Contributor
Nelson Smith, President & CEO, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

Related Link:
http://www.publiccharters.org
Biography provided by participant
Nelson Smith is President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, a post he has held since December 2004. The Alliance is the national nonprofit that works to increase the growth and quality of public charter schools through advocacy, communications, and capacity-building initiatives.
Previously, Smith served as Vice President for Policy and Governance at New American Schools; was the first Executive Director of the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board; and was Vice President for Education and Workforce Development at the New York City Partnership. From 1985 to 1992, at the US Department of Education, he oversaw numerous programs devoted to improving education through research-based methods.
He has written extensively on issues affecting the charter sector. For the Progressive Policy Institute, Smith authored studies of the charter school movements in California and Texas, and for the Education Commission of the States he wrote The New Central Office, an exploration of how central-office functions change as public school districts move toward charter-based systems. His articles about charter schooling and education policy have appeared in the Wall Street Journal, Education Next and other publications. He presented on charter schooling at the 2008 Clinton Global Initiative conference.
A graduate of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, Smith is a resident of the District of Columbia, where he is active in civic and arts organizations. He is a member of the Board of Trustees for the E. L. Haynes Public Charter School.
Recent Responses
November 3, 2009 06:26 PM
Proud as I am that both ends of this discussion are anchored by Alliance alumni (Smarick the Critic and Cohen the Turnaround Czar), it's getting needlessly muddled."Turnaround" for starters, is a catchall phrase that focuses on buildings rather than kids. Andy's right that it has a dismal record, not just in education but in other sectors, and that disruptive innovators are a better bet. I don't care much whether we hand the building over to the innovators or let them do new starts in the adjoining neighborhoods - -what matters is that the kids get a new deal. I want…
Read moreOctober 13, 2009 03:10 PM
The point of i3 is to disseminate innovation -- it's not an accountability program. AYP as a gateway requirement might make sense if only AYP-certified districts could create useful innovations. But a district might fail AYP because it misses test administration by one point, while creating a sensationally effective special-ed program that deserves replication. Among charter schools (half of which are LEAs and directly eligible for i3 grants), you can see plenty of single-campus schools that perform well overall but miss AYP due to a single factor. That shouldn't disqualify them from offering what does work to other public schools. …
Read moreSeptember 28, 2009 05:52 PM
Arne Duncan has said that NCLB got it wrong by being tightly prescriptive at the local level (a cascade of requirements and consequences) but loosey-goosey at the national level (allowing wide variation in state definitions of “proficiency.”) He’d like to flip that structure and create voluntary common “career and college-ready” standards, while leaving the means of pursuing them to local folks. The task for the Common Core project is to level the playing field so that proficiency means the same thing in Mississippi as in Massachusetts. The current draft effort has much to admire, including the nifty presentation of academic…
Read moreAugust 3, 2009 11:53 AM
What's fairer than judging performance on the basis of student outcomes, and what could be less fair than prohibiting it? The typical argument against using student achievement to determine teacher effectiveness is that it depends on the luck of the draw -- the teachers who get the smart kids look better on paper. But if states do create longitudinal data systems that permit a real look at classroom-level progress (not just status), then that argument goes away. Of course, there are plenty of teachers whose effectiveness will have to be measured some other way, since they teach subjects where no…
Read moreJuly 8, 2009 11:23 AM
School boards make sense for school systems but not for systems of schools. Since this question is about “urban schools” I’ll assume a certain minimum scale – let’s say 50 schools and 20,000 kids. If those schools are all part of a centrally-run system, where a superintendent and central-office staff allocate teachers, books, and buses, then it may make some sense for that system to be overseen by an all- or mostly-elected body representing the neighborhoods that make up the city. But if those 50 schools are autonomous, making their own decisions about teachers and books and buses; and if each…
Read moreJune 29, 2009 04:56 PM
Of the $100 billion we’re spending on the education portion of ARRA, $95 billion is designed to save and create jobs, and $5 million is aimed at “reform” via the Race to the Top and Innovation funds. That $5 billion is quite a chunk of change by historical standards and if it’s spent on a few big ideas in a few states, and not spread evenly into every congressional district, it’ll make waves. But we shouldn’t let states off the hook in spending the other $95 billion, even if times are tough, and even if the money has to trickle…
Read more
About This Blog
This Education Blog is funded by support provided, in part, by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for the purpose of creating an educational forum for sharing research, ideas and opinions regarding issues related to college readiness and college completion. The Blog may not be used to post partisan political statements supporting or opposing candidates for public office. All statements and materials posted on the Blog, including any statements regarding specific legislation, reflect the views of the individual contributors and do not reflect the views of National Journal or the Bill& Melinda Gates Foundation. National Journal and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation take no positions regarding any legislation discussed in the Blog. National Journal reserves the right to monitor material placed on this site and to remove any posting they may deem inappropriate.