ONCE IT IS full steam ahead, changing a ship’s direction is no easy feat. When a captain decides to alter an ocean liner’s course, it takes an astonishing level of engineering and power to steer the vessel in a new direction. Take, for example, the mechanisms that steered the Titanic, which was the world’s largest ship during its time. Its rudder measured nearly eighty feet high, weighed more than one hundred tons, and was cast in six separate pieces. To move the massive rudder itself, engineers installed two steam engines. The ship had three propellers: two had a twenty-three-foot diameter, and one had a seventeen-foot diameter. The combined horsepower of its engines was fifty-one thousand.
Traditional public education, similar to all large organizations, has a Titanic-like aspect. While some within the educational establishment may realize public schools need to change course to meet the needs of a rapidly changing educational landscape, the sheer size of the bureaucratic behemoth makes quick changes in direction impossible.
In fact, for the most part, public schools embrace their decades-old traditions and culture. They are proud of their institution. This mind-set often values the status quo over change, which is frequently viewed with skepticism and downright hostility. In and of themselves, tradition, culture, and the status quo are not inherently negative. The problem arises when a blind allegiance to these values or a narrow-minded perspective fails to address the most pressing problems public education faces today.
When student outcomes are dismal and parents maintain reasonable expectations and crave better for their children, then public schools must eschew old models. If preserving and growing public education fail to put students’ needs first, then the educational establishment is prioritizing self-interest over the public good.
Chartered schools have signaled a seismic shift within public education. Educational reform movement pioneers have boldly challenged the status quo, especially in instances when it has unequivocally failed students. Rather than uphold tradition and culture as infallible public education ideals, educational reformers have embraced innovation. Instead of viewing the status quo and the institution as inviolable, educational reformers are eager to introduce a new market-driven model of public education.
Within a short period, chartered schools have embarked on a new journey, untethered to the massive traditional public education juggernaut. By being fiercely independent while still working under the umbrella of public education, chartered schools have acted with an agility unheard of within traditional public education. It is this agility that has given chartered schools the ability to innovate. And in communities across the United States, innovation has resulted in outcomes that have far exceeded those of traditional public schools.
Rather than embrace the breakthrough practices chartered schools have developed, the educational establishment has largely held a tight grip on the wheel and has steered its ship in the same old direction. What chartered schools offer is largely rejected and viewed as a threat to the sacrosanct status quo. Pushback is a weapon used by the educational establishment to maintain its top-dog status. Its purpose is to slow, if not stop, the educational reform movement, which aims to bring about a market-driven approach to public education. Too often, however, rather than preserving students’ best interests, pushback is a heavily funded and finely tuned weapon of mass distraction, one that keeps traditional public schools from taking a deep look inside to solve its biggest problems.
There are several myths about chartered schools in persistent circulation. Unfortunately, chartered schools’ relatively small size in comparison to the titanic size of traditional public schools means dispelling misconceptions about chartered schools is much harder to do on a national level. While not explicitly and directly promulgating lies about chartered schools, the educational establishment only gains from negative public perception of educational reform.
Anyone who has worked within chartered schools is familiar with myths associated with them. Many of the perspectives, based on inaccurate information, seem to be concerned with a particular school, located in a specific city and within the boundaries of a certain school district and neighborhood. But on further examination, the myths clearly target both local chartered schools and the educational reform as a nationwide movement.
States and school districts themselves are given significant control over how they run their schools. Because the educational reform movement started at the state level, the history and development of chartered schools is rooted in the individual states that have established charter school law. In other words, chartered schools launched and evolved differently from region to region. Furthermore, the particular circumstances within a state have influenced and will continue to influence how chartered schools develop within that state.
Despite the diverse histories of chartered schools across the country, they have been plagued by similar myths. In our cross-country research, we found wherever the school was located, its leaders expressed similar frustrations regarding common falsehoods. In other words, most attacks against one chartered school are actually common to all chartered schools. Those armed with erroneous information were usually vociferously opposed to chartered schools. Unfortunately, presenting accurate information often does little to diffuse myth makers’ sometimes irrational hostility toward educational reform.
