must have a firm belief that the status quo is unacceptable and that it must be disrupted at every turn.
But it’s not enough to be against something. The question becomes, “What are we for?” Luckily, we already have a model that upends the status quo, is scalable, and continues to improve its outcomes over time.
What is that model, you ask? Charter schools.
In Indianapolis and across the country, study after study shows that students who attend charter schools make significantly more academic progress than their traditional public school peers. Three key conditions enable this success: Excellent educators, contractual autonomy, and rigorous public accountability.
Charter schools, by design, do not discriminate based on zip code and are free to make decisions as close to kids as possible – not in a distant central office. The research shows that the growth of charters in a given city lifts all boats. All students, regardless of the school they attend, tend to do better academically when more students enroll in a charter school.
I would argue that we have a moral imperative to scale this success so that more students benefit. The question becomes, what is our vision for replicating these conditions at the school-system level?
In an era of declining birth rates, increasing school choice, and aging infrastructure, districts must proactively change how they operate or risk insolvency. Which major city district will be the first to do this by realizing that schools are the unit of change, not a central office? Which district will view its role not as a top-down school operator but as a service provider and accountability body? Which district will realize they should steer instead of row?
You see, the three-legged stool of charter schools can be a blueprint for districts as well. Don’t like the word charter? Fine, call them innovation schools or whatever else you want. I firmly believe the first district that figures this out will not only secure its future but will serve as a model for the rest of the country.
Our country and national political parties currently lack a coherent direction for K-12 education, which creates a generational opportunity for charter advocates to fill the void. The truth is that districts won’t change on their own. It will take sustained external advocacy, political fortitude, and leaders who aren’t afraid to set a vision for what could be.
No more defense; let’s play offense. Let’s just not pretend that we’re school-type agnostic. We’re not, or at least we shouldn’t be.
So which city-based advocates will dare to cast and vigorously pursue a vision for a revolutionized system of schools that is worthy of our children? There’s never been a better time to take a risk and change the course of history.