Introduction:
The charter school movement is one of the fastest growing education reforms
of the Nineties. In 1992, only two states, California and Minnesota, had
passed charter school legislation. By the end of 1995, 19 states had charter
school laws in place and at least 16 others had considered similar legislation.
At the federal level, Congress passed legislation in 1994 authorizing grants
to support states' charter school efforts.
Despite such popular interest, fewer than 250 charter schools are currently
operating nationwide. Whether this small but growing number of schools will
lead to greater innovation and influence the systemwide transformation of
public education remains to be seen. Below is a summary of the issues surrounding
charter schools and the implications of recent research about the future
of this movement.
What constitutes a charter school?
Charter schools are usually created through a formal agreement between
a group of individuals and a sponsor (e.g., a local school board, state
department, or an independent governing board). Designed by state legislators
who want to deregulate and decentralize education, charter schools are meant
to empower parents and those "closest to the classroom" with the flexibility
to innovate. As an incentive, charter schools either receive blanket exemptions
from most state codes and district rules regarding curriculum, instruction,
budget, and personnel, or they may apply to waive requirements one by
one.1 In return, most charter schools
are expected to meet certain accountability requirements, such as demonstrating
student achievement and participating in state testing programs.
Depending on the authorizing legislation, charter schools are organized
by teachers (certified or non-certified), parents, existing public schools,
private schools,2 non-profit agencies
and/or for-profit firms.3 Often,
charter schools receive funding from the state based upon student enrollment
(i.e., average daily attendance) although the actual allocated amount may
vary based upon negotiations and administrative funds charged by local school
districts and sponsoring
agencies.4
What do supporters of charter schools argue?
Advocates promote charter schools as a way to expand choices and
competition in public education, and charter schools are sometimes proposed
as an alternative to private school
vouchers.5 Charter schools are viewed
as a vehicle for revitalizing public education; free of burdensome regulations
and codes, they provide other schools with innovative prototypes for success.
Unlike most state efforts that attempt to improve schools through mandated
practices, charter schools are performance-based: they are free to choose
their own approach, but if they are fiscally mismanaged, fail to attract
students, or do not meet student accountability standards, their charters
can be revoked.6
What do opponents of charter schools argue?
Opponents claim charter schools will draw resources away from schools
that have been successfully operating as part of the regular public school
system. They maintain that regulations are not the most significant barriers
to effectiveness. A lack of resources, technical support, and access to research
on effective practices are considered bigger obstacles to stimulating better
schools. Moreover, if and when regulations do, in fact, hinder school reform,
those particular regulations should be analyzed and modified for the whole
school system, rather than waived for one particular school.
Unions and school boards may oppose charter proposals that are not subject
to collective bargaining agreements or that establish charter schools as
independent legal entities outside a local school board's jurisdiction.
Critics also worry that special education students may not be guaranteed
fair treatment or adequate funding unless it is specified within the charter
or legislation. Furthermore, critics are concerned that as charters are suspended
or revoked due to legal challenges or mismanagement, children enrolled in
these schools may suffer a discontinuity in their educational services (Michigan
and California have both experienced threats of having to close down a charter
school mid-year).7
What are lessons learned from research in the WestEd region
and beyond?
Because most states' charter legislation is so new, most experts
say it is still too soon to know the impact on schools or students. States
farthest along, however, already offer some insights into the types of issues
policymakers should deliberate when considering charter reforms. In the WestEd region, two of four states have active charter legislation,
California and Arizona. Nevada's legislation is still pending while Utah
has yet to have charter legislation proposed.
Research in California, now in the third year of charter implementation,
found that those charter schools most interested in gaining genuine independence
from local boards and/or in starting from scratch, were also least likely
to receive broad support for gaining charter
status.8 An implication of this
study is that states must find the right balance between autonomy and
accountability so that charter schools can really experiment with new
alternatives while still being considered part of the public school system.
California's example also showed the marked need for states to include start-up
funds to cover the resources and time associated with supplying information
to the community, designing innovations, and/or navigating complex charter
negotiations with districts.
In a more recent study of California's charter schools, researchers have
found that parental involvement, whether required by a parental contract
signed when admitting the student or not, is much greater in charter schools
than in comparison schools in the same communities. The study found that
"a major reason charter schools have higher levels of parental involvement
may be that the more school-participation-oriented families select themselves
into charter school
enrollement..."9
Several national studies10 comparing
state charter school laws have found significant variance, nationwide, in
charter schools' degree of independence, organization, and instructional
practices, as each state's legislation establishes a different degree of
autonomy. The legal status of charter schools and their eligibility for federal
categorical funding is currently under review. Although public funding generally
follows the student, many charter schools have had difficulty in being recognized
as an independent school district, thereby considered eligible to receive
federal categorical funds.
What is the status of charter schools in the WestEd region
and across the country?
Charter schools are considered one of the fastest growing reform
movements of the 1990s. Since 1991, 14 states have passed charter school
legislation: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, Kansas,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming .11 Meanwhile, proposals
for charter school legislation surfaced in at least 16 states this year,
including Nevada, Missouri, Indiana, North Carlolina, Connecticut, Idaho,
Ohio, Florida, Oregon, and
Illinois.12
Since 1993, 85 charters have been assigned a "number" by the California
State Department of Education, while others have been approved and await
numbering. California charter school advocates attempted to lift the original
statutory cap of 100 charter schools this year; however, in May the state
legislature decided against raising the limit.
