The new school: charter schools offer the benefits of both public schools and private schools

THE fast-spreading charter-school movement is challenging three hoary axioms about American education: that only private schools can elude bureaucratic micromanagement, that worthwhile school choice can be achieved only through vouchers, and that the left-leaning politics of public education have barred the schoolhouse door against any encroachment by entrepreneurial capitalism.

No, this familiar trio hasn't been vanquished, and this is no time to relax. But all three assumptions are in retreat before what some are calling the "reinvention of public education" -- a battery of new sorts of schools and educational practices, among which charter schools are the most significant. Today, some seven hundred of these are in operation, enrolling about 170,000 youngsters. Twenty-nine states have authorized charter schools. In some jurisdictions --notably Arizona, Michigan, California, Colorado, Texas, and Massachusetts -- they have become major parts of the education-reform scene. In the District of Columbia, despite a rocky start, the prospect of a dozen charter schools is the brightest spot in a grim picture.

What exactly is a charter school? Visualize a hybrid, a public school with some of the most highly prized features of private schools. As a public institution, it is open to all who wish to attend, paid for with tax dollars, and accountable to state or local authorities for good performance (especially student achievement) and decent behavior (e.g., non-discrimination). It has authority to operate for a specified period -- normally five years -- and gets its charter renewed only if it delivers good results. In the manner of a private school, however, it is self-governing, free from most regulations, able to hire whomever it likes, in control of its own (secular) curriculum, and attended only by youngsters whose parents choose it.

No such schools existed five years ago. That they enjoy wide bi-partisan support today -- President Clinton has called for three thousand of them by decade's end -- indicates the appeal of this concept. But opposition is intensifying, too, and there are signs that the charter label is being applied loosely. Indeed, some states that boast of "charter laws" actually enacted such weak measures that the teachers unions are applauding -- because any schools created on those terms will lack real independence in vital areas such as personnel. That's so, for example, with the "charter" laws of Kansas, Georgia, Mississippi, and Rhode Island.

Still, "independent public school of choice" is no longer an oxymoron. Nor is it unique to the United States. Margaret Thatcher's England headed down this path first with "grant-maintained" schools that opt out of their local school bureaucracies and become self-governing, funded by block grants from Whitehall. New Zealand has made all its public schools quasi-independent.

Some U.S. charter schools (especially in California) are former public schools that wrested their freedom from the superintendent's office. Several states permit private schools to convert to charter status, too. But most are start-from-scratch schools, founded by parents, teachers, community organizations, even for-profit firms.

Yes, capitalism is welcome in much of the charter world. Companies that design and manage schools are springing up and either obtaining their own charters or (more commonly) contracting to run schools whose charters are held by parent or community groups. Several small firms are managing two or three charter schools apiece this year, and two nationally known outfits (the Edison Project and Educational Alternatives, Inc.) are responsible for more -- a full dozen in Edison's case. Whether they'll yield a profit for their investors remains to be seen -- but the schools appear to be educational successes.

Instead of running entire schools, other private firms are taking small bites from the charter apple, furnishing, for example, hot lunches, tutoring, testing, or technology. Some of this is happening in regular public schools, too. Elementary/secondary education is a $300-billion enterprise, and private vendors (school-bus companies, textbook publishers) have marketed their wares to it for decades. What is changing is the willingness of schools to entrust instructional and managerial responsibilities to outside sources.

How significant are the educational choices afforded by charter schools? With the crucial exception of religious choice, they're dazzling. In a town where all the regular schools are "progressive" or "child-centered," a back-to-basics charter school is a treasure for disgruntled families. We've also been in communities whose 1950s-style public schools don't suit 1990s-style yuppie parents. In such situations, a charter school that offers open classrooms, mixed-ability grouping, and "developmentally appropriate" instruction is a pearl beyond price.

The price, moreover, is zero -- at least, for the customers, because charter schools don't charge tuition. For low-income families in particular, the charter option is an extraordinary boon.