Charter Schools Win Support by Offering Education Flexibility
Charters have proved their worth by serving students failed by traditional public schools.

Charter schools are sort of the gateway drug of school choice. As publicly funded, tuition-free education options, they're not hugely different from the traditional public schools with which they compete. And yet the private management of charter schools allows for an astonishing degree of experimentation in terms of curriculum, philosophy, and structure, and makes it comparatively easy to close institutions that don't meet expectations. As a result, as modest an innovation as charter schools appear on the surface, they're embraced by families of children who have been failed by traditional models.
Despite the opposition they often draw from teachers' unions, charter schools were originally championed by Albert Shanker, then-president of the American Federation of Teachers, as a means of helping students underserved by traditional public schools. The first official charter school opened in St. Paul, Minnesota, in 1992. The model has since spread across the country, largely remaining true to its original mission.
"According to most recently available data, 68.7% of charter school students and 52.4% of district school students are students of color, while 59.3% of charter school students and 54.3% of district school students were economically disadvantaged students," reports the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
The number of students served by charter schools increased from 1.6 million to 3.3 million between 2009 and 2018, according to U.S. Department of Education's National Center for Education Statistics. That represents a jump from 3 percent to 7 percent of public-school students, although the share varies widely from state to state. Some states still have no charter schools (West Virginia is introducing them now), while 18 percent of public-school students in Arizona attend a charter. But those numbers have been growing for a reason: People are generally impressed by the results achieved by charter schools.
"Lottery-based studies of urban charter schools consistently show that charters improve students' academic achievement and some longer-term outcomes, particularly among Black and Latinx students, students with disabilities, and low-performing students," concludes a 2021 National Bureau of Economic Research paper by Sarah Cohodes and Katharine Parham of Columbia University.
"Given their small market share, charters' greatest potential impact may come just as economic theory would predict—through their competitive impact on neighboring public schools," they add. "A number of studies assessing the competitive impacts of charters have found that charters improve student achievement in nearby traditional public schools."
Charter schools have a positive impact long past the classroom in terms of successfully sending their graduates all the way through college to earn bachelor's degrees.
"Overall, the big charter networks are seeing college success rates that are anywhere from three to five times the rates for low-income students nationally," Richard Whitmire wrote for the education publication The 74 in 2017. "The most successful networks are all in the 50 percent range — half of their alumni earn bachelor's degrees within six years. Nationally, 9 percent of the students from low-income families meet that mark."
Not every charter school achieves such success, of course. Like any other venture, some charters go off the rails, are run into the ground by poor management, or just fail at their mission. Teachers' unions, having wandered far from the days of Albert Shanker's advocacy of charters, are more than happy to point to charter schools that don't do a good job. But that's part of the attraction of charters; when they fail, as some institutions inevitably do, it's easier to close one independently managed school and move its kids to competitors than to shut the doors of a traditional district school that has a near-monopoly on students in a geographic area.
"As difficult as it is to close a school, that is what is required to ensure that California's charter movement fulfills its promises to students and the state, and maintains the high level of achievement required to continue to play a transformational role in the education system for years to come," Jed Wallace, then-president of the California Charter Schools Association, wrote for the Los Angeles Times in 2013.
"Charter school advocates see closures as an unfortunate but necessary part of a bargain that should benefit students: Schools get more autonomy to operate, but if they fall short of their goals, they have to close," Chalkbeat Detroit noted five years later.
That ability to try, fail, try again, and ultimately do better by students while inspiring the competition to put in more effort wins support not just from the parents of charter students, but from the public at large. In December 2021 polling by EdChoice, 90 percent of charter school parents report being very or somewhat satisfied with their children's schooling, compared to 78 percent of district school parents (96 percent of private school parents and 88 percent of homeschool parents report being satisfied).
The same poll found overall public support for charter schools at 68 percent.
As you might expect of an education model rooted in the idea of providing a more flexible alternative to traditional public schools, charters need leeway in order to properly function and offer the greatest benefit to children. For that reason, the Educational Freedom Institute (EFI) now ranks states based on the environments they offer, published most recently in the EFI Charter School Ecosystems Rankings (ECER) report for 2022.
