This year marks the 20th anniversary of charter schools. In 1991, Minnesota became the first state in the nation to pass a charter school law. In 2009, that law was updated to strengthen accountability and foster increased innovation. But why create another type of public school in the first place?
Recognizing that not all children were finding success in traditional school systems, the state created charter schools to be educational experiments: public schools that would use different methods, settings, structures, or programs to ensure everyone’s educational needs were met. As a result, charter schools are not just different from traditional schools, they are often very different from one another. For just as one size does not fit all, neither do two sizes, or three, four, or five for that matter. The state of Minnesota has hundreds of charter schools working to create learning environments to serve a variety of learners.
The law addresses six areas in its stated purpose: improve pupil learning and student achievement; increase learning opportunities for pupils; encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods; measure learning outcomes and create different and innovative forms of measuring outcomes; establish new forms of accountability for schools; and create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site.
In order to achieve their goals, charter schools are exempt from some of the statutes that bind traditional districts. On the other hand, they have to cope with other restrictions not placed on traditional districts. There are advantages and disadvantages from both perspectives, and it is probably beyond an article of this length to explain them all; but it may be a start to simply address a few of the most obvious (and often misunderstood) issues.
Many of the differences stem from the experimental nature of charter schools. A charter school may not be successful in attracting enough students to be financially viable, may not be able to meet the government’s mandated educational requirements, or may not be able to comply with the myriad operational, administrative, or reporting regulations. In any case, a charter school could easily close within a few years of opening. In that situation, the state would not want to get stuck paying for an unused building, a defaulted loan, or on-going debt obligations. As a result, charter schools cannot borrow money to build a facility, issue bonds for construction projects, or incur debt utilizing the state’s credit rating. Neither can they receive funds from property tax levies. To help compensate for these constraints, the state provides charter schools with “Lease Aid,” a payment based on student enrollment that can offset up to 90 percent of the cost of a charter school’s lease payments. Also, while the percentage of money withheld from charter schools due to the state’s funding shift is the same as that for traditional districts, because of the higher cost of borrowing incurred by charter schools, the rate and timing of both the withholding and repayment of the “holdback” are more favorable for charter schools.
To help establish local control, charter school boards are elected by the parents and staff of the school, and must include at least one educator, one parent, and one community member not otherwise affiliated with the school.
To maintain flexibility, charter schools are allowed to maintain “at-will” employment relationships with all their staff.
Charter schools have the option of having the resident district provide its basic transportation services, but must then assign all its designated transportation revenue to the resident district and use general revenue funds to pay transportation costs for field trips and other events.
In order to implement their alternative educational programs, charter schools are allowed to limit enrollment. However, as public schools, charters cannot discriminate amongst potential students. If there are more applications than openings, students must be selected at random (other than as provided by law), so all students have an equal chance to attend.
More important than their differences, however, are the similarities that bind all public schools—traditional and charter— in their efforts to educate students. The main source of our funding is the per pupil revenue paid based on the number of days a student attends a particular school. We must employ licensed teachers, provide special education services, and hold open board meetings. We are accountable for meeting the administrative and academic performance requirements of both the state and federal governments. And at the end of the day, we share a common purpose: helping children develop the knowledge and skills they will need to pursue their dreams.
Each month a representative of our local schools will offer thoughts in Issues in Education. This month’s s contributor is Peter James, director of Great Expectations School.
Leave a Reply