In addition to state-level interest, Charter Schools are gaining the attention and support of the nation's leading government officials. Both President Clinton and Secretary of Education Richard Riley advocate public Charter Schools. Additionally, in 1992 Senators David Durenberger (R-Minn) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) introduced bipartisan congressional legislation to help fund Charter School start-ups. The legislation, along with the entire school reform package, was overshadowed by the Presidential election and died in Congress in 1992.
Durenberger and Lieberman have reintroduced Charter School legislation to the 103rd Congress as the Public School Redefinition Act.[1] House sponsors of the bill include Representatives Dave McCurdy (D-Okla), Tom Petri (R-Wis), Tim Penny (D-Minn), and Tom Ridge (R-Pa). Major provisions of the bill include the following:
In 1993, Congress considers the comprehensive Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and the Public School Redefinition Act, which is folded into it. Establishing Charter Schools was explicitly included as one permissible use of funds proposed for state reform efforts in Clinton's Goals 2000: Educate America Act, submitted to Congress in spring 1993 with the statement that a state may use funds toward "promoting public magnet schools, public 'Charter Schools,' and other mechanisms for increasing choice among public schools."
"Charter Schools represent a very appealing idea for legislators," asserts Kolderie, an early charter advocate. "Legislators are frustrated about the difficulty of getting change or improvement in public schools. They don't know how to get change in a system that they don't own and control. They basically buy education from these districts. They set certain specifications and provide money and, in effect, have a contract with the district to do this job on behalf of the state and its constitutional responsibility.
"But it doesn't happen to the state's satisfaction and state people don't know what to do about it. When they put out more money, it is taken up. But not much changes. Getting angry - giving orders - doesn't work either.
"The object of Charter Schools is not just to create a few good new schools," Kolderie insists. "The object is to improve all schools. Districts do not want to lose kids and the money that comes with them. They will make improvements themselves to attract kids back from Charter Schools, or they may make improvements before a charter even appears." Ted Kolderie
"The states have always been told that the only choice they have is between sending checks to superintendents and giving vouchers to parents. All of a sudden they discover that is not true. It is possible to have very different schools still within the principles of public education. This has been a real liberating idea for them. All it takes is to say it is O.K. for someone else to offer public education in the community."
Although the concept is evolving, Charter Schools also hold potential for unleashing teacher creativity and yielding new ideas about how to restructure the educational experience of elementary and secondary students. Within a decade, literally hundreds of Charter Schools could offer public education new approaches to teaching and learning.
The work of these Charter Schools is certain to influence the next phase of education reform and school restructuring as educators try to redefine the American public school for the next century by giving other public schools real incentive to improve.
"The object of Charter Schools is not just to create a few good new schools," Kolderie insists. "The object is to improve all schools. Districts do not want to lose kids and the money that comes with them. They will make improvements themselves to attract kids back from Charter Schools, or they may make improvements before a charter even appears."
[1] The bill went to the House floor in
July.
Posted on March 6, 1995
URL: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/go/93-2SPRT.HTM