Charter school Totally Explained

Everything about Charter Schools totally explained

Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.
Their founders are often teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools. Attendance is voluntary. State-run charter schools (schools not affiliated with local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities.

History

The charter school idea in the United States was originated by Ray Budde, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and embraced by Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, in 1988 when he called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice". At the time, a few schools (which were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles) already existed, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business – free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements). Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law, in 1991. California was second, in 1992. As of 2008, 40 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws.

Structure and characteristics

There are two principles which guide charter schools. First is that that'll operate as autonomous public schools, through waivers from many of the procedural requirements of district public schools. The second is that charter schools are accountable for student achievement. To date, 11% of the over 4000 charter schools operating in the United States have closed for reasons including academic, financial, and management problems, and occasionally consolidation or district interference.
The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation, and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3–5 years. Charter schools are held accountable to their sponsor—a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity—to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. While this accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, the United States Department of Education has found that charter schools are, in practice, not held to higher standards of accountability than traditional public schools.

Chartering authorities

Chartering authorizers, entities which may legally issue charters, differ from state to state, as do the bodies which are legally entitled to apply for and operate under such charters. In some states, like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Maryland, only the local school district may issue charters. States including Arizona and the District of Columbia have created independent charter authorizing bodies to which applicants may apply for a charter. The laws that permit the most charter development, as seen in Minnesota and Michigan, allow for a combination of such authorizers. Charter applicants may include local school districts, institutions of higher education, non-profit corporations, and, in some states, for-profit corporations. Wisconsin, California, Michigan, and Arizona allow for-profit corporations to operate charter schools. This is cause for concern in the opinion of educators who are concerned that for-profit charter schools are inherently flawed, as they divert part of the funding that in a traditional public school would be spent entirely on education to maintain profits. According to the National Education Association, for-profit charter schools rarely outperform traditional public schools, even when the charter receives higher funding. Although the U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the NEA, their study points out the limitations on such studies and the inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that "study design doesn't allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools."

Demographics

The U.S. Department of Education's 1997 First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters, is based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states. Charters tend to be small (fewer than 200 students) and represent primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to charter status. Charter schools often tend to exist in urban locations, rather than rural. This study found enormous variation among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially diverse, and to enroll slightly fewer students with special needs and limited-English-proficient students than the average schools in their state.
In 2007, the annual survey produced by the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter school group, found that 54% of charter school students qualified for free or reduced lunches. This qualification is a common proxy for determining how many low-income students a given school enrolls. The same survey found that half of all charter school students fall into categories that are classified as “at risk.”

Funding

Charter school funding is dictated by the state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502 - 511 also authorize funding grants for charter schools. Additionally, charter schools may receive funding from private donors or foundations.
In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance undertaken by the Thomas B. Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group, found that across 16 states and the District of Columbia — which collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation’s one million charter school students — charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that surround them. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts that the funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student, and that in cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The fiscal inequity is most severe in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The report suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is charter schools’ lack of access to local and capital funding.
In contrast, an earlier article from the Education Policy Analysis Archives at Arizona State University in August of 2002 suggests that charters in economically depressed areas may receive more funding than the traditional public schools that surround them, placing traditional public schools at a funding disadvantage.

Locations of charter schools

In the United States

In 1991, Minnesota was the first state to adopt charter school legislation, as an expansion of a longstanding program of public school choice and to stimulate broader system improvements. Since then, the charter school concept has spread to 40 states and the District of Columbia. State laws follow varied sets of key organizing principles based on the Citizens League's recommendations for Minnesota, American Federation of Teachers guidelines, and/or federal charter-school legislation (U.S. Department of Education). Principles govern sponsorship, number of schools, regulatory waivers, degree of fiscal/legal autonomy, and performance expectations.
   Current laws have been characterized as either "strong" or "weak." "Strong-law" states mandate considerable autonomy from local labor-management agreements and bureaucracy, allow a significant number of charter schools to be authorized by multiple charter-granting agencies, and allocate a level of funding consistent with the statewide per pupil average. According to the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, in 2008 Minnesota, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Arizona, and California had the "strongest" laws in the nation. Mississippi and Iowa are home the nation’s "weakest" laws, according to the same ranking.
   The vast majority of charter schools (more than 70 percent) are found in states with the "strongest" laws: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and North Carolina.
   In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, over half of the New Orleans schools that are re-opening are doing so as charter schools.

