Charter school
The
charter school movement in the United States began in
1988, when
Albert Shanker, President of the
American Federation of Teachers, called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools". As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school as a legally and financially autonomous
public school (no tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business â€" free from nonessential state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).
[Lori A Mulholland, Charter schools: The Reform and the Research, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Policy Brief, March 1996, p.1]Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law, in
1991.
California was second, in
1992. By 1995 there were 19 states with charter school laws.
There are two principles which guide and validate charter schools. First that they will operate as autonomous public schools. This is effected by gaining waivers from many of the procedural requirements of public schools. Second, that they will use innovative pedagogy. To justify their waivers and autonomy, they must produce results superior to non-charter schools. In the process of state legislative politics the principle of autonomy will often be compromised.
The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation, and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a
charter, a statutorily defined performance
contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3-5 years. Charter schools are accountable to their sponsor—a local
school board, state education agency, university, or other entity—to produce positive
academic results and adhere to the charter contract.
Chartering authorities, authorities which may legally issue such charters, differ from state to state, as do bodies legally entitles to operate under sush charters. Often it is the State Board of Education which authorized charters, as is the case in the State of Arkansas. In other states, local school district may be authorized to issue charters, such as is the case in the State of Colorado. Charter initiating bodies, which intend to operate charter schools, may include local school districts, institutions of higher education, non-profict corporations, and for profit corporations. The States of Michigan and California allows for-profit corporations to operate charter schools. Most states do not.
Charter schools must be funded by the state. Often state funding is not adequate to cover the costs of buildings and special equipment. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Secions 502 - 511 also authorize funding grants for charter schools. Aditionally, charter schools may receive funding from private donors or foundations.
The term "charter school" started in the U.S. but many of the related ideas such as granting greater autonomy to local schools, independence from local school boards, and operating under a charter, have existed in and out of the U.S. for some time. Charters allow publicly funded schools to act and operate more like private schools, but still have public obligations that private schools do not have. Some charter school advocates believe that competition from charter schools provides choices to families, which will force the other public schools to perform better.
The concept of public charter schools was first proposed by the
Citizens League, a
Minnesota think tank and lobbying organization. The first charter school opened in Minnesota in 1991, and as of the 2005-2006 school year, more than 3,600 charter schools are in operation in 40 states and the
District of Columbia, enrolling more than 1 million students
[National Charter School Directory, The Center for Education Reform http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStats&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=44]. Charter schools reflect their founders' varied philosophies, programs, and organizational structures, and serve diverse student populations.
Charter schools are commonly founded as schools for students that may not be served well by traditional public schools in their communities (such as pregnant teens or teen parents, drop-outs, and other at-risk populations) or those with
special educational needs. Some provide a "niche" education, providing a strong focus on dual languages, technology, or the arts.
Critics of charter schools claim they may siphon off the best students and leave regular public schools worse off. Supporters argue charter schools have been more likely to serve disadvantaged student populations. Many charter school administrators and parents argue that charter schools serve those students who are not getting their fair share at public schools. Most charter schools in big cities focus on
Title I students.
Opinions vary as to the success of charter schools, in part because of the philosophical outlook taken, and in part because—as may be expected—such schools vary one from another in quality, competence, and effectiveness.
Some members of the public are dissatisfied with educational quality and school district
bureaucracies[Jenkins, John, and Jeffrey L. Dow. A Primer on Charter Schools. International Journal of Educational Reform, 5, 2 (April 1996): 224–27. http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=EJ525978]. 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
[American Federation of Teachers. Charter Schools: Do They Measure Up? Washington, D.C.: Author, 1996. 68 pages.], though the report has been heavily criticized.
[http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005492][http://www.ncsc.info/newsletter/August_September_2002/AFT_Response.htm] Charter school advocates respond that charters attract students who have not performed well in other schools, and who may lack basic skills and knowledge needed for these assesments, though studies dispute this claim. Charter-school advocates claim that studies show marked improvement over time by students who move from traditional public schools to charters and that many charter school students later surpass the test scores of their traditional school counterparts, but both claims are controversial. One scholarly book,
"The Charter School Dust-Up" by Martin Carnoy, Rebecca Jacobsen, Lawrence Mishel, and Richard Rothstein, examines the complexity of these claims.
Inside the United States
In
1991,
Minnesota adopted charter school legislation to expand a longstanding program of public school choice and to stimulate broader system improvements. Since then, the charter concept has spread to 40 states and DC. State laws follow varied sets of key organizing principles based on
the Citizens League's recommendations for
Minnesota,
American Federation of Teachers guidelines, and/or federal charter-school legislation (U.S. Department of Education). Principles govern sponsorship, number of schools, regulatory waivers, degree of fiscal/legal autonomy, and performance expectations.
