1703 North Beauregard St.
Alexandria, VA 22311-1714
Tel: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723)
8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. eastern time, Monday through Friday
Local to the D.C. area: 1-703-578-9600, press 2
Toll-free from U.S. and Canada: 1-800-933-ASCD (2723), press 2
All other countries: (International Access Code) + 1-703-578-9600, press 2
January 1998 | Number 12
Charter Schools and Public Education
Erik W. Robelen
The dramatic growth of the charter school movement in the United States has quickly placed this new brand of school reform prominently on the public education map. There are now nearly 800 public charter schools, more than triple the number that existed just two years ago. If the Clinton administration has its way, there will be 3,000 by the year 2002. Federal seed money for charters has increased exponentially, climbing to $80 million for fiscal year 1998. Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have approved legislation allowing the creation of charter schools, and other states will consider bills this year.
The movement has fostered strange bedfellows, with supporters spanning the political and ideological spectrum. Proponents may not share an identical vision for charter schools, but they appear to have found some common ground. They see charters creating a viable form of school choice; they are excited about the prospects for innovation in public schools exempt from many regulatory controls and union rules; and they are encouraged by the unmistakable energy and enthusiasm of charter school “pioneers.” Supporters also share a fundamental bottom line: Schools should be held accountable for their performance, encouraged if they succeed, shut down if they fail.
But the road to school reform is littered with abandoned bandwagons. And the charter school movement has met with considerable controversy in the public school community. Skepticism, or sometimes outright hostility, toward charter schools from local unions, school boards, and administrators is still a common phenomenon. After all, the autonomy of charter schools represents a dramatic shift in the power structure of public education. Many argue that charters drain money from other public schools. And skeptics stress that the verdict is still out on their effectiveness in terms of student performance.
Much of the focus has been on whether charter schools are succeeding with students, surely the most pressing question to the movement's viability. But ultimately, a healthy dose of realism is essential in the charter school dialogue. These schools enroll roughly 170,000 of the nation's 52 million students, a small proportion. Even under President Clinton's bold plan for 3,000 charter schools, they would serve only 1–2 percent of the student population. As the debate further unfolds, decision makers must explore some critical questions:
Defining charter schools is no easy task. They are many things to many people, and state charter laws vary widely in establishing a process for approving and operating the schools. But most charter schools share some fundamental characteristics. They are all public schools. They receive public funds and have open enrollment. Charter schools are typically given significant autonomy and are granted waivers from many regulations in exchange for a high degree of accountability. This arrangement is established through a charter, or contract, between the school and either a local school board or a state-sanctioned board. Some charter schools are traditional schools that convert; others are created from scratch.
Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute, argues that while there are “enormous differences found among charter schools in almost every conceivable way,” in one critical way they are all the same. “All must show improved student performance on standardized tests and other measures, or they will be closed,” Nathan says. “This is called accountability. It is missing from today's public education in almost every state” (1996).
The diversity of charter schools nationwide is demonstrated through a host of approaches to operations, programs, and curriculums. Some of the schools, for example, embrace a back-to-basics curriculum. Others have integrated community service into the education experience, or created a dramatically different learning environment where instructor-led classrooms are abolished in favor of an approach that allows teachers to become “learning facilitators.” Some seek to model themselves as democratic institutions, where parents, teachers, students, and the community have a real voice in school decision making.
Charter proponents are as diverse as the schools themselves. President Clinton and GOP leaders in Congress are strong supporters. Conservative and progressive activists have found reasons to rally around the idea. And state laws have typically won support from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many proponents are encouraged by this diversity and argue that charter legislation could never succeed without bipartisan support. Nathan suggests that any “large movement for change” is necessarily diverse. “I'm not surprised by the wide range of people [advocating charters]; I'm frankly pleased,” he says.
