In the Charter Movement, It Is What It Is

My View

I was given a sticker some time ago that said, “Charter Schools ROCK!” by someone in the charter school profession.
Whether charter schools do ROCK! is much open to debate.

For years, the pro-charter/anti-charter dichotomy has fingered “good guys” and “bad guys,” claiming charters either provide long-needed opportunities for children or drain the lifeblood out of public school funding. Some say that when charter schools close, it’s proof that chartering does not work. Others say it is proof that the charter world works well because it is held accountable for results.

I would posit that chartering does not necessarily produce a different type of school or way of doing things in all circumstances. After all, charters often choose to replicate what we already are doing. Chartering has not as much produced a separate system that competes against our public schools as it has expanded definitions of “public schools.

A Permission Slip

What chartering amounts to, in 2016, is a type of permission slip.

Chartering involves groups of education stakeholders who care about children, or purport to care, jointly sharing their ideas about schooling with another group — those in a position to issue the permission slips. If their ideas are sound, they receive a permission slip in the form of a charter (or contract) to run a school for a given period of time, in a certain way. Often, these schools enjoy the same system of accountability as their state’s traditional public schools.

If at the end of that time frame, the sponsoring group is successful, it might get another permission slip. If not, it might not. It’s that simple.

In one instance, a charter school wanted to compete with our school in Michigan by offering a themed experience in music and the arts, yet wanted their kids to play sports on our teams, as they lived in our district. That did not sit well. Neither did the public criticism of our schools leveled by another charter school operator at town hall meetings a few years later.

On the other hand, I have seen a charter school purposefully enroll struggling students from surrounding districts, even with the significant challenges that would need to be overcome to raise their standardized test scores. This school was chartered to help at-risk kids. That commitment made for good neighbors, as you can imagine.

Pursuing Flexibility

Sometimes charters play well in the neighborhood; sometimes they do not. The same holds true for traditional schools, which at times criticize charters out of one side of their mouths while trolling for students from neighboring districts out of the other.

What many people do not know is that traditional public schools often can apply for charter school permission slips. Some don’t for political reasons, but the option is there for many.

My question is this: In instances where state law allows those with permission slips to operate with more autonomy, then why wouldn’t traditional schools charter their own programs to leverage flexibility? After all, chartering does not necessarily mean schools must give teachers lower wages or prevent bargaining unit services. Charter schools, in some instances, can offer administrators multiyear contracts and contribute to state retirement systems.

Local Latitude

Local control is the key.

If chartering a school district program or a building would give school districts control to provide a quality education to students with flexibility from regulations, would it not behoove us to explore this option?

The fact remains that no matter how we feel about charter schools, it seems as if we have as many (or more) interested individuals across the country today drawing up charter school applications with for-profit intentions, as we have K-12 school districts using the chartering option to provide services.

Of course, most ideal would be state laws that do not require the granting of charters for innovation practices to grow. Why not give leaders in all public schools the power to innovate and the greatest flexibility possible with minimal regulation?

Let’s reserve permission slips for all who want to collaborate, rather than only those desiring to compete, in the best interest of any community’s children.