Melissa Trezza
Professor Hodgson
ENG 31024
August 18, 2008
Charters Bring Winds of Change, Causing Storm of Controversy
“It’s impossible for the horse and carriage to transform into a steam locomotive” (qtd. in Smarick 44). Ted Kolderies’ statement from his book, “Creating the Capacity for Change”, sums up the belief of many charter school proponents as they assert that the broken public education system in the United States is in need of a complete transformation – that there is no way for the forces currently entrenched within the system can solve the problem. The long-growing disdain and frustration that has been building in regards to this country’s less-than-worthy education system has brought about several ideas for improvement; one of the fastest-growing (relative to the other ideas) proposed solutions is a charter school system. Those unhappy with public schools claim charter schools will provide parents with greater school choice, “encourage innovative teaching practices”, and, most importantly, increase academic levels among students (Barrett 352). Despite their popularity (seven out of ten charter schools have waiting lists), there is much resistance to charter schools. Although it is important to explore critics’ claims, the statistics indicate that implementing a charter school system is an effective method of improving the United States educational system.
Although forty states, including the District of Columbia, have charter schools in their midst, many people are not particularly familiar with what the charter school system entails (Smarick 38). Charters are publicly-funded schools, usually created by local education reformers (Bennett 30; Bifulco 555). The founder(s) receives a charter (or contract) “granted by [an] authorized public agency” (Bifulco 555). The schools are completely separate from school districts and boards (Bifulco 555). In exchange for no government regulation or oversight, the charter school must demonstrate student achievement – or risk losing funding, which is given on a “per-pupil basis” (Ferraiolo, et al. 210). Therefore, one of the charter’s main goals is to acquire and retain students. Just as private business owners must work to get and keep customers, so must charter school operators. Charter schools operate on a capitalistic, private business model, providing an environment of competition where the school that provides the best education “wins”. Considering neither socialism nor communism have proven successful, this capitalistic technique may have potential within the school system. As John Bohte explains, “The central premise underlying this movement is that charter schools foster market-like environments that offer parents and students the ability to flee underperforming public schools and enter into more innovative and less bureaucratic educational settings” (501). Another side goal is to force traditional schools to improve themselves in order to keep up with them, thus, promoting “systematic improvements in public education” as a whole (Bohte 501). With over 3,600 charter schools nationwide, charter schools are a force that cannot be ignored and, in turn, warrant thorough investigation.
If one lacks experience with the nation’s public schools, the obvious next question is: What is so bad about the United States education system that makes charter schools “necessary”? To answer this question, one can refer to a 2003 study compiled by the National Center for Educational Statistics via the Program for International Student Assessment in which the United States ranked well-below most “industrialized” nations. The results are based on the proficiencies of fifteen-year-olds amongst various countries. The area in which the United States did best was in reading literacy. Here, the average OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) score was 495 – the American students averaged 495. However, there were eleven other countries that scored higher (33). The next-best ranking the United States received was in the science literacy category. The OECD average was 500 and the United States score was 491; eighteen countries performed better (34). The United States did worst of all in both the problem-solving and mathematics literacy areas. The average OECD score was 500, and the U.S. ranked twenty-fourth out of twenty-nine, scoring 477 and 483, respectively (14, 29). The United States educational system is evidently lagging behind many other comparable countries. With the world headed in a more “global” direction every day, being able to compete in a worldwide market becomes ever more important. To remain globally competitive, education reform appears necessary.
Probably the most important benefit sought from charter schools is improved academic achievement and accountability for academic standards. While there are some studies showing no academic improvement amongst students who transferred from traditional to charter schools, the vast majority of studies seem to indicate the opposite. A study conducted in 2003 showed that 59% of students in traditional schools scored higher than their charter school counterparts in reading and math achievement tests; but researchers cautioned that this may be partially due to the fact that charter school students tend to be low performers from the public school system (Heaggans 433). Despite this study, 29 of 33 recent studies reported that charter schools students performed either as well as or better than traditional school students (Smarick 39). New York City charter school students in grades 3 through 8 scored higher on “state reading and math tests than would have been expected [if they had] remained” in traditional schools (Hoxby and Murarka 58). Additionally, for every year in charter schools, math and reading scores rose between 3.75 and 3.98 per year, and, 1.53 and 1.61 per year, respectively (Hoxby and Murarka 58). According to education experts Caroline M. Hoxby and Sonali Murarka, “for every year they [students] spend in a charter school, students make up 12% of the distance from failing to proficient in math. They make up 3.5% of the distance from failing to proficient in reading” (59). Charter schools are held to high accountability standards in order to ensure that these scores remain high. While charters face closure if academic levels are not met, public school districts are only met with “school improvement plans” (Maranto 80). As a part of these plans, districts are sometimes given more money and consultants to help them with reform. Sometimes new staff replaces the old, but the old are typically simply moved to other positions within the district, a term called “passing the lemons” (Maranto 80). The preponderance of evidence supports pro-charter school advocates’ belief that their system can bring about academic improvement and strict accountability.
