Hope for the UnseenThe Charter School Solution

Public education is the best state-run solution to poverty aside from direct welfare payments. Unfortunately, for a multitude of reasons, public education is failing those it most needs to serve, primarily the urban poor. Charter schools, however, have proven incredibly effective at educating students that many have written off as hopeless because, for instance, those students may come from the wrong neighborhood. As their models and techniques spread, charter schools are increasingly successful, despite the fact that union-controlled and wary legislators are retarding their growth – a growth that is critical for educational and economic equity in America.

Simply put, charter schools are public schools. They are granted a charter to educate students by their state (thirty-eight states have such laws, but only 1.5% of students are enrolled in charter schools nationwide), and must meet the testing and safety standards of other schools. A lottery system is used in the case of over-enrollment, but there are no admittance tests. They are funded on a per-student basis, though this is calculated differently by different states and often leads to under-funding of charter schools.

The advantages unique to charter schools stem from their autonomy. These schools do not have to adopt the state curriculum and have more control over the hiring of their own principals, teachers, and staff. Some schools espouse a particular emphasis: math and science, the environment, community involvement. They may also emphasize experiential learning, or whatever pedagogy their founders feel would be most effective. Teachers are attracted to charter schools because as long as their students can pass state assessment tests, they have considerable freedom to teach whatever and however they wish. Furthermore, because students are not assigned to charter schools, they must convince parents and students that they are worth attending, and as a consequence, they put pressure on traditional public schools to improve.

Over this past summer, I studied some of the sixteen charter schools in Baltimore. The city is on pace this year to have well over three hundred murders, and there are an estimated sixty thousand drug addicts in the city, approximately 10% of the population. It is not surprising that, given this social turbulence, Baltimore has the lowest high school graduation rate among major cities, at 38.5%. However, since Maryland passed a charter school law under former Republican governor Robert Ehrlich in 2003 (despite large opposition from teachers’ unions), some students, who would have otherwise been swallowed up by a pessimistic and often unsafe school system, are beginning to succeed.

The question is: how successful, if at all, are charter schools? A 2004 study by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), the most fervent opponent of charter schools, concluded that these schools under-perform other public schools.

This finding, however, was called into question by a more detailed study of charter schools by Caroline Hoxby of Harvard and Johan Rockoff of Columbia. They examined a sample of students who entered a lottery for charter schools, taking into account the oft-repeated claim that charter schools do better simply because they attract parents motivated enough to enter their children into a lottery. Compared to those who did not attend charter schools but were presumably equally motivated (due to the fact that they entered a lottery but did not receive a place in a charter school), students in Chicago charter schools for at least two years performed 6 percentage points higher on national tests.

Furthermore, in Washington, DC, which now has over fifty charter schools, students in these schools have a 35% higher proficiency. In Baltimore, charter schools are hitting their stride; with each passing year, more are fulfilling the No Child Left Behind Act’s Adequate Yearly Progress standard. In five or 10 years, after students in charter schools from elementary school on begin to graduate, we will see what kind of high school and college graduation rates these schools have, which will be the most important indication of their success.

Still, school boards have not taken kindly to charter schools. In Baltimore, some of them receive 50-60% of the per-pupil funding of other public schools. Since some charter schools place a much greater emphasis on art than other public schools, or want to provide different services to students than the city would, they have to raise their own funds to bridge the gap. Many also take advantage of federal aid to charter schools, but many schools still operate with less than if they were another city school.

Why the hostility?

For one, charter schools have an elitist connotation. Even though they serve predominantly poor and minority populations, supposed advocates of these groups often try to discredit charter schools. Usually they will criticize the lottery system at some of the schools, claiming that inequality is involved in the process because only parents who care about their children will be involved. They essentially claim that since some children may not benefit from charter schools, they are elitist and should not be allowed. At the same time, school districts often allow programs for the gifted and talented or have “magnet” schools (Baltimore has three), which require a certain high test score for admission. Charter schools, however, have much lower barriers, if any, to enrollment, aside from the fact that they are so popular and only have so many spots. Many charter schools have two or three students on the waiting list for each spot. Word travels fast among parents and students about the smaller class sizes, safer classrooms, and higher achievement. This choice empowers parents and students to seek out the best school they can.

A second way anti-charter school groups have attempted to discredit charter schools is to paint them as a part of a right-wing, free-market, anti-union conspiracy. However, the charter school movement was actually started by AFT president, Albert Shanker, in 1988. In my own study of Baltimore schools, I did not notice any ideological difference between the people either working at charter schools or working at public schools. At the end of the day, all the teachers and staff are city employees, and these teachers were all union members. There are Kucinich, Dean, and MoveOn stickers on the fuel-efficient cars in the parking lots. The principals whom I interviewed even acknowledged that they were against the idea of charter schools at first. Yet, after serving in large urban public schools and barely escaping with their idealism intact, they began searching for other alternatives. One charter school founder even had the bizarre idea that her child deserved the high-quality education and safety available only in the wealthiest neighborhoods or a $20,000 per year private school.

In the sense that charter schools are autonomous institutions, led by people taking responsibility for their children and their community, and distrustful of a government bureaucracy, then yes, these schools do appeal to the highest libertarian and conservative ideals. But in the sense that charter schools are merely a different way of organizing public education, and that they serve the poorest students, they should appeal to even the biggest fans of the welfare state.

A third, and perhaps most valid criticism to be made of charter schools, is that they require a lot of hard work. Schooldays at some run until 5 p.m., and preparing a lesson plan for the next day (since teachers can design their curriculum) demands even more time from the teachers. The director or principal of the school will devote large amounts of time spreading word about the school, to attract funds in order to compensate for the budget shortfall. It is much less comfortable than other public or even private school jobs, but the teachers find in it the fulfillment and results that drove them to become teachers in the first place. Still, it is worth noting that there may not be many teachers like this, who are both smart and enterprising, and who want to devote their lives to building a new kind of school.

Charter schools are not going to replace traditional public schools. The centralized, bureaucratic system that fails some students works well enough for others, especially in relatively wealthier areas. However, charter schools allow idealistic and hardworking people, who want to help students but do not want to become entangled in the current system, to use innovative ideas to make a difference. The word “choice” best describes the purpose of charter schools: they provide families with an alternative to their current high schools, and they provide teachers with an alternative to the state curriculum. There is no malignant ideology at work, aside from simple respect for the power of individuals to change society.