"The report is grounded in a simple idea: States with charter schools that are widely available to students and produce greater learning gains are ranked high, while states with charter schools that are less available and produce smaller gains are ranked lower," James Paul, EFI's director of research, observed in December 2021. Combining consideration of such measures as the percentage of students enrolled in charters and student test scores, EFI developed rankings that reward charter-friendly jurisdictions such as Washington, D.C.; Arizona; Louisiana; and Oklahoma.
"The ECER 2022 rankings should be used by parents, researchers, policymakers, and advocates to see which states have charter school laws and policies worth emulating," the report urges.
Given the achievements of charter schools as a "gateway" to school choice, and the satisfaction reported by the parents of students in these education options, emulating the example of places that have made the model work is good advice.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My perch in Broward County Florida gives me a pretty good look at school choice and how it can work. Broward allows all students to move to a different school. We also have magnet schools and charter schools, and a myriad of ways to get publicly funded access to private schools.
My personal circle of friends is dominated by upper middle class Christians who overwhelmingly chose private Christian schools for their children. These are excellent, extremely well funded schools. The physical environment at these schools varies from nice and clean and functional to over-the-top theme-park inspired school. Parents tend to be wealthier than average by quite a bit.. but a large number of students are also there on charitable scholarships.
The schools are very good.
We did not choose these for our children. We got our firstborn reassigned to a public elementary school that had almost 70% of the students transfer in. An unofficial magnet school, I suppose. It has been a fantastic experience. The parents are deeply involved, and our kids are uniformly ahead of the private school kids in every subject.
This is what I have learned. The primary driver of school success is the parents. And school choice, in whatever form that takes, selects for parental involvement.
This is the primary benefit of any school choice scheme. Getting parents together who are pushing their kids and willing to participate.
Private schools have this because parents chose to opt out and spend a lot of money.
Magnet or charter schools have similar advantages, but less wealthy parents.
It seems that the sweet spot is upper middle class parents who move their kids to a better school. You want them to be well off enough to have time and resources to devote to their kids, but not so well off that cutting a check is their only commitment. (although a few of those come in handy)
So our elementary school is a title 1 school, meaning half of the kids qualify for federal aid. Yet we also have a car line that features a couple of Tesla Model X, several Kia Telluride and Hyundai Palisades, a couple of Land Rovers and even a Fisker Karma. And the kids from this school go on to a bunch of different middle schools and dominate the county science fair competition, debate competitions, robotics competitions... Because school choice in the form of reassignment allowed those parents to come together with a school staff that are focused on the kids and their success.
So even a small measure of school choice makes a big difference.
What is missing from that part of the model is the creative destruction. At the middle school level they use magnet programs to lift the failing schools. Our first child went to a magnet that was very popular with the elites. We carpooled with the Mayor. Several local business bigshots had their kids in that magnet. The teachers were largely exceptional.
Then the district promoted the magnet coordinator and simultaneously moved in a new principal who hated the magnet program (I never saw it, but the inuendo shared by parents was that he was not too fond of the melanin challenged folks). Within 2 years all of the best teachers left. We did not send our second there. A charter might not suffer this fate, because it would face shutdown if something like that happened.
School choice is a massive boon to students, parents and schools. Our local, zoned elementary school has 47% English as a second language. Obviously, not the best place for my child. But other parents who are immigrants actually transfer their kids in to that school... Because they have the resources and experience to handle those students. It doesn't grade out as a top school, because they measure "how did you do on standardized tests in English". But it is a great school for the mission it serves. A large Haitian population and a large Brazilian population are getting their kids educated to American standards on an accelerated basis, without floundering to catch up on their English skills for a few years. By the time they hit middle school, they seamlessly join the magnet middle schools and do just fine.
This is what school choice can do.
"The primary driver of school success is the parents."
How about the primary driver of life success?
Of course, if progressives ever admit that caring parents, and commonly two parents, matter, then we will hear protests about parental inequity and demands for new government programs to redistribute parenting.
"This is the primary benefit of any school choice scheme. Getting parents together who are pushing their kids and willing to participate."
I would modify this by adding that a school choice system ALSO has the benefit of fostering passion in parents. There is no better killer of passion than the staid, bureaucratic nightmare that is the public school system. Sure, if as a parent you want to come in and volunteer at times and activities prescribed by the school staff, they will welcome you with open arms. But try to contribute extracurricular activities, or give input on the curriculum and you will find yourself mired in committees, red tape and shaking heads.
