Hosted by The Center for
Education Reform
Hosted by The Center for
Education Reform
Congressional Testimony Of Joe Nathan
Director, Center
for School Change
Hubert H. Humphrey Institute Of Public Affairs,
University Of Minnesota
Hearing on Charter Schools
Committee On Education And The Workforce
United States House Of Representatives
April 9, 1997
Why did United States Senator Paul Wellstone, a liberal Democrat, recently tell a special session of the Minnesota Legislature that he thinks charter schools are a marvelous idea spreading around the nation? Why does he agree about charters with Governor Arne Carlson, a Republican with whom Senator Wellstone often disagrees? Why do state governors as different as Michigan's John Engler, a Republican and Colorado's Roy Roemer, a Democrat, agree on the value of charter schools? Why did the Minnesota Education Association, after describing the charter idea as a "cruel hoax" in 1991, put one of their members, who started the nation's first charter on the cover of their December, 1993 statewide newspaper? Why did the Houston Federation of Teachers and Tejano Center work together on a state-sponsored charter, which the HFT president thinks will promote broader reform. Why are thousands of educators working in charters, and thousands of families selecting them?
This testimony tries to answer these critical questions, describe several critical lessons we've learned from the charter movement, and offer possible actions the federal government could take.
The charter idea has spread so rapidly, and attracted so many, and diverse supporters, because it combines 3 core American ideas:
1. Increasing freedom and choice for families,
2. Requiring responsibility for results, and
3. Creating new entrepreneurial opportunities
Like our freedom of speech, the charter idea has limits. It is not about unlimited, unregulated school choice - a critical difference from many other school choice plans.
The charter idea is for people who believe that public schools can have a significant, positive impact on youngsters. For many advocates, the charter public school movement is an expansion of opportunity, similar to that proposed by people like Susan B. Anthony, Dr. Martin Luther King and Cesar Chavez.
No serious educator or observer would argue that one change will solve all the problems of children, or our public education system. And no one would argue that all charters are perfect, or that all charter laws are equally effective.
This movement is about hope and possibility. It's for people like Richard Farias, director of Houston's Tejano Center who is working with the Houston Federation of Teachers to start a new charter Kim Borwege and Nancy Miller, public school teachers who started a charter school in three formerly empty storefronts on the Main Street of LeSueur, Minnesota, and Bob Stein, C.E.O. of an award winning San Diego public school which decided to convert to charter status.
The charter idea is for people who believe that public schools can have a significant, positive impact on youngsters. Charter proponents readily agree that there are significant problems in society which produce troubled families and challenging youngsters. It's vital to work toward a more just, fair society which prizes all youngsters, and helps strengthen every family. But acknowledging enormous problems outside schools doesn't mean that educators can't do a much better job helping youngsters inside schools. That's what effective, talented educators have long believed. The charter public school movement gives them the opportunity to carry out their dreams.
A Brief History
In five years, the charter movement has spread from one state and one school, to 23 states and hundreds of schools. But the idea is not just to create hundreds or even thousands of new schools. The goal is to encourage widespread improvements in public education.
The term "charter" comes from the contract given to early European explorers. As Ray Budde recalls elsewhere in this magazine, he suggested more than 20 years ago that school districts give a "charter" to teachers willing to try new approaches. In 1988, Budde wrote a book on the subject 1 and sent it to many people, including American Federation of Teachers president Al Shanker. Shanker endorsed the idea, and began promoting it. 2
Senator Ember Reichgott Junge, a Minnesota Democratic state legislator and several local activists heard Shanker. They refined the idea to fit Minnesota. Public school choice already had a strong base in Minnesota. Minneapolis and St. Paul had offered alternatives and magnet schools since the 1979s. Most served a cross section of students. Many Minnesota educators concluded that options reduce the number of unsuccessful students.
In 1985, Democratic Governor Rudy Perpich proposed expanding public school choice for all Minnesota students. Perpich wanted to build on the success of innovative public schools of choice in Minneapolis and St. Paul. Perpich talked with people from award- winning public schools of choice like St. Paul's Open School and Barton Open School in Minneapolis.
