Charter Schools: Passing or Failing - Term Paper Example

Charter Schools: Passing or Failing? Introduction Although the charter school movement is in its infancy, it has received mixed reviews. The greatest controversies center around labor relations, qualification issues, liability, students with special needs, constitutional challenges and contractual obligations. (Semple, 1995, 24-26) Even so, there are those that argue that charter schools are beneficial to disadvantaged students in that they have the capacity to help those students within their ambit.(Brown-Nagin, 753-886) This paper examines both sides of the controversies and argues that despite its novel intentions, the charter school system is in danger of failing. However, drawing on the initial intention of the creation of charter schools, educators and the courts can by focusing on the aims and objectives of charter schools ensure that this new and innovative movement succeeds. History and Overview Although the first charter school in the United States was created by Minnesota legislatures in 1991 (Minn. Stat. Section 120.164 1991) the idea for charter schools came into fruition in the 1980s. The idea for a charter school system of education came from Ray Buddle, Al Shanker, Ted Kolderie, Ember Reidhgott Junge and Becky Kelso whose collective vision was for a “legally and financially autonomous public school.” (Mulholland, 1) These schools would not require tuition and would not have an affiliated religion and would not have “selective student admission” policies. (Mulholland, 1)The manner in which charter schools would be constructed would place them in a position where they would be regulated in much the same manner as a private enterprise. In this view they would be: “...free from non-essential state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs.” (Mulholland, 1) Ideally a charter school would have few barriers to its approval. Even so state legislators have taken vastly different approaches to charter school approval and these approaches have been characterised by weak and strong laws that allow the creation of charter schools. (Buechler) Weak laws make provision for limited approval mechanisms to that “school districts” or “sponsor charters” may approve the establishing of a charter school. (Mulholland, 1) Moreover, should a charter school be denied by district or sponsor there is no appellate process. (Mulholland, 1) Moreover weak laws make provisions that do not permit the proposed charter school to maintain autonomy from school districts either financially or legally. In other words weak charter laws do not permit charter schools to become segregated from the ambit of “state laws or district regulations” although some laws may allow for waivers in appropriate cases. (Mulholland, 1) Buechler (1996) describes these charter school laws as restrictive. Strong charter school laws have a more liberal approach to the creation of charter schools and provide for a greater measure of deregulation. To this end, Buechler (1996) describes strong charter school laws as expansive. The strong laws support the original idea that: “...schools freed of most of the regulatory constraints normally applicable to public schools can stimulate academic excellence in ways that traditional neighborhood schools cannot.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Out of this ideology the resulting charter school is seen as somewhat aligned to a cross between private and public schools. Conservatives have generally been supportive of this kind of alternative education and to this end over 2000 charter schools were mandated by various state charters since 1991 so that by the year 2000 there were at least 37 states with charters. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) By 2008 forty states had active charter laws permitting charter schools. (The Center for Education Reform, 2008) The Policy and Program Studies Service of the US Department of Education outlined the characteristics of the charter school system in its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report (2004). According to this report charter schools are public schools operating under a contract commonly referred to as a charter. The contract typically mandates that the charter school complies with the terms of its contract or it will be closed by those bodies that approved its inception. (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004) Moreover charter schools are, like public schools, bound by the accountability mandates of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 1965 which was subsequently amended by the No Child Left Behind Act 2001. (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004) By the year 2003 over 4000 charter schools were established in the US with 11 per cent of those schools being closed for academic failure as well as difficulties with management and finances. (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004) A charter school is typically focused on a particular academic or social program and is not as multi-dimensional as traditional public schools. (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004) The primary focus of the charter school is therefore on student outcome, rather than input based on teaching requirements. Challenges for Charter Schools Having reviewed the dynamics of charter school it becomes immediately clear that charter schools are supported by legislation that allows for public funding together with a measure of deregulation. This juxtaposition has the capacity to invoke complicated “areas of federal and state law, including our civil rights laws.