Suspicion about the diversity, however, remains widespread. National Education Association (NEA) President Bob Chase says the union “is concerned that the charter movement may be attracting some whose intent is not necessarily focused on creating quality schools. Certain sectors of Wall Street have begun to make public their strategies for making huge profits from public school operations, including charter schools” (1997). Alex Molnar, a professor of education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a charter opponent, questions the motives of some in the movement. “For the [free-market] zealots and profiteers, charter schools are as much a vehicle for breaking up teachers unions and lowering wages as an education reform strategy” (1996).
Some free-market advocates also express concerns, particularly with the embrace of charters by President Clinton and union groups. “When a reform that rocks boats becomes a fad that everyone appears to endorse, one must ask whether it has retained its essence,” write Gregg Vanourek, Bruno Manno, and Chester Finn, who have done extensive research on charters for the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. “Does the president insist on fully independent public schools that are free to innovate, to shape their own destinies, and to direct their own resources? Or will he, like his political supporters at the National Education Association and elsewhere in the public school `establishment,' favor near-clones of conventional schools that must obey most of the usual rules even while waving the `charter' banner?” (1997).
Clearly, there is no consensus on the goals of the charter school movement. Although any categorization is inevitably reductive, a few distinct, but related, threads emerge to explain what various proponents believe charter schools can achieve for public education overall:
Not all charter advocates embrace each element. But these broad categories provide a useful framework for understanding the implications charter schools may have for public education.
Creating new public school options has been a rallying cry for charter school supporters. “We see charter schools as an opportunity to really promote school choice within the public sector,” says Gerald Tirozzi, the Department of Education's assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education. They give “parents and students the right to pick and choose among different types of models.” Proponents argue that increased choice, especially among small schools that can cater to more specialized needs, benefits the U.S. public education system. Of course, there are still relatively few charter schools, and many have waiting lists. But the movement is growing rapidly, and clearly the options are increasing in certain places—particularly states such as Arizona, California, and Michigan, which together contain roughly half of the nation's charter schools.
What school choice means for public education overall is not exactly clear. Tony Wagner, president of the Institute for Responsive Education, a nonpartisan think tank, warns that greater choice may not translate into better schools. In many communities, school choice “is not unlike the choice between major competitors in the soft drink industry. We have a choice between Coke and Pepsi, but neither one is particularly good for us” (1996). Some observers point out that charter schools may be seen as an escape valve from traditional public schools, not as an engine for reforming the whole system. Arnold Fege, former government relations director for the National PTA, worries that charter schools cater to this mind set, and are more about “trying to keep disgruntled parents in the school system” than improving public education. Tom Pickrell, legal counsel to the Arizona School Boards Association, says that in some places, families see charters as a way to “avoid the cost of private tuition while politically taking control of a school.”
Another belief of many charter advocates is that these schools will serve as models for change—laboratories where innovative ideas can be explored. In some cases, this may be working. In Arizona, Karen Butterfield, the 1993 Arizona Teacher of the Year, is hoping her new charter school's innovations and unique resources (the campus is at the Museum of Northern Arizona) can be shared with other schools. Soon after the school opened, she invited school board members from the district to visit. Although she says there have been tensions with the school district—in fact, the district originally rejected her charter application, forcing her to seek approval from a state board instead—she has been attempting to forge a positive relationship. Butterfield is working now with the district to develop a formal agreement that will help ensure the sharing of resources and new ideas. “The teachers are doing some very innovative things” that others might benefit from, she says.
The Hudson Institute researchers cite innovations at the San Carlos Learning Center, California's first charter school, as an example of the labortatory concept in action. “Their innovations have had powerful ripple effects in three areas: curriculum, personnel practices, and organizational culture.” The charter school instituted personalized learning plans, thematic instructional units, multi-age classrooms, and technology-based instruction, approaches other schools in the San Carlos School District are now adopting. The Hudson Institute study quotes the district superintendent as saying, “No doubt about it. The charter school was the spark for much of the instructional innovation that has gone on in the district in the last two years.” Other innovations pursued by the charter school encouraged the district to transform its hiring practices and made the district more entrepreneurial. The superintendent says, “The innovations undertaken by the charter school are like viral infections in the body of the district. They're spreading themselves around” (1997).
