Charters: Black Sheep or Golden Sun?

Post submitted by Brie Nelson, director of oversight and governance at the Center for Charter Schools in Missouri and member of the ASCD Emerging Leaders Class of 2010.

School choice has strong legs and is crawling, with charters breaking from the pack as one of the most widespread models. There are varied perceptions regarding charter schools among educational communities. Do charter schools really make a difference? Should they be expanded? Here are some facts we know*:

• Individual state legislators determine the oversight and extent of charter schools. All states vary. For example, some states restrict charter schools to urban areas or areas where the public school system has already failed.
• Charter schools do not receive the same funding as traditional public school district. Funding is less in almost all states (although the formula varies per state).
• The charter school movement was created with the promise to educate students with less funding but better creativity, ingenuity, and increased state test scores.
• Charter school effectiveness varies greatly from school to school. Some schools are very high-performing while others are worse than the traditional public schools in the area.
• Charter schools are public schools. While they can't pick and choose who attends, they can impose stricter behavior and achievement requirements for enrolled students, which reports link to higher attrition rates at charters versus traditional public schools (i.e., in Chicago and Texas).
• To operate, charter schools must have a sponsor (or authorizer), who works with the state and local school board to ensure proper oversight, compliance, and performance. Depending on state statutes, the sponsor can be a university, traditional school district, mayor's office, independent company, etc.
• Most charter schools are evaluated by their sponsor every two to four years. The evaluation reviews their effectiveness in academic achievement, financial responsibility, effective governance and oversight, and other areas determined by state and sponsor.
• Some charter school boards contract a company to manage their schools, some don't, and some are run simply by the board.

With each state requiring varying guidelines and each sponsor supporting charter schools differently, how can we effectively compare and determine "achievement"? Are charter schools given too much freedom, or is the freedom worth the potential gains? Have we bred a field full of black sheep, or are we working toward casting a golden sun?

*References: National Association of Charter School Authorizers, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, US Charter Schools