Charter school opponents worry about an effect known as “creaming”, where the best students leave traditional schools and go to charters, however, the opposite seems to be occurring. According to John Bohte, there is very little evidence to support the “creaming” claim, as “troubled and at-risk” students are often directed toward charter schools by public school officials (504-5). Oftentimes, charter schools are seen as the last hope for troubled, at-risk, and/or low-performing students by school officials and parents. It is believed that the typically small classroom size will increase the amount of attention necessary (Bohte 505). Another reason why these students are pushed towards charters is due to pressure from the No Child Left Behind Act. Under the act, schools are required to meet certain academic levels, providing incentive for public schools to “push economically disadvantaged and LEP [limited English proficiency]“, or otherwise at risk of low academic achievement, students to charter schools (Bohte 516). Indeed, in 2004 over half of charter schools were in urban districts and 40% of their students were dropouts (or at risk of dropping out) from traditional schools (Heaggans 432). In Texas in 2002, 58% of charter school students were considered “economically disadvantaged”, while 51% were considered so amongst traditional school students (Bohte 505). Research in the District of Columbia shows that charter schools there serve a high number of what is known as “resource-intensive student[s]” (language or special needs) (Bohte 505). It is often difficult for traditional schools to provide the amount of time and attention necessary for this class of student. Charter schools are typically better-equipped to handle these students due to their small class sizes and overall autonomy. With these student removed from public schools, public school teachers can focus more of their time, energy, and resources on higher achievers (Bohte 506). In regards to at-risk or low-performing students, both types of schools can enjoy a symbiotic relationship in which charters embrace the more “challenging” students, so that traditional schools can focus their attention towards higher achievers.
One aspect of education that is sometimes neglected is the satisfaction of parents and students with the school. The American Federation of Teachers acknowledges that “teachers, students, and parents [have] successfully lobb[ied] to keep their charter school open” (Maranto 82). Clearly, both parents and students can be passionate about education. A good indicator of parental satisfaction with charter schools lies in their decision to enroll their children in charters. As previously stated, most charter schools have waiting lists. For example, there are 12,000 students on New York State’s waiting lists, 19,000 in Massachusetts, and 27,000 in Pennsylvania (Smarick 38). To provide room for students on charter school waiting lists, 1,121 new schools would need to be built nationwide (Smarick 38). Another indicator of parental satisfaction may be the level of parental involvement. While parents may be more apt to become involved in their children’s school activities due to their displeasure with the school system, it may also be the case that parents become more involved because they are pleased with the school and wish to be a part of it. Researchers have shown that “school choice stimulates parents to become more involved in school-related activities” (Bifulco 554). Parents of charter school children are more involved as compared to similar traditional schools, while on the other hand, more involved parents also tend to transfer their children to charter schools (Bifulco 553). Consequently, it is difficult to determine which came first – the level of involvement or the charter school.