Governor Perpich knew that without government action, only affluent families would have choices among schools. He also knew that choice programs would have to be carefully designed to achieve one of his key goals: expanding opportunity and achievement for low and moderate income students. Perpich recognized that in some southern states, school 2hoice had been used to perpetuate segregation. That's why his proposal stipulated that students could transfer across district lines only if it did not harm racial integration efforts.
Perpich suggested a "Postsecondary Option," allowing public school juniors and seniors to attend colleges and universities with dollars following students, paying their tuition, book and material fees. He also recommended allowing K-12 students to attend public schools outside their resident district, if the district had room and their transfer did not harm desegregation efforts. Both laws were adopted over the next 3 years.
In 1985, only 33% of Minnesotans favored cross district public school choice, while 60% opposed it. By 1992, polls by major public education groups found that 76% of the state supported the idea, while only 21% opposed it. Support grew because 1) thousands of students who had dropped out used these laws to return to school, 2) the number of advanced courses in high schools more than doubled, with schools responding to the competition Post-Secondary Options provided by allowing high school juniors and seniors to take all or a portion of their courses at colleges or universities, 3) public school choice brought families back into public education; and 4) it allowed educators to create new, distinctive schools. 3
Minnesotans learned that thoughtful competition could help stimulate improvements. A 1995 study of the Post-Secondary Options law found that more than half of the secondary administrators who responded to a survey said one result of the law was that it increased cooperation between high schools, colleges and universities. 4
Unfortunately, teachers in Minnesota's urban, suburban or rural areas who tried to start innovative programs often encountered intense opposition from fellow educators, and sometimes from local school boards. AFT president Al Shanker has described problems faced all too often by public school teachers who try to create innovative "schools within schools:"
Many schools within schools were or are treated like traitors or outlaws for daring to move out of the lock-step and do something different. Their initiators had to move heaven and earth to get school officials to authorize them, and if they managed that, often they could look forward to insecurity, obscurity or outright hostility." 5
By 1989, most Minnesota families had choice, without many distinctive choices. So Minnesotans were ready for a plan to increase the number of high quality public school options.
The charter school notion also developed as many progressive educators and political leaders were confronting renewed interest in vouchers. Strong voucher opponents, including President Bill Clinton, Secretary of Education Richard Riley, Colorado Governor, Roy Romer, U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone and California State Senator Gary Hart have endorsed charter schools. State Senator Ember Reichgott Junge wrote a editorial for Minnesota's largest newspaper arguing passionately that the charter approach is much better than vouchers. 6
A 1996 study asked state legislators and other charter advocates in 7 states (Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Louisiana, Massachusetts and Minnesota) why they proposed charter legislation. The most frequently cited reasons were:
Creating new opportunities for educators, expanding the kinds of schools available, better serving previously unsuccessful students, pressuring the system to change, promoting student achievement, and serving as an alternative to vouchers. 7 Most of the advocates saw charters as an alternative to, rather than a prelude to, vouchers.
In his 1995 State of the Union speech, the President urged states to adopt charter legislation. "I challenge every state to give all parents the right to choose which public school their children will attend and to let teachers form new schools with a charter they can keep only if they do a good job." 8 Thanks to members of Congress such as those of you here today, Congress decided to assist this movement by providing start-up funds and other technical assistance.
Some political leaders who support charters also support vouchers. But as the next section points out, there are important differences between the two concepts. The charter concept, as developed in Minnesota, appeals to people who believe in public education, but who want to see more accountability for results, and more dynamism within public education. In the last five years, 25 states adopted charter legislation, although the details vary widely. In evaluating legislation, it's vital to understand the charter idea's central principles.
Elements of Charter Schools
1. The state will authorize more than one organization to start and operate a charter public school in the community. The state would withdraw what Ted Kolderie calls the "exclusive franchise" 9 it had given public school districts. Those districts could continue to offer public schools. But other publicly accountable groups, such as the state board of education, public universities, a new state agency or a city council or county commission, also could sponsor public schools.