Some researchers, however, argue that such examples are infrequent and that the “charters as a laboratory” notion is flawed. It presupposes a healthy relationship and high level of communication between charters and other district schools that in reality is rare, these observers maintain. Eric Rofes, a doctoral student at the University of California at Berkeley, is conducting research on the impact of charters on other public schools, and has visited eight states and the District of Columbia, interviewing superintendents, principals, and teachers. “Overall, my research is telling me that charters are having little or no impact” on other public schools, Rofes says. He argues that the hope that charters would be laboratories has seldom materialized, that their numbers are too few, and communication with other schools is often lacking. Rofes points out that in many cases, the principal of a charter school has not even met the principals of traditional schools in the district.
Amy Stuart Wells, a professor of educational policy at the University of California at Los Angeles, has come to a similar conclusion. She is involved with a study that is looking at charter schools in 10 California school districts—urban, rural, and suburban—with the focus in part on the interaction with regular public schools. She argues that one key problem is hostility. “The relationships between the charters and the regular public schools are [often] so antagonistic” that the chances for learning are “nearly impossible,” she says. “The whole environment where you would have learning going on—it's not really there.”
Some argue that there needs to be more emphasis on finding concrete ways to ensure that innovations do not occur in a vacuum. NEA is one of several groups taking part in so-called “cross-fertilization” demonstration projects funded by the Department of Education. Robert McClure, co-director of NEA's Charter Schools Initiative, says project coordinators have already developed a few concrete ideas of how this might happen: 1) determine what unions can do to better disseminate information gleaned from charter experiments; 2) get charter teachers and operators more involved in professional development activities in the school district, so that innovative programs and approaches can be adapted for other schools; and 3) make charters into professional development adjuncts for teaching universities. McClure says NEA will eventually take the information learned from the project and create “real, hands-on, how-to-do-it manuals.”
Meanwhile, federal charter legislation, which passed in the U.S. House of Representatives in November 1997 and which the Senate will take up shortly, includes a provision that would prompt states to ensure that best-management practices from charter schools are disseminated more widely. This is already beginning to happen in some places. Massachusetts, for example, amended its charter law this summer to encourage the sharing of best-management practices.
Charter proponents often cite competition as a powerful means by which the schools will affect public education, as market forces compel reluctant school districts to respond. Nathan argues that competition is critical. “When school districts know they cannot take students and money for granted, they have turned to teachers to create new and more effective programs,” he writes. School districts respond to charter schools, “whether existing or proposed, by reexamining and trying to improve what happens in the traditional public schools” (1996). James Goenner, president of the Michigan Association of Public School Academies, a coalition of charter schools, says charters are a “vehicle for infusing competition and market forces into public education, a proven method for responsive change and improvement. In Michigan, this means improving education for all 1.8 million school children” (1996).
Proponents offer many examples to illustrate what this new pressure can accomplish. A popular case Nathan and others have cited is the decision by Boston's school district and local union to create a “within-district” chartering policy for “pilot” schools that win waivers from district and union rules. The final approval for this policy came months after the state passed its charter school law, and many believe the state charter movement helped build the impetus for these pilot schools. William Windler, a senior consultant to the Colorado Department of Education, argues that there are numerous examples where “a new level of competition has spurred districts to develop more attractive qualities.” He says, for instance, that in response to the charter movement in Colorado, the Boulder Valley School District has developed “focus schools” that “have a special identity created as a result of an application process similar to that for charter schools,” and a handful of such schools have since been created (1996).
Not everyone agrees, however, that competition is beneficial for education. “I don't see the threat factor as a good long-term strategy,” says Michael Resnick, associate executive director of the National School Boards Association. “Premising the success of a school on competition” is troubling, he argues. “Teachers . . . don't see their students as vehicles for competing with other teachers in other schools.” Robert Murphy, government relations director for the Connecticut Education Association, says, “The competition argument is one that accepts that there are winners and losers.” NEA's McClure suggests that the rhetoric of competition is oblivious to the reality of schools, that competition is not the business teachers and principals see themselves in. “They think about helping [all] the kids that show up at their doorstep.” Competition “is not anything that permeates the culture at all” in most schools, McClure says.
