Efforts to reform education by using ideas from the consumer marketplace have been gaining momentum in recent years. Some would credit such efforts to continued pressure from the conservative side of the political aisle, but the growth of the charter school movement seems to reflect bipartisanship. The unifying element in the acceptance of the charter school idea is the notion that schools need major change or systemic reform. Moreover, the idea of centralizing reform in state mandates seems to have fallen from favor, while the notion of giving teachers, parents, and community representatives a chance to propose new approaches seems to offer enough hope that a wide spectrum of legislators can support the idea. Since Minnesota enacted the first charter school law in 1991, seven other states have approved a version of the idea. California passed the legislation in 1992, and Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Wisconsin, and Missouri did so in 1993. Generally, the laws permit local school boards to approve a charter (i.e., a contract) for a local school. Most states require that 50% of the teachers within a building approve the idea, and often the charter must be approved by 10% of teachers within the whole district. Most states ask that the school be nonsectarian and that it not discriminate in admissions or employment. Colorado specifies that home schools are not eligible. Since the charter school is designed to encourage a wide range of ideas, very few additional rules are mandated. Teachers are usually allowed to retain tenure or employment rights in their home district, but evaluation of the instructional program is open to design by the charter school applicants. Interestingly, within the school establishment some of these ideas seem hard to understand. Following legislative approval in Colorado, the state board invited a large group of interested participants and school district representatives to discuss implementation and potential state board guidelines. Some of the school district representatives argued for strong accountability mandates, but the folks interested in writing charter proposals argued for no guidelines. The ensuing discussion was a microcosm of the debate over charter schools. One interesting observation to emerge from the Colorado discussion was the speculation that perhaps school boards had enough control over buildings in their districts that they could have started charter schools without the state law. On the day of the bill-signing in Wisconsin, an information forum was scheduled in Cudahy by State Rep. Rosemary Potter. A member of the local school board had supported the charter school idea as it moved through the legislature and had publicly announced that he thought the district should encourage a charter school proposal. In this open meeting, public sentiment was decided against the charter school idea, primarily because it was viewed as a ploy to bring in private contractors to take over schools, push through job-reduction programs, and in general kill public education. The Wisconsin law calls for 50% of a building's teachers and 10% of a district's teachers to approve any charter prior to board approval. The most interesting facts surrounding the charter school movement were turned up by Alex Medler, a researcher at the Education Commission of the States. He went back to look at party control of the executive and legislative branches in the eight states that have enacted charter school laws. In California, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, Republican governors signed the legislation. In Colorado, Georgia, New Mexico, and Missouri, Democratic governors were in control. Only three of the legislative houses were controlled by Republicans, and 13 were controlled by Democrats. In Colorado the Republican legislature did propose a charter school law in 1992, but it failed. In 1993 another attempt was gaining support, but it was enacted only when Gov. Roy Romer, a Democrat, threw his support behind the idea. CALIFORNIA VOUCHERS The exception to the bipartisan theory regarding ideas borrowed from the consumer marketplace is the full-scale voucher proposal to allow state money to follow students into private and parochial schools. The voucher vote in California next month will probably follow party lines. Education task force members of the American Legislature Exchange Council (ALEC) - a bipartisan individual membership organization of state legislators who share a common commitment to the Jeffersonian principles of free market, free enterprise, limited government, and individual liberty - were very interested at the national summer meeting in what lessons could be gleaned from the refusal of voters to pass similar proposals in Colorado and Oregon. One speaker suggested that voucher advocates would have to move their rhetoric toward the middle of the political spectrum if they expected to gather enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment. It was pointed out that large percentages of parents with children enrolled in "mainline" Protestant and Catholic schools had not voted for the voucher proposal in these two states. The issue to watch in California will be how both sides handle the fiscal implications. In a state that has been hit by severe state spending cuts, explaining how the existing system can handle paying $2,600 for each of 550,000 students currently enrolled in private schools or how existing schools will be able to reduce budgets by $2,600 for every student who redeems a voucher will cause a lot of debate as the November election nears. Absent from most of the discussion in the state voucher votes is any consideration of what will happen in the first state to approve such an initiative. National education groups will no doubt push the issue of separation of church and state to play the role of defendant. The price of this multi-year effort for the first state "through the gate" will be another hidden cost. GEORGIA'S HOPE GRANT PROGRAM Georgia Gov. Zell Miller got the legislature to approve a grant/voucher program that uses lottery funds to reward outstanding students going on to higher education. The Hope Grant Program will give financial assistance to students in five categories: * Beginning with the 1993 graduating class, each Georgia high school student who graduates with a 3.0 cumulative grade-point average (GPA) in a college-prepatory curriculum (or 3.2 in other curriculum tracks) and whose family income is less than $66,00 per year will receive, as a college freshman, a grant that covers tuition at Georgia public colleges and universities. This award can be used for tuition not paid for by Pell Grants or by other grants or scholarships. * At the end of the freshman year in college, each student who has a 3.0 GPA will receive a loan for tuition during the interval that he or she is classified as a sophomore. The loan will be forgiven if the recipient maintains a 3.0 GPA by the end of his or her sophomore classification or attains it at any other time during his or her undergraduate career. * Each student with a high school GPA of 3.0 or better who is seeking a technical school degree at a public technical institute in Georgia will also have the cost of tuition that is not paid for by other grants or scholarships covered by the state. * Each student who earns a GED (General Education Development) diploma will receive a $5,000 voucher that can be applied toward the general cost of education (e.g., tuition, books, and supplies) at any public or private college or technical institute in Georgia. * Georgia residents classified as freshmen and sophomores at private colleges and universities in Georgia will receive an increase of $500 (from $1,000 to $1,500) in their Tuition Equalization Grants. This ambitious and highly visible plan of the governor's is based on lottery revenues. The big question is whether lottery funds will be sufficient to fund this program into the future.
Reprinted with permission of Phi Delta Kappa, Inc.