Buy this issue

MEMBERS

Log in to read all articles.

NONMEMBERS
Select an unlocked article to read a sample.

To view the entire issue,

• Become an ASCD member.
• Purchase this issue.

April 1995 | Number 2
The Charter School Phenomenon

A Model for the Next Century?

We are seeing an explosive trend toward charter school authorization-a phenomenon that is perhaps unprecedented in the history of modern educational reform. As of early 1995, nearly half the states in the United States have either authorized charter schools or are considering legislation to authorize these innovations.

The movements' dynamics reflect an apparently broad-based public discontent with the current status quo of centralized state or district control, bureaucratic rigidity, and uneven progress in student performance. The 1990s may well represent a watershed in U.S. education, marked by accelerated decentralization, community power sharing, school-based management and autonomy, and other “bottom up” reforms.

Charter schools may represent a compelling intermediate reform, heralding the possibility of radical innovation and wholesale overhaul of public schools, yet stopping short of privatization, vouchers, tax credits, or other market-based approaches. Charters keep the “public” element in public schools.

Charter Concept

The model charter school is a fully autonomous legal entity—

• funded directly through student enrollment;
• formed through a contract between organizers/managers (teachers, parents, other public or private groups) and sponsors/overseers (universities or local, county, or state boards of education);
• accountable—on penalty of nonrenewal—for specified student performance outcomes;
• exempted from most state or district laws and regulations (apart from health, safety, and nondiscrimination safeguards); and
• nonselective, nonsectarian, tuition-free, and based on choice.

Yet, as might be expected, state and local variations on the model, under statute or in practice, differ in key matters, such as contractual and budgetary autonomy and personnel oversight. The charter model has proved particularly malleable and adaptable to state and local conditions, but it is subject to intense resistance and start-up difficulties. Thus far, wholesale autonomy and unfettered reform capabilities have been the exception, not the rule.

TRENDS: Charter Developments and Variations

Federal Level

In 1994, two major pieces of legislation provided support for the concept of charter schools. The Improving America's Schools Act (reauthorizing and amending the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) includes a new federal grant program authorized at $15 million ($6 million was appropriated) to support the design and implementation of charter schools, inclusive of district-mandated conversions of existing schools. The Goals 2000: Educate America Act permits states to draw on specified federal funds to promote charters. Under both acts, states and districts may seek waivers from statutory and regulatory mandates.

State education agencies have varied in their interpretations of these acts. In some states, charter schools receive Title I funds directly from states; in other states, schools are funded either as a local education agency, such as a school district, or as a regular school under district authority. Special education funding and legal responsibility under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and state and local provisions also vary. The U.S. Government Accounting Office (GAO) has urged the U.S. Department of Education to provide interpretive guidance to the states.

State Level

As of January 1995, 9 states and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico had approved 134 charter schools (85 new, 49 converted) of widely divergent characteristics; 2 additional states had authorized charters, but had approved none (see Table 1). Nearly 20 more states may be considering legislation in 1995. Two states (Maine and Missouri) have authorized quite limited or pilot charter programs. Charter school autonomy varies significantly under differing statutory provisions—and in practice—on the key indexes of legal autonomy, funding, regulatory exemptions, and accountability, as well as in terms of the approval process. Table 2 shows the legal status of charter schools in 10 states (excepting Hawaii, wherein charter status is uncertain).

Table 1: Number of Charter Schools and Approved Under State Laws

Table 2: Some State Laws Authorize Legally Independent Charter Schools

Of the 11 states analyzed, only 5 mandate or permit full legal independence in charters; 1 state (Hawaii) awaits a judicial ruling. Only 3 states (Hawaii undetermined) explicitly mandate full funding autonomy not subject to district negotiation; another (Arizona) has similar provisions for funding, when the state is the sponsor. Six states mandate or permit blanket exemptions from state rules; another 6 provide exemptions from district rules (except for health, safety, civil rights, and pupil-assessment mandates).

Current accountability and reporting requirements vary, although no state mandates the reporting of student outcomes by demographic characteristics.

To review additional legislative patterns:

• Only three states (California, Colorado, and Wisconsin) mandate preferences for charters serving at-risk pupils.
• Six states limit sponsorship to local school boards; Hawaii and New Mexico limit charters to existing schools. Only Arizona and Minnesota permit private (nonsectarian) charters.
• Seven states rigidly cap the number of charters (by state, district, or sponsor).
• In seven states, state collective-bargaining provisions are either unspecified, absent, inapplicable, or subject to waiver with school board consent.
• Eight states (the exceptions are Arizona, Hawaii, and New Mexico) specify grounds for charter revocation, whether for cause, violation of law or charter terms, mismanagement, or failure to meet goals.

