Charter school
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements since March 2008 | Articles with specifically-marked weasel-worded phrases | Wikipedia external links cleanup | Alternative education | Academic institutions | Education in the United States | Charter schools | Charter schools in the United States | School types
|
Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1] Their founders are often teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.[2] State-run charter schools (schools not affiliated with local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities[3].
HistoryThe charter school movement in the United States began in 1988, when Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice". At the time, a few schools (which were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles) already existed, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business – free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).[4] Opponents of charter schools suggest that this accountability is rarely exercised, and that the more lax requirements for charter schools result in fewer credentialed teachers than at their traditional public counterparts.[5] The findings of the U.S. Department of Education agree with those opponents' views.[6] Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law, in 1991. California was second, in 1992. By 1995 there were 19 states with charter school laws. Structure and characteristicsThere are two principles which guide charter schools. First is that they will operate as autonomous public schools. This is effected by gaining waivers from many of the procedural requirements of public schools. The second is that they may use innovative pedagogy. To justify their waivers and autonomy, they are supposed to produce results superior to non-charter schools. However, studies have shown that charter schools are rarely closed for poor academic performance.[5] The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation, and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3–5 years. Charter schools are meant to be held accountable to their sponsor—a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity&—to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. While this accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, the United States Department of Education has found that charters are, in practice, not held to higher standards of accountability than traditional public schools.[7] Chartering authoritiesChartering authorities, authorities which may legally issue such charters, differ from state to state, as do bodies legally entitled to operate under such charters. In some states, like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Colorado, the local school district may be authorized to issue charters. Charter initiating bodies, which intend to operate charter schools, may include local school districts, institutions of higher education, non-profit corporations, and for-profit corporations. Michigan and California allow for-profit corporations to operate charter schools. This is cause for the concern in the opinion of educators who are concerned that for-profit charter schools are inherently flawed, as they divert part of the funding that in a traditional public school would be spent entirely on education to maintain profits. According to the National Education Association (the public school teachers union), for-profit charter schools rarely outperform traditional public schools, even when the charter receives higher funding.[8] The U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the NEA.[9] DemographicsThe U.S. Department of Education's 1997 First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters, is based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states. Charters tend to be small (fewer than 200 students) and represent primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to charter status. Charter schools often tend to exist in urban locations, rather than rural. This study found enormous variation among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially diverse, and to enroll slightly fewer students with special needs and limited-English-proficient students than the average schools in their state. [10] FundingCharter school funding is dictated by the state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502 - 511 also authorize funding grants for charter schools. Additionally, charter schools may receive funding from private donors or foundations. In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance undertaken by a pro-charter group[11] found that across 16 states and the District of Columbia—which collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation’s one million charter school students—charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that surround them. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts that the funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student, and that in cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The fiscal inequity is most severe in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The report suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is charter schools’ lack of access to local and capital funding. In contrast, an article from August of 2002 suggests that charters in economically depressed areas may receive more funding than the traditional public schools that surround them, placing traditional public schools at a funding disadvantage [12]. Locations of charter schoolsIn the United States
 In 1991, Minnesota adopted charter school legislation to expand a longstanding program of public school choice and to stimulate broader system improvements. Since then, the charter concept has spread to 40 states and DC. State laws follow varied sets of key organizing principles based on the Citizens League's recommendations for Minnesota,[13] American Federation of Teachers guidelines, and/or federal charter-school legislation (U.S. Department of Education). Principles govern sponsorship, number of schools, regulatory waivers, degree of fiscal/legal autonomy, and performance expectations. Current laws have been characterized as either strong or weak. Strong-law states mandate considerable autonomy from local labor-management agreements, allow multiple charter-granting agencies, and allocate a level of funding consistent with the statewide per pupil average. Arizona's 1994 law is the strongest, with multiple charter-granting agencies, freedom from local labor contracts, and large numbers of charters permitted.[citation needed] 40 U.S. states and the District of Columbia have Charter-school laws. The vast majority of charter schools (more than 70 percent) are found in states with the strongest laws: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and North Carolina.[14] In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, over half of the New Orleans schools that are re-opening are doing so as charter schools.[15] Outside the United StatesOverall, charter schools have had much less support outside the U.S., although many of the choices provided by charter schools have long existed elsewhere under different names. New ZealandWell before American charter schools, New Zealand went far further in granting power to individual schools by abolishing all regional school boards and making each public school independent, with local parent and teacher involvement in decision making.