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.
