CHARTER SCHOOLS: PAST, PRESENT, & FUTURE

David W. Kirkpatrick
Septemer 2000

Charter Schools in Action by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Bruno V Manno, Gregg Variourek Princeton University Press. pp- $28, 2000 Suggested Retail Price, $27.95

Writing anything definitive about charter schools is one of the most daunting tasks in education today because the movement is so new and rapidly evolving. From no schools in 1991, to one in 1992, to 1700 in 1999-2000, to perhaps 2000 this school year, the truth defies attempts to keep up? As these authors say, "The charter scene is too dynamic for any account to be definitive for long."

Yet attempts must be made, and some judgments are tentatively possible. The first school, in St. Paul. Minnesota is still operating. It, and many others, have now effectively been in existence long enough that their Initial five-year contracts have been renewed? Most of the states, some 36, plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, have charter school laws so their relative strengths and weaknesses are becoming apparent. A history of charter school laws, by state, is provided. They also observe that charter schools, or something similar, are to be found in many nations, not only ones with a common heritage -the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand - but others such as Chile and Pakistan.

In New Zealand, for instance, in 1989 local school boards were abolished and all of the nation's more than 2,000 public schools were converted to charter?like status. More recently, that nation has gone further and begun to "block fund" some schools, which gives them greater control of budgets and personnel. Fourteen percent of New Zealand's schools are now so funded.

While many studies have been conducted to date, including ongoing studies such as the annual ones produced by the U.S. Department of Education, few of these match the longitudinal In-depth review contained in Charter Schools Over a period of three-and-a-half years they visited about 100 charter schools in a dozen states, interviewed hundreds of individuals and surveyed thousands more. The authors simplify their report for the casual reader by suggesting upfront which chapters would be of most interest to parents, educators or policymakers respectively This reviewer suggests you read the entire volume, perhaps skimming some parts according to your own interests, but skipping none.

Finn, Manna. and Vanourek not only study charter schools, but they also focus attention on their enemies, like the teacher's unions. The two major teacher unions, the National Education Association (NF-A) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), have actively opposed the creation of charter schools. Their opposition has slightly ameliorated as have beenlaws passed despite their best efforts. Now they attempt to modify and weaken them to their liking rather than defeat them entirely.

The irony of this, as the authors note, is the phrase "charter schools" was perhaps first used by the late Albert Shanker. then president of the AFT in a 1988 speech before the National Press Club in Washington where he went on to add, "It is necessary to develop schools to reach the up to 80 percent of our youngsters who are falling in one way or another in the current system," and "it's time to question or justify every assumption we have had about schooling for the last 150 years ...This is.. likely to produce some very new models."

The author's define a charter school as "an Independent public school of choice, freed from 'rules but accountable for results," and state their belief that charter schools are "the most vibrant "force in education today." While, as the latter statement indicates. they find the basic idea to be sound and that charters are worth trying, they do riot advocate any particular model.

It dearly being impossible to visit, or report in any detail. even a significant fraction of all charter schools, the three researchers manage to provide detail on five schools. In four states, two in California and one each in Arizona, Michigan and Massachusetts with the first three states having what are regarded, and not just In this volume, as those with the strongest charter schools laws, which they certainly are at least if the measurement is the number and variety of actual charter schools created.'

'For those who stall maintain reforms such as this do not, will not and/or can not bring about changes in the regular public schools. they should note the case of Mesa, Arizona, a school district which has some 66 charter schools in its general area. The public system now advertises, has new academic programs, has instituted a Montessori program, full?day kindergarten, enrichment for homeschoolers an arts program, and has created several new dones of a popular "basics school,' something that it could have done earlier but did not until the charter schools began appealing and proliferating.'

There is a great variety among the charter schools, in such educational matters as curriculum. size, methods, and the like. But some go beyond that. In Boston, the Academy of the Pacific Rim guarantees that the inner?city kids they teach will learn. If they don't, the school will not only assist them in transferring to another charter school and pay up to $7,500 for the tuition there, but they will pay that tuition from a privatelyfunded guarantee financed rather than use the public dollars.

Further, while it is often noted that charter schools have waiting lists of student applicants - a USDoE annual report states that 70% of the schools have such an oversubscription - fewer note that these schools, many of which are started by teachers. including that first one in St. Paul, are swamped by applicants for teaching positions. In one not atypical instance, there were 600 teachers seeking one of 12 positions.

Finn and his colleagues report that one of the problems facing charter schools is the application of a double standard, that demands are placed upon them, or they are criticized for not performing satisfactorily in some manner that is not expected of the regular public schools. The demands come from those who opposed their creation and having failed there, they then demand immediate results. These authors suggest at least a 5?10 year period to judge results.

It is not uncommon for local public school officials to be unethical, if not illegal, in their attitude towards charter schools. They adopt tactics, such as delaying making financial payments and providing late or inadequate transfer of records with pupils. A classic case seems to have occurred in Tucson, AZ, where the city council, allegedly co?opted by the teacher unions, used zoning to require charter schools to have a site with a minimum of five acres. Does Tucson have such a zoning requirement for traditional public schools? Does anyone?