Alex Molnar also rejects the notion that competition is the cure for public education's ills. “Unfortunately, how competition will result in better teaching and more learning is never specified,” Molnar says. “The assumptions are that educators have grown fat and complacent in the warm embrace of a government monopoly and that a threat to their now-secure futures will force them to figure out how to do better.” Molnar warns that applying market forces to education is ill-conceived, citing as an example proponents' argument that if a charter fails, it should shut down. “An educational `market' does not punish the people who set up a school the way a financial market punishes investors. . . .” When a school is closed, he says, the students whose education is disrupted are punished, as are the taxpayers and other district students who lose education money (1996).
Finally, the changes that a “market system” approach to education bring may not always be what proponents had in mind. In Arizona, a local school district took out advertisements in the media to entice parents to keep children from leaving the school system. This “market-based” response certainly suggests that the district takes seriously the threat from charter schools, but many educators may be troubled by an approach that focuses more on public relations than substance.
Ted Kolderie, a senior associate at the Center for Policy Studies and a long-time charter advocate, argues that charters go beyond other education alternatives that have arisen in recent decades, that they represent a profound and fundamental shift of power in local school districts. Governors and legislators encounter “big political risks” in passing charter laws, he says. “Nobody's going to do this just to create a few model schools. . . . This is systemic change.” The schools are discrete legal entities, the districts do not own them or run them, and the teachers belong to the school, not the district. Charter laws remove the “exclusive franchise” of districts over public education, Kolderie says, “creating [a] non-district sector of public education.”
Kolderie maintains that the key is to offer school districts an incentive, not just the opportunity, to approve charters by allowing other public bodies similar authority. He points out that the vast majority of charter schools reside in states where a public body other than the district also has the authority to approve them.
Charter advocates often point to an article by Randy Quinn, executive director of the Colorado Association of School Boards, that articulates the fundamental change which occurs under a chartering arrangement. Although not a proponent of the Colorado law, Quinn describes the new role and possibilities it opens. “Schools granted charter status will, at least in large measure, become self-governing,” he says. “Many of the decisions traditionally made by school boards at the district level will be made at the charter school site by another governance entity.” This forces the school board to re-examine its role, Quinn says. “Rather than serving as provider, the board has an opportunity to become the purchaser of education services on behalf of the citizens of the community served by the board” (1993).
Whether charters succeed in institutionalizing change on this broad, systemic level remains to be seen. The many obstacles to starting a charter—winning approval, securing adequate funding and facilities—can make the task daunting. Jim Griffin, executive director of the Colorado League of Charter Schools, says that in several cases in Colorado, districts fearing the loss of control and funding from a proposed charter have dissuaded applicants by promising to create an alternative school within the district system. On one level, this responsiveness is encouraging and represents a profound change in district behavior. But in some cases this responsiveness may actually curtail systemic reform as change is kept within the system.
To some long-time school reform advocates, charters are viewed as part of a continuum of change. Ted Sizer, a pioneer of school reform who is chairman of the Coalition of Essential Schools and a founding member of the Francis W. Parker Charter Essential School in Devens, Massachusetts, says the charter movement is reminiscent in some ways of progressive school reform efforts that began in the 1960s. Some charter schools are similar to the so-called “upstart,” experimental schools in the Coalition. He describes these upstarts as “feisty new schools that tend to be small, often focused on a particular population, usually at the political margins of the district.” While cautious in his estimation of the charter movement, Sizer says charter laws have “great potential” to “legitimize” fundamental changes to education and “reduce the pressures for conformity” that schools face. The charter movement “might help bring upstart schools into the mainstream,” Sizer suggests. Rexford Brown, a former policy analyst at the Education Commission of the States who now runs PS1 charter school in Denver, Colorado, views charters as “part of the trend” of alternatives to traditional schooling. “I don't see us as some absolutely unique thing,” he says. While saying charters could lead to “radical decentralization,” he cautions that larger forces are probably needed to propel any wholesale transformation of education. “Major educational change has historically been driven by major social and economic changes,” Brown says.