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Although a relatively new educational structured concept, charter schools have already given rise to a number of constitutional challenges as well as legal claims founded on tort and contract law within the ambit of both federal and state constitutional laws. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) In Thompson v Board of Special School District 1, 144 F. 3rd 574 [8th Cir. 1994] it was held that the Individuals with Disabilities Act USC Sections 1400-1487 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act 42 USC Sections 2000d did not apply to a student suffering learning disabilities who had left a district school and was matriculated in a charter school. (Thompson v Board of Special School District 1, 144 F. 3rd 574 [8th Cir. 1994]) In another case, Villanueva v Carere 85 F.3d 481 [10th Cir. 1996] a suit against the Board of Education in Pueblo, Colorado on allege anti-discriminatory grounds was rejected. (Villanueva v Carere 85 F.3d 481 [10th Cir. 1996]) In Villanueva v Carere a group of Hispanic parents filed suit against the Board’s decision to close two public schools and to open a charter school. The parents alleged that the Board’s intent had been based on the fact that the two public schools had a predominant Hispanic population and the resulting Charter school was intended to achieve a more racially balanced population. (Villanueva v Carere 85 F.3d 481 [10th Cir. 1996]) At the hearing the claim was ultimately rejected on the grounds that the parents had failed to prove that the Charter School Act itself contravened the 14th Amendment’s due process clause, that they had indeed suffered discrimination or that the Board had intended to discriminate against them. (Villanueva v Carere 85 F.3d 481 [10th Cir. 1996]) The number of unsuccessful constitutional challenges in US courts with respect to charter schools are well documented. For instance in Porta v Klagohlz 19 F. Supp. 2d. 290 [DNJ 1998] it was held that a charter school which permitted class meetings in religious buildings did not contravene constitutional provisions mandating freedom of religion. (Porta v Klagohlz 19 F. Supp. 2d. 290 [DNJ 1998]) In Board of Education v Booth 984 P.2d 639 [Colo. 1999] it was held that dividing the charter school between both state and federal educational charge did not contravene the state’s constitution. (Board of Education v Booth 984 P.2d 639 [Colo. 1999]) The court in Council of Orgs. V Michigan, 566 N.W. 2d 208 217-222 [Mich, 1997] rejected a claim that the charter school’s act contravened the constitution because it allowed the use of public funds for charter schools and at the same time allowed charter schools to escape supervision by state education boards. (Council of Orgs. V Michigan, 566 N.W. 2d 208 217-222 [Mich, 1997]) A similar claim was rejected by the New Jersey Superior Court of Appeal which essential claimed that charter school laws in that state stifled constitutional rights to “thorough and efficient” education as well as equal protection. (In re Grant of Chater School Application 727 A. 2d 15, [NJ Super Cr. App. Div. 1999]) By and large the state courts are generally guided by the position taken by the US Supreme Court in respect of constraints against Federal control of state level educational mandates. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) For instance the US Supreme court held in Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717 [1974] that a bussing scheme in suburban districts was not directly responsible for the segregation suffered in the city. (Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717 [1974]) Therefore the court would not uphold a current desegregation bus scheme with respect to public school bussing. (Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717 [1974]) In another US Supreme Court decision the US Supreme court upheld a state’s education financing system despite claims that it violated equal protection for minority students from poorer districts. In this case, San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, [1973] the US Supreme Court ruled that federalism necessarily permitted both state and local control of education. (San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, [1973]) The cumulative impact of these rulings have given way to a collective fear that charter school enjoy a particular licence to operate in a vacuum, effectively free from claims of segregation and other constitutional infractions. As Tomiko Brown-Nagin observes: “...in light of our recent national history of schools segregated on the basis of race or sex, and recalcitrance to integrated education, opponents question whether charter schools might become taxpayer-supported havens for middle-class minority and white students, who will leave the most at-risk students behind in conventional, sub-par public schools.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Aside from constitutional and legal issues arising from the local and state autonomy of charter schools, academic concerns have tainted the success of charter schools. In a study conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics in August 2006 it was found that charter school students were out-performed by traditional public school students in reading and math. (National Center for Education Statistics, 2006) In addition the US Department of Education concluded that: “In five case study states, charter schools are less likely to meet state performance standards than traditional public schools.” (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004) Despite these findings and the confluence of judicial precedents, the challenges identified in this part of the discussion are not insurmountable. As will be borne out in the remainder of this discussion there are some obvious benefits to the practices and