Outside the United States

Overall, charter schools have had much less support outside the U.S., although many of the choices provided by charter schools have long existed elsewhere under different names.

New Zealand

Well before American charter schools, New Zealand went far further in granting power to individual schools by abolishing all regional school boards and making each public school independent, with local parent and teacher involvement in decision making. Although not called charter schools, each school does have a charter under which it operates with a board of trustees and has a high degree of autonomy. The main difference, though, is that since all schools have the same status, individual schools don't all have the uniqueness typical of a charter school.
While since 1989 there's also provision for Designated Special Character schools, thus far only two have been created. (These are not to be confused with 'state integrated' schools — mostly Catholic, and formerly private — that are 'integrated' into the public school system, while retaining their proprietor — which are required to have a 'special character' in their integration agreement with the Crown that would be preserved by the school's continuance.)

England and Wales

The United Kingdom established grant-maintained schools in England and Wales in 1988. They allowed individual schools that were independent of the local school authority. When they were abolished in 1998, most turned into foundation schools, which are really under their local district authority but still have a high degree of autonomy.

Canada

About three years after charter schools were introduced in the U.S., the Canadian province of Alberta allowed charter schools beginning in 1994. Two years later, ABC Charter Public School (now Westmount Charter School) formed. Alberta charter schools have much in common with their U.S. counterparts. As of 2005 there are only about a dozen charter schools in the province, compared with over 50 school boards, with the largest one alone having over 200 schools. The idea of charter schools initially sparked great debate and is still controversial, but has had limited impact. No other province in Canada has yet followed Alberta's lead.

Chile

Chile has a long history of private subsidized schooling, akin to charter schooling in the United States. Before the 1980's, most private subsidized schools were religious and owned by churches or other private parties, but they received support from the central government. In the 1980's, the dictatorial government of Augusto Pinochet promoted neoliberal reforms in the country, and adopted a competitive voucher system in education. These vouchers could be used in public schools or private subsidized schools (which can be run for profit). After this reform, the number of private subsidized schools, many of them secular, grew from 18.5% of schools in 1980 to 32.7% of schools in 2001.

Evaluations of Charter Schools

One obvious question charter schools face is whether they actually improve educational outcomes, which is their stated purpose. In the interest of testing this assertion, a number of researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who attend charter schools.

American Federation of Teachers study

A study performed by the American Federation of Teachers, which opposes charter schools, found that students attending charter schools tied to school boards don't fare any better or worse statistically in reading and math scores than students attending public schools. This study was conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003. The study included a sample of 6000 4th grade pupils and was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools. Rod Paige, the U.S. Secretary of Education, issued a statement saying (among other things) that, "according to the authors of the data the Times cites, differences between charter and regular public schools in achievement test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity." Additionally, a number of prominent research experts called into question the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of the data in an advertisement funded by a pro-charter group. Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby also criticized the report and the sample data, saying "An analysis of charter schools that's statistically meaningful requires larger numbers of students."

Caroline Hoxby studies

A 2000 paper by Caroline Hoxby found that charter school students do better than public school students, although this advantage was found only "among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent with at least a high school degree". This paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant professor Jesse Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby released a follow up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Graduate School of Business, claiming to have again found that charter school students do better than public school students. How representative the study is has also been criticized as the study is only of students in Chicago.

