by AFT President Sandra Feldman
August, 2002

Most charter schools
have so far failed
to deliver what
was promised.

When charter schools first appeared, some 10 years ago, many of us who were committed to school reform had high hopes. Charter school supporters proposed a bargain: These schools, which were to be run by people who presumably had exciting and untried ideas about education—primarily teachers, but also community-based groups, private business, or groups of educators and parents— would be freed from most of the rules and regulations and oversight that govern public schools.

With all this creativity unleashed, charter schools would soar, children would flourish, achievement would rise, and the practices these schools developed would provide models of excellence that traditional public schools could use. So it’s a big disappointment to find how little the freedom from “bureaucratic regulation” has achieved. 

A new AFT study, Do Charter Schools Measure Up? The Charter School Experiment After 10 Years, surveys data on the 2,119 schools in the 37 states with laws that permit charter schools. It finds that, while some charter schools are successful, most are not innovative nor do they improve student achievement. The report has already been attacked by those who don’t distinguish between legitimate criticism and condemnation.

Disappointing Results

Three-quarters of the state laws governing charter schools specify “innovation” as a goal, but charter schools have produced few innovations, and most of their new practices are unrelated to teaching and learning. So, unfortunately, charter schools have little to teach other public schools about how to raise student achievement and little influence on continuing efforts to improve education through reform.

Nor, as far as we can tell, have charter schools been successful in raising achievement among their own students. Some states don’t require charter schools to provide the information that would allow a comparison with achievement in traditional schools. Other states have been lax in collecting or evaluating it. But judging from data that are available, while some charter schools improve student achievement, most do not. What the Texas Center for Educational Research concluded about Texas charter schools may very well hold true for charters elsewhere:

If parents were interested in choosing schools with higher test scores, they should have considered enrolling them in the traditional public school.

Although we don’t see more innovation or higher student achievement in most charter schools, we do see higher administrative costs and higher teacher turnover. There has always been criticism of excessive administrative costs in public schools, but we were told that charter schools, freed from bureaucratic constraints, would put less money into administration and more into the classroom. This, too, turns out to be wishful thinking.  The average charter school spends more money on administration and less on instruction than other public schools.

And, if we are to judge by turnover rates, teachers often find charter schools a disappointment. Several studies report high teacher turnover, which is significant, given the fact that teachers who work in charters have made a special point of choosing them over other schools.

It is not difficult to find reasons for this disappointing showing. A number of state charter laws are too broad. In Arizona, California, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Texas, for example, nearly anyone can start a charter school—and more than half of existing charter schools are located in these six states. In other states, officials don’t focus on student achievement when they are deciding whether to renew a school’s charter. This skimpy oversight by the state explains why 200 charters (one-tenth of the total) have collapsed and closed down, some in the middle of the school year, and why many more lackluster schools continue from year to year, without getting the attention of any state official—something that can no longer happen with traditional public schools.

Some Important Questions

I still favor the idea of charter schools. In New York City, the local teachers’ union has worked over the years to encourage and establish small schools that have produced good results for students and become models for what works. I was personally involved in that effort, and I believe that kind of work should continue. There are other successful charter schools, like the very first one, the City Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota. But questions must be asked and answered. How many charter schools provide a good alternative to public schools? How many are being held accountable? A decade ago, charter schools agreed that their existence would be contingent on producing results—that is, better student performance. In the interim, states have become serious about public school accountability. It’s time for charter schools to live up to their part of the bargain.