The opposition is unquestionably powerful. The establishment has fulltime staff to organize and direct their efforts. This includes much of the bureaucracy in the state and national Departments of Education and the various interests groups, such as school board and administrator associations, but, most of all, the teacher unions. It has been said the NEA and AFT have some 6,000 professional staff members. More than both political parties combined. Plus, of course, being able to call upon a significant number of their elected leaders and even some rank-and-file to lobby or participate in their obstructive tactics. Less noted, but included in this volume, are some private schools who may fear loss of enrollment, and bond houses who bring in very large sums of money each year by handling school district bond issues.

The good news for charter proponents is this opposition is at its peak strength; it is unlikely to grow appreciably stronger. Despite its power, it has not been able to stop the charter school movement from being created and growing rapidly. As it grows, so sloes its political strength and its ability to defend itself, both because of its increasing numbers and because of its obvious successes and financial efficiency, which is winning over parents and taxpayers.

In summary, the charter movement faces seven problems. The first are the charter school laws. In 1999-2000, 24 sates had 1,627 schools, for an average of 67 per state; while eleven others had only 54, for an average of 11 each. Other problems are: finances, especially startup funds; frantic starts because of late approval. as well as lack of funds: political opposition: enrollment problems and surprises; internal strife sometimes caused by governance tiffs v management frailties; and lack of business acumen: the last two, especially. because so many founders lack actual management and business experience.

Despite all of this and more The overall track record is quite good on $ statistical basis. As of 1998-99, only 32 charter schools closed, about 3% of the some 1,000 schools established prior to that time. Three observations may be made of this phenomenon:

Chapter 7 of the book is an Important one, as its title Indicates: The Case Against Charter Schools: A Ten-Count Indictment. These include such claims as that charter schools are too risky, cream" the best kids; aren't really different: invite profiteers (although critics will have a hard time finding instances where profits have yet to be made); or, ironically, that they don't go far enough. The authors, being advocates, respond to each of these charges and some may charge them with a bias, but at least they do not avoid these issues.

Those who wish to charge the authors with a bias need to keep reading. A bit later, even an NEA report on the role of teachers in charter schools cites evidence the NEA itself would do well to heed. Among charter school teachers, 6196 say they have substantial authority over curriculum: 64% say they have authority over selecting instructional materials; 54% say they control student discipline policy; and 4$96. nearly half; even say they have substantial authority over teacher hiring. Let any public school or public school system match that.

This also indicates why the unions would do well t4 cooperate with, or even encourage, charter schools. The first, in St. Paul, was started by public teachers who were also union members. Elsewhere, it was reported that 25% of the first 400 were started by teachers. The charter movement clearly includes great initial involvement by teachers, even union teachers, is enthusiastically supported by individual teachers, as indicated by the numbers who apply for charter school positions, provides significant autonomy for teachers after they are in the schools, and surveys have shown most of them plan to remain in charter schools. To this may be added, as Finn, et. al, say, "they are at the epicenter of America's most powerful education reform earthquake" and that the movement is clearly in its infancy.

For all these reasons and more, one of the greatest impacts of charter schools, if not the greatest, may ultimately be on the teacher unions themselves? To continue to attack, or seek to cripple this movement; may ultimately serve to restrict if not eliminate the possibility of their gaining a foot-hold, at least as they are presently structured similar to industrial unions, among such teachers in charter schools. This is already evident not only in their failure to organize any significant but in their loss of members among public school union teachers who cease to remain such once their school converts to charter school status.

The authors conclude in the Epilogue with ten points of distinction among charter schools: that they are mission driven; focus on achievement, or results, not inputs or process; they are responsive to their consumers: are diverse; have heavy parental involvement; are mostly small, even family-like: build communities; are innovative; foster teacher professionalism, and are creating a new model of accountability.

Further. they demonstrate ten other points (we do seem to like decalogues): the elements depend on and reinforce each other, rather than be bureaucratic; they are public, but not "govemment run" (or: It might be added, government?owned) ; they take many forms; all involve choice; they are accountable for performance not compliance with regulations or standard procedures; are causing related institutions to adapt, such as teacher unions and colleges of education; innovations are'repli cated more rapidly than in the standard system (which has changed much educationally since it was created a century and a half ago); education politics are shifting to mayors, governors, and civic organizations, among others; the education world at large is being affected and change; and, last but not least, as the saying goes, charter schools are low-risk rather than all-or-nothing, those that fail do so as individual schools and do not take the system or a district down with them. (pp248-264) ' The evidence to date makes it difficult to disagree with the authors summary point that "Perhaps one of the other reforms will prove more effective. But we are prepared to bet on the charter movement.' (pp267-8)

If there is a weakness in this volume, from this reader's point of view, it is chapter 12. After acknowledging that their "crystal ball is not especially clear," they theorize education in a mythical community in 2010. Future projections have an exceedingly dim track record, and the greater the detail, the dimmer its likelihood. Still, it is intriguing to contemplate, in 2010, current NEA President Bob Chase being a charter school board member in Connecticut, his home state. While that mayor may not be true of Chase, it is already true that not only union teachers but union staff are founders and leaders of charter schools. More can be expected in the future.

In the final analysis, this may be the best single review of charter schools to date. It should be of value to everyone interested in the subject, pro or con, except for the rabidly con, who will see bias where there is objectivity and a threat where there is success.

 

David W. Kirkpatrick Is a Senior Fellow for Teacher Choice, Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Arlington, VA.