The Cutting Edge: Theory and Research

The state of research into the formation, institutional dynamics, and student performance outcomes of charter schools is wholly embryonic at this stage. The next few years should see the first wave of renewal-based assessments. Yet performance outcomes of limited charter schools, or schools-within-schools programs (as in Philadelphia), as well as of broader school-based management approaches, have rarely revealed highly robust gains.

Several researchers have made preliminary assessments of patterns of charter school autonomy and capacities for wide-ranging innovation (e.g., for the pioneering Minnesota and California schools, respectively, see Urahn and Stewart 1994, Dianda and Corwin 1994). Other research has examined national statutory and implementation trends (see GAO 1995; Bierlein and Mulholland 1994a, b). Highly preliminary findings have revealed, to this point, only marginal impacts of charter schools, in terms of overall enrollments or improvements in the performance of at-risk populations. Charter innovations have been largely incremental, restricted, or problematic in most states. Curriculum and instructional reforms, such as intensive staff development and multi-age groupings, have generally not gone beyond existing innovations under way in many traditional schools.

One likely reason for the lack of sustained, observable innovation is that wholesale decentralization and autonomy have been the exception, not the rule. Another is that newly localized teacher/parent administration and self-governance have proven enormously burdensome. Moreover, considerable resistance and nonsupport on the part of state and, especially, district officials have hampered start-ups. Particular problem areas have been a lack of adequate funding for transportation, facilities, and classroom materials, as well as for special education programs.

A critical limiting factor—especially pernicious and widespread—has been the tension between schools and districts. These strains have been evident in the variable and amorphous processes of charter approval, decision making, and control of personnel and funding. Union concerns and tensions over certification, salary, and tenure guarantees will likely continue as charter boards pursue separate negotiations and cost-cutting, although long-term concerns over staff morale and professional quality may need to be balanced against efficiency goals.

In sum, the direction and performance of charter programs need to be carefully assessed in the laboratory of state experimentation, before any conclusions can be drawn as to the broad promise, applicability, and appropriate design and conditions of successful charter models.

Pros and Cons

The Policy Corner: Implementation and Impacts

I. Accountability, Performance, and Equity

The first wave of charter renewal evaluations—and the ultimate measure of the charter school movement—will be based on the critical grounds of performance, innovation, and equity, as follows:

• Evidence of progress in student performance, as measured by traditional and nontraditional forms of assessment, broken down by demographic subgroup, to include at-risk, low-income, and minority student populations.
• Evidence of actual innovation in curriculum and instruction, including school specialization; intensive teacher/staff training; multi-age class groupings; and thematic, interdisciplinary, or newer cognitive approaches to teaching.
• Equity and heterogeneity measures, including statutory mandates of specified at-risk pupil enrollments, school criteria for student selection, and actual attendance rates, factors all related to the critical questions of meaningful school choice and accessibility, and of performance outcomes. These measures should indicate whether at-risk, disadvantaged, minority, and special education students are adequately served by new charter approvals.

II. School Formation, Autonomy, and Governance

Researchers and policymakers need to continuously monitor and evaluate the impact and patterns of charter school development in the areas of school formation, governance, and operation, as follows:

• Degrees of school-based autonomy (governance, waivers, personnel, etc.) from district authority, in terms of both statutory authorization and practical implementation.
• Nature of chartering authorities and overseers or sponsors.
• Characteristics of successful charter applications, as well as of school managers and organizers.
• Empowerment and involvement of key players at the school level, that is, teachers, parents, students.
• Input, attitudes, involvement, or resistance of external actors, that is, superintendents, school boards, teachers' unions.
• Funding patterns and formulas, with respect to per-pupil expenditures, funding sources (state or district), and effects on the surrounding district.
• Selection, oversight, and protections with respect to teachers and other personnel (standards, salaries, and tenure).

Key Issues

International Trends: Charter Parallels

Across the broad spectrum of recent decentralizing school reforms in various countries, the most relevant and far reaching have been instituted in New Zealand, England, and Alberta, Canada (emphasized here). More limited parallels to choice, school-based management, or charter efforts exist in Denmark, Australia, and the Netherlands.

This wave of reforms is striking precisely because it has spread across radically different educational contexts and traditions. The reforms range from incremental shifts in states with a history of decentralized control, to rapid and radical transformations of previously centralized systems, as in New Zealand.