In the short time that Arizona has had their charter school legislation
in place (since 1994), they have come quite close to meeting their statewide
annual approval limit of 50 charters. To date, 19 charters have been approved
by the Arizona State Board of Education, another 25 by the State Charter
School Board, and one has been chartered by a school district.
At the federal level, in accordance with the Improving America's Schools
Act of 1994, 13 the U.S. Department
of Education recently announced the availability of $5.4 million in grants
for a public charter schools program and is currently accepting applications
from state educational agencies and other eligible "developers" of charter
school proposals. 14
STATE CHARTER SCHOOL CONTACTS
Arizona
State Board of Education.: (602) 542-5393
State
Charter School Board: (602) 542-5094
California : (916) 657-
2451
Dave Patterson : (916) 657-2516
Colorado : (303)
866-6806
Bill Windler : (303) 866-6631
Florida (904) 487-1785;
Bruiser Brown: (904) 413-9709
Georgia (404) 656-2534;
Charter School Office: (404) 656-0630
Hawaii, Greg Knudsen:
(808) 586- 3230
Illinois (217) 782-2221
Sally Vogel: (217)
782-0541
Kansas (913) 296-3201
Legal Services: (913)296-3204
Louisiana (504) 342-4411
Gary Reed: (504) 342-3745
Massachusetts (617) 770-7321
Michigan (517) 373- 3354
Gary Cass: (517) 373-4631
Minnesota (612) 296-2358
William
Allen: (612) 296-4213
Nevada (702) 687-3100
Legislative HotLine:
(702) 687-5545
New Mexico (505) 827-6516
Rich Lapan: (505)
827-6625
Wisconsin (608) 266-1771
Sue Freiss: (608)
266-1647
Wyoming (307) 777-7675
Jim Lendino: (307) 777-6268
1 In the 14 states that
have passed charter school legislation, at least nine states exempt participating
schools from most state and district rules usually with the exception of
health, safety, civil rights laws, special education and state assessment.
Other states require schools to apply for rule by rule waivers or specify
in their charter which rules they want to waive. For a further analysis,
see: Bierlein, L.A. and Mullholland, L.A. (September 1994), Comparing
Charter School Laws: The Issue of Autonomy. Morrison Institute
for Public Policy, School of Public Affairs, Arizona State University.
2 Arizona and Minnesota
are two states which allow nonsectarian private schools to participate.
3 Two of Massachusetts'
15 charter schools (the Lowell and Worcester Charter Schools) are co- operated
by for-profit entrepreneur Chris Whittle's company, the Edison Project.
4 In California, some
districts withhold administrative funds. In others, charter schools have
negotiated for greater fiscal autonomy. For a further discussion of these
issues see: Premack, E. and Diamond, L. (January 1994). Charter School
Implementation Challenges, Discussion Paper #1, Berkeley, CA: BW Associates.
5 Many in California, including
Gary Hart, former California Senator and author of the California Charter
School legislation, have claimed that charter schools were a preferred
alternative to voucher proposals.
6 Los Angeles Unified School
District board was the first to revoke a charter school on the grounds of
low enrollment and mismanaged finances. The school was forced to close
temporarily, giving the school's board of governors a chance to reorganize
and reapply. Schmidt, P. (1994). "Citing Debts, L.A. Board Revokes School's
Charter." Education Week, December 14, p. 3.
7 (See end note #5). In
Michigan, while the state appealed a court's ruling of unconstitutionality,
the district assigned by the state to serve as a conduit for state funding
declined immediate sponsorship of the charter school until further information
was gathered (regarding legal liabilities, union representation, and county-wide
opinions of charter schools). The district later agreed to sponsor the charter
school, but in the meantime parents and students were unsure of whether their
school would be forced to close mid-year. Richardson, J. (1995). "Academy
Gets Funds, Won't Close Its Doors". Detroit Free Press, January 27.
8 Charter schools in large
urban, as opposed to smaller rural, districts were more interested in real
independence but least likely to gain approval from their local school board
(a requirement by California law) and support from their union. Dianda, M.R.
and Corwin, R.G. (1994). Vision versus Reality: a First-Year Look at
California's Charter Schools. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional
Laboratory. Learning from California's experience, Arizona decided to provide
the opportunity to by-pass local boards and allow charters to be approved
through a special, independent board.
9 Becker, H.J., Nakagawa,
K. and Corwin, R. (April, 1995). Parent Involvement Contracts in Califonria's
Charter Schools: Strategies for Education Improvement or Method of
Exclusion? Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.
10 General Accounting
Office. (1995). Charter Schools: New Model for Public Schools Provides
Opportunities and Challenges; Bierlein, L. and Mulholland, L. (1994).
Charter School Update: Expansion of a Viable Reform Initiative.
11 As of June 1995,10
of the 14 states had approved charter schools. Alaska, Kansas, Louisiana
and Wyoming have passed legislation but have yet to approve any schools (GAO,
1995; phone interviews with State Department officials).
12 Pipho, C. (June, 1995).
The Expected and the Unexpected. Stateline. Phi Delta Kappan.
13 Congressional Record.
(1994). Proceedings and Debates of the 103rd Congress, Second Session. Sept.
28, vol. 140, no. 138, part II. This is the reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Federal Register. May 9, 1995. U.S.
Government Printing Office.
14 Federal Register. May
9, 1995. U.S. Government Printing Office.
This document is an addendum to research compiled for a Policy
Brief, entitled Charter Schools.