The organizers, usually teachers, parents or other community members, could approach either a local board or some other public body, to be their sponsor. People can go to any of several places to get supervision and sponsorship.
This feature differentiates "strong" from "weak" charter laws. As noted later, many more charter schools are created, and there is more positive response from public school districts, in states which allow local school boards And other groups to sponsor a charter school.
As Ted Kolderie notes, eliminating the "exclusive franchise" given to local districts "removes from the district its ability to take its students for granted." 10 Many educators try to make improvements. But, they often face strong opposition and active resistance from fellow educators. Professional jealousy and institutional lethargy are real, and strong.
2. The newly organized (or converted) schools would be public. They would be non-sectarian. They would not charge tuition Or have any admissions test. They would be open to all kinds of students. These features make the charter idea much different than voucher proposals, or and different from many magnet schools, which are allowed to have admissions tests. Charter schools also must follow building health and safety regulations.
3. The schools would be responsible for improved student achievement. Each school would negotiate a 3-5 year contract (or "charter") with the sponsoring agency, specifying areas in which students would learn more, and how that learning would be measured. Schools which failed to achieve their contracted improvements would be closed by the sponsor.
4. In return for this accountability for improved results, the state would grant an up-front waiver of most rules and regulations governing public schools. Aside from those regulations mentioned above in #3, schools would be exempt from state regulations about how to operate the school.
5. The charter school would be a school of choice. It would be selected by the educators and the families. No one would be assigned to work in, or to attend the school.
6. The school would be a discrete entity. Founders could choose any organization available under state laws. The school would be a legal entity, with its own elected board. Teachers could organize and bargain collectively. However, this bargaining unit would be separate from, and not bound by, any district bargaining unit.
7. The full per-pupil allocation moves with the student. This amount should be roughly the average state allocation per pupil or the average in the district from which the student comes. If the state provides extra funds for students with disabilities, Or from low income families, these funds also should follow the students.
8. Participating teachers should be protected and given new opportunities. The state would permit teachers to take a leave from their public school systems, and retain their seniority. Teachers could stay in local or state retirement systems. Teachers could choose to be employees, organize a cooperative or choose another method of organization available to non-sectarian groups.
Key Early Lessons
Here are major lessons about the charter idea. First, school level lessons:
1. Charter schools can have a positive impact on student achievement, attendance and attitude. The St. Paul, Minnesota School Board recently voted 7-0 to renew City Academy's charter because many youngsters who were not succeeding in larger, traditional schools were flourishing in the school's smaller, more intensive program. Other charters, like New Visions, in Minneapolis, Vaughn Next Century Learning Center Charter in Los Angeles, Bowling Green Charter in Sacramento and Academy Charter in Castle Rock, Colorado also have produced achievement gains.
2. Many charter schools serve low and moderate income youngsters. Opponents feared that most charter proposals would serve affluent, successful students. This has not been the case. A 1995 survey of 110 charter schools in seven states found that most charters were designed at least in part to serve "at risk" students. 11 A review by Louisiana State University analyst Louann Bierlein of six states with the most charter schools found that "minority youngsters comprise 40 percent of charter school enrollments although the same minorities make up just 31 percent of pupils in the regular public schools in those states. 12
A recent study in Minnesota is illustrative. This study found the that when compared with the average public school in the district, the average charter public school was more racially diverse, and more likely to enroll students with a disability, students who do not speak English, and students from low income families. The study also compared the percentage of families who gave their children's school an "A" or "B." A 1996 Gallup study found that 65% of the nation's public school parents gave their children's public school an "A or B." This study found that 90% of Minnesota charter school parents gave their children's school an "A or B." 13
Some of the strongest support for charter legislation is coming from groups which advocate for low income families and youngsters representing "communities of color," like the Urban League, Urban Coalition, A.C.O.R.N., etc. It is heartening to talk with African-American and Hispanic parents, as I have, who have found that charter school educators are more open to their ideas and suggestions, in part because the schools need their help to improve achievement, and thus to stay open. As one inner city parent told me, "I went to lots of meetings for years. They ran me all around the mulberry bush. But at the Skills for Tomorrow Charter School, the teachers make me feel like they really want me involved, and not just in fundraising." 14
3. Many talented educators will accept responsibility for results, in exchange for considerable autonomy. Hundreds of charter school proposals have been made in the last five years, and more than 400 charter public schools have opened their doors. This includes both public schools which decided to convert to charter status and brand new schools. Recent conversations suggest that between 175 and 200 charter public schools will start this fall.