Students who are satisfied with their school, teachers, etcetera are less likely to drop out and are more likely to have a desire to learn and better grades (Barrett 351). Thus, it makes sense to ensure student satisfaction in regards to education. Texas researchers found three major contributing factors as to why charter school received higher satisfaction marks as compared to their previous school:
- 1. Teachers were better (more personal attention, cared for students, et cetera)
- 2. Good class offering
- 3. Overall environment (Barrett 355)
Another Texas study found that students who transferred to charter schools felt their new schools were safer and “staffed by more caring personnel” (Bohte 516). A survey of Texas charter school students found more positive responses from students:
- 88% of students were satisfied with their charter school
- 51% of students gave the charter school a higher grade than their previous non-charter school
- 25% gave both schools the same grade
- 73% of students who gave their old school no higher than a “C” gave their new school a “B” or better
- Almost 1/3 of students gave their charter school an “A”
- Another 1/3 of students gave their charter school a “B”
- 33.2% of students indicated that they were “very satisfied” with their charter school
- Students who would have dropped out of their old school had it not been for their switching to a charter school (11%), gave the charter school a much higher grade than their previous school. (Barrett 353-4)
In this study, most students who switched from a public school to a charter school are happier after the switch. The results from Texas could indicate charter schools’ ability to keep students interested in their education. Since student satisfaction is so closely tied with dropout rates and grade levels it is something that, although perhaps not a top priority previously, is an important aspect to consider in education.
Many in the anti-charter community claim that the charter school system reintroduces segregation into the American educational system because most charter schools have a higher percentage of minority students. One opponent wrote that the charter school system is “segregation and inequalities revisited” and indicated surprise that minorities largely support charter schools (Heaggans 432). New York City charter schools are a case in point, as they are disproportionately located in poor, urban, predominantly black areas. Therefore, New York City charters have more poor, black applicants and students. While charter schools there have a 64% black population, traditional schools have just 32%; 93% are considered poor in charters, while 74% are considered so in traditional schools (Hoxby and Murarka 56-7). There does not seem to be a dispute, even by charter school proponents, that most charters have a larger number of minorities enrolled in comparison to traditional schools, but there is contention as to whether this is necessarily a bad thing. The bottom line seems to be that most minority parents who send their children to charter schools are content that their children are receiving a higher quality education and this may need to be the higher priority.
One of the major sticking points for those against charter schools is the financial issue. Once charter schools come into play, the government must then give a percentage of the money that would normally go to district schools to the charters. Additionally, when students leave public schools for charters, those schools eventually lose funding for those students (Bohte 502). An official with the Houston Independent School District describes the issues that arise once students begin leaving district schools for charter schools:
When a school loses students to charter schools … that school loses state revenues. But the principal cannot always cut costs by eliminating a teacher because no one grade level may lose enough students to justify it. . . . The students don’t leave in nice neat packages of 22, all from the same grade, all from the same school. If I lose 2 students from first grade and two from fourth grade, and let’s say six from fifth grade, you haven’t cut anything. But I’ve lost on average about $4,000 a kid. (qtd. in Bohte 503)
Clearly, the situation is not as “simple” as handing a history teacher a pink slip or cutting back some on supplies. It becomes complicated, as the school official states, because districts lose students sporadically and from all different grades and classes. The Houston Independent School District claims they have lost $50 million of state funding due to the loss of almost 12,000 students to charter schools (Bohte 502). Kansas City, Missouri school officials contend they have lost nearly $41 million of instructional aide, as it has been diverted to the seventeen charter schools in the area (Bohte 502). In spite of the frustration over the loss of public school funding, a 2002 study released by the American Federation of Teachers acknowledges that charter schools actually “spend less public money than most district schools” (Maranto 80). An article published in Education Next in 2008 concurs; reporting that, on average, charter schools receive $1,800 less per student than public schools (Smarick, 39). Loss of funding is certainly an issue that must be dealt with properly, but the fact remains that charter schools receive and spend less money per student than do traditional schools. Rather than fight the charter schools, a better way to regain lost funds may be to actively compete with charters by improving traditional schools.
It is obvious that major opponents of charter schools are usually those working within the current school system – teachers, school administration, teachers unions – but there are other factors that contribute to one’s likelihood of charter school opposition. In a 2004 article regarding school choice, it was noted that a union-member, experienced (teaching-wise), Democrat is most likely to be against school choice (i.e. charter schools); perhaps this is due to the Democratic Party’s strong union support (Ferraiolo, et al. 216). On the other hand, teachers in poor schooling environments or those experienced with charter schools tend to be more accepting of school choice (Ferraiolo, et al. 216). Politically, the Democratic Party is more apt to vote against charter schools. According to Andy Smarick, charter schools face huge political lobbying forces once Democratic politicians take over, facing stronger opposition (40). In Ohio, the newly-elected Democratic governor “made a moratorium on new charters one of his top priorities” (Smarick 40). Teachers unions are a strong force with lots of money and lobbying power, not kind to charter schools. In fact, states with higher teacher union membership in 1987 were less likely to pass a charter law in the 1990’s, and if they did pass one eventually, it was a weak law (Stoddard and Corcoran 77). Robert Maranto believes that although there are many teachers who put the needs of students first, the union’s main goal is to “protect the welfare of their members [defending them] at every turn, no matter what the consequences for schools. After all, serious academic standards might highlight the poor performance of some teachers, who might face sanctions (like – shock! – being fired)” (79). While it is understandable that those embedded in the current educational system will fight against something that has the potential to take it all away, the education of students should be the primary concern for all involved.