In this chapter, we will set the record straight. We will dispel the most common, incorrect, and damaging myths about chartered schools. And we will present the truths that demonstrate how chartered schools are a shining example of public education fulfilling its promise to improve the lives of students across the nation.
Why Do Chartered School Myths Persist?
Prior to the internet age, community members learned about their schools by the following means:
While these methods still play a significant role in influencing public perception of chartered schools, the internet has transformed how we gather information and form opinions. Online, you will find endless content, both accurate and inaccurate, about chartered schools. If you are looking to strengthen your bias against chartered schools, you will discover articles, blogs, and social media content that will confirm your perspective.
Unfortunately, for those of us at the front lines of the educational reform movement, countering fiction with fact is not easy. The myths about chartered schools have persisted. One significant reason is most adults attended K–12 traditional public schools or private schools. This is the system of education they know best, and chartered schools are outside their personal experience.
Furthermore, in comparison to students who have been educated through traditional public or private schools, the population of students who have matriculated in the chartered school system is much lower. Also, because of their smaller size, legislation and laws regarding chartered schools are much lower profile and lesser known than those relating to traditional public schools.
Last, the education reform movement, while growing every year, is significantly smaller overall than the educational establishment.
But as chartered schools increase market share across the country—expanding in states that have charter school law and opening doors in states that will have charter school law—they will play a larger role in the national discourse about public education. Already, chartered school success stories are making local and national news. Hollywood films and critically acclaimed documentaries have been produced about them. Politicians highlight them in their campaign speeches. And family members and friends have their children enrolled in them or work for them or both. As the footprint of chartered schools grows, their higher profile will give educational reformers the platform necessary to dispel myths and provide accurate information to increasingly wider audiences.
What Are the Chartered School Myths?
The following are common myths associated with chartered schools. People claim they:
In the following section, we will address each myth.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Are Private Schools
In a 2014 Phi Delta Kappan (PDK)/Gallup poll, respondents were asked if chartered schools were public schools. Almost half—48 percent—of respondents said no. Unfortunately, this myth that chartered schools are private schools is one of the most harmful to the educational reform movement. Chartered schools are public schools—they always have been and still are today.
Because chartered schools are public schools, they must be free and accessible to all. In other words, they cannot charge tuition, and they may not have selective admissions. Also, chartered schools have open enrollment, which means all public school‒age children are eligible.
With that said, significant differences exist between chartered schools and traditional public schools. One significant difference is a majority of states have laws that absolve chartered schools from a major portion of local-district policy and procedure. For example, in most cases, chartered schools are not bound by a collective-bargaining agreement.
The myth that chartered schools are private schools fuels widespread fears that they will take over public education. Because chartered schools are public schools, such spurious claims are both misleading and inaccurate.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Cherry-Pick Students
In just about every state we visited, school district staff believed chartered schools consider admitting only the best students. “Cream of the crop” and “cherry-picked” were terms often used to describe this practice. Sometimes they cited the “oversubscribed” approach. This means, in the lower grades, the chartered school enrolls more students than it can easily accommodate. From first to eighth grade, students who cannot handle the workload and rigor leave the school. This narrows a school’s enrollment, so by grade eight, the classroom is populated by the highest achievers.
Do all chartered schools practice “creaming,” cherry-picking, and oversubscribing? No. Although some schools might try to recruit the best students, it would be difficult to accomplish. Keep in mind that, in most states, chartered schools are required by law to conduct a lottery when applications exceed the number of seats available. Because chartered schools are public schools, they must be free and accessible to all. They may not have selective admissions policies. Doing so would be in violation of charter law.
In fact, in some states, such as California, chartered schools serve a large number of at-risk or lower-achieving students. Fair and balanced research shows that chartered schools enroll students with varying aptitudes and diverse backgrounds. The bottom line is that chartered schools reflect the diversity of the community. In fact, when viewed on a large scale, they are incredibly diverse.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Operate with Minimal Oversight
This myth is based on the following premise: Chartered schools are independent corporations; therefore, they operate without the same oversight of their traditional counterparts. This myth is easily dispelled. Chartered schools must operate within the provision of state and federal law. They cannot discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin.
