The theory of charter schools

Whenever I talk about charter schools, I invariably refer to the theory that is typically used as its intellectual foundation: "relieving charter schools from some bureaucratic requirements allows them to explore educational innovation that could be replicated elsewhere."

Or, as I've heard recently, charter schools were supposed to be "laboratories for reform".

As of today, I cease and desist. While intuitively appealing in theory, charter schools have existed in Pennsylvania for 14 years, and to my knowledge - and as was pointed out in the CDT series - rarely has an innovation from a charter school been used to inform the practice of a traditional public school.

For starters, our charter school law has no mechanism for implementing these "lessons learned." Rather, by design it creates an adversarial relationship between charters and the 'authorizing' school, as was also pointed out by the CDT.

Second, while charter schools are required, as a condition of the charter, to describe their 'innovative approach', it is only superficially enforced by PDE - woe to the district who challenges - and there is no follow-up.

Then there's that bit about 'freedom from mandates'. For examples, public schools are required to have 100% of their teachers certified ("highly qualified" in NCLB lingo).

But in charter schools, only 75% of their teachers must meet this requirement. Well, is "certification" important, or isn't it?  Same issue for special ed students: charter schools are not required to file the detailed reports that regular public schools must file. Well, why not? If it's not important, why do public schools have to do it? (Ask any administrator: this is not an insignificant burden.)

Although I'm sure many charter school supporters are well-intentioned, it has become hard not to conclude that the driving forces behind the charter school movement are 1) money, and 2) an ideological or emotional disposition against public schools.

In Pennsylvania, one of the leading advocates for charter school legislation (which was recently defeated, at least temporarily) has been state senator Anthony Williams. Listening to him, it is hard not to believe he is sincere about wanting to help kids - but it's also hard to ignore that his biggest campaign contributors were people who stood to gain financially. Schools as a profit center!

As Twain(?) once observed, "it is hard to convince a man of something when he is paid to believe otherwise."

That's not to say that some charter schools aren't innovating, with some success (statistically, about 15-20%). In State College, we have four charter schools, at least a couple of which are doing some fairly interesting stuff.

But there's no mechanism for closing the "laboratories" that appear to have "failed" - a fact that does not appear to concern most charter school supporters.

If we are to take the concept of charter schools seriously, two things need to happen: 1) the state should produce detailed reports describing the success, or lack thereof, of each charter school "innovation" and 2) charter schools should be funded in a way that makes them "revenue neutral" to local districts.
 
The most recent state budget eliminated the entire state reimbursement for charter schools. What does that tell us?