Charter schools are not the light version of conventional public schools

While we hail charter schools as a promising reform, the creation of these publicly funded but (mostly) independent schools remains one of the fiercest battlegrounds in American education. However, since many states have statutes authorizing such schools, the fight is no longer about whether there should be any. The front line in the battle has shifted to whether these schools will be free to demonstrate the power of this idea.

In short, they are different types of public schools. In other words, charter schools are not the scaled-down version of conventional public schools.

That’s why, while we’ve seen a number of outstanding and imaginative educational programs in California’s charter schools, only a handful of them have gained control of their budgets and staff. That’s why pent-up demand for charter schools in the Golden State far outstrips supply. And that’s why California’s charter school program, while the second oldest in the country (after Minnesota), is generally viewed by education reformers as a considerably lesser demonstration of the potential of this strategy.

Although such restrictions do not make it impossible to run a good school, they certainly make it more difficult.

Most elementary schools prefer to hire certified teachers when they can, but the freedom to broaden your search is crucial to the flexibility of your staff. In our sample, nine percent of charter teachers came from private and home schools and ten percent from outside the conventional teaching ranks, including people with doctorates and college experience.

District micromanagement is precisely what charter schools most need to rid themselves of. A large charter school is, in effect, a one-school district. Some are existing public schools that break away from the “system,” converting to charter status; others are new institutions founded by teachers, parents, or community groups.

What makes primary schools such a promising education reform strategy is that, at least those that achieve true autonomy, they are accountable for results rather than following the rules. Therefore, the public authorities retain the last word on these new-style public schools, which are free and open to all who wish to enroll. But charter schools are cut off from day-to-day bureaucratic oversight and are encouraged to be different. Thus, some emphasize “basic knowledge” while others emphasize “experiential education.” No one, however, is required to register. Students choose to come, which means charter schools are also accountable to their customers. If a school cannot attract enough students, it must close.

Yet nearly every charter school in the country has more families wanting to enroll their children than they can accommodate. And contrary to critics’ claims, these schools are not sought out by privileged children, but by families less served by mainstream schools.

Far from “creaming,” as critics allege, it’s more accurate to say that charter schools are dealing with a lot of “skim milk” that the regular dairy can’t or won’t handle. Yet despite this early evidence of their responsiveness to some of the nation’s most needy children, elementary schools still have persistent enemies within the educational establishment, individuals and groups who have worked quite successfully to keep few and weak charter schools: limiting their number, limiting their autonomy and limiting their funds.

That’s why, again contrary to critics’ claims, most charter school laws still make it difficult to launch viable schools. And for those schools that do launch, far from being given a lot of public dollars to do what they want with little or no accountability, charter schools in most states are burdened by a myriad of rules and procedures.

In addition to bringing schools to a standstill, such terms can sour relationships. It all comes down to a question of control. That’s the problem with all school boards.

However, those schools that can keep their money and wrest real autonomy from the powers that be can be dazzling in the uses they make of this opportunity. California contains several charter schools that have been free to innovate, respond to children’s needs, and become more efficient.

We still don’t know for sure if charter school students are learning more. But we know from sitting in many classrooms and interviewing hundreds of students, parents, and teachers that these schools emphasize learning because they know they will lose their charter if their students fail. They meet parents’ demands for safety, order, basic skills, and dedicated teachers. They are mostly small schools where people meet face to face, schools with clear missions and distinctive philosophies, schools full of adults and children who want to be there. Not a bad recipe for educational success.

By offering popular alternatives to the status quo, charter schools draw attention to how poorly they serve many students. By attracting needy children, appreciative parents and excellent teachers, these schools indicate that, in fact, one size does not fit all. And by redefining what America means by “public education,” charter schools offer a model of accountability that older schools will someday find hard to avoid.

In addition to their potential for good, charter schools are a subversive influence that can do great damage to the status quo.

However, in the face of relentless onslaught from forces that find such an alternative alarming, it is far from clear that the charter school movement will be allowed to grow and become strong enough to demonstrate its full potential.