The new school: charter schools offer the benefits of both public schools and private schools

National Review, Sept 15, 1997 by Chester E. Finn, Jr., Bruno V. Manno, Louann Bierlein, Gregg Vanourek

Finally, the teachers prize the professional opportunities they find in charter schools. More than 90 per cent are satisfied with their school's educational philosophy, with their fellow teachers, and with their students; over three-quarters are pleased with their school's administrators and the level of teacher decision-making, and they like the challenge of starting a new school. Fewer than 3 per cent would rather teach elsewhere.

TENS of thousands of American families have chosen to avail themselves of these new-style schools. Yet the charter movement has reached a fateful intersection. If it is able to follow one path, thousands of these schools-of-choice will develop, offering true educational alternatives for millions of families. Down the other path lies a future not too different from the present: a handful of schools serving a smallish population of determined parents and students who had fared poorly elsewhere.

The second path, alas, seems the likelier. The foes of charter schools -- both teachers unions and their allies in the education establishment -- are doing their utmost to block access to the first. In fact, the foes are now almost as wary of charter schools as of vouchers -- not least because the charter idea has wider political appeal and is spreading faster.

Statutory caps on the number of charter schools are a favorite weapon of the establishment. In Massachusetts, where the legislature just inched up its 25-school limit, the Commonwealth received 123 proposals over the past three years. In Texas, which recently raised the ceiling from 20 to 100 schools, nearly 300 applications are expected. (The Lone Star State has about 6,300 public and 1,300 private schools.) When New Jersey issued its new charter application package a couple of months ago, over 500 requests for copies arrived within days.

Discriminatory financial arrangements are another weapon. Capital funding for charter schools is almost non-existent today -- which is why so many of them operate in shabby, rented quarters. Only a few states grant them per-pupil operating budgets equal to those of conventional schools. Most jurisdictions don't turn on the fiscal spigot until the kids arrive (i.e., no start-up funding). Several permit local school boards to charge fat "overhead" fees. And Washington -- despite Mr. Clinton's professed support and the popularity of the charter concept among GOP lawmakers -- comes nowhere near assuring these schools the federal aid that their students would get in ordinary public schools.

A third weapon is lingering bureaucratic control of crucial parts of a school's finances or program. Recall that the whole idea of chartering a school is to give it operating freedom in return for results-based accountability -- the reverse of traditional school practice, which micromanages the production process while turning a blind eye to the quality of the product. A well-crafted charter program keeps a few essential rules in place (in matters such as health, safety, and civil rights) and checks the backgrounds of would-be charter operators and staff. It sets academic standards for the schools to attain. But that's it. All else hinges on whether a school delivers the results it promises -- and can attract and hold customers.