Two recent reports highlight fascinating results in Utah’s district and charter schools. Taken together, the University of Utah’s Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute’s report on schools in Salt Lake County’s northwest quadrant and the latest U.S. News and World Report ranking of Utah’s top high schools should prompt serious thinking on how we approach education policy.

I have spent 24 years in education — as a teacher in Granite and Jordan School Districts, a charter school director and a member of both the State Charter School Board and State Board of Education, and, of course, as the parent of four children who made their way through public schools. Now, as the Executive Director of Utah’s Charter School Board, I find these reports fascinating and full of important lessons for improving education for all Utah children.

Although Utah charter schools enroll only 13% of the students in Utah, yet again they occupy six of the spots in U.S. News’ top 10 high schools. On some level that finding has happened so many times that its import is easy to miss. But that is a frankly shocking number. How is it possible that so many of Utah’s elite high schools are charter schools?

The cliché answer is demographics. The Gardner Institute report advises against that explanation. Students entering kindergarten in district and charter schools arrive with similar levels of preparation and readiness. Yet charter schools show higher academic achievement with lower absenteeism and student turnover. In other words, better outcomes with more stable student engagement.

That fact demands closer scrutiny.

Another explanation may be that charter schools have clearer behavioral expectations, more deliberate school cultures and stronger mechanisms for family commitment. These factors can translate into lower absenteeism — not because families are fundamentally different but because these charter schools reinforce attendance differently.

Mobility tells a similar story. When fewer students leave midyear, classrooms become more stable, instruction becomes more coherent and teachers can build on prior learning rather than constantly restarting. Stability, in turn, compounds into achievement gains over time.

This doesn’t mean charter schools have discovered a silver bullet, but some systems reinforce the outcomes policymakers and parents want. If district schools are experiencing higher absenteeism and turnover with similar student readiness, then what lessons should we learn from the systems charter schools use? Are enrollment policies, transportation access, school boundaries or program offerings unintentionally increasing churn? How can school districts adapt charter school lessons in school culture, communication, flexibility or accountability?

This does not mean that charter schools are a panacea. Different charter schools show significant variation. Some post strong graduation rates and college readiness outcomes. Others lag significantly behind. This variability is not a footnote. It may be the point.

Districts tend to prioritize consistency, which can reduce the risk of very low-performing schools. It may also limit exceptionally high-performing schools. Charter schools are premised on experimentation. The policy question is under what conditions will Utah tolerate that variability.

If the goal is to raise overall outcomes, then a system that allows innovation — even uneven innovation — may be necessary. But that approach requires strong and direct accountability.

High-performing models need to be identified, studied and replicated. Low-performing ones need to be improved or, when necessary, closed. Too often we shy away from both.

This is not an argument for replacing district schools with charters. It is an argument for learning across systems. Policy should be built around that opportunity. What would it look like to systematically identify the practices driving lower absenteeism in some schools and scale them across others? What would it take to reduce midyear mobility, regardless of school type? How can funding formulas, accountability systems and governance structures encourage both innovation and stability?

These are harder questions than cannot be answered by simply increasing funding or adjusting standards. But they are the very questions the data is asking us to seriously consider and answer. Utah’s children and families want that answer, too.

Stacey Hutchings is the executive director of the Utah State Charter School Board.

The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.