Opposition responds to charter school encroachment in a variety of different ways. Andy Smarick asserts that “district stakeholders have fought charters tooth and nail from the beginning, and they have erected policy obstacles that have severed the link between charter demand and supply” (42). A survey done by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, while potentially biased, reports that 2/3 of charter school leadership said that “working with the districts [is] a problem” (Smarick 41). Some public schools punish students and parents for supporting charters by lobbying for state laws to restrict charter schools, refusing to provide the student’s records to the charter school, not accepting credits from charter schools, and cutting programs and blaming it on the charter schools (Bohte 503). In addition to lobbying against charter legislation and filing lawsuits, anti-charter school groups also financially back anti-charter propositions and studies (Williams 12). Ohio, Michigan, and Florida anti-choice coalitions have fought charters through the judicial system. In 2006, the Florida Supreme Court decided that vouchers were “contravening the state’s constitution” because the public education system must be “uniform”. This “opened the door to challenges to the state’s 350 charters” because they are not “uniform” (Smarick 41). Currently, twenty-five states have imposed caps on charter school expansion (Smarick 39). While most of these tactics are legitimate methods of opposition, there are many other instances that are questionable, at best.
The dishonest techniques used by many in the anti-charter school community exemplify “dirty” politics at its worst. Money is surely one of the most important needs in any school system. Just as public schools object to the loss of money to charters, so do the charters become upset when they are denied their money. In many states, funding must pass through the district schools and funnel to the charter schools. The Franklin Career Academy in Franklin, New Hampshire was forced to close because the school district claimed they needed the money more and refused to send it to the charters (Williams 17). The district successfully lobbied their case to the local government and they got their wish. Another important aspect of starting a school is the need for an appropriate building. Charter schools rarely receive government assistance in attaining a building, so the process can be tenuous (Smarick 39). In Englewood, New Jersey, the city reportedly “abruptly” rezoned the property that was being converted from a warehouse into a school in order to prevent the charter school from being created (Williams 14). In Albany, New York, the Albany Preparatory Charter School requested a “variance” on a property they wanted to use for a school. The city and board of zoning appeals denied the school’s request, purporting that the building was not suitable for a school. The state Supreme Court gave the city sixty days to reverse its’ decision since the building had been previously used to house Public School 3 for seventy years (Williams 13). Charter schools must often rely upon district transportation and this is another way that opponents can harass charters. An Ohio school district said that it would be “impractical” to transport charter school students to and from school. Instead, they gave each student $172 to provide their own transportation – just $1 for each school day (Williams 16). Yet another way school districts interfere is through a process known as “flagging”. If a student is “flagged” as to their “validity” or due to an issue with the student’s records, the charter school will not receive any money for that student. Charter schools in Toledo, Ohio charged districts there with excessive flagging of their students. They contend that they had students flagged for proof of residency, despite the students having gone to school there their entire lives. Charter schools tend to have limited staff in order to provide the required documentation and they would often receive notice just prior to the deadline, making it impossible for them to meet (Williams 16). In Framingham, Massachusetts, city officials sent letters telling citizens how much money was going to charter schools along with their tax bills (Williams 17). In 2004, the Toledo Public School teachers stood in front of a charter school open house passing out flyers indicating the charter school had low academic performance (Williams 17). In January 2006, the Boston Teachers Union spent $100,000 on advertising in response to charter schools coming into the area and in May 2007, a district in Saint Louis hired a marketing firm (Smarick 43). However, this “advertising” that traditional schools engage in is often just a negative ad campaign promoting the “adverse” impact charter schools have on the community (Smarick 43). Charter school critics have every right to attempt to stop their development, but only ethical methods should be used to that end.
