School Reform and The Chater School Debate

Charter schools have been a part of the school reform debate in the United States for over the last 20 years. The main premise of charter schools is to provide an alternative to educating those students that traditional public schools have failed to educate. These differences have fueled the debate about charter schools being a viable way to improve our education system. Some charter schools have been able to create a school culture that maximizes student motivation by emphasizing high expectations, academic rigor, discipline, and relationships with caring adults. Affirming students, particularly minority students in urban school districts, whose school performance is affected by low economic status and limited resources requires exceptional leadership to create a carefully balanced school culture to meet students' needs.

Charter schools differ from regular public schools in many different ways. These differences are what many believe make charter better educational institutions than their public school equivalents. One difference is charters have more control over their bureaucratic structure than their regular public school counter parts. This control allows charters have more say over curricular decisions, how public monies are spent, the hiring of administrative and teaching staff, organization of daily schedules, and mission statements. Most teachers, about 68%, say schools would be better for students if principals and teachers had more control and flexibility about work rules and school duties.

Charter schools also are required to enter into performance agreements with local school boards or other state agencies unlike regular public schools. The charter schools must adhere to the agreements regarding curriculum. They must also guarantee specific knowledge and academic levels of the students who attend the charter school. If a charter school does not live up to its guarantees, parents can remove their children. If the charter school fails to accomplish the goals stated in its mission within a 3-5 year period, funding is withdrawn.

Unlike regular public schools, tenure rights of teachers do not apply at charter schools. If teachers do not live up to the school’s mission statement they can be fired. If teachers are unhappy with the way the school is run they are permitted to leave. This flexibility can be viewed as positive or negative. A Pennsylvania legislator, who voted to create charter schools, 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.”

Critics of charter schools have accused for-profit entities of funding Charter school initiatives to undermine public education and turn education into a "Business Model" which can make a profit. According to activist Jonathan Kozol, education is seen as one of the biggest market opportunities in America. Other drawbacks of charter schools include: difficulty of holding them accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices; the promotion of racial segregation because they are primarily operated in African American communities, too much power for teachers and parents, non-collective bargaining for teachers, and lottery admissions disappointment.

I believe charter schools are one step in the right direction when it comes to school reform. Although many issues have not been resolved, there are charter schools that have high success rates. Schools such as Washington, DC's SEED Public Charter School and the Hyde Leadership Public Charter School; Newark's North Star Academy; San Jose's Downtown College Prep and Dorchester (MA)'s South Boston Harbor Academy Charter School and several charter schools in Chicago watched as their first classes received diplomas. And over 80% of their students are attending college. These charter schools have proven that high levels of achievement are not reserved for elite prep schools. Schools serving overwhelmingly minority and low-income students can set equally high standards meet them.