Charter Schools: Ten Years Old and Still Growing?

A Forum — February 14, 2003

Background

Charter schools are non-sectarian public schools funded by the state that function with greater freedom than traditional public schools. The leaders of a charter school are legally accountable to the state and the public to adhere to academic and fiscal standards while they pursue the specific goals laid out in their school’s charter. In return for this accountability they are granted considerable autonomy to pursue innovative educational strategies. There are now 2,700 charter schools nationwide with more than 700,000 students enrolled. Seventy-five percent of charter schools have waiting lists. The decade-long charter school movement has generated a growing body of research and both political enemies and supporters. At this forum, two leading experts on charter schools shared their research and assessed both the opportunities and obstacles facing these schools and the charter school movement.

Forum Summary

Bruno Manno, co-author of Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public Education and senior fellow at the Annie E. Casey Foundation, addressed what he called “the good, the bad, and the ugly, with an emphasis on the ugly” of charter schools. According to Manno, there has been significant growth in the charter school movement over the last decade; however, there have been and continue to be serious opponents to the charter movement and there are some indications that the movement itself is in trouble. Initially, opponents sought to limit the movement by preventing passage of charter laws and by limiting the number of charter schools and the funding available to them. Some of this opposition was successful.

Recent opposition has taken the form of a multi-front war in which individuals and groups, such as state policymakers, local school districts, and special interest groups have put up obstacles in the way of charter school success. In some cases, charter schools have been their own worst enemy, said Manno, for instance, when they have been managed by operators who are interested in making a “quick buck” or by people who do not have adequate preparation to operate a school. There are, however, a variety of ways in which the charter movement has started to police itself, for example, by making sure that authorizers are more responsible for oversight duties. Additionally, in recent years, there have been efforts to focus more on the quality of education provided in charter schools. There have also been efforts to think through what would be involved over the long term in scaling up the charter school movement.

Andrew Rotherham, director of the 21st Century Schools Project at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a think tank that is working to develop public policy that overhauls the industrial-era, factory model of American public education and redefine it through a system that is premised on universal access, choice and competition, common academic standards, and accountability for results, spoke about PPI’s support for the charter school movement.

Charter schools offer the public choice. First, it is impossible to look at the social landscape over the last fifteen years and not see that the public, particularly parents with children in low-performing urban schools, want a choice about the education of their children. Policymakers must respond to this demand, said Rotherham. Second, charters offer a way to customize education while holding high expectations for all students to address the achievement gap. However, high standards do not necessarily imply standardization. While setting academic expectations for all children, policymakers must recognize that different children need different things to achieve. Third, charter schools protect the public's interest in education through public accountability. Vouchers, on the other hand, move us away from accountability to the public. Fourth, a market-based approach to education in which parents can choose the school their children attend can create a healthy competitive pressure on traditional schools. Finally, if we are serious about improving low-performing schools, continued Rotherham, we need to think seriously about expanding the educational options that are available to children caught in low-performing schools.

Rotherham praised some states’ charter school laws for the support they give to charters and he criticized other states’ laws for being too restrictive and inhibiting the development of charter schools. On the other hand, he argued that some states’ laws are not appropriately structured to ensure that charters provide their students with a quality education by ensuring accountability for operations and performance. He also warned that some charter school advocates may have promised too much and delivered too little. To be a charter does not guarantee success; these schools, like any other school, if they are to be successful, need resources, leadership, and so forth. Rotherham observed that the charter school movement has brought together an incredibly diverse group; however, this diversity can be problematic because there is no one organized interest group to mobilize against charter school opponents.

Rotherham offered recommendations for how policymakers and others can support the future development of the charter school movement. There is a need for a national organization that facilitates communication, disseminates information, and polices charter schools. In some states, charter school laws need to be modified to allow multiple charter authorizers. Currently, some state charter laws make it too easy for opponents, such as local school boards, to block charters from opening. Caps on the number of charter schools allowed should be dropped; demand alone should serve as a cap. Charters need help in acquiring school facilities. This is a serious problem for many charter schools and often opponents stymie charter operators by making it difficult for them to get the necessary facilities. Policymakers should be wary of policies supporting choice without accountability as most voucher proposals do. By raising the idea of vouchers once again as a major policy thrust, the President's budget has potentially hurt charters by conflating the two issues. More federal money should be directed to states that have strong charter laws, Rotherham concluded.

American Youth Policy Forum   1836 Jefferson Place NW,  Washington DC 20036
Telephone 202-775-9731      |      Fax 202-775-9733      |     Email aypf@aypf.org