Public Impact News & Views

A sudden shift in the spring to effective online learning challenged all schools—but we quickly began to see anecdotal evidence of some charter schools reacting quickly and serving students well. In a new report we wrote with the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, we offer evidence that some charter schools—smaller networks and schools that make up the majority of charters—were able to respond quickly to students’ and families’ needs, taking advantage of the freedom and flexibility built into the charter school model. Read what the schools did alongside vignettes highlighting some of the charter schools and their leaders.

We based the report on a database we created of 356 charter school operators, similar to the one CPRE (the Center on Reinventing Public Education) created in the spring that tracked some of the nation’s largest public school districts.

Our key findings:

1. Charter schools appear more likely than school districts to set expectations that teachers:
   • Engage directly with students to provide instruction.
   • Provide real-time instruction.
   • Check in regularly with students.
   • Monitor attendance.
2. School districts and charter schools were about equally likely to require the distribution of devices for online learning.
3. Charter schools appear less likely than school districts to ensure internet access for all students.
4. Few charter schools or school districts clearly communicate on websites how schools will support students with disabilities during COVID‑19 closures.

Charter schools were already known for their innovation, and the findings in this report show their ability and potential to adapt to students’ needs in unexpected circumstances.

Read the full report, written by Public Impact’s Lyria Boast, Beth Clifford, and Daniela Doyle, here…

Related: Charters Were Quicker to Provide Instruction, Regular Contact During Closures, Reports Say. But That’s Also How They ‘Keep the Kids,’ One Expert Explains (The 74)

Without decisive state expectations and action on remote learning, student learning will suffer: That’s the message from a new analysis of state reopening plans by CRPE (the Center for Reinventing Public Education) and Public Impact. Our just-released database of state reopening plans and accompanying blog post highlight the need for state action now, before it’s too late.

As CRPE’s Ashley Jochim and Public Impact’s Bryan C. Hassel and Beth Clifford detail, state recommendations focus more on the logistics of reopening than on what matters most—student learning. As the authors write, the “absence of clear expectations is certain to contribute to inequities across school and district responses.”

They call for states to address the gaps in learning caused by school closures in the spring, avert a worsening educational crisis, and help districts manage their pandemic-created challenges.

The database shows that:

• Only 15 states require districts to plan for remote learning, even though increasing numbers of districts plan to start the year online. State plans generally lack both clear expectations for implementation and schedules for monitoring progress and closing gaps.
• Less than half of states require districts to submit a plan for in-person or hybrid reopening, and only one in four states outline a clear process to review the plans.
• Despite a few promising examples, many states are failing to lead the way on closing the digital divide. Based on rapidly changing data, approximately 38 states’ written plans address device access and connectivity, but more than half of those plans leave responsibility for digital access to districts.
• Only five states require districts to assess student learning needs this fall, and only seven require them to implement strategies for accelerating learning or addressing learning loss.
• Of states requiring remote learning plans, only 11 states require specific practices to support students with disabilities and only seven do so for English language learners.

How does your state stack up? Check the database.

At a minimum, the authors say, states must establish ambitious expectations for teaching and student learning in all settings, clarify how those expectations can be met with remote learning, work rapidly to close gaps in access to devices and internet connectivity, and monitor local efforts in these areas so states can step in when districts are falling short.

States can set expectations for districts, they note, without encroaching on local control. Rhode Island, for example, requires districts to show comparable rigor for online and in-person instruction, while California’s legislature enacted remote learning requirements to address gaps during the spring at-home instruction.

“If states don’t quickly provide more direction on the core work of schools—teaching and learning—the most vulnerable students will pay the price in lost learning,” said Bryan C. Hassel, co-president of Public Impact. “But it’s not too late. Decisive action now could change the trajectory of millions of students.”

CRPE and Public Impact will release more analyses in the coming weeks, including in-depth looks at state virtual instructional platforms, how states are tapping stimulus dollars, statewide supports for teachers, and statewide instructional policies.

“Student learning is an afterthought in many state reopening plans; that’s a huge mistake”

We’ve been working with the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) to create a database of all states’ reopening plans, accompanied by a series of briefs and analyses. The database will be published soon. Meanwhile, a new blog by CRPE’s Ashley Jochim and Georgia Heyward and Public Impact’s Beth Clifford provides a peek at the early findings.

“CRPE and Public Impact are wrapping up our review of state reopening plans. If first impressions portend what’s to come, there are big reasons to be concerned,” the authors write.

What’s missing in the plans? While they provide a needed focus on protecting the health of students and staff, they let students down by failing to provide an equal focus on student learning.

“The enormity of this moment is why it is so essential that states step in now to ensure that districts offer students meaningful opportunities to learn—whether in-person, in a blended model or remotely. If states allow logistical considerations to crowd out everything else, they will place the most vulnerable students at risk of even greater learning loss in 2020–21,” the authors say.

See the full post here, and we’ll be back in your inbox soon with the full database and further analyses.

Comparing some specific state strategies

Alongside our work with CRPE, we responded to a request from Bluum, a nonprofit helping cultivate great school leaders and innovative schools in Idaho, to look at state strategies on some specific issues for reopening schools. Initially intended for policymakers and school leaders in Idaho, Bluum decided to post our working draft for wider sharing. Based on a review of national media, third-party reports, and a select number of state plans chosen based on their similarities to Idaho, the document looks at such questions as:

• whether and how states are allowing districts to measure “attendance” in new ways during remote learning,
• what flexibilities states are granting to districts on teacher evaluation, licensure, or certain state funds,
• how states are addressing technology needs,
• and more. We’ll continue to update the document as we get more information.

[Read more…]