In Newark and Camden, where parents have fled failing district schools by the thousands, charter schools have been one of the great social successes of the past decade.



They solidly outperform the district schools, in some cases by a huge margin. And their success is measured not just by tests and graduation rates; but also by the fact that poor, minority families have shown consistent preference for charter schools. Leading charters North Star Academy and KIPP (formerly known as TEAM) remain the top choices of Newark parents, out of all the schools in the city.



We've also seen progress in the conventional schools in Newark and Camden, where both superintendents believe this mixed portfolio is good for the district as a whole.

On charter schools, Newark is no Detroit | Editorial



Yet the Democratic candidates in our governor's race are all curiously skeptical about charter schools. Each is departing from former President Barack Obama's courageous support for charters that defied the teacher's union, which is a real threat to this progress in our cities.



Their main criticisms of charters are that they skim the best students from the district and draw money away from district schools. But Newark's universal enrollment system puts a firm hand on the scale to ensure that charters take their fair share of harder-to-educate kids. And in Camden, charter leaders run neighborhood schools that guarantee enrollment to all area students. A kid's fate is not left to a lottery.



When it comes to finances, charters actually get less public money than district schools do. Under state law, the money follows the child, and charters get only 90 percent of the operating costs of traditional schools; many receive much less. And they get no capital funds.



The key threats now facing charters in New Jersey are a moratorium on all charter growth, and a local vote being required to open any new charter school.

Newark schools superintendent: Why charters succeed | Opinion



Because top charters in Newark and Camden expand year by year, a moratorium would force sixth graders to transfer back to the district schools, rather than being allowed to continue on to 7th grade. That would clearly hurt kids. And since the teacher's union dominates school board elections with low turnout, giving the board veto power is akin to strangling any new charter in its crib. The better gauge is clear parental preference.



The irony here is that Republicans are more supportive of charter schools, even though the Democrats supposedly care more about poor kids. Frontrunner Kim Guadagno, Christie's lieutenant governor, supports charters, but seems unfamiliar with the lay of the land.



She says she wants to double the number of high quality charters where district schools are failing, as if that were solely a function of state government. And it's best to expand these schools gradually, with a careful focus on quality.



Her opponent, Assemblyman Jack Ciattarelli, appears to back a more careful strategy. He says charters should be approved only if certain conditions are met - generally, if there's evidence that the local district schools are failing, and the student population is closely representative of the district's.



Just as we don't want a governor who approves too many charters regardless of quality, as if they are magic, we don't want one who is anti-charter either. That could kill the growth of even top-performing charter schools. Our best hope is a happy median.

Bookmark NJ.com/Opinion. Follow on Twitter @NJ_Opinion and find NJ.com Opinion on Facebook.