It isn't even (always) kulture war nonsense. When a parent comes in and offers suggestions, it threatens to shake up routines and give stress that staff doesn't like. It is much easier to keep routines year after year.
But I have several friends who have become founding families in charter schools (and a couple who became part of their local elementary inner cloister). These aren't passionate educators or anything. But being part of creating something for their kids made something click and they spent years dedicating nights and weekends to making the systems work. (The wife and I have done the same with Scouting.)
When you give parents choice, they self organize around people they like, and they begin thinking about ways to help. You create clusters of parents dedicated to your support and innovation.
Excellent points, all
Best of wishes to both you and your children, Cyto and Overt!
One thing to watch out for, though: As long as Government holds the Charter and decides who gets to set up a Charter School, and as long as Charter Schools take the King's coin, they ultimately have to obey the King's rules and the party could be shut down anytime.
It may be good to keep homeschooling/unschooling as an Ace up the sleeve if best-laid plans go awry. But again, congrats on your good experience!
"Then the district promoted the magnet coordinator and simultaneously moved in a new principal who hated the magnet program (I never saw it, but the inuendo shared by parents was that he was not too fond of the melanin challenged folks).
Step 1. Get plants within.
Step 2. Destroy
Step 3. Rebuild on Marxist/ Socialist principles.
Did the Boy Scout child molestation thing become widespread just by roll of the dice, or was it deliberately caused by infiltration?
Smart moneys on " B"
Fortunately, children do not need Scout organizations to learn Scouting-type crafts and skills. Children can learn these both alone and with groups of trusted friends and adults, without uniforms, falderal, ideologies, or gods.
Thumb up to that!
Finger up to Biden!
Charter schools here in Texas don't have buses, so parents have to be very motivated to get their kids to school. Some parents at our school drive over an hour each way. Parents have to be very motivated regarding education to do that and it shows up in the quality of kids in the school.
"Charters have proved their worth by serving students failed by traditional public schools."
Fake news! No traditional public school has ever failed a student. Any claim to the contrary is seditious Trumpster propaganda.
- Your local teachers' union spokes-unit
Excellent comment!
Could you please send us your address and phone number? We'd like to send some representatives to your house to further question your ideas of individualism.
Your visiting Reps name will be Kamala.
She keeps a list of all individualist- minded Citizens such as yourself.
And be sure to vote for me as President next year!
C'Mon, Man! Get back to your Jello Pudding and Boost, Gramps! And tell your son Hunter to score Krunkt Kackling Kammie some big spliffs so she'll shut her blow-hole!
What this all means is the end to
de- segregation.
A horrible solution to a problem Government is not empowered to solve.
Government OB&F the People exists to coordinate affairs among the States.
Not to micro manage affairs of the People.
And I missed where government ever did, or had authority, to invent Pubic Schools and Ed requirement.
It all rings of Euro -Socialism.
FJB.
The only problem I see is they are still measuring success based on achieving a bachelor's degree after high school. We have a major need in just about all the vocational trades in the US. These are good paying jobs, require less college (if any, many can be done on apprenticeship) and have job security. We suffer in the US from credentialism, the idea that a sheepskin is some measure of success.
My oldest is graduating this spring. He had already enrolled in a vocational college. He is going to study to be a plumber, after 6 years when he gets his journeyman, he will be making more on average than I do with a MS. I was at first not really happy with his decision. I was raised to think you needed that sheepskin for success, but the more I studied the issue the more I came to realize he has made a very mature decision. He also picked the college based on it's location, which is where his Guard unit drills. So, the guard is paying his tuition. In two years he'll be graduated and making good money, with the ability to start his own business if he decides to in the future. For a 17 yo he has shown real maturity in his decision making process. His teachers, who all brag about how smart he is and how responsible he is, all seem to be fully on board with his decision. It probably helps that we live in a small, rural, farming and ranching town and the mindset is such that a good paying blue collar job is success as much as getting a degree is.
Aren't private schools mandated by law to suck ass, so they don't make public schools look bad?
Not in red states. And charter schools are public schools, just not "traditional" (under the thumb of the school board/unions/bureaucracy) public schools.
Consumer Product Testing
https://www.matexcel.com/services/consumer-industrial-product-testing/
The marketplace in today is complicated. New markets, suppliers, regulations and products are booming every day and everywhere.