4. Good ideas aren't enough. Charter schools need people with "start-up" skills and operational skills. Charters are small businesses as well as schools. Successful charter schools obtain accounting, legal and other business services, often through sub- contracts. Charter schools must work out business details, or have major problems.
5. Charter schools can be located in places other than a traditional school building. One occupies a former VFW building in downtown Denver. Others share space with a low income housing project, social services agencies or in a city recreation program which was under-used during regular school hours. One charter school is located in a former grocery store. Some use formerly empty store fronts in urban or rural areas.
6. One of the biggest challenges facing charter schools is where to obtain start-up funds. Most districts can go to local voters, and sometimes the state legislature, for money to put up a new building, or alter an existing one. Most states do not give this opportunity to charter schools. A 1995 survey of 110 charter schools identified this as one of the biggest problems facing these schools. 15 A 1996 study agrees: "the absence of capital funding, access to conventional school facilities, and start-up money to cover initial equipment, planning, etc. is the heaviest cross charter schools bear today. 16
There also are important policy lessons:
1. The charter idea has encouraged school districts to improve. In Rochester, Minnesota, home of the Mayo Clinic, a private non-sectarian Montessori school asked the local school board for a charter. The board decided instead to create its own Montessori school. The Forest Lake District had rejected parents' request for a Montessori elementary school. When the parents began to establish such a program under the charter law, the district agreed to create a Montessori school. A LeSueur group of teachers and parents were frustrated by the indifference of some local educators to recent advances in technology. They established the "Minnesota New Country School," in three formerly empty storefronts on Main Street. Now teachers in the district go to this charter for lessons about using technology in their classrooms.
As Linda Nathan and Larry Myatt, who created a Boston Pilot School have explained, the Massachusetts charter law helped convince the Boston Public Schools and Boston Teachers Union to establish a "within district" program to help teachers create new schools. This is exactly what charter proponents hope will happen as legislation expands to allow more charter schools.
Some opponents criticize charters as a distraction from the effort to improve existing public schools. A comparable argument would be that elections are a distraction from the legislative process. Yes, elections do take time away from hearings and other important work of Congress. At the same time, most folks would say it's healthy to allow voters some choice. And it's healthy for elected officials to know that their jobs are not guaranteed.
Central to the charter idea is that fair competition can help stimulate improvement. Allowing some schools to pick and choose among students, and requiring other schools to accept all applicants, is not fair competition. That's why many charter advocates, including this one, believe charter schools should not be allowed to have admissions tests. This is a key difference between good charter school legislation and the magnet approach, which often permitted magnet schools to use admissions tests. A federally funded study found that more than half of the nation's secondary magnet schools use admissions tests, and about 25% of elementary magnets use them. 17
Minnesota's experience with the Post-Secondary Option already has been noted. High school principals reported that permitting high school students to
take college and university courses, with state funds following them, produced more collaboration between high schools, colleges and university. Moreover, the number of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate courses offered in high schools increased steadily, as high schools improved their programs to retain students.
Legislatures which permit both the State Board (or comparable group) and other public groups as well as local boards to sponsor charter schools will produce broader changes. These states, with "stronger" laws, will produce more charter schools and provide more stimulus to the broader system.
2. The strongest state charter laws produce much more activity. Strong laws, such as those in Michigan, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Delaware and Arizona, allow charter school developers to ask for sponsorship from some group other than a local board. A 1996 study found that as of December, 1995, there were 222 charter schools in the six states allowing more than one organization to sponsor a school, and only 14 in the six states with the weakest legislation. 18 The most frequently offered advice to state policy-makers from charter school developers in a 1995 survey was that the state law permit them to go to a group other than a local school board for permission to establish the charter school. 19
Dozens of well developed charter proposals have been rejected by local school boards in California, Colorado and Minnesota. In one notorious Minnesota case, a group of alternative school teachers applied to their local school board for permission to convert to charter status. The school voted turned them down in a 4-3 vote, and then voted 7-0 to tell them what fine teachers they were. Minnesota's legislation requires either local board approval, or 2 votes from a local board, allowing state board consideration. This is extremely frustrating.
