It has been five years since Minnesota became the first state to pass a charter school proposal. Charter school laws vary in details, but the concept is to free individual public schools, either new or existing, from some or most of a state's requirements regarding administration, staffing, curriculum design and budget.
Along with increased flexibility, charter schools have increased accountability. Those not delivering instructional programs described in their charter or mismanaging finances can be closed down. One charter school in Los Angeles was closed down in 1994 for alleged financial mismanagement.
While it is too early to assess their long-term effects, charter schools have provided an increased variety of choices for parents and students. In California, the schools range in size from 38 students in a one-room schoolhouse setting to 1,400.
The sites of schools range from existing campuses to store fronts, leased space in church buildings and office buildings. Educational approaches range from back-to-basics to home study, multi-age grouping, expanded use of technology, extended school day/year and community as a classroom.
One of the advantages that some charter schools have is that non-certificated individuals, including parents and community volunteers, can teach in the schools. This allows experts from various fields, including university professors, into the classroom to teach part-time.
Source: Sue Bragato, "California Charter Schools Turn 100," Report Card, Vol. 11, No. 1, January/February 1996, Center for the Study of Popular Culture, P.O. Box 67398, Los Angeles, CA 90067, (310) 843-3699.
In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education met and issued a report calling American education "mediocre." In 1989, the first National Education Summit talked and issued a report calling for educational improvements. Now, another National Education Summit has met and called for higher standards.
But over the years nothing much has changed in the nation's classrooms.
Reformers identify the problem as a proliferation of interest groups -- each with veto power -- leading to little student effort, but inflated grades.
As they see it, the way out is to abandon the present centralized system and let groups test their own ideas through charter schools and the voucher system. This would guarantee parents the choice of how their offspring were educated and introduce long-delayed accountability in education through a free market.
Source: Editorial, "Standards Talk: Standard Talk," Investor's Business Daily, April 3, 1996.
Responsible parents are sacrificing tens of thousands of dollars to send their off-spring to American colleges and universities offering courses of study that real-world Americans view as pointless and devoid of intellectual content.
Nevertheless, according to a recent report from the National Association of Scholars:
There is little doubt, experts say, that the entire process of decline was set in motion by the campus rebellions of the 1960s, when academic activists derided the traditional curriculum as irrelevant and outdated. Observers find it ironic that just at a time when the rest of the world is embracing Western political and economic ideals, many of our academic institutions are repudiating them.
Source: William Simon (John M. Olin Foundation), "Colleges Too Soft or In Tune With the Times?" Washington Times, April 14, 1996.
The popularity of charter schools -- public schools freed from rigid controls -- as measured by the number of schools established depends on the "strength" of the a state's authorizing laws, according to a recent study.
Strong charter laws allow schools to be sponsored by entities other than local boards, to have a great deal of financial and legal autonomy and to be automatically free from most state and local rules.
With weaker laws, charter-type schools are often no more than enhanced site-based decision-making experiments: they remain part of the school district, have limited control over budget and personnel matters, and often must seek waivers on a case-by-case basis.
Since a major purpose of charter schools is to encourage innovation, competition and change throughout the education system, the sheer number of schools is important.
Source: Louann A. Bierlein, "How to Improve Georgia's Charter School Law," Issue Analysis, January 31, 1996, Georgia Pubic Policy Foundation, 2900 Chamblee-Tucker Road, Building Six, Atlanta, GA 30341, (770) 455-7600.
Educational experimenters in trendy California are at it. This time they've come up with a newer new math. In this new approach, individual students working out their arithmetic with paper and pencil are out; group work -- with no right or wrong answers -- is in.
Over the past three decades, U.S. students' math proficiency has declined.
These poor showings have apparently prompted California educators to try anything -- revamping guidelines and textbooks every seven years.
The latest California experiment, launched in 1992, follows standards advanced in 1989 by the national Council of Teachers of Mathematics. It's designed to "empower" kids interest in math.
Not surprisingly, advocates of the new "new math" admit they have no empirical proof of success or documentable standards, but argue that the old approach is a proven failure. Critics, on the other hand, believe serious compromises in traditional math curricula have been eroding achievement for years.
One fourth-grade text book advises teachers: "Your job is...not to judge the rightness and wrongness of each student's answer. Let those determinations come from the class...avoid showing any verbal or nonverbal signs of approval and ask, 'Does everybody agree?'"
Everyone doesn't. One publisher of back-to-basics math textbooks reports good results in California school districts where the books are in use. But under the 1992 criteria, it's the new new approach that must be used.
Parents in California communities near high-tech and professional areas seem to be most angered by the changes and are fighting back. But now that half of California's school districts have adopted textbooks with the new approach, one educator predicts: "When the (national) scores come out next year and California comes in dead last, nobody is going to be listening to us anymore."
Source: Matthew Robinson, "Why Johnny Can't Add, Subtract," Investor's Business Daily, April 15, 1996.
Tuition at private elementary and secondary schools is less than the cost per pupil at public schools, according to figures from the U.S. Department of Education. A survey of private elementary and high schools nationwide found:
To determine the availability of lower-cost tuitions in cities of various sizes and in different regions, researchers surveyed all private schools in Indianapolis, San Francisco, Jersey City, N.J., and Atlanta and compared their tuition charges with public school costs.
Researchers point out that the actual cost for education in both public and private schools is understated. For example, the public school cost doesn't include capital outlays and pension liabilities, and private tuition income is supplemented by charitable contributions and donated labor.
Source: David Boaz and R. Morris Barrett, "What Would a School Voucher Buy?" Briefing Paper No. 25, March 26, 1996, Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20001, (202) 842-0200.
There is no evidence that the U.S. Department of Education has had any impact in improving public education.
The Education Department was created at the insistence of President Jimmy Carter and the National Education Association -- despite the opposition of the American Federation of Teachers, Democrats like Sen. Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) and the Washington Post and other newspapers.
After 15 years, opponents of the department believe they have more evidence they were right. Legislation is pending in Congress to abolish the department.
Source: Denis Philip Doyle and Christine L. Olson, "How Congress Can Restore Local and Parental Control Over Education," Backgrounder No. 1076, April 8, 1996, Heritage Foundation, 214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 546-4400.