Good day, CharterFolk.
We start with Jorge making a noble effort of it at the New York Times.
He makes good arguments for policymakers to come to their senses. But sadly, the most telling part is the comments.
There have been over 1,100.
The most “recommended,” in order, opine:
- Don’t divert money from public schools to schools that screen out high needs kids.
- Arizona’s school choice has been a give away to the rich.
- It’s not the schools’ fault. It’s the parents.
- Sounds like capitalism. Must be bad.
The standard anti-charter script. On repeat.
I scrolled through the 100 most recommended responses. Not one spoke in favor of the article.
I don’t suggest that this group is representative of societal opinion.
But it is illustrative of what Yeats described as “the passionate intensity” …
… that prevails in moments like these.
The lesson is not that opposition is universal. It’s how a vocal minority, showing up consistently, can dominate the public sphere.
Fortunately, in recent weeks, we’ve seen compelling examples of how to contest it.
In Georgia, Rahn Mayo, VP of Policy and Advocacy at the Georgia Charter Schools Association, released a terrific video …
… highlighting the absurdity of school districts sitting on empty buildings while denying charter schools access.
The solution is straightforward: change the law – and use the fight to elevate the issue.
In Florida, lawmakers are pursuing legislation requiring districts to disclose the land and facilities they own.
Again, policy fights create opportunities to surface issues the public usually ignores.
The drive for transparency exposes what the public rarely sees – not just unused assets, but broken checks and balances. When districts label full use of public property an “unintended consequence,” voters see the conflict of interest embedded in the system.
Also in Florida, Miami-Dade College approved its first batch of new charter schools after being authorized in 2021 to serve as a charter authorizer. Previously, the local school district held that exclusive authority.
Remarkably, when authorization comes from an entity other than the local district, applications get approved.
The concept may soon reach the panhandle.
It should reach the entire country.
No place would benefit more than Massachusetts.
This month, the Massachusetts association released a powerful video …
… recounting a situation I have written about here repeatedly:
The denial of KIPP Academy Lynn’s application to expand – an inarguably successful school with a mile-long waiting list.
Thousands of charter stakeholders across the state – from communities with no direct stake in the decision – contacted policymakers to register their opposition.
This, CharterFolk, is how our voices add up.
And if there is any place where charter schools should be allowed to grow, it is Massachusetts, a state where parent dissatisfaction with public schools is leading to growth in private ones.
Yes, blue Massachusetts, with no ESA or voucher programs, is seeing private education expand.
That reality exposes an even deeper truth:
The strongest driver of privatization in America is not choice policy.
It is dissatisfaction with district schools.
Massachusetts has another option.
A public one.
It can allow its charter schools to grow – schools widely recognized as among the highest performing in the country.
Schools increasingly recognized for generating positive spillover effects in surrounding district schools.
Peer-reviewed research confirms that Massachusetts charter growth produced measurable improvement in nearby district schools.
Similar research underway examining Texas suggests comparable spillover effects.
The empirical case is durable. It is replicating.
But we should not be naïve enough to believe that research alone will quell passionate intensity.
Politics does not yield to data quietly.
Our voices add up only if we keep showing up.
It starts with school communities like KIPP Academy Lynn submitting applications even when the odds are long.
It’s the same calculus Salinas Prep faced in California when it chose to apply in a hostile environment.
Status quo interests assume that when the deck is stacked against us, we will stop trying. That absence becomes its own argument:
“See? There isn’t demand. No one is even applying.”
Applications are not just regulatory acts. They are political acts.
When schools apply – and even when they are denied – they create moments. They create organizing opportunities. They force public decisions. They surface waiting lists. They mobilize families.
If we had scores more – hundreds more – yes, many would face rejection.
But each denial would generate thousands of voices insisting that policymakers explain why high-performing public schools with demonstrated demand are prevented from growing.
That is how our voices add up.
That is how narratives shift.
And that is how policymakers finally come to their senses.