3. Many charter opponents have shifted legislative strategies. Originally they opposed any law. Now they support laws which limit charter sponsorship to local school boards, or give local boards and unions the power to decide whether charters can depart from local labor management agreements. As noted above, the experience in many states with such provisions is that very little happens.
For example, the American Federation refers to the Rhode Island charter law as "the law overall is the one that comes closet to meeting AFTs criteria". 20 This law requires local school board and union approval for any departure from a local labor-management contract. Imagine giving Nordstrom's the right to decide the working conditions for a locally owned clothing store, or Target, or some other competitor. Rhode Island's law has produced the grand total of one charter in the two years since it was adopted, versus dozens of charters created in the same time period in states that do not have such provisions.
4. Charter school legislation offers important opportunities for unions. Some unions are discovering that they can help establish and serve charter schools. Unions can subcontract with charters, selling, for example, their legal, accounting and curriculum expertise. Charters offer a new form of teacher empowerment, employee ownership and school governance. Charters established as cooperatives offer a new professional option to educators frustrated by central office officials or school board members.
Many charter school teachers maintain union membership. Both the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association are helping members start charter schools. Byron King of San Diego's O'Farrell Charter and Milo Cutter of City Academy in St. Paul are two of the teachers involved in this effort.
5. The charter movement can learn from the sometimes frustrating experience of successful inner city alternative public schools, who often have been ignored or marginalized. Even though many successful inner city alternatives have operated for many than 20 years, they are widely ignored. A widely circulated 1995 Harvard report is only the latest to overlook their record. The report's summary asserts that "actual choice experiments remain young and modest ... very little is known about school choice programs. 21 This kind of comment reminds alternative school educators of Ralph Ellison's observation in Invisible Man. "I am invisible, understand, because people refuse to see me." 22 Critics often ignore researchers such as Hofstra's Mary Anne Raywid, who has reported the success that alternative schools have with students. 23 Raywid has pointed out that public school choice is not just about competition, it acts on the recognition that there is no one best kind of school for educating all students.
The dream and goal of many alternative school educators, to serve all kinds of students was distorted and marginalized by many school districts in the last twenty years. Many alternative schools were pushed into being as "last chance" programs serving only those with serious behavior problems, rather than being allowed to serve a cross section of students.
This was a great mistake. Many alternative schools modeled the kind of small, family like program now recommended by various reports. Roseanne Wood, principal at an alternative high school in Tallahassee judged by the Florida Department of Education to be one of the outstanding high schools in the state, wrote that the more choices and alternative programs districts and states offer, "the fewer programs we'll need for problem students because fewer students will be exhibiting problems. We'll have more students with 'schools that fit." 24
In states where only districts can authorize charter schools, many school boards seem most open to proposals serving primarily troubled youngsters. Such programs ought to be available. But alternative school educators believe, as Wood notes, that with more smaller, distinctive public schools, there would be many fewer troubled youngsters.
Some critics insist that many low income and limited English speaking families don't know how to select schools. This is not the first time people have argued that certain groups don't know how to make good decisions. The same argument was used against women's suffrage. Civil Rights opponents insisted that "those people" did not know enough to vote.
Unanswered Questions
The charter movement is young. It faces important, unanswered questions, such as:
It's too early to know all the answers. But some things are clear. Prohibiting admissions tests and demanding accountability for results make the charter idea a controlled, not an unlimited choice plan. Every day more educators and parents learn about the idea, and see it as a chance to create the schools they think make sense. The idea is spreading.