Chartered schools are overseen by authorizers. In fact, the term “charter” refers to the contract document that outlines the formal agreement reached with the authorizer. The authorizer has the responsibility to hold the chartered school accountable to follow charter law. Authorizers review financial records, conduct audits, determine if the chartered school may be renewed, and if found to be noncompliant, have the option of nonrenewal. Chartered schools are in fact so highly monitored in terms of instructional outcomes, operational process, and financial accountability they are often held even more accountable than traditional public schools. Think of it this way: If a chartered school is found out of compliance with charter law, the authorizer can shut down its operations. Countless examples of traditional public schools behaving badly have made headline news. Yet, despite their underperformance year after year, they continue receiving taxpayer dollars and keep their doors open.
One reason this myth persists is chartered schools operate at least in part as corporations. This is a new model for public education. Their organizational structure provides chartered schools the independence that has resulted in the innovative practices that are their hallmark. The educational establishment is not used to this new model of public school organization. As you learned earlier, tradition, culture, and the status quo are frequently elevated to sacred status within traditional public education—even if they are not serving students’ best interests. The educational establishment views the organizational structure of chartered schools as both foreign and a threat to its public education monopoly.
The chartered school’s governing board is the body vested with the responsibility of seeing that the school is open and accountable to charter law. This governing board is also subject to various business regulations, ethical financial practices, and open meeting laws. Far from operating under minimal oversight, chartered schools must adhere to rules established in their charter and set by their respective state regulations.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Are Not Held Accountable for Academic Performance
Chartered school operators have grown in sophistication since the 1990s. Similarly, authorizers have grown in their understanding of chartered schools and how they operate. In the early years, when chartered schools began the journey toward their major role in making a difference for students, authorizers were preoccupied with chartered schools’ fiscal and operational workings. Taking care of a chartered school’s viability seemed to those monitoring them as the single most critical step in guaranteeing a school’s compliance with charter law.
When chartered schools proved skilled at managing their charter operations, authorizers turned to monitoring for quality. Today, most authorizers have criteria for renewal that includes a strong academic component. Chartered schools must reach an established academic standard in order to assure their charters are renewed.
Everyone involved in the education of young people agrees on one thing: Educational programs of every kind should be able to demonstrate they are high quality and students are learning. But what constitutes “high quality,” and who decides if the chartered school’s instructional program demonstrates an acceptable standard for high quality? Chartered school pioneers are working to answer just that.
Quality measurements are now considered reasonable and appropriate for decision-making concerning chartered school educational practice. Multiple data points are becoming for many an integral part of high-quality, data-driven support. Many experts representing both traditional public education and chartered schools strongly believe that high-stakes assessment data are not an appropriate means for making categorical judgments about an instructional program. The multiple factors affecting the results of high-stakes assessment data also mean these tests provide important but limited information. After all, multiple aspects contribute to a school’s quality, many of which are not quantifiable in one standardized test.
For example, a high-stakes test does not accurately measure parents’ satisfaction level with the school’s outcomes. A standardized test does not demonstrate if parents believe their children are safe, motivated, self-confident, working toward post-secondary education, and generally flourishing in an environment that is not teaching to the test. One test will not explain why a chartered school consistently has a long waiting list. Solely using a single assessment as a means to hold a school accountable is an oversimplified and inaccurate measurement tool.
Authorizers are now considering multiple measures. They realize one piece of data cannot tell the whole story. At the high school level, attendance, graduation rates, grades, credits earned, credit recovery outcomes, college readiness, and career education preparation are all measurements worthy of consideration. Elementary and middle schools have other measures that signal success. Evaluating a school using multiple measures is a far more comprehensive approach that considers the particular needs and differences within the various levels of K–12 public education.
Chartered schools are rigorously assessed and reassessed. The criteria are evolving, as is the need to explore various models for evaluating chartered schools. For example, states with only a district’s board of directors charged with evaluating progress are often considered to operate from a self-serving, biased position. This is why districts are infamous for functioning in an unsupportive manner where chartered schools are concerned.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and many state-level associations, such as the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA), strongly advocate for chartered school accountability and standards that demonstrate quality by using multiple measures. At the same time, they also recommend vesting the authorizing of charters to entities other than local school districts. This will remove conflicts of interest that stem from school districts seeing themselves operating in direct competition with the very chartered schools they are evaluating.