policies of the charter school mandates. Moreover, there are steps that legislatures can take to minimize the impact of the challenges that charter schools have taken with respect to constitutional and academic challenges. Benefits of Charter Schools It is necessary to point out at this stage that findings by the Policy and Program Studies Service as well as the National Center for Education are not conclusive. In other words it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that charter school students are outperformed by traditional public school students. For instance Linda Renzulli and Vincent Roscigno (2007, 31-36) argue that: “...estimates of differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are overstated.” (Renzulli and Roscigno, 31-36) The US Department of Education also noted in its own case study of five states with charter legislation that: “It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor.” (Policy and Program Studies Service, 2004) In other words, studies that conclude that charter schools are out-performed by traditional public schools are inherently unreliable. Co-authors Marin Carnoy, Rebecca Jacobsen, Lawrence Mishel and Richard Rothstein conclude that there is no evidence to date that conclusively determines that charter school students’ academic performance is any less productive than those of traditional public schools. (Carnoy, Jacobsen, Mishel, and Rothstein, 2005) Even so there is also evidence that indicates that charter school students outperform students in traditional public schools. (Hoxby, 2004) Hill and others published a report in 2006 which analysed approximated forty-one studies that evaluated and compared test scores from students in the charter school system and students in the traditional public school system. (Hill, et al, 140) The studies evaluated focused on thirteen US states including five from California, four from Texas and three from Florida. (Hill et al, 140) The cumulative impact of these studies indicate that the results show no significant differences between student achievements in charter or traditional public schools. (Hill et al, 140) It can therefore be stated with some degree of certainty that the benefits afforded students in charter schools are not aligned to increased chances of academic achievement. If that were the case, traditional public schools would become obsolete. As Brown-Nagin points out the primary benefit of charter schools is found in the purposes for which charter schools were implemented in the first place. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) According to Brown-Nagin: “Charter schools are intended to offer students expanded curricula opportunities and pedagogical approaches that are unavailable in existing public schools, as well as to increase opportunities for community involvement in the process of conceiving educational programming and in teaching.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) In order to achieve the charter school mandates of increased or divergent curricula opportunities and to improve upon the opportunities for community involvement in education, legislators have taken a unique approach to the charter school system. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Legislators are required to amalgamate public and private relationships. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) The private element permits and requires that legislators: “...include substantial deregulation of schools, autonomy and creativity in educational programming, and admissions systems in which charter school trustees—private individuals or entities—are given wide discretion in selecting students.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Deregulation provides charter school with far more democracy in educational curricula than in traditional public schools which are by and large restrained by uniformity. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Charter schools are therefore exempt from the governing regulations that constrain public schools within the laws of their respective states. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Perhaps more importantly: “...charter schools may be freed from customary statutory mandates relating to budgets, teacher-pupil rations, curriculum requirements, scheduling, teacher certification requirements, collective bargaining agreements, and other personnel matters.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) However, some of these exemptions have the capacity to harm the success of the charter school. This is particularly so with respect to the relaxation of teacher certification requirements. This exemption however, is offset by the general presumption that charter schools are subject to closure if and when their students do not fare better than or on par with students in traditional public schools. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Be that as it may, one of the greatest benefits for deregulation in respect of charter schools is the opportunity for community involvement. Deregulation: “...allows non-traditional persons or entities to found charter schools, including museums, universities, nonprofit or for-profit organizations, parents, and teachers: thus, local community members usually uninvolved in the process of shaping educational programming have many opportunities to design curricula and set school policies.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Another obvious benefit for charter schools over public schools is the level of creativity it permits teachers and educators in general. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) The fact that teachers and educators in charter schools are freed of the constraints of bureaucratic controls that typically characterize public schools, the school administrators are free to implement education programs and policies are they deem necessary or desirable which include “experimental approaches to teaching and learning.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) The result is, charter schools are permitted to function as “learning laboratories” which can benefit education across the board. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Brown-Nagin explains that: “The autonomy allowed charter school administrators and teachers has helped them to create innovative curricula as well as creative pedagogical approaches to stimulating educational excellence.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) As a result of this freedom from autonomy the charter school movement has witnessed a significant “array of theme schools”. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) For instance there have been charter schools that focus on a curriculum that advances computer science and/or information technology. (Nathan, 35-42) Another approach open to charter schools is a focus on a Montessori system of education (Hassel, 88) or a “back to basics” approach. (Hassel, 88) Deregulation and its autonomous nature is beneficial to the charter school process in two material respects. As Hassel points out: “The first of these is politics. US public schools are battlegrounds on which political interests and factions fight for advantage. In that context, agreement on the ends and means of public education is elusive.” (Hassel, 2) To this end, necessary reform will often take a back seat to political agenda. (Hassel, 2) The second benefit afforded autonomy and deregulation in charter schools relates to the difficulty with making effective reform in public schools. (Hassel, 2) As Hassel explains the large number of public district schools and the red tape required to effect reform makes it virtually impossible for reform in the public school system. (Hassel, 2) As a result: “Charter schools seem like a reform that can get around both of those obstacles. In politics charter schools have pressed both Republican and Democratic buttons.” (Hassel, 2) Republicans are predisposed to support the charter school movement because it does not provide significant competition for traditional public schools, the function outside of the tight confines of regulation and are required to produce academic results capable of justifying “continued funding.” (Hassel, 2) Democrats support the charter school process because they provide “new options while adhering to the core values of public schooling”. (Hassel, 2) Moreover, democrats view charter schools as representing “a compromise that will stave off calls for wider school choice.” (Hassel, 3) The greatest benefit however for charter schools is founded on the accountability mandate. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools are permitted to operate on the understanding that they will take responsibility for student performance. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) To this end an application for permission to operate a charter school requires “specific achievement goals for the study body” together with “a description of the methods” that will be utilized to achieve those goals. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Tomiko Brown-Nagin explains that: “Schools must be able to demonstrate agreed-upon pupil outcomes through empirical data or outcome-based performance measures (which are considered more reliable than standardized measurements and preferred by many educators.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) If charter schools’ outcomes are inconsistent with the agreed upon goals the run the risk of closure. This risk itself provides an incentive for the perpetuation of certain academic standards. Ironically the most controversial feature of charter schools is perhaps its most beneficial. This feature relates to admission standards afforded charter schools which cannot by apply to public schools as a result of both federal and state constitutional laws. Admission standards are entirely up to the school administrators of charter schools who can maintain open admission policies or some may implement policies that bar admission of students who have been previously suspended from another school, expelled or involved in criminal conduct. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Moreover, minimum academic standards can be invoked. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) The upshot is, that while there may be grounds for a constitutional challenge based on discriminatory admission, the charter school can justify its admission standards by reference to is specific contractual arrangements with the chartering body. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) At the end of the day admission standards afford charter schools the opportunity to predict and navigate certain academic outcomes. In any event, perceived fears that charter schools, by its deregulation aspect and freedom to adhere to rigid admission standards have the potential to discriminate on the grounds of race and gender are without merit. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) The US Department of Education has found that at least 48 percent of the charter school student population nationwide are comprised of minority groups. (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) Additional information reflects that: “...there is no indication that female students are less well served by charter schools than males, even though one state’s enabling legislation specifically permits the establishment of single-sex charter schools, and other states do not forbid it.” (Brown-Nagin, 753-886) The end result is that while the enabling laws may provide charter schools with liberal admission standards, in practice discriminatory practices have been non-existent. Conclusion The nature of autonomy and deregulation afforded charter schools gives rise to apprehensions about its adherence to constitutional values with respect to equal opportunity. These concerns have created significant challenges to the national acceptance of charter schools and threatens its continued existence. Fortunately, the various state courts and the US Supreme Court in particular have consistently refused to validate such claims in the absence of proof of discriminatory conduct on the part of charter schools. As it is, there is no evidence of segregation among charter school populations that can freely distinguish them from the populations of the traditional public school systems. Should charter schools continue to focus on their respective charters and produce policies and practices that are consistent with those charters it is unlikely that a discriminatory claim will succeed against them. For the reasons discussed in this paper charter schools have provided a productive movement for expansion of academic opportunities that public schools cannot and do not provide. More importantly, charter schools allow for educational reform and experiments that can only benefit the entire educational system in the country. Public schools, contained by regulatory regimes and political agendas have no such liberties. It therefore follows that charter schools are passing rather than failing. Like any other system operated by human beings it is not flawless and therefore not above criticism. Bibliography Board of Education v Booth 984 P.2d 639 [Colo. 1999] cited in Howell, William. (2005) Besieged: School Boards and the Future of Education Politics. Brookings Institute Press, 49-50 Brown-Nagin, Tomiko. (2000) “Toward a Pragmatic Understanding of Status-consciousness: the Case of Deregulated Education.” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 50, 753-886 Buechler, M. (1996) Charter Schools: Legislation and Results after Four Years. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center. Carnoy, Martin; Jacobsen, Rebecca; Mishel, Lawrence, Mishel and Rothstein, Richard. (2005) The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on the Enrollment and Achievement. Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press. Council of Orgs. V Michigan, 566 N.W. 2d 208 217-222 [Mich, 1997] cited in Brown-Nagin, Tomiko. (2000) “Toward a Pragmatic Understanding of Status-consciousness: the Case of Deregulated Education.” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 50, 753-886 Hassel, Bryan. (1999) The Charter School Challenge: Avoiding the Pitfalls, Fulfilling the Promise. Brookings Institution Press, 1999 Hill, P.; Angel, L. And Christensen, J. (2006) “Charter School Achievement Studies.” Education Finance and Policy Vol. 1(1) 139-150 Hoxby, C. (2004) Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public School in the United States: Understanding the Differences. Cambridge University, National Bureau of Economic Research. In re Grant of Chater School Application 727 A. 2d 15, [NJ Super Cr. App. Div. 1999] Cited in Brown-Nagin, Tomiko. (2000) “Toward a Pragmatic Understanding of Status-consciousness: the Case of Deregulated Education.” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 50, 753-886 Milliken v Bradley, 418 US 717 [1974] Minn. Stat. Section 120.164 1991Available online at: https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/laws/?doctype=Chapter&year=1991&type=0&id=265 Retrieved August 26, 2008 Mulholland, Lori, A. (March 1996) “Charter Schools: The Reform and the Research.” Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Policy Brief. 1-6 Nathan, Joe. (1998) Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education. Jossey-Bass National Center for Education Statistics. (2006) “A Closer Look at Charter Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling.” Available online at: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard//pdf/studies/2006460.pdf Retrieved August 24, 2008 Policy and Program Studies Service. (2004) “Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report.” US Department of Education. Available online at: http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/finalreport.pdf Retrieved August 24, 2008 Porta v Klagohlz 19 F. Supp. 2d. 290 [DNJ 1998] cited in Brown-Nagin, Tomiko. (2000) “Toward a Pragmatic Understanding of Status-consciousness: the Case of Deregulated Education.” Duke Law Journal, Vol. 50, 753-886 Renzulli, Linda and Roscigno, Vincent. (2007) “Charter Schools and the Public Good.” Contexts, Vol. 6(1), 31-36 San Antonio Independent School District v Rodriguez, 411 US 1, [1973] Cited in Meier, Kenneth. (July 2000) “Bureaucracy and Organizational Performance: Causality Arguments About Public Schools.” American Journal of Political Science. Available online at: http://teep.tamu.edu/pubs/meier.ajps.oo.pdf Retrieved August 26, 2008. Semple, Martin. (Aug. 1995) “Legal Issues in Charter Schooling.” School Administrator Vol. 52, 24-26 The Center for Education Reform. (2008) State Statistics Chart. Available online at: http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStatChart&psectionid=15&cSectionID=44 Retrieved August 24, 2008 Thompson v Board of Special School District 1, 144 F. 3rd 574 [8th Cir. 1994] Available online at: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/144/144.F3d.574.97-3288.html Retrieved August 27, 2008 Villanueva v Carere 85 F.3d 481 [10th Cir. 1996] Available online at: http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/85/85.F3d.481.94-1479.94-1454.html Retrieved August, 27, 2008 Read More