Possible Federal Roles
1. Use your leadership to promote discussion of the charter idea in states.
You were elected to lead, not just legislate. Why not convene hearings similar to this one in the communities and states you represent? Invite charter advocates, skeptics and opponents, as well as those with no strong opinions, to participate. Visit charter schools if your state has them - talk with parents and educators who have decided to create charter schools. Talk with students who has transferred to charters. Ask people how well the process is working of providing federal funds to assist start-ups.
2. Invite effective charter advocates to help you think about other of school reform.
For example:
a. What might the government do to help with the multi- billion dollar problem of school buildings wearing out? Some charter schools are doing a marvelous job of sharing space, or using nontraditional buildings. One charter shares space with a formerly under-used city recreation building.
Another shares space with a YWCA. One charter is housed in a former grocery store in a suburban shopping Mall. We should not just put up new huge buildings crammed with computers. Sharing space, and reusing existing space, as many charters are doing, is a marvelous option which federal policy should encourage.
b. Re-examine grants requirements - Grants for all kinds of federal grants should be examined to reflect charter realities. A Florida parent whose group has received a charter for 3 years, is frustrated with a federal technology grant that asks for a 5 year technology plan.
c. What about special education? Some charters, like other public schools are struggling with this issue. But others are demonstrating that some students are mis-classified - what they really need is a different kind of setting. A parent of a student formerly classified as Attention Deficit Disorder told me that her child had been pushed to take Ritalin in her large public school. The student transferred to a charter where he no longer took Ritalin and did very well: the greater flexibility of the charter was the kind of learning environment he needed.
Some charter schools have been created by parents of students with disabilities. One charter school was established by a frustrated group of parents who had tried unsuccessfully for years to convince several districts to create a public school using American Sign language. Another charter, which has been asked to work with other public schools around the U.S., was started by a remarkable educator who himself has cerebral palsy. He has pioneered approaches which appear to be having a major positive impact on youngsters with various kinds of disabilities. As grants in the special education area are awarded, there ought to be opportunities for such charter schools, and other public schools doing a good job in this field, to obtain funds to help others.
My wife has been a special education teacher for more than a decade. As a school administrator I was deeply involved in many IEP meetings. I recognize the important concerns of many advocates for students with disabilities. But I commend Congress for offering waivers to a limited number of schools in other areas of federal legislation. I urge you to offer a limited number of special education process waiver opportunities to both charter and other public schools in the area of special education.
d. Consider the impact of the NCAA on efforts to reform schools. This is a subject worthy of separate consideration. But the NCAA has written to every high school in the U.S. and is telling them what courses are and are not appropriate for college preparation. Some students with outstanding records have been denied participation in college sports because the NCAA rejected courses school districts and states approved. Moreover, NCAA rejection of some courses has frustrated thoughtful school reform efforts in a number of states.
The Minnesota State Board of Education, and now the Board the National Association of State Boards of Education, (NASBE) have urged that the NCAA remove itself from telling high schools what English, Social Studies, Math and Science courses it will accept. Did you name the NCAA to be the great school board in the sky? In some cases, we wonder whether the NCAA staff should take courses they have rejected. In one now famous four sentence memo, the NCAA rejected an "Essential Communications" course took by several honor students. The NC I AA's four sentence memo had 3 grammatical mistakes (it is included at the end of this testimony).
The NCAA recently rejected not just a course, but the entire curriculum of a highly regarded charter school which has made high school graduation based on demonstration of skill and knowledge. In a letter rejecting the school's curriculum, the director of the NCAA's "Initial Eligibility Clearinghouse" included the following sentence: "The self-paced and performance- based approach are not acceptable methods for the purposes of NCAA freshman initial eligibility." The grammatical mistake is just one more indication that perhaps the NCAA should not be judging high school curriculum.
3. Look carefully at research.
One of the first things Governors and their staffs told me when I was hired by the National Governors' Association was that they were leery of research - some study seemed to support almost any conceivable position. I found this was true. I also found many researchers were inaccurate. Their objectivity also is open to question.