From the start, chartered schools have been held accountable for the performance of their students. This is in their self-interest, and to thrive, they must meet—and exceed—accountability standards. Well-performing chartered schools provide the strongest foundation for public support and continued growth.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Are an Unproven Experiment
Chartered schools quickly moved from an experimental stage to one firmly based on practices that bring positive results. For example, very shortly after their creation, chartered schools were largely responsible for developing online and blended learning. It did not take long for district personnel to see the value of these new delivery methods, confirming the benefit of chartered schools’ experiments. This is another instance of the power of independence and how it encourages chartered school innovation.
The extraordinary growth of chartered schools over the past decade, as well as long student waiting lists for many chartered schools, suggests that chartered schools have moved far beyond any experimental stage. Their success—seen as chartered school market share continuing to threaten the educational establishment’s monopoly over public schools—establishes chartered schools as solid alternatives to traditional public schools.
While some school district leaders and their staff have remained open-minded and have sought to learn from innovative and successful chartered school practices, moving the educational establishment ship is an unenviable task. Unfortunately, these examples of embracing chartered school innovation are the exception rather than the rule. With that said, groundbreaking delivery approaches developed at the chartered school level are now considered acceptable practice within traditional public schools and chartered schools.
Experimentation continues within aspects of chartered schools, as it should. Trying different methods, textbooks, schedules, and so on opens doors to improved education, which can benefit students in all schools. But chartered schools themselves long ago left the experimental stage and now are unquestionably providing quality education to all levels of students.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Do Not Accept English-Language Learner or Special-Needs Students
A persistent and inaccurate misconception is that chartered schools have the option to accept or reject special education and English-language learner students. Contrary to popular belief, throughout its history, the educational reform movement has been at the forefront of serving these students.
For English-language learner students, the vast majority of chartered schools’ student populations reflect the composition of their traditional public school counterparts in most subgroups.
For special education, many school districts relied on chartered schools to teach the special education students within their boundaries. Before pushback became the weapon of choice against chartered schools, districts determined it was more cost-effective to send their special education students to chartered schools, and they gladly did so. Fast-forward to today, and both traditional public schools and chartered schools across the country follow the same state-mandated special education requirements.
Even in cities where district data themselves indicated chartered schools enrolled special-needs students at an equivalent rate as traditional public schools, critics still maintained chartered schools sidestepped their commitment to special education students. Some schools do report as few as 1 percent of their students are special education. But no solid evidence indicates chartered schools as a whole underserve the special education population. In fact, a great deal of data indicates that some chartered schools serve more than their fair share. For instance, in San Diego, the School for Entrepreneurship and Technology (formerly Coleman Tech Charter High School) reported more than one-third of its enrollment in 2016−17 as students with disabilities or as English learners.
There are, however, means for monitoring consistently low special education enrollment and then instituting needed changes. For example, the El Dorado Charter SELPA in California, sponsored by the El Dorado County Office of Education, is one of the first of its kind. Approved by the California State Board of Education, it serves as a prototype for a creative means of chartered schools working to deliver quality special education services while maintaining reasonable costs per student. El Dorado Charter SELPA monitors special education data carefully and investigates any statistics that appear questionable. Likewise, renewal regulations in most states require that chartered schools demonstrate they are delivering equitable services to a broad range of subgroups.
No doubt, chartered schools equitably serve students that reflect their community’s demographics, including English-language learner and special-needs students.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Use Public Funds but Are Not Held Academically or Fiscally Accountable
Chartered schools not only are held accountable academically and fiscally, but they also are held to higher standards than traditional schools.
In order to foster innovation and creativity, chartered schools are granted flexibility when it comes to instructional delivery, governance, administration, and business application. With that said, chartered school authorizers are required to develop clear and fair standards of academic and fiscal accountability.