[16] Although not called charter schools, each school does have a charter under which it operates with a board of trustees and has a high degree of autonomy. The main difference, though, is that since all schools have the same status, individual schools don't all have the uniqueness typical of a charter school. While since 1989 there is also provision for Designated Special Character schools, thus far only two have been created. (These are not to be confused with 'state integrated' schools -- mostly Catholic,[17] and formerly private -- that are 'integrated' into the public school system, while retaining their proprietor -- which are required to have a 'special character' in their integration agreement with the Crown that would be preserved by the school's continuance.) England and WalesThe United Kingdom established grant-maintained schools in England and Wales in 1988. They allowed individual schools that were independent of the local school authority. When they were abolished in 1998, most turned into foundation schools, which are under their local district authority but still have a high degree of autonomy. CanadaAbout three years after charter schools were introduced in the U.S., the Canadian province of Alberta allowed charter schools beginning in 1994. Two years later, ABC Charter Public School (now Westmount Charter School) formed. Alberta charter schools have much in common with their U.S. counterparts. As of 2005 there are only about a dozen charter schools in the province, compared with over 50 school boards, with the largest one alone having over 200 schools. The idea of charter schools initially sparked great debate and is still controversial, but has had limited impact. No other province in Canada has yet followed Alberta's lead. ChileChile has a long history of private subsidized schooling, akin to charter schooling in the United States. Before the 1980's, most private subsidized schools were religious and owned by churches or other private parties, but they received support from the central government. In the 1980's, the dictatorial government of Augusto Pinochet promoted neoliberal reforms in the country, and adopted a competitive voucher system in education. These vouchers could be used in pubic schools or private subsidized schools (which can be run for profit). After this reform, the number of private subsidized schools, many of them secular, grew from 18.5% of schools in 1980 to 32.7% of schools in 2001.[18] Evaluations of Charter SchoolsOne obvious question charter schools face is whether they actually improve educational outcomes, which is their claimed intent. In the interest of testing this assertion, a number of researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who attend charter schools. American Federation of Teachers studyA study performed by the American Federation of Teachers, which opposes charter schools, found that students attending charter schools tied to school boards do not fare any better or worse statistically than students attending public schools on reading and math scores.[19] This study was conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003.[20] The study included a sample of 6000 4th grade pupils and was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools. Rod Paige, the U.S. Secretary of Education, issued a statement saying (among other things) that, "according to the authors of the data the Times cites, differences between charter and regular public schools in achievement test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity."[21] Additionally, a number of prominent research experts called into question the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of the data in an advertisement funded by a pro-charter group.[22] Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby also criticized the report and the sample data, saying "An analysis of charter schools that is statistically meaningful requires larger numbers of students."[23] Caroline Hoxby studiesA 2000 paper by Caroline Hoxby found that charter school students do better than public school students, although this advantage was found only "among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent with at least a high school degree".[24] This paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant professor Jesse Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby released a follow up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Graduate School of Business, claiming to have again found that charter school students do better than public school students.[23] This second study compared charter school students "to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition."[23] It reported that the students in charter schools performed better in both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared. Hoxby's methodology in this study has also been criticized, arguing that Hoxby's "assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the students. That’s like knowing the poverty rate but not the average income of a community -- useful but incomplete."[25] The study has also been criticized for its representivity as the study is only of students in Chicago.[26] Meta-analysesA report issued by a pro-charter school group,[27] released in July 2005 and updated in October 2006, looks at twenty-six studies that make some attempt to look at change over time in charter school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find charter schools’ gains higher in certain significant categories of schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional public schools; and, four find that charter schools’ overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at whether individual charter schools improve their performance with age (e.g. after overcoming start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as charter schools mature, they improve. The other two find no significant differences between older and younger charter schools. A more recent meta-analysis conducted at Vanderbilt University indicates that solid conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing studies, due to their methodological shortcomings and conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.[28] National Center for Education Statistics studyA study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.[29] Proponents consider this the best study as they believe by incorporating basic demographic, regional, or school characteristics simultaneously it "...has shown conclusively, through rigorous, replicated, and representative research, whether charter schools boost student achievement...", while they say that in the AFT study "...estimates of differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are overstated.".[26] Critics of this study argue that its demographic controls are highly unreliable, as percentage of students receiving free lunches does not correlate well to poverty levels, and some charter schools don't offer free lunches at all, skewing their apparent demographics towards higher income levels than actually occur.