Current laws have been characterized as either strong or weak. Strong-law states mandate considerable autonomy from local labor-management agreements, allow multiple charter-granting agencies, and allocate a level of funding consistent with the statewide per pupil average. Arizona's
1994 law is the strongest, with multiple charter-granting agencies, freedom from local labor contracts, and large numbers of charters permitted.
40
U.S. states have Charter-school
laws. The vast majority of charter schools (more than 70 percent) are found in states with the strongest laws:
Arizona,
California,
Colorado,
Massachusetts,
Michigan,
Minnesota, and
North Carolina.
[Allen, Jeanne, and Marcucio, Anna Varghese Charter School Laws Across the States, Center for Education Reform, Washington, D.C., 2004 http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=section&pSectionID=14&cSectionID=122] Despite the map, Washington has yet to pass a law to create charter schools.
Outside the United States
Well before American charter schools,
New Zealand went far further in granting power to individual schools by abolishing all school boards and making each school independent, with local parent and teacher involvement in decision making.
[http://www.fcpp.org/main/publication_detail.php?PubID=176] Although not called charter schools, each school does have a charter under which it operates and has a high degree of autonomy. The main difference, though, is that since all schools have the same status, individual schools don't all have the uniqueness typical of a charter school.
The
United Kingdom established
grant-maintained schools in
England and
Wales in
1988. They allowed individual schools that were independent of the local school authority. When they were abolished in
1998, most turned into
foundation schools, which are under their local district authority but still have a high degree of autonomy.
About three years after their introduction in the U.S., the
Canadian province of
Alberta allowed charter schools beginning in
1994.
Alberta charter schools have much in common with their U.S. counterparts. As of 2005 there are only about a dozen charter schools in the province, compared with over 50 school boards, with the largest one alone having over 200 schools. The idea of charter schools initially sparked great debate and is still controversial, but has had limited impact. No other province in Canada has yet followed Alberta's lead.
Overall, charter schools have had much less support outside the U.S., although many of the choices provided by charter schools have long existed elsewhere under different names.
Early promise
Evidence on the growth and outcomes of this relatively new movement has started to come in. The
U.S. Department of Education's First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters, is based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states (1997). Charters tend to be small (fewer than 200 students) and represent primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to charter status. Charter schools often tend to exist in urban locations, rather than rural. This study found enormous variation among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially diverse, and to enroll slightly fewer students with special needs and limited-English-proficient students than the average schools in their state. The most common reasons for founding charters were to pursue an educational vision and gain autonomy.
[U.S. Department of Education. A Study on Charter Schools: First Year Report. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997. 74 pages. http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=ED409620]"Charter schools are havens for children who had bad educational experiences elsewhere," according to a
Hudson Institute survey of students, teachers, and parents from fifty charters in ten states. More than 60 percent of the parents said charter schools are better than their children's previous schools in terms of teaching quality, individual attention from teachers, curriculum, discipline, parent involvement, and academic standards. Most teachers reported feeling empowered and professionally fulfilled
[Vanourek, Gregg and others. Charter Schools as Seen by Those Who Know Them Best: Students, Teachers, and Parents. Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute, 1997. 12 pages. http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=ED409650].
Recent Findings
A report issued by a pro-charter school group
[http://www.charterschoolleadershipcouncil.org/PDF/paperupdate.pdf], released in July 2005, looks at twenty-six studies that make some attempt to look at change over time in charter school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find charter schools' gains higher in certain significant categories of schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional public schools; and, four find that charter schools' overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at whether individual charter schools improve their performance with age (e.g. after overcoming start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as charter schools mature, they improve. The other two find no significant differences between older and younger charter schools.
In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance
[http://www.edexcellence.net/institute/charterfinance/] found that across 16 states and the District of Columbiaâ€"which collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation's one million charter school studentsâ€"charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that surround them. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student. In cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The fiscal inequity is most severe in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is charter schools' lack of access to local and capital funding.
On
August 16,
2004, the Department of Education released the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress of 2003
[America's Charter Schools: Results From the NAEP 2003 Pilot Study http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2005456.pdf]. These results, from a study of 6000
4th grade pupils in 2003, were reported, most prominently by the
New York Times, as showing that charter school students perform worse in both mathematics and reading than comparable students in regular public schools. However,
Rod Paige, the U.S.
Secretary of Education, issued a statement
[http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/08/08172004.html] contesting the conclusions which the New York Times drew in its article.