Any discussion of the effect charter schools have on public education must keep in mind that the movement is still quite young (the majority of schools are less than two years old) and it is premature to expect dramatic changes. At this point, the charter movement may be more consequential for its impact on the political debate—dousing the fire of those advocating that publicly funded vouchers should be made available for private and parochial schools.
Much of the research on charters is only now getting under way, and the most fundamental issue of whether charter schools are really improving education for students is unknown. Nonetheless, the movement grows every year. Politically, outright opposition is abating, as unions and school boards are beginning to shift their focus to shaping, rather than blocking, charter laws and charter schools. It is understandable that charter operators may lose sight of the bigger picture, as they struggle with all the challenges in starting and running a school. But for policy makers, a paramount concern should be to establish a sound and realistic vision for how these schools, and the ideas they represent, can influence and shape public education for all students.
Number of charter schools in operation.*
Number of students attending charter schools.*
Number of school-age students in the United States.
Number of states with charter laws, plus the District of Columbia.
The following data, collected in 1996, are based on the first-year report of the National Study of Charter Schools, commissioned by the Department of Education:
*Approximate numbers calculated by the Center for Education Reform, as of September 1997.
Are charter schools serving a diverse student population, reaching out to at-risk students, and adequately accommodating children with special needs? Early indications suggest charter schools meet the equity challenge on many fronts but encounter difficulties when it comes to special education.
The schools are legally bound to comply with all federal and state civil rights and special education laws. First-year results from the Department of Education's National Study of Charter Schools reveal that the racial composition of students enrolled in charter schools is about the same as statewide averages (see A Snapshot of Charter Schools, p. 2). The percentage of low-income students served is also comparable to public schools.
In fact, many of the schools specifically target at-risk students. City Academy Charter School in St. Paul, Minnesota, serves a majority of families that “live at or below the poverty line” (1996). Rev. Ellis Smith, founder of the Colin Powell Academy in Detroit, says his schools serves children in one of the city's poorest communities. Eugene Caine, principal of the Michigan Public School Academy in Lansing, Michigan, says, “I've heard this crazy notion that we're elitist, but if people come to visit us, they'll see that 50 percent” of students receive subsidized breakfast and lunch.
Some recent research suggests that achieving special education equity may be more problematic. Joseph McKinney, associate professor at Ball State University, conducted a study on special education in Arizona charter schools. “The evidence from Arizona and nationwide demonstrates that children with disabilities do not have equal access to charter schools,” McKinney says. “Charter school operators are avoiding potentially high-cost students rather than serving them, and charter school operators are unaware of and unprepared to meet their responsibilities regarding children with disabilities” (1996). The National Study finds that charter schools tend to serve a “slightly lower proportion” of students with disabilities, except in Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have approved charter school laws. Every law is different, and the implications for public education vary tremendously depending on the state. “The specific provisions in each law help determine how many charter schools actually will open and how independent they actually will be,” according to the Center for Education Reform (Dale and DeSchryver 1997).
In states such as Arizona, charter schools are granted maximum autonomy and are considered legally independent entities with a blanket waiver from district and state regulations. Other states, such as Greorgia, have more restrictive laws, and only allow existing public schools to convert to charter status. In some cases, the schools are considered part of the school district, granted less freedom over budgets and personnel than charters in other states (Education Commission of the States 1997).
One of the most controversial questions that arises in state legislative debates is: Who should have authority to approve charters? In Arizona, there are three eligible chartering bodies: local school board, the state board of education, and the state board for charter schools. The state has more charters than any other, totaling 166 (Dale and DeSchryver 1997). Staunch charter advocates argue that it is essential that a body beside the school board also have chartering authority, because many school boards are reluctant to invite competition. Pennsylvania has taken a more moderate approach. Only the school board can approve a charter, but beginning in 1999, denied charter applicants may appeal to a state board for reconsideration.