[30] United States Department of Education StudyIn its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report, the U.S. Department of Education found that, in the five case study states, charter schools were out-performed by traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards. The study did not state definitively that this was due to the effectiveness of the schools, noting that some other factor could be causing the charter's comparatively low performance [9] Policy and practiceAs more states start charter schools, there is increasing speculation about upcoming legislation. In an innovation-diffusion study surveying education policy experts in fifty states, Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari (1997) found that charter legislation is more likely considered in states with poor test scores, Republican legislative control, and proximity to other states with charter schools. Legislative enthusiasm, gubernatorial support, interactions with national authorities, and use of permissive charter-law models increase the chances for adopting what they consider stronger laws. He feels union support and restrictive models lead to adoption of what he considers weaker laws. The threat of vouchers, wavering support for public education, and bipartisan support for charters has led some unions to start charters themselves. Several AFT chapters, such as those in Houston and Dallas, have themselves started charters. The National Education Association has allocated $1.5 million to help members start charter schools. Proponents claim that charters offer teachers a brand of empowerment, employee ownership, and governance that might be enhanced by union assistance (Nathan). Over two dozen private management companies are scrambling to increase their 10 percent share of a "more hospitable and entrepreneurial market" (Stecklow 1997). Boston-based Advantage Schools Inc., a corporation specializing in for-profit schooling, has contracted to run charter schools in New Jersey, Arizona, and North Carolina. The Education Development Corporation was planning in the summer of 1997 to manage nine nonsectarian charter schools in Michigan, using cost-effective measures employed in Christian schools. Professor Frank Smith, of Teachers College, Columbia University, sees the charter-school movement as a chance to involve entire communities in redesigning all schools and converting them to "client-centered, learning cultures" (1997). He favors the Advocacy Center Design process used by state-appointed Superintendent Laval Wilson to transform four failing New Jersey schools. Building stronger communities via newly designed institutions may prove more productive than charters' typical "free-the-teacher-and-parent" approach. President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act also promotes charter schools. It is as yet unclear whether recent test results will affect the enacting of future legislation. A Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings." Charter school popularitySome members of the public are dissatisfied with educational quality and school district bureaucracies.[31] Today's charter-school initiatives are rooted in the educational reforms of the 1980s and 1990s, from state mandates to improve instruction, to school-based management, school restructuring, and private/public-choice initiatives. The charter approach uses market principles while insisting that schools be nonsectarian and democratic. Many people, such as former President Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and an alternative to vouchers. Others, such as President George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush has made charter schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. A recent report by the AFT, a noted charter-school opponent, has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state administered standardized testing,[32] though the report has been heavily criticized.[33][34] Other charter school opponents have examined the competing claims and suggest that most students in charter schools perform the same or worse than their traditional public school counterparts on standardized tests.[35] Debate over fundingNearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet a few charter schools also attract large amounts of interest and money from private foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Broad Foundation. Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. In reality, this is not necessarily the case in the complex world of school funding. Charter schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than non-charter (traditional public schools) received until a new law was passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis.[36] Sometimes private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech Corporation in Michigan and the Annenburg Fund in California, provide support.[31] Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997. Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions.[32] Many educators are concerned that charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for regular schools, as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. The American Federation of Teachers urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights. Criticism of charter schoolsDifficulties with accountabilityThe basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for greater accountability. They are meant to be accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing.[37] An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray[38] and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district except those serving entirely non-English-speakers.[39] It was also accused of academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required credits.[37] There is also the case of California Charter Academy, where a publicly funded but privately run chain of 60 charter schools became insolvent in August 2004, despite a budget of $100 million dollars, which left thousands of children without a school to attend.[26] However, in Connecticut a large proportion of poorly-performing charter schools have been closed.[40] Distribution of fundsAdditional concerns arise when, as in Michigan, charter schools are run for profit. Many educators[attribution needed] worry that education will suffer when funding is split between profit and educational spending, rather than going completely toward educational spending as is done in traditional public schools. Studies have already shown many instances of charter schools cutting programs or refusing to educate students with special needs so as to maintain profitability.[41] Charter schools in Michigan, where for-profit charter schools are common, have performed at a lower level than their traditional public school counterparts.[40] Racial integrationIn an article written for the journal Contexts, Linda A. Renzulli, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Georgia, and Vincent J. Roscigno, coeditor of the American Sociological Review, use Linda's own research as well as research by Amy Stuart Wells, Professor of Sociology and Education and the Coordinator of Policy Studies at Teachers College at Columbia University, to state that Charter Schools actually increase segregation, which is contrary to what they are supposed to do.[26] Notes
References
See alsoExternal links
Articles and papers
Organizations
| |||||||||||||||||
