By C. Nicole Mason

Amid protest from parents and teachers, New York City’s Department of Education voted on January 27 to close 19 failing public schools. The closings come on the heels of a heated battle among state legislators to lift a ban limiting the number of charter schools in the state. The measure failed, but not without revealing a troubling trend around the country with regard to public education in states and cities—chasing dollars instead of what’s in the best interest of students.

New York is one of several states, Tennessee and Massachusetts among them, competing for a bite of the $4 billion carrot Obama is dangling in front of them to improve performance, reform failing schools and ease restrictions on charter schools.

Enacted last February with little fanfare outside of education circles, the Race to the Top fund aims to reform America’s failing public school system by creating what amounts to a free-market education system that encourages competition and experimentation with some of the most fragile school systems in the nation.

Seeing only dollar signs and the opportunity to close gaps in funding for education, state legislatures are racing to figure out how to get hold of up to $700 million in funding. While not a prerequisite for receiving funding, states that lift restrictions on the number of charter schools allowed in the state will have a better chance at a slice of the pie. In many instances, very little thought is given to the long-term and permanent effect of shifting resources from public schools to small education start-ups that, like many small businesses, might fail.

Most alarming, though, is the legislation’s over-reliance on standardized tests to measure achievement, a hallmark of the troubled No Child Left Behind Act, and an archaic litmus test many were sure Obama would do away with once in office. It also ties test scores to teacher evaluations and raises.

Charter schools are often praised as the panacea for failing public schools. Proponents argue that they provide an alternative to parents and use innovative and often culturally relevant curricula to improve student performance. As a result, low-income communities and areas with some of the worst educational outcomes have seen a surge in charter schools over the last decade. In many ways, these communities have become the testing ground for so-called education innovation and reform models.

In some areas, schools spring up and often close their doors within a couple of years. Those schools that are able to stay afloat tend to rely on a combination of both private and public support ala Kipp or SEED charter schools. However, it is unclear if either of those models can be replicated in large numbers across the country. What works in Los Angeles, California might not play so well in Detroit, Michigan.

Also, there is very little accountability if a charter school fails or underperforms. A Stanford University study found that nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than if the student had remained in traditional public schools.

Charter school oversight boards and existing education boards in cities are not equipped to evaluate the standards and value of schools to communities. And because curriculum, teacher credentials, and in-house experience vary from school to school, it might prove difficult to compare apples to apples with regard to charter schools.

Nationwide, a little over 1 million children are enrolled in charter schools, a tiny fraction of the number enrolled in public schools throughout the country. Even if bans across the country were lifted and charter schools allowed to proliferate, they would not be able to replace the number of existing failing schools. And because charter schools can quasi-determine their own admissions standards, they often zap the most talented and promising out of traditional public schools. What would happen to students with special needs or disabilities? The charter school model offers very few answers.

The Administration should not be so quick to promote charter schools as a viable alternative to reform a failing public school system. Failing schools are a result of many things—lack of resources and too few experienced teachers, among other factors. Treating public education funds as small business loans to education entrepreneurs is a bill taxpayers should not have to foot. Charter schools are not a long-term option for achieving excellence in education or for preparing the next generation to compete globally.

The Race to the Top legislation and the Administration’s strong-arm tactics in getting states to fall in line is troubling at best and ill thought out at worst. In this economy, many legislators will do just about anything to fill their coffers, including selling out some of the most vulnerable children in our society.

We need a clear road and plan of action to reform America’s public school system. We can not afford to close failing schools any more than we can afford to throw away failing neighborhoods—we have to work as a community and as a nation to improve them.

Dr. C. Nicole Mason is the Executive Director of the Women of Color Policy Network at the Wagner School of Public Service at New York University.