Menu
» Next Entry (newer): Exemption for English Language Learners: Not good
Joe Nathan on Charter Schools
February 19, 2004We like to describe Charter Schools as schools that are essentially publicly funded but privately run. (Full disclosure: We've worked for no fewer than five inner-city charter schools.) An excellent book on the subject is Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education, by Joe Nathan.
He shares an interesting annecdote about a conference that was held in Boise, Idaho. The organizers gathered several hundred school administrators to hear the pros and cons of charter schools, and Mr. Nathan--as a national expert in the charter school movement--was to represent one side.
For the opposing side they had Kent Matheson, superintendent of the Flagstaff, Arizona public schools, a school district that had seen the opening of several charter schools in competition with the existing public schools. Mr. Matheson admitted he was "bristled and angry" when the charter school law was passed in Arizona.
Here's how the "debate" went:
Superintendent Matheson: "I'm a convert to the charter movement."
Wh-wh-what? Nathan must have paid him off backstage, right? No way could a public school superintendent support charter schools, that would be, like, a conflict of interest or something! Right?
In theory, yes, he shouldn't support charter schools (and in fact didn't support charter schools when they first appeared). But reality has a way of changing one's mind, and Superintendent Matheson saw with his own eyes what happened in his district once charter schools began sprouting.
Several changes in the Flagstaff public school system were spurred in part by the charter schools, such as starting new specialty magnet schools, inviting business leaders to help judge senior projects, and "becoming more active in explaining to community groups what is happening in the schools."
Nathan reports that the Flagstaff schools "became more welcoming to parents, in part because families have more options." (Emphasis ours.)
This is all well and good, but sharp-eyed readers may note that none of this has anything to do with charter schools. This is absolutely correct, and this very issue was raised at the Boise conference. Writes Nathan:
Another superintendent said, "Wouldn't the district have done these things without the charter law?" Matheson replied, "I don't think we would have responded as much without a strong charter law. The law was a very strong motivating force making us want to compete."Yes, Virginia, competition is a force for good.
Notice that Superintendent Matheson speaks of a strong charter law. This is because not all charter school laws are created equal. Some states have weak laws (more regulations and restrictions, less competition permitted, extremely difficult to start a school) while states with strong laws have a more robust charter school community.
The stronger the law, the greater the positive impact on the local public school system. That's not just our opinion, the Center for Education Reform has a report concluding that strong laws give better results (pdf).
Nathan quotes from a study done by Eric Rofes, who also notes this correlation. The dynamic is interesting when charter schools can be started without asking permission of the local school district (which helps make for a strong charter school law):
District personnel on at least five occasions in this study acknowledged--sometimes begrudgingly--that charters had served to jump-start their efforts at reform. While they initially opposed charters and the chartering had been accomplished outside their authority, they felt that district schools ultimately had benefited from the dynamics introduced by the charter school.The Center for Education Reform also has a report (pdf) comparing the strengths of the 41 charter school laws in the U.S., which should be a handy guide for supporters wanting to get similar laws passed, and for legislators wanting to debate the wording of a newly proposed bill.
The Washington Charter Public Schools website is closely following developments in Washington State, which is contemplating making charter schools legal there. We hope they've learned from other states where it's been done, and pass the legislation soon.
If you live in Washington State and would like to see charter schools become a reality, please get involved!
| ↑ top ↑ | « previous entry | next entry » | ReformK12 home
Unfortunately, not all state Charter School laws are created equal. In some states, the Charter Schools are quite limited and can only be created under very specific conditions. (i.e. for those students that the public schools really don't want anyway.) Also, many states' public school administrations have a large say in which Charter Schools are accepted. Our schools scream bloody murder about the few students that go to a Charter School (because they have to pay), but you don't hear a word from them about all of the savings they get with the 20% or more of our students going to private schools paid for by their parents. Also consider that our school budget is still about two-thirds of our property tax.
They complain that Charter Schools are an unfunded mandate in that our public schools are rated well in the state's standardized testing. Of course, doing well on simple, lowest common denominator testing isn't saying a lot. In Massachusetts, there are battles going on now about new Charter Schools that are trying to meet the needs of parents and students that want more than the lowest common denominator education provided by public schools. Public schools really don't want to lose both money and good students. That will make it doubly hard to meet state testing goals.
Public schools can't simply label the growing number of parents that are paying for private school as elitest. Many of these parents grew up in public schools and really don't want to put their kids into private schools. Public schools also can't simply scream about unfunded mandates. They can, however, try to provide what many parents want - higher standards. My brother-in-law in Michigan says that he sees positive changes in their public schools because of local Charter Schools. They are letting kids advance to higher grade levels for individual subjects starting in third or fourth grade.
I wouldn't say that Charter Schools are the only answer, but they are one form of choice which is available to those who can't afford private schools. The affluent shouldn't be the only ones with choice.