Rhode island has one of the more restrictive laws, as it does not grant an automatic waiver of most rules and regulations, and gives local unions veto power over salary and benefits for teachers. Joe Nathan argues that the net result of “restrictive” laws in Rhode Island and several other states—including Georgia, Kansas, and New Mexico— is “no charter schools or just a handful of charter schools. . . .” (1996).
Idaho, Maine, Utah and Missouri all have task forces studying charter laws, and are likely to have legislation proposed in 1998, says Eric Hirsch, an education policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. Other states where action could occur are Oklahoma— where a charter bill failed by one vote in the House of Representatives—Washington, Oregon, Virginia, Tennessee and Alabama, Hirsch says.
Some states will likely tinker with their existing laws this year. Good candidates for charter amendments include Colorado, Georgia, California, Michigan, and Minnesota, Hirsch says. Typical amendments include refinement in the number of charter schools permitted, and changes to provide start-up funding and interest-free loans.
A Study of Charter Schools: First Year Report. (May 1997). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Bierlein, Louann A., Chester E. Finn, Jr., Bruno V. Manno, and Gregg Vanourek. (July 1997). “The Educational Impact of Charter Schools.” (Part V). Charter Schools In Action: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute.
Chase, Robert. President of the National Education Association. Testimony before the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families, Committee on Education and the Workforce, U.S. House of Representatives. Sept. 16, 1997.
Cutter, Milo (1996). “City Academy.” Phi Delta Kappan 78, 1: 26–27.
Dale, Angela, and DeSchryver, Dave. (1997). The Charter School Workbook: Your Roadmap to the Charter School Movement. Washington, D.C.: The Center for Education Reform.
Goenner, James N. (September 1996). “Charter Schools: The Revitalization of Public Education.” Phi Delta Kappan 78, 1: 32–36.
McKinney, Joseph R. (October 1996). “Charter Schools: A New Barrier for Children with Disabilities.” Educational Leadership 54, 2: 22–25.
Molnar, Alex. (October 1996). “Charter Schools: The Smiling Face of Disinvestment.” Educational Leadership 54, 2: 9–15.
Nathan, Joe. (1996). Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Quinn, Randy. (August 1993). “Charter Schools: Now What?” Colorado Association of School Boards Agenda.
The Charter School Roadmap. (1997). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States and National Conference of State Legislatures.
Vanourek, Gregg, Bruno V. Manno, and Chester E. Finn. (April 30, 1997). “The False Friends of Charter Schools.” Education Week.
Wagner, Tony. (September 1996). “School Choice: To What End?” Phi Delta Kappan 78, 1: 70–71.
Windler, William. (September 1996). “Colorado's Charter Schools: A Spark for Change and a Catalyst for Reform.” Phi Delta Kappan 78, 1: 66–69.
ASCD. Enter the ASCD Web site at http://www.ascd.org for more information on education policy issues.
U.S. Department of Education. Charter Schools Office, 600 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20202-6510, Phone: (202) 260-2671; Web site: http://ed.gov/ U.S. Charter Schools Web site: http://www.uscharterschools.org/
Center for Education Reform. 1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW - Suite 204, Washington, DC 20036, Phone: (202) 822-9000; Web site: http://edreform.com/
Center for School Change. Joe Nathan, Director, Humphrey Institute for Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, 301 19th Avenue S., Minneapolis, MN 55455, Phone: (612) 626-1834
National Education Association. Charter Schools Initiative, 1201 16th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-3290, Phone: (202) 833-4000
National Conference of State Legislatures. 1560 Broadway, Suite 700, Denver, CO 80202, Phone: (303) 830-2200 Web site: http://www.ncsl.org/
Copyright © 1998 by Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development
Subscribe to ASCD Express, our twice-monthly e-mail newsletter, to have practical, actionable strategies and information delivered to your e-mail inbox twice a month.
ASCD respects intellectual property rights and adheres to the laws governing them. Learn more about our permissions policy and submit your request online.