One well-known researcher, John Witte, who has studied the Milwaukee Voucher experiment, described the school choice movement as a "small dog, constantly nipping and yapping at the heels of a large and slow-moving person who can't kick fast enough or often enough to finally do in the annoying beast. It is probably even more accurate to describe it as a pack of terriers, swarming around their lumbering prey. 25 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, should a person who refers to the school choice movement as a bunch of dogs ... or an "annoying beast" be viewed as a neutral, objective researcher?
Another study, directed by Harvard professors, asserted two years ago. as noted earlier in this testimony, that '"'actual choice experiments remain young and modest ... very little is known about school choice programs." As a person who helped start and worked in public alternative schools more than 25 years ago, I called Dr. Bruce Fuller, the project director, to ask how about this kind of choice. He said that neither he nor his graduate assistant knew much about alternative schools, and had not identified information about such choice programs, despite the fact that many major national mass and education publications have published articles about them.
Another researcher, Dr. Amy Stuart Wells who has been hired by the National Education Association to direct a study of their efforts in this area, asserted in 1993 that Minnesota law permits city councils or the board of a public university to sponsor charter schools. 26 Neither was true in 1993. Ask the Democratic chair of the Senate Education Committee, a former public school teacher named Gary Hart, what he thinks about Dr. Wells' assertion that he believes charter schools are "the savior of the public system." 27 His long award-winning record in the legislature, where he sponsored numerous initiatives, is readily available. He has written that Dr. Wells seriously misrepresents his view. He thinks charters are valuable, but certainly not "the savior of the public system."
This same researcher has distorted the definition of a "strong charter law." Minnesotans who helped write the first charter law were very dear in opposing admissions tests. Wells argued that strong laws, among other things, "place fewer restrictions on charter school's admissions policies. 28 Wrong. Dr. Bierlein, who first used the words," strong and weak" to describe charter laws, does not include such a category in her charts.
Wells distorts the difference between "strong" and "weak" laws, or effective versus ineffective laws. The key differences between strong and weak laws do not include disagreements, as she suggests, about admissions tests, or whether charter public schools will have to take the same tests other public schools take. Indeed, Dr. Louann Bierlein does not include either of these categories in her charts, which were the first to use the"strong-weak" terms, and have been published by the Education Commission of the States. The key differences between strong and weak laws include:
- Multiple sponsors: Will the legislature allow the state, as well as local public schools, to sponsor charters? Strong laws permit multiple sponsors. Weak laws limit them to local school boards.
- Will charters be forced to follow local labor-management agreements? Strong laws permit charters to be independent. Weak laws require charters to follow local contracts, or obtain waivers from local boards and unions.
- Will there be only a handful, or a significant number of charters permitted in a state? Strong laws permit a large number of charters. Weak laws permit only a few.
We argued from the beginning in Minnesota, and other charter advocates have advocated in other states, that charter laws prohibit admissions tests. Indeed, many of us have criticized federally funded magnet schools which are allowed to have admissions tests, a tragic loophole. A federally funded study found that more than half of secondary magnet schools have some type of admissions test. Another of mis-representations is that "weaker laws" don't allow charter schools to"escape all state and district regulation." Democratic as well as Republic advocates of charters in Minnesota, Colorado and California have suggested that charter schools should have to follow state rules and regulations in key areas, including accountability.
Research on all sides of the charter school issue should be examined carefully. The methods, assumptions and strategies of research should be examined. Research can help provide valuable information. But it can also mis-represent and distort.
Conclusion
The rapid growth of this movement shows that this idea touches something very deep in Americans. No one reform will solve all of our problems. But people have come from all over the world, America has grown, and many Americans have prospered, in part because we give people a chance to carry out their ideas. That's the spirit behind the charter school movement. a deep respect for innovative educators ... a strong belief in hope and possibility Charter schools are about real educator empowerment, expansion of opportunity for families, fair competition for school districts and most important, more learning for students.
###
Joe Nathan, a former public school teacher and administrator, directs the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota's Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs. Research supporting this article came from the Annenberg, Bradley and General Mills Foundations, but the views expressed are not necessarily those of the foundation trustees or staff. This testimony is excerpted from Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity in American Education, by Joe Nathan, published by Jossey Bass in 1996.
