Give Districts the Freedom of Charter Schools

It happens every four years, just like leap year. An army of bureaucrats arrives from Sacramento, suitcases in tow, and moves into a local hotel. They remain in our school district for at least a week, working dawn to dusk, poring over boxes of paperwork and checking every nook and cranny to be certain that Capistrano Unified is in compliance with California’s 7,000 page Education Code.

Known among educators as the infamous Coordinated Compliance Review, the experience is something akin to undergoing an IRS audit or having a root canal. One of the ironies of the review is that nothing in the process ensures that the students are benefiting from the programs being reviewed for compliance. Moreover, at the very time California districts and schools are being held accountable for students’ test scores (as they should be), the review shifts our energies and focus to regulation compliance rather than improved student achievement.

One ridiculous example of our district’s experience last month was a finding by one state examiner that the serial number of a federal government program was engraved on a computer improperly. It was entered under, and not above, the engraved serial number of a state program. What a finding such as that has to do with student learning escapes me. Now that California school districts are heavily involved in accountability measures such as the Stanford 9 and the Academic Performance Index, it makes little sense for educators to have to undergo the inane experience of a meaningless compliance review.

The wish to be relieved of unnecessary, arcane, bureaucratic regulations is just one of two reasons Capistrano Unified is seeking legislative authority to become a charter district.

The second reason is to attain a greater level of discretionary funding from the state. In recent years, the governor and Legislature have adopted a vast number of programs that are funded and expected to be implemented by all school districts. California currently has more than 90 separately funded such programs. Under this cookie-cutter, one-size-fits-all scenario, local creativity and flexibility are greatly hindered. Dollars for tobacco-use prevention programs may be spent only to educate about the dangers of smoking. The school safety allocation can only be spent for school security measures. And the list goes on and on.

Ironically, while state officials continue to pass an increasing number of laws each year (180 new laws were passed in 1999) to correct every perceived ill of California education, the state has also sent a duplicitous message. That message is that local teachers, parents and school officials should be able to be relieved of state regulations and should be permitted to use dollars in any manner they see fit. This idea, proffered initially by State Superintendent Delaine Eastin when she was a member of the Assembly and then-Sen. Gary Hart, was defined as the “charter school” movement.

The simplicity of the charter school message raises a key question:

If freedom from state regulators and flexibility to use state funds as local people deem appropriate are worthy and noble ideas, why doesn’t the state give public school districts the same privileges it will grant to any charter school petitioner?

Or why isn’t what’s good for the goose also good for the gander?

One response to those questions is addressed in a legislative proposal being submitted by Sen. Bill Morrow (R-Carlsbad) and Rep. Pat Bates (R-Laguna Niguel). They have introduced Senate Bill 1705, a measure that would allow at least one district, Capistrano Unified, to attain charter status. If SB 1705 is passed, we would elect to follow state laws and regulations that our local school board believes contribute to student achievement, while jettisoning those that do not.

American public education began and grew up in community-based schools and districts across our nation. These early schools were rooted in a tradition of local control. Communities, through elected school boards, were given the freedom and flexibility to apply local methods to teach children. There are many theories about why the institution of American public education is having difficulties these days. I submit that one legitimate theory is that this is an enterprise that is overregulated and micromanaged by the state government, almost to the point of immobility. Everybody in Sacramento feels he has the silver bullet to solve every problem. We’re on regulatory overload. Perhaps the solution might be as simple as unleashing the creativity and ingenuity of our local educators and parents.

As long as districts such as Capistrano Unified are willing to be held accountable for results, there is no harm in trying a decentralized approach to managing the state’s schools. The worst that can happen, if we are less than fully successful, is that we will revert to the status quo. Charter districts are at least worth a try.