Charter Schools’ Promise

Charter schools have always dangled the promise of education set free from bureaucracy to soar, opening new paths for accelerated learning. So far, the results have been mixed. Though some charter schools model educational excellence, others struggle along with low test scores and untrained teachers, with no one monitoring them or helping them improve.

Charter operators say conditions would improve under a bill by Assemblywoman Patricia Bates (R-Laguna Niguel) that would hand chartering power to colleges, big-city mayors and nonprofit groups with assets of at least $2 million. That’s partly true.

Colleges do have the expertise and objectivity to be charter overseers. Student teachers and volunteers could help and learn from the schools. And every area of the state has at least a community college to which a charter group could turn for help.

It’s the rest of the bill that’s worrisome. Charters are publicly funded schools that operate free from many regulations on the promise that they will give parents more choice and deliver innovative improvements. The experiment is worth expanding -- but with more caution than in Bates’ AB 1464.

Right now, would-be California charters must seek permission from public school boards. Charter groups have justifiable complaints with this system. Some school districts view charters as competitors and begrudge their approval. Once a charter is established, the district takes a percentage of the school’s budget to fund monitoring. But a state audit found last year that large school districts weren’t doing the job, and charter principals say years can pass without anyone from the districts dropping by.

Good schools welcome supervision, and recent studies show it’s needed. Though some of California’s 436 charter schools are great successes, a study last year out of Stanford University found that regular California public schools raised their Academic Performance Index scores by a smidge more than charter schools. Other studies give charter schools the edge.

The Bates bill does not provide for school oversight. Its provision for nonprofit groups to sponsor charters would open up public schooling to fringe groups able to pull together enough cash. The bill is so loosely written that wacky political and social agendas would be no bar. Allowing mayors the same power could give cronies and contributors too much say in who gets a charter. Once open, the schools would be subject to shifting political winds.

Another bill, AB 1137, by Assemblywoman Sarah Reyes (D-Fresno), would do the essential work of establishing better monitoring. Failing schools would lose their charters, and chartering agencies would have to designate a contact person, lay out performance standards and visit campuses at least once a year.

Nice idea. Who knows? If it’s done right, maybe the educators could learn from each other.