by Christopher Lubienski, (@Club_edu) University of Illinois (cross posted from the
National Journal)
In the
celebratory
atmosphere of “
National
Charter School Week,” there has been much self-congratulation over the
remarkable growth of the movement over the last couple of decades.
Advocates are proud of the proliferation of
these schools, and the accomplishments of some truly remarkable models.
But what has the movement really achieved?
A few years ago
we looked
at the initial expectations of the charter school movement, and found much
optimism about the anticipated impacts of these schools in a few areas —
specifically: (1) more equitable access to quality education options,
especially for disadvantaged children; (2) increased innovation, since autonomous
charter schools would serve as “laboratories” or “R & D centers” for the
public sector;
(3) higher levels of
efficiency, as these schools, freed from bureaucratic oversight, could do more
with less; and, (4) of course, greater effectiveness or achievement.
Obviously, there has been much debate, but surprisingly little
compelling evidence to support the optimistic claims of early supporters,
especially in areas such as achievement, where there is a general consensus
that charter schools typically perform at about the same level as — and too
often below that of — public schools.
(Yes, I’m well aware of the tired admonition that charter schools are
“public” schools, but am personally more interested in organizational behavior
than in legal designations.) In fact,
many of these initial promises have largely been ignored in recent years, with
the idea of “choice” increasingly seen as a worthy goal in and of itself.
Still, there are some areas where charter schools and their
champions have undoubtedly had an impact.
So, without diminishing the achievements of charter schools, let’s keep
a balanced perspective by noting some of the other results of the charter
school movement:
Moving the metrics: Instead of looking at the overall impact of
this movement, especially on important social goals such as effectiveness,
opportunity and integration, charter advocates are quite often content to
simply
celebrate
the growth of the movement.
De-unionization: Love unions or hate them, there is little
arguing the fact that charter schools have been leading the movement to hire
non-unionized teachers.
(And moves to
close public schools and replace them with charters can mean dramatic
de-unionization in some cities — like Chicago, for example.)
However, a unionized teaching force — like it
or not — typically means a certified and better trained teaching force, and
that is
a
positive predictor of higher student achievement, as the evidence we
discussed in
The
Public School Advantage indicates.
Bringing the
profit-motive to public education:
It’s not just that charter schools introduce market-style competition
with other public and private schools, as was intended.
Charter schools have also — by design —
opened up
opportunities for investors and management organizations to seek profits in
public education.
Some see this as a
good thing, bringing new ideas and resources into the public sector.
While this country has not yet really engaged
in a conversation on the appropriateness of that, there is little doubt that
charter schooling has provided the opportunity for these and other new players
to enter the policy field, often supplanting school boards and community
groups.
Charter schools
demonstrate market failure in education:
It is often repeated that charter schools are based on the notion of
“
autonomy in
exchange for accountability,” since charters offered the opportunity to supplant
bureaucratic-based forms of accountability with accountability not just to
charter authorizers, but to the families — the “customers” — that chose
charters.
Yet, the problem with this
logic is glaringly evident every time we see a waiting list for a demonstrably
underperforming charter school.
When a
charter authorizer or
state attorney
general needs to step in to close a poorly performing charter school, this
highlights the need for governmental remedies when assumptions about supply and
demand in education markets fail.
“Doing more with less”
was a policy ploy: Remember how
advocates claimed that charter schools would be more efficient because they
didn’t have to support cumbersome district bureaucracies (like Catholic
schools!)?
That was apparently a very
smart strategic move by policy proponents to promote the illusion that charter
schools offered a cheaper alternative to costly public schools.
Now, all the calls for “parity” or “equity”
from charter advocates and
associated celebrities
only exposes those promises, and highlights the growth in administrative
structures (and in some cases the need for profit) in charter schooling,
particularly when they
serve
less-costly
students.
Charter schools are
too often serving as vehicles for student sorting: While there were initial concerns that
charters would lead to segregation through White-flight and self-segregation,
proponents countered that charter schools overall served higher proportions of
minority and disadvantaged students.
However, there is
growing
evidence that charter schools are, in fact, associated with greater
segregation.
The existence of some quality charter schools is great, but not sufficient: The policy proponents pushing charter
schools love to point to successful charter schools as proof that this model
has the potential to succeed.
While the
existence of such schools is great for those kids, these cases are too rare,
considering the
mediocre
performance of
charter
schools overall — more than balanced out by too many atrocious charter
schools.
While it makes sense to examine
the attributes that make some charter schools successful, it’s also important
to remember that we have many more high performing public (and private)
schools.
The reason?
One of the most consistent indicators of
success is not school governance, but the socioeconomic status of children
attending a given school.
Considering all of the debates surrounding charter schools,
it’s useful to ask ourselves why there is still so much bi-partisan excitement
about these schools despite the amazingly modest results after over two decades
of this reform. I happen to think that
charter schools can be an important part of the public education system,
particularly as they were originally envisioned. And there is reason to celebrate the
successes of these schools. But there is
certainly also reason for concern that this movement too often less about
results for children, and more about reconfiguring public education to align
with a market-based vision for schooling promoted by many advocates.
Chris Lubienski is professor of education policy at the
University of Illinois. He’s on Twitter
at @Club_edu
