Policy and practice
As more states start charter schools, there is
increasing speculation about upcoming legislation. In an
innovation-diffusion study surveying education policy experts in
fifty states, Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari (1997) found that
charter legislation is more likely considered in states with poor
test scores, Republican legislative control, and proximity to other
states with charter schools. Legislative enthusiasm, gubernatorial
support, interactions with national authorities, and use of
permissive charter-law models increase the chances for adopting what
they consider stronger laws. He feels union support and restrictive
models lead to adoption of what he considers weaker laws.
The threat of vouchers, wavering support for
public education, and bipartisan support for charters has led some
unions to start charters themselves. Several
AFT chapters, such as those in Houston and Dallas, have
themselves started charters. The
National Education Association has allocated $1.5 million to
help members start charter schools. Charters offer teachers a brand
of empowerment, employee ownership, and governance that might be
enhanced by union assistance (Nathan).
Over two dozen private management companies are
scrambling to increase their 10 percent share of a "more hospitable
and entrepreneurial market" (Stecklow 1997). Boston-based
Advantage Schools Inc., a corporation specializing in
for-profit schooling, has contracted to run charter schools in
New Jersey, Arizona, and North Carolina. The
Education Development Corporation was planning in the summer of
1997 to manage nine nonsectarian charter schools in
Michigan, using cost-effective measures employed in
Christian schools.
Professor Frank Smith, of
Teachers College, Columbia University, sees the charter-school
movement as a chance to involve entire communities in redesigning
all schools and converting them to "client-centered, learning
cultures" (1997). He favors the Advocacy Center Design process used
by state-appointed Superintendent Laval Wilson to transform four
failing New Jersey schools. Building stronger communities via newly
designed institutions may prove more productive than charters'
typical "free-the-teacher-and-parent" approach.
President Bush's
No Child Left Behind Act also promotes charter schools. It is as
yet unclear whether recent test results will affect the enacting of
future legislation. A Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create
charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that
"Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and
administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school
personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of
staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and
that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced
managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater
resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings."
Charter school
popularity
Some members of the public are dissatisfied with
educational quality and school district
bureaucracies.[23].
Today's charter-school initiatives are rooted in the educational
reforms of the
1980s and
1990s, from state mandates to improve instruction, to
school-based management, school restructuring, and
private/public-choice initiatives.
The charter approach uses market principles while
insisting that schools be nonsectarian and democratic. Many people,
such as former President
Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their emphasis on
autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and
an alternative to
vouchers. Others, such as President
George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools
without antagonizing the
teachers union. Bush has made charter schools a major part of
his
No Child Left Behind Act. A recent report by the
AFT, a noted charter-school opponent, has shown charter schools
not faring as well as public schools on state administered
standardized testing[24],
though the report has been heavily criticized.[25][26]
Other charter school opponents have examined the competing claims
and suggest that most students in charter schools perform the same
or worse than their traditional public school counterparts on
standardized tests.[27]
Criticism of charter
schools
The basic concept of charter schools is that they
exercise increased autonomy in return for greater accountability.
They are accountable for both academic results and
fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that
grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds
them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to
meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can
be difficult, divisive and controversial. One example was the 2003
revocation of the charter for a school called Urban Pioneer in the
San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under
scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing.[28]
An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray[29]
and posted the lowest
[30] test scores of any school in the district except
those serving entirely non-English-speakers. It was also accused of
academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required
credits.[28]
In addition, even greater concerns arise when, as
in Michigan, many charter schools are run for profit. Many educators
worry that education will suffer when funding is split between
profit and educational spending, rather than going completely toward
teaching as is done in traditional public schools. Studies have
already shown many instances of charter schools cutting programs or
refusing to educate students with special needs so as to maintain
profitability.[31]
Charter schools in Michigan, where for-profit charters are common,
but per-pupil funding is significantly lower than at traditional
public schools, have performed at a lower level than their
traditional public school counterparts.[32] |