Nathan has been a Head Start aide, as well as a public school and administrator. He coordinated the National Governors' Association report, Time-for-Results: The Governors' 1991 Report on Education. He served as president of a local PTA at the school where two of the Nathan's children attended, and was elected to the Board of the Minnesota PTA. Nathan currently serves as a member of the site council at the public elementary school his daughter attends. The Nathan's three children attend the St. Paul, Minnesota public schools, and his wife is a teacher in the St. Paul Public Schools. Parent, educator and student groups have given him awards for his work.
###
1 Budde, Ray, Education by Charter, Andover, Mass: Regional Laboratory for
Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands, 1988.
2 see, for example, Al Shanker, "A Charter for Change," The New York
Tomes (paid advertisement), July 10, 1988, or Shanker, Al, "Charter
Schools: Option for Other 80 Percent," The School Administrator November,
1988.
3 see Joe Nathan and James Ysseldyke "What Minnesota has Learned about
School Choice, Phi Delta Kappan, May, 1994.
4 Legislative Auditor, Postsecondary Enrollment Options Program, St. Paul:
Office of the Legislative Auditor, March, 1996.
5 Al Shanker op. cit.
6 Ember Reichgott Junge, Charter Schools will work better than private school
vouchers,' (Minneapolis) Star/Tribune (January 23, 1996, p. A11)
7 Joe Nathan and Jennifer Power, Policy-Makers Views on the Charter School
Movement, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Humphrey Institute Center for
School Change, April, 1996.
8 Bill Clinton, "State of the Union," January 23, 1996.
9 Ted Kolderie, "The States will Have to Withdraw the Exclusive," St.
Paul: Center for Policy Studies, 1990.
10 Ted Kolderie, op cit., p. 14.
11 Alex Medler and Joe Nathan, "Charter Schools. What are they up to?"
Denver: Education Commission of the States and Minneapolis: Center for School
Change, 1995.
12 Louann Bierlein, in Chester E. Finn, Jr., Louann Bierlein, and Bruno V. Manno,
'Charter Schools in Action: A First Look,N Washington, D.C.: Hudson Institute,
1996, p.2.
13 CAREI (Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement, University of
Minnesota) Minnesota Charter Schools Evaluation Minneapolis, University of
Minnesota, December, 1996
14 Joe Nathan, wAt Charter Schools, Parents feel needed," St. Paul Pioneer
Press, March 27, 1995, P. 1C.
15 Medler and Nathan, op cit.
16 Finn, et al., p. 5
17 L. Steel and R. Levine, Educational Innovation On Multiracial Contexts: The
Growth of Magnet Schools in American Education. prepared for U.S. Department of
Education , contract #LC90043001 (Palo Alto, California: American Institutes for
Research, 1994)
18 Louann Bierlein, Charter Schools Initial Findings: Denver: Education
Commission of the States, 1996.
19 Medler and Nathan, op-cit.
2O American Federation of Teachers, Charter School Laws- Do they Measure Up?
Washington: AFT, 1996, P. 22.
21 Bruce Fuller, 'Who Gains, Who Loses from School Choice. A Research
Summary," Denver, National Conference of State Legislators, 1995.
22 Ralph Ellison, Invisible Man, New York: Random House, 1952.
23 see, for example, Mary Anne Raywid,The Case of Public Schools of Choice,
Bloomington: Phi Delta Kapp Education Foundation (Fastback #283)
24 Rosanne Wood, "SAIL, A Pioneer for Schools of Choice in Florida, in Joe
Nathan, Public Schools by Choice " Minneapolis: Free Spirit Press, 1989.
25 John F. Witte, "The Politics of Private School Choice in American,"
Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting,
April 8-12, 1996, New York City.
26 Amy Stuart Wells, Time to Chooses America at the Crossroads of School Choice
Policy, New York: Hill and Wang, 1993.
27 Amy Stuart Wells, Cynthia Grutzik and Sibyll Carnochan, "Underlying
Policy Assumptions of Charter School Reform: The Multiple Meanings of a
Movement," Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
Annual Meeting, April 8-12, 1996, p. 16.
28 Ibid, p. 3