New Zealand. Since 1989, in a rapid reversal of centralization, all schools are chartered as legally accountable to the local community and Minister of Education, governed jointly by teacher and staff representatives and parent-elected trustee boards. Budgetary control (except for teachers' pay) has devolved to schools, based on number of pupils, equity, and Maori language teaching. Open enrollment, transport subsidies, and community consultation are mandated. Community polarization, resulting from school overcrowding and competition, is a concern.

England. As of 1988, open enrollment, pupil-based funding, performance reports and inspections, school-based management, and central government grant-maintained secondary and specialized schools have been in place. Subsidies for private school fees, along with widespread parental choice, have been promoted.

Canada. The Edmonton Public School District in Alberta extended self-management to all schools in the early 1980s, using a needs-based allocation of resources based on pupil characteristics. The schools retain expenditure authority, as well as control over most aspects of school governance, subject only to a superintendent's oversight of school compliance with district regulations. Extensive localized school input, performance reviews, outside consultancy, and accountability are present.

Denmark. Central state funding through pupil enrollment subsidies of private “free” schools (11 percent of students), governed by parent boards with extensive autonomy. Concerns include variations in school quality and urban middle-class “creaming”; striking school diversity is present.

The Netherlands. Mandates universal access and choice within a centralized setting. Unique in equal centralized funding of public and private schools (most students attending the latter), based on pluralistic approaches to choice set in 1917. Recent trends reveal extensive school competition, with parental choice guided by school quality as well as sectarianism. A shift to municipal autonomy has recently been proposed. De facto flight from schools with increasing minority and foreign students has emerged.

Australia. Some trends toward public school charters and decentralization, choice, and competition in selected states only, notably Victoria. Australia has a bilevel system, with no district subdivisions. Central and state subsidies, directly given to all private schools, encourage diversity; public school quality and resource diversion are concerns.

Russia. A 1992 law calls for maximum decentralization, chartering, and accountability of each school in the country, granting equal public funding, unlimited budgetary control, and the right to seek outside sponsors and plan competitive or supplemental programs to each school. Russia has state-set norms and assessments.

References

Bierlein, L., and L. Mulholland. (1994a). Charter School Update: Expansion of a Viable Reform Initiative. Tempe, Ariz.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University.

Bierlein, L., and L. Mulholland. (1994b). Comparing Charter School Laws: The Question of Autonomy. Tempe, Ariz.: Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University.

B/W Associates. (1994). Redesigning Education: Supporting the Charter Schools Movement: Charter School Implementation Challenges. Discussion Paper #1. Berkeley, Calif.: Author.

Caldwell, B., and J. Spinks. (1992). Leading the Self-Managing School. London: Falmer Press.

Centre for Educational Research and Innovation. (1994). School: A Matter of Choice. Washington, D.C.: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Dianda, R., and Corwin, R. (1994). Vision and Reality: A First-Year Look at California's Charter Schools. Working Draft. Los Alamitos, Calif.: Southwest Regional Educational Laboratory.

Fine, M., ed. (1994).Chartering Urban School Reform. New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.

Kolderie, T. (1995). The Charter Idea in the 1995 Legislative Sessions. St. Paul, Minn.: Center for Policy Studies.

Sautter, R.C. (1993). Charter Schools: A New Breed of Public Schools. Oak Brook, Ill.: North Central Regional Educational Laboratory.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995). Charter Schools: New Model for Public Schools Provides Opportunities and Challenges. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Accounting Office, Health, Education, and Human Services Division.

Urahn, S., and Stewart, D. (1994). Minnesota Charter Schools. A Research Report. St. Paul: Minnesota House of Representatives, Research Department.

Wohlsetter, P., R. Wenning, and K. Briggs. (1995). Charter Schools in the United States: A Question of Autonomy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement.

Resources

Berman/Weiler Associates. 819 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, CA 94710, (510) 853-8574

Center for Education Reform. 1001 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 920, Washington, DC 20036, (202) 822-9000

Center for Policy Studies. 9 West Fourth Street, St. Paul, MN 55102, (612) 224-9703

The Center for School Change. The Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN 55455, (612) 626-1834

Center for the Preservation of Public Education. National Education Association, 1201 16th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20036, (202) 822-7446

Morrison Institute for Public Policy. School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4405, (602) 965-4525

National Association of Charter Schools, Inc. 2722 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 201, Lansing, MI 48912, (517) 772-9115

National Conference of State Legislatures. 1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 832-2200

Rand Corporation. P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90406-2138, (213) 393-0411

Regional Policy Information Center. North Central Regional Education Laboratory, 1900 Spring Road, Suite 300, Oak Brook, IL 60521-1480, (708) 571-4700