Meta-analyses

A report issued by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, released in July 2005 and updated in October 2006, looks at twenty-six studies that make some attempt to look at change over time in charter school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find charter schools’ gains higher in certain significant categories of schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional public schools; and, four find that charter schools’ overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at whether individual charter schools improve their performance with age (for example after overcoming start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as charter schools mature, they improve. The other two find no significant differences between older and younger charter schools.
A more recent meta-analysis conducted at Vanderbilt University indicates that solid conclusions can't be drawn from the existing studies, due to their methodological shortcomings and conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.

National Center for Education Statistics study

A study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test. Some proponents consider this the best study as they believe by incorporating basic demographic, regional, or school characteristics simultaneously it "... has shown conclusively, through rigorous, replicated, and representative research, whether charter schools boost student achievement ...", while they say that in the AFT study "... estimates of differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are overstated."

United States Department of Education Study

In its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report released in 2003, the U.S. Department of Education found that, in the five case study states, charter schools were out-performed by traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards, but noted: “It is impossible to know from this study whether that's because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor.” In 2008, Polls in Georgia and Wyoming found similar results.
The charter approach uses market principles from the private sector, including accountability and consumer choice, to offer new public sector options that remain nonsectarian and non-exclusive. Many people, such as former President Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and an alternative to vouchers. Others, such as President George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush has made charter schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these endorsements, a recent report by the AFT, has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state administered standardized testing, though the report has been heavily criticized. Other charter school opponents have examined the competing claims and suggest that most students in charter schools perform the same or worse than their traditional public school counterparts on standardized tests.

Debate over funding

Nearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet a few charter schools also attract large amounts of interest and money from private foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Broad Foundation.
Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. In reality, this isn't necessarily the case in the complex world of school funding. Charter schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than traditional public schools received until a new law was passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis. Sometimes private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech Corporation in Michigan and the Annenburg Fund in California, provide support. Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997.
Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions.Many educators are concerned that charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for regular schools, as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. To minimize these harmful effects, the American Federation of Teachers urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights.

Criticism of charter schools

Difficulties with accountability

The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for greater accountability. They are meant to be held accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive, and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing. An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district except those serving entirely non-English-speakers. It was also accused of academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required credits.
In February of 2006, the Center for Education Reform released a report on charter school closures. At that time they found that 436 of the 4000 charter schools has closed for reasons ranging from district consolidation to failure to attract students. The report states that the “majority are closed for financial or management deficiencies.”

Distribution of funds

Additional concerns arise when, as in Michigan, charter schools are run for profit. Many educators worry that education will suffer when funding is split between profit and educational spending, rather than going completely toward educational spending as is done in traditional public schools. Studies have already shown many instances of charter schools cutting programs or refusing to educate students with special needs so as to maintain profitability. Charter schools in Michigan, where for-profit charter schools are common, have performed at a lower level than their traditional public school counterparts.

Racial integration

In an article written for the journal Contexts, Linda A. Renzulli, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Georgia, and Vincent J. Roscigno, coeditor of the American Sociological Review, use Linda's own research as well as research by Amy Stuart Wells, Professor of Sociology and Education and the Coordinator of Policy Studies at Teachers College at Columbia University, to state that Charter Schools actually increase segregation of the different racial entities.Further Information

Get more info on 'Charter Schools'.

External Link Exchanges

Do you know how hard it is to get a link from a large encyclopaedia? Well we're different and will prove it. To get a link from us just add the following HTML to your site on a relevant page:

<a href="http://charter_school.totallyexplained.com">Charter school Totally Explained</a>

Then simply click through this link from your web page. Our crawlers will verify your link, extract the title of your web page and instantly add a link back to it. If you like you can remove the words Totally Explained and embed the link in article text.
As long as your link remains in place, we'll keep our link to you right here. Please play fair - our crawlers are watching. Your site must be closely related to this one's topic. Any kind of spamming, dubious practises or removing the link will result in your link from us being dropped and, potentially, your whole site being banned.