Public, Charter and Private Schools
Is The Jury Still Out On Charters?
By JULIE WEST JOHNSON
In September of 1992, City Academy High School opened in St. Paul,
Minnesota, thereby kicking off the charter school movement that has
flourished in American education ever since.
Now, twenty-one years
later, more than 2,000,000 students, or 4.2% of all those enrolled in
preK-12 schools, attend more than 5,600 charters in 41 states and
Washington, D.C.
What exactly is a charter school?
Charters walk the slippery tightrope between public and private
education. On the face of it, they are public schools receiving public
funding. A group wishing to start a charter files a statement of
intention with a local school district, outlining the proposed school’s
goals. The local board then votes aye or nay on the charter request.
Because charters receive public funding, they may not require tuition,
though private organizations may manage them. They are accountable to
their local school boards, yet paradoxically, they also function with
some of the autonomy of private schools. As alternatives to traditional
public education, charters have more freedom in matters of hiring and
curriculum, and they are generally not subject to the same regulations
and codes of conduct.
Some states, such as Arizona and
Michigan, allow existing private schools to convert to charter schools
if they meet certain requirements, such as having open and
nondiscriminatory enrollment and a reasonable percentage of newly
admitted students (at least 25% in Michigan, for example). Other
states, such as California, do not allow existing private schools to
become charters.
The No Child Left Behind legislation,
passed by Congress in 2001, made approval of charter schools an
important component of its platform. According to 2012 Phi Delta Kappa
and Gallup polls, 70% of Americans approve of charter schools, with 61%
stating that students enrolled in them receive an “excellent” or “good”
education (cited in the Huffington Post, September 4, 2012).
While a number of groups operate charter schools in Chicago—the
University of Chicago, for instance, sponsors three—several
organizations stand out: The Chicago International Charter Schools is
the city’s largest operator, while KIPP, a nonprofit national network of
free, open-enrollment college prep schools, and the Noble Network have
prominent presences as well. KIPP, an acronym for Knowledge is Power
Program, operates four schools in Chicago for the K-8 population,
enrolling over 1,000 students. (Nationally, KIPP operates 141 charters.)
KIPP students must sign a “commitment to excellence” pledge, and KIPP
claims that 91% of its students graduate from high school, and that 87%
at least begin college (KIPP website). The Noble Network currently has
fourteen high schools in Chicago, serving 8,800 students. The Noble high
schools all have “College Prep” in their names, and they emphasize more
classroom time, a longer school day, and a longer school year than the
standard public high schools offer. To the charge that they are
“creaming,” or skimming the best students from the eighth-grade
enrollment pool, the Noble Network responds that 98% of its student
population is minority, 89% from low-income homes (Noble Network
website). Michael Milkie, founder and executive director of the Noble
Network, says that he and his wife, both former teachers, started the
charter in 1999 with this philosophy: “If you sweat the small stuff,
then you don’t have big issues” (quoted by Sarah Karp and Linda Lutton
in a WBEZ feature story, November 9, 2010.) For this reason, the schools
operate with strict codes of conduct.
How
successful, really, are these charters? That is the salient question,
and among educators, the whole charter movement remains deeply
controversial. Many laud charters for their innovative and creative
approaches, possible because of the greater freedom they have. Joel
Klein, chancellor of the New York City schools, has observed that
charters create choice and competition, which he sees as desirable; they
also have flexibility in hiring because their teachers do not
necessarily have to be credentialed in the same way as standard public
school teachers (video presentation, Huffington Post, February 2, 2011).
Arne Duncan, the present Education Secretary and the former
superintendent of the Chicago Public Schools, also supports charters. In
a speech delivered in 2013, he called charters “incubators of
innovation,” further asserting that “In rigorous, randomized studies,
high-performing charters have shown that great schools close both
opportunity and achievement gaps...Higher performing charters are one
more proof positive that, as President Obama says, ‘The best
anti-poverty program around is a world-class education’’’ (Education
Department website).
Bruno Manno, a former assistant secretary
in the Department of Education and now an educational adviser, argues
the case for charters in a May 2001 article in The School
Administrators. Manno praises charters for filling some niches
typically left vacant, citing in illustration the Metro Deaf Charter
School in St. Paul, which enrolls only deaf students for K-6 education.
It is now nationally recognized as a model for the education of deaf
children. To the frequent charge that charters are undermining
traditional public schools, Manno replies, “The surest way to keep
students from leaving district schools is by running schools that nobody
wants to leave, not by barring the exit.”
Charters have
numerous critics, however, the most high profile of whom is Diane
Ravitch, now a professor of education at NYU, but formerly a member of
the Education Department under Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill
Clinton, and formerly a supporter of No Child Left Behind. Ravitch has
written a new book, Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization
Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools, in which she
asserts, “The world’s top-performing [education] systems—Finland and
Korea, for example—do not have charter schools. They have strong public
school systems with well-prepared, experienced teachers and
administrators.” It is her feeling that the charter movement is
“aggressive and entrepreneurial,” and that either by failing to admit or
by expelling difficult and special needs children, charters are forcing
local neighborhood schools to educate more than their fair share of
problem students (L.A. Times, October 1, 2012). In truth, the U.S.
Government Accountability Office did find that in 2009-2010, students
with disabilities made up 11% of the enrollment in traditional schools,
as opposed to 8% in charter schools (cited in the Huffington Post,
September 4, 2012).
As Professor Gary Miron of Western
Michigan University has pointed out, this has sometimes led to a
“re-segregation of public schools, by race, class, and ability, instead
of creating homogeneous learning communities based on particular
learning styles and pedagogical approaches” (testimony before the House
Committee on Education and the Workforce, June 1, 2011). Miron calls
for a more rigorous monitoring of charters. Nationally, only 3% of
charter schools have been “de-chartered” since the movement began in
1992 (Huffington Post, December 6, 2012). Like Ravitch, Miron also
decries the movement toward privatization in public education, pointing
out that private education management organizations now operate
one-third of the nation’s charters.
While there are
undoubtedly excellent and successful individual charters across the
country, it would appear that the jury is still out on the movement as a
whole. Meanwhile, Ravitch’s most trenchant criticism of charters may be
that they lure reformers into thinking they are improving education,
distracting them from the underlying societal problems facing schools:
“Academic performance is low where poverty and racial segregation are
high. Sadly, the U.S. leads other advanced nations of the world in the
proportion of children living in poverty” (L.A. Times).
In
the final analysis, then, perhaps it boils down to Mark Twain’s ironic
aphorism: “The lack of money is the root of all evil.”
Published: February 22, 2014
Issue: Winter 2014 Issue