As chartered schools increase their profile within the K–12 educational landscape, they are held to a higher level of public scrutiny. And if a chartered school fails to meet academic or operational expectations, an authorizer may decide to not renew or to revoke a school’s charter, which means a chartered school can be shut down. Even the most poorly performing traditional schools are often protected from closure.
For example, Arizona has an A through F grading system for all schools. Charters that receive an F are frequently closed. Traditional schools with an F grade have a process for closure, but it is much more difficult to execute than the process for chartered schools.
State legislatures prepare charter law. The state’s board of education outlines regulations that govern the implementation of that law. Local granting agencies develop a process that governs chartered school oversight. The strength of the policy, regulation, and process depends on collaborative efforts of all those who prepare and implement chartered school policies. These efforts must always include the chartered school operators and community. Those writing and executing policy should support mutually arrived-at standards and practices that govern the operation of chartered schools.
As you will read throughout this book, the fundamental differences between chartered schools and traditional public schools logically require that chartered schools be held to a separate set of academic and fiscal standards. In other words, a one-size-fits-all approach to accountability, where both chartered schools and traditional public schools follow identical standards, will most likely present more problems than solutions.
Regardless, the myth that chartered schools are not held accountable academically and fiscally has no basis. Not only must they meet such standards required of traditional public schools, but chartered schools also must often exceed those levels.
MYTH: Chartered Schools Take Money and Control That Should Go to Traditional Public Schools
Chartered schools’ greatest critics claim chartered schools siphon money and control from the local district, thereby forcing it to reduce services and furlough, lay off, or permanently release teachers. This myth promotes the concept that school districts are losing revenue to chartered schools. As a result, their schools become inadequately resourced thanks to a rogue public school that has come to town. Chartered schools, in the minds of district staff, unreasonably capture dollars that should be flowing directly from the state to the district or county office. The idea that education funds follow the student does not compute within the public school establishment’s deeply biased point of view.
When a school district’s enrollment declines for whatever reason, the district has a very difficult time reducing the size of its footprint. And when enrollment drops dramatically year after year, this spells disaster. Any business entity knows that to survive, its infrastructure must be in line with changes in its environment, such as its customer base, labor market, economic conditions, innovations, and more. Whether growing or shrinking, a business must always adapt to change. People are employed, wages are set, and operations are adjusted based on what is needed to continue to serve the client base. In a monopoly, however, no one ever thinks of funds following the customer. Under this model, the concept of quality often slips away. After all, when customers can go to only one place for service, the quality of that service becomes irrelevant.
Educational reformers maintain an entirely different perspective. Chartered schools are not taking away the district’s money and control. This argument is based on the false premise that funds are the district’s from the start. They are not. They are tax-based state funding (which means they are paid for by parents and other residents) directed toward the delivery of a quality education for each student. This is the “money and control follow the student” approach. “Money and control follow the student” implies a fiduciary responsibility on school leadership. They are charged with carefully and wisely serving as the custodians for all funds intended to benefit students and the functions of effective education.
Unfortunately, some school leaders see the money as theirs to spend as they please. But if parents choose an option other than the public school operated by the neighborhood’s school district, then the taxpayer-generated state education funds should be expended on behalf of the student—regardless of which public school a student attends.
The educational reform movement believes that parents should play the biggest role in deciding the best environment for their children’s learning experience. They, rather than bureaucrats, have the greatest interest that their children be enrolled in safe, secure, welcoming, motivating, inspiring, and challenging public schools. All students deserve an educational setting in which they gain a love of learning. Too often, however, they have functioned as a cog in a system that is more vested in its self-interest than in that of the students it ostensibly serves.
Chartered schools do take money that would otherwise go to school districts, but these funds should not necessarily go to the traditional public schools. The money should go where the parents believe it best supports their children’s education, and in many cases, that is to the publicly funded chartered schools.
Chartered Schools Are Here to Stay
The jury is no longer out. The debate is moot. Chartered schools are here to stay. While some within the educational establishment remain intent on destroying chartered schools, most have largely moved on from this extreme perspective. Yet pushback efforts continue, trying to defend the educational establishment’s status quo. Given this situation, the current question becomes: “How will traditional public schools respond to chartered schools, now that they are firmly in the public school mix?”
