In recent conversations with elected officials in Philadelphia and Harrisburg, I have heard broad agreement on an important principle: Families should have access to a public school that works for their child.
But when the conversation turns to expanding access to charter schools, it often shifts to an entirely different topic about organized labor and whether charter educators are unionized.
Both issues matter, but they are not the same. I respect the right of workers to decide whether union representation is right for them. I believe just as strongly that families should be able to choose a public school that works for their child.
PA’s governance structure unnecessarily ties these two issues together.
Philadelphia’s Board of Education oversees the School District and is responsible for the financial and operational health of public schools. At the same time, the District also must make independent regulatory decisions about charter schools whose enrollment and growth can affect District revenue, staffing and long-term financial obligations. The Board is therefore asked to regulate charter schools while simultaneously managing the consequences of those decisions for the District it governs.
Both of those responsibilities should not rest with the same governing body.
We know charter authorization does not have to be structured this way. Mastery operates under a different system just across the Delaware River.
We operate public schools in both Philadelphia and Camden. In PA, local school boards authorize brick-and-mortar charter schools. In New Jersey, the Department of Education serves as the authorizer.
In Camden, the responsibilities are clear. The district runs its schools. The state holds all public schools—whether they be district, charter, or renaissance schools — accountable. We focus on educating students and meeting the standards of our authorizer. The structure does not eliminate disagreement, but it does eliminate this particular conflict of responsibilities.
Ultimately, this matters because authorization decisions determine which public school options are available to families.
The District should have an important voice in decisions affecting finances, enrollment, and systemwide planning, but having a voice is different from determining a charter school’s right to exist.
Children are different, and schools are different. Parents know when their child is thriving and when something needs to change.
Families with financial means can act on that knowledge by paying tuition or moving. Economically disadvantaged families have fewer options. Public school choice gives all parents at least some of the agency that wealthier families already possess.
My experience as a teacher, principal, superintendent and charter school leader has convinced me that we do not need to settle the debate about the role of organized labor to agree that families deserve access to schools that work for their children.
PA can address this conflict with commonsense governance reform by establishing a public charter authorizer, independent of both local school districts and charter operators. The independent authorizer should be publicly accountable, operate under strict and transparent standards, and have a clear mandate to evaluate academic results, financial stewardship, legal compliance, and organizational integrity.
Those standards should govern the operation of every charter school. Applications, renewals, growth, corrective action, and closure should be decided consistently with these standards and based on evidence. Independent authorization should not mean less accountability. It should mean more focused accountability.
The District should have an important voice in decisions affecting finances, enrollment, and systemwide planning, but having a voice is different from determining a charter school’s right to exist.
Clearer responsibilities would allow each governing body to focus on its proper role. District leaders could focus on improving schools, maintaining financial stability, and managing relationships with employees. Charter operators could answer to an independent regulator and be subject to the same high standards that parents, and taxpayers, have every right to expect.
In each case, workers can decide whether representation is right for them. And at the same time, parents get to decide which schools work best for their children. Our governance structure should respect both decisions, not force them into conflict. Establishing an independent, third-party charter authorizer is the obvious, evidence-based policy solution.
Dr. Joel D. Boyd is Chief Executive Officer of Mastery Schools, which serves 14,000 children and families across 23 school campuses in Philadelphia and Camden. He previously served as Superintendent of Schools in Lowell, MA and Santa Fe, NM and as an Assistant Superintendent in Boston Public Schools and the School District of Philadelphia.
MORE ON IMPROVING OUR PUBLIC SCHOOLS
