Make Existing School Systems Leaner, More Responsive

This time of year, I always take note of what’s brewing in the Legislature regarding the public schools. This session, charter schools are on the agenda.

A charter school is an independent school that is chartered by a school district or a public university. They are publicly funded and exempt from most state and local regulations.

It is imperative that we ask why some feel the need for charter schools.

Proponents point to difficulties trying to innovate within some large school districts. These districts are seen as being bogged down in heavy-handed bureaucracy and social problems that make them ineffective. By being freed from cumbersome regulations, efficiency and effectiveness can be reattained. Discussion becomes vague when the issue of bringing these qualities back to the rest of the district’s schools comes up.

The question is, can the public school system in good conscience allow this sort of disparity to exist for long?

Over the years, many small school districts in our state have been consolidated into larger ones - ironically, in the name of efficiency. The unfortunate byproduct of this is that we’ve lost the local control and educational adaptability that charter schools now seek to re-establish.

Centralized school districts, with their multiple layers of administration, have become a breeding ground for paperwork. Within these layers reside the specialists who inevitably wind up engaged in turf wars to justify their services, especially when budgets get tight. The result is complexity. In addition, the boards of these larger districts cannot possibly be as responsive to the concerns of individual parents and other citizens as can their colleagues in smaller districts.

As a school board member of a tiny district (60 students at last count), I have come to see the advantages of smallness. We can innovate in the classroom and make the necessary changes in less time. Interactions between staff members are usually of the face-to-face variety with fewer memos and less complexity. Innovations can be implemented schoolwide, instead of in special, gifted or other targeted classes.

Small districts are already functioning much as charter schools are envisioned to function, except that we receive no breaks on the regulations.

With regard to regulatory exemptions, the implication is that the rules are unimportant and get in the way of the educational process. Many probably do. So why not identify and eliminate them for all schools?

Charter schools are also seen as a way to remove some students from perceived social problems. For example, girls complaining of harassment from boys or inferior expectations from teachers could establish their own, all-girl charter school. The problem with this solution is that it doesn’t address the problem where it exists, nor does it prepare the student for life outside the classroom. One of public education’s most valuable contributions is teaching kids how to work with, and ultimately appreciate, people different from themselves.

Where harassment exists, let’s confront that harassment as part of the educational process. Where teachers have preconceived expectations of students, be it science and math for the girls or writing and reading for the boys, let’s educate our teachers to expect the best from all students.

We need to fix the problems where they exist, not avoid them.

Finally, some argue that the path is too long to achieve these goals within conventional schools, so why not establish charter schools in the interim? My fear with that argument is that charter schools can so easily become an end to themselves. Once in place, the pressure to confront the problems is eased and less likely to be addressed. The result is a two-tiered system that is unacceptable.

If the Legislature decides to allow for the establishment of charter schools, it should do so with two provisions:

They must be accountable to the public through the board elected by all the voters in the district.

Students should be chosen with a totally random lottery approach. Charter schools should not be allowed to serve any specific group, be it by gender, race, economic condition, aptitude or specific interest. This safeguard is needed to protect the rights of the unchosen children and to avoid specific groupings.

It also would have the beauty of simplicity - an all too rare quality of our public schools.

xxxx