These results were the most comprehensive so far, studying such factors as race, neighborhood, and income. The study shows that charter school students scored about as well as, or better than, public school students when subdivided by race and neighborhood, but not free lunch eligibility, a common proxy for income or poverty level.
A number of prominent research experts called into question the usefulness of the findings and the largely unrigorous media coverage they received
[http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NewYorkTimesAd.pdf Advertisement in the New York Times], August 2004].
At a December 2004 workshop held by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to discuss the findings of the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) pilot study on charter schools, government officials urged charter opponents and proponents alike to use caution in making "sweeping" conclusions from the NAEP report. NAGB Chairman Darvin Winick called attention to what he called the "fine print" of the study - that is, "one snapshot in time cannot determine the achievement of students."
A study by the Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby
[Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public Schools in the United States: Understanding the Differences, Hoxby, C., December 2004, http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxbycharter_dec.pdf ] also released in December 2004 that included 99 percent of all elementary charter school students found that they performed favorably in both math and reading compared to similar students in nearby conventional public schools, and that the longer the charter school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared.
Other Problems
Nearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet charter schools also attract large amounts of interest and money from private foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Broad Foundation.
Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. But in reality, this is not necessarily the case, in the complex world of school funding. Charter schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than non-charter (traditional public schools) received until a new law was passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis
[Bierlein, Louann, and Bateman, Mark. Charter Schools v. the Status Quo: Which Will Succeed?, International Journal of Educational Reform 5, 2 (April 1996): 159–68. http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=EJ525971]. Sometimes private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech Corporation in Michigan and the Annenburg Fund in California, provide support
. Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997.
Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions
. Many educators are concerned that charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for regular schools, as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. The American Federation of Teachers urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights. Also, some charters feel they face unwieldy regulatory barriers.
According to Bierlein and Bateman, the odds are stacked against charter schools. Charter-school critics dispute this. There may be too few strong-law states to make a significant difference. Educators who are motivated enough to create and manage charter schools could easily be burnt out by a process that demands increased accountability while providing little professional assistance.
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."
Criticism of charter schools
Critics feel that it is unacceptably difficult to enforce the provisions of the charter, which they say makes charter schools essentially accountable to no one. The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for this 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.
[http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/03/06/MN14786] An auditor's report found that the school was in
financial disarray and posted the lowest
[http://api.cde.ca.gov/reports/API/2003Base_Sch.asp?SchCode=3830452&DistCode=68478&AllCds=38684783830452] 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.
Yet charter-school advocates led a heated and divisive protest against revoking the charter.
*Budde, Ray. "The Evolution of the Charter Concept."
PHI DELTA KAPPAN 78, 1 (September 1996): 72–73.
EJ 530 653.
*Hassel, Bryan. "Charter School Achievement: What We Know." Washington, DC: Charter School Leadership Council. July 2005.
*Mintrom, Michael, and Sandra Vergari. "Political Factors Shaping Charter School Laws." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, March 24, 1997). 46 pages.
ED 407 708.
*Nathan, Joe.
CHARTER SCHOOLS: CREATING HOPE AND OPPORTUNITY FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1996. 249 pages.
ED 410 657.
*Smith, Frank L. "Guidance for the Charter Bound."
THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATOR 54, 7 (August 1997): 18–22.
EJ 548 963.
*
:Category:Charter schools*
The Academy of the Pacific Rim Charter Public School*
US Charter Schools by state*
Charter School Weekly News Connection. *
Charter Schools. Eric Digest. The original Wikipedia article listed here is based on the text at this public domain site.
*
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools*
Updates on New Charter School Research and Resources.*
Perspectives on Charter Schools: A Review for Parents. ERIC Digest.*
Charter Schools: An Approach for Rural Education? ERIC Digest.*
Arguments for and against the creation of charter schools.*
Public Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities. ERIC Digest.*
Center for School Change, at the University of Minnesota Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs*
The Center for Education Reform*
US Charter Schools by state*
NEA Charter School Page*
Charter Friends National Network charter school on-line resources and links
*
State profiles—charter schools.*
Nation's Charter Schools Lagging Behind, U.S. Test Scores Reveal. New York Times*
Education Evolving Education Evolving
*
MACS Minnesota Association of Charter Schools
*
MCSSEP Minnesota Charter Schools Special Education Project
*
Massachusetts Charter Public School Association - "Myths and realities About Massachusetts Charter Public Schools."*
TheVanguard.Org*
Wyoming Charter Schools Initiative*
A Charter School in Tampa, Florida*
Edison Schools*
Ralph J Bunche | Albuquerque Charter School*
Mississippi Teacher Corps Focus Paper on
charter Schools