One of the main points charter school proponents advocate is that the presence of charters will, in turn, push the traditional schools around them to improve. In order to remain competitive, traditional schools are forced into reform and changes in policy, curriculum, and so forth in order to retain students. But if districts and/or teachers decide not to implement change, they may not be able to keep up with charter schools. Many school districts do change upon charter schools’ arrival. They often replace people in administrative positions (principals, superintendents) who do not respond quickly enough or anticipate necessary changes. They are replaced with more reform-minded individuals (Bohte 503). Schools often respond with added and changed curricula or programs such as: all-day kindergarten, after-school programs, foreign language programs, art/drama programs, gifted student programs, teacher training. Once these changes are made, the schools also launch “aggressive public relations” campaigns to inform the public (Bohte 503). One superintendent in Arizona added new textbooks, a gifted student program, and a better teacher-to-student ratio, which resulted in improved elementary school test scores (Bohte 504). A study focusing on Arizona and Michigan schools showed strong evidence that the presence of charter schools caused traditional elementary schools to perform better. All of this evidence indicates that if traditional schools “take the bull by the horns” and actively compete with the charter schools they can both keep their students and improve their education.
Empirical, as well as circumstantial, evidence shows that the American public school system is in need of an overhaul if the United States expects to compete on a global level. At this point, it seems charter schools are the only feasible method of improvement – if only opponents would move aside so they could expand further. As charter school pioneer Ted Kolderies explains, “if private firms, which are built to respond to competition, are unable to make this kind of leap, we can’t expect gigantic, byzantine school systems, which are insulated from competition, shackled by union contracts, and constrained by a sticky web of regulations to do so” (qtd. in Smarick 43). As with any problem, there comes a point where just small changes are not enough to rectify the situation and a complete transformation is required. The problems with the public school system may be one of these instances. Clearly, the system currently in place is an ineffective one. Although charter schools only serve less than 3% of schoolchildren nationwide, the statistics indicate that they are a viable alternative that should be allowed to expand further (Bennett 30).
Works Cited
Barrett, Edith J. ”Evaluating education reform: students’ views of their charter school experience.” The Journal of Educational Research 96.6 (July-August 2003): 351(9). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Bennett, Julie. ”Brand-Name Charters: the franchise model applied to schools.(feature).” Education Next 8.3 (Summer 2008): 28(7). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Bifulco, Robert, and Helen F. Ladd. ”Institutional change and coproduction of public services: the effect of charter schools on parental involvement.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16.4 (Oct 2006): 553(24). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Bohte, John. ”Examining the impact of charter schools on performance in traditional public schools.” Policy Studies Journal 32.4 (Nov 2004): 501(20). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Ferraiolo, Kathleen, Frederick Hess, Robert Maranto, and Scott Milliman. ”Teachers’ attitudes and the success of school choice.” Policy Studies Journal 32.2 (May 2004): 209(16). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Heaggans, R.C. ”Unpacking charter schools: a knapsack filled with a few broken promises.” Education 126.3 (Spring 2006): 431(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Hoxby, Caroline M., and Sonali Murarka. ”New York City Charter Schools: how well are they teaching their students?(research).” Education Next 8.3 (Summer 2008): 54(8). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Lemke, Mariann, et al. “International Outcomes of Learning in Mathematics Literacy and Problem Solving: Pisa 2003 Results from the U.S. Perspective”. National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, December 2004. 25 July 2008 <http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2005/2005003.pdf>.
Maranto, Robert. ”Lobbying in disguise: the American Federation of Teachers ’studies’ charter schools. (Check the Facts).” Education Next 3.1 (Winter 2003): 79(6). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Smarick, Andy. ”Wave of the future: why charter schools should replace failing urban schools.(feature).” Education Next 8.1 (Winter 2008): 38(8). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Stoddard, Christiana, and Sean P. Corcoran. ”Charter politics: why some places have more students in charter schools and others have fewer.(research).” Education Next 8.2 (Spring 2008): 72(7). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
Williams, Joe. ”Games charter opponents play: how local school boards–and their allies–block the competition.” Education Next 7.1 (Winter 2007): 12(7). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Maricopa County Library District. 4 July 2008
<http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=EAIM>.