But does even this question, based on a more moderate stance, warrant further scrutiny? Across the country, we have spoken with leaders within the educational reform movement and the establishment. As a result, we found ourselves challenging the premise of a steadfastly adversarial approach to chartered schools.
Chartered schools were originally conceived as a means of improving educational models for all public school students. They would serve as laboratories of innovation whose breakthrough pedagogy would influence all public schools. School districts, school boards, unions, policy makers, and the public at large would learn from what chartered schools developed. Unfettered by the antiquated policies that discouraged creativity, improvement, and reasonable accountability, chartered schools would benefit all public schools.
At their onset, and as is the case today, chartered schools would innovate by working outside local district policy and procedure. Cookie-cutter policies, as they have come to popularly be known, are policies school boards have implemented and are forced to apply to every school within its jurisdiction. Often, these policies make little sense, especially in large and diverse urban districts such as Los Angeles, New York City, Chicago, and Detroit.
What chartered schools have demonstrated spectacularly well is that governance best serves a learning community when it is focused on that community’s specific needs. When governance and strategic planning are local and free to function in a manner that puts students first, the following benefit: instructional practice, fiscal priorities, operational management, training and development of personnel, and all other essential elements associated with creating schools that are safe, motivating, and inspiring.
Self-preservation, self-interest, and politics may never be completely removed from the public educational landscape. But the accountability of a school’s governing team, whether democratically elected or appointed, will be more transparent and accountable when it is not lost in the muck and mire of huge bureaucracy, one so bloated and entrenched that any activity oriented to making even a minor change is akin to turning a massive ship.
In regard to trade unions, in and of themselves, they are not a deterrent to change within public education. But their often-relentless insistence on compromise limits everyone involved in teaching and learning. Union forces are powerful, and in places such as California, they truly serve as one of the biggest obstacles to change. In other states, a more collegial relationship exists. Schools, communities, teachers, administrators, and parents work together to make a difference in the classroom, whether traditional or chartered.
In most states, chartered schools have been offered a choice. Some are affiliated with unions, and some are not. The difference with chartered schools is that those campuses selecting a union environment demonstrate a willingness to work with the union. Where collaborative relationships based on trust exist, improvement and professionalism flourish. This is a win-win scenario.
Although chartered schools are here to stay, what remains to be seen is the extent and force of educational establishment pushback. Will those in opposition to any change categorically reject challenging the status quo? We certainly hope not. In fact, we remain optimistic. As fierce as pushback is, we hope the educational establishment will choose open-mindedness to isolation, change to holding on to the self-serving status quo, and teamwork to obstruction. We look forward to the day when the educational establishment will embrace the groundbreaking work of chartered schools and acknowledge their contribution to public education.
Thanks to the tireless work of educational reformers, chartered schools have emerged as a hothouse of ideas that offer what every parent, administrator, teacher, school board member, and legislator really wants to see in his or her local public schools: a publicly funded and well-functioning education system that works for all students—one that leverages precious tax dollars every family pays to provide a world-class learning environment.
In the end, the onus of myth busting rests on all of us within the educational reform movement. It is every chartered school advocate’s duty to cast out these myths and shed light on the stellar example of the promise of educational reform.
In the era of the Titanic’s fateful maiden voyage, massive ocean liners sailing in icy waters regularly encountered and even collided with icebergs while successfully completing their journeys. This in part explains why, despite receiving multiple warnings of drifting ice from other ships, the Titanic’s captain continued full speed ahead in the Atlantic’s freezing waters. By the time a lookout spotted the massive iceberg, it was too late for the Titanic to change course.
Similarly, those at the forefront of educational reform are today’s public education lookouts. Without a doubt, chartered schools have far less market share than the traditional public school monolith. But in this case, chartered schools’ smaller size is a strength. With smallness comes agility. Without a doubt, the educational establishment could benefit from the agility of chartered schools. Like tugboats pulling ships many times their size, chartered schools could guide traditional public education through challenging waters.