October 14, 2014 - 16:04
Charter Schools: Laws of Minnesota 1991, chapter 265, article 9, section 3.
Some Political Scientists use the term, ‘unexpected consequence’ when analyzing the benefits and detriments of a law. These unanticipated outcomes are events that happen outside of the scope of the law’s intent. Even though there may be detriments to a law, a fairer way to assess the outcomes is by looking holistically at the policy.
Examining the charter school education reform through the lens of “identity, access, and innovation” prompts many conflicting views. Critics are the most vocal in their view of this educational system. Yet overall, I still see potential in the mission of this progressive education system. It is true that charter schools are depleting funds from regular public schools, causing storms of budget cuts from urban schools. Although, do the benefits outweigh this negative consequence or do the detriments outweigh the benefits? Kristen Buras would say, ‘no’ to the benefits outweighing the negative consequences.
In Race, Charter Schools, and Conscious Capitalism…, Buras argues how the charter school system in New Orleans is doing more harm than good. Using the phrase ‘accumulation by dispossession’, defined as: “a process in which assets previously belonging to one group are put in circulation as capital for another group”, is a real problem. She believes that funds from black students are given to white students which precipitate further inequities. This may be true for the New Orleans school district, but it may not be applicable to all areas.
The law’s intent is a means to compete with failing traditional public education systems by offering to parents, students, and teachers the opportunity to provide unique environments to aid in the various learning needs of students. The intent is not to create inequities; it is instead a means to create an effective learning environment for individual learning needs. These various learning needs bring diversity into the classroom that not every school is equipped to adequately provide. Instead, they have the potential to identify individuality and then address those needs in a group setting.
Mintrom and Vergari share that the Minnesota state legislator approved charter schools as an alternative education source in 1991. The law is known as Laws of Minnesota 1991, chapter 265, article 9, section 3. Minnesota is the first to adopt this type of schooling, and is quite pleased to be frontrunners in education reform.
Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari, Charter Schools as a State Policy Innovation: Assessing Recent Developments, together conducted a preliminary assessment of the charter school movement. Their intent was to outline the “innovation potential” in this newly formed education initiative. Their assessment was positive. Since the intent of charter schools is to offer different educational environments and pedagogies, they assessed charter schools to be an effective way of offering innovative ways to address individual academic needs. In their analysis, they did not address how charter schools would take money from traditional schools. Instead, they assessed how unique education environments would enrich the needs of individual students. They believe parental choice and parent involvement in the decisions of the school will offer a higher chance of a vested interest in the students’ educational attainment.
The proponents of charter schools emphasize the benefits to be, “greater responsiveness to the demands of parents and students and greater opportunities for innovation in school organization and pedagogy”. (Mintrom and Vergari 1997). Alternatives like this were not available to low-income families. They were left to the mercy of their local neighborhood school. Prior to charter schools, they state, only the upper end of the socioeconomic scale had options for their child’s individual needs (Mintrom and Vergari 1997).
As of the date of the article by Barghaus and Boe, there are over 5,000 charter schools educating approximately 1.5 million students. Thirty nine states, and Washington DC, have laws to allow charter schools to exist throughout their state. To clarify the types of charter school selections and opportunities made available to parents and students: “(1) a school offering a traditional program, (2) a school with a special program emphasis (such as a science/math, gifted, or foreign language immersion school), (3) a special education school (mainly serving students with disabilities), (4) a vocational/technical school (primarily offering occupation-specific training), or (5) an alternative school. The majority of alternative schools served students 'at risk' of not completing their education.” (Barghaus and Boe 2011).
Assessing the overall benefits and detriments of a charter school education is equal to the difficulty in assessing every school in the nation. Based on the size, structure, and mission of a charter schools, a national analysis would need to be conducted which compares like focused schools to like focus schools. Because of the varying mission of each charter school, a fairer way to benchmark the progress would be based on the original state approved mission and outcome plan against the benchmark system also approved by the state (Virtue 2012).
Nonetheless, there are justifiable critics of the system. While parents tend to be in favor of charter schools as they offer a better opportunity over the regular public education system (Virtue 2012).
Unfortunately, the law is punishing traditional public schools by depleting resources from traditional schools; and, charter school education fees are taken from the state education budgets. This depletion has caused inadequate funding to students in the traditional schools. This unexpected consequence is raging havoc for traditional schools. While the law’s intent to create a competitive space in that it pits traditional schools against charter schools, it is instead further contributing to the inadequate quality of traditional public school education. Critics are justified in their point of views.
The law itself, as I see it, has the potential to fill an “identity, access, and innovation”
framework. According to Martha Minow in 2013, “Charter schools draw talented and motivated people into the business of teaching and engage parents, whose involvement is key to effective schooling”. It is possible for dedicated teachers to help develop their student’s individual identity when the classroom is filled with students of the same need. So many children thrive in environments where they feel the sense of belonging, when they feel in the environment they fit into. From the foundation of student similarity, deviations from this center can emerge. From the deviations from the center, individual identity can be formed. Access is achieved through the personalized services each uniquely designed school provides; and innovation is achieved through the pedagogical freedom given to teachers.
Evaluating from the premise that most educators are driven to academically enrich their students, the teachers in the school are given more pedagogical options to achieve their goals. Also, parents are offered school choice into the system they deem best for their child. This is the greatest benefit of the law.
It is true that charter schools can be detrimental. These uniquely designed schools can, “produce self-segregation by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status...though, to be frank, charter schools may simply equalize the ability of groups other than well-off whites to self-segregate”. (Minow 2013). She also emphasized that more data on the effects of school choice, and school composition is needed. Her opinion to rectify the self-segregation problem is to provide other institutional sources to combat self-segregation issues. I believe critics should keep in mind that the main responsibility of educational systems is to produce self-motivated, lifelong learners. Segregation issues may need to be addressed through other venues; for example, after a student’s primary and secondary education requirements have been completed.
Charter schools have expected and unexpected consequences. The outcome assessment is inundated with benefits and detriments and is evaluated through the lens of the analyst. Personal views will decide if the benefits outweigh the detriments or the other way around. According to the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, teachers, parents and students ranked their satisfaction level higher and felt the school was providing an educational environment more conducive to learning that other public school systems. This is what matters most.
Works Cited
From Policy to Practice: Implementation of the Legislative Objectives of Charter Schools
Katherine M. Barghaus and Erling E. Boe
American Journal of Education, Vol. 118, No. 1 (November 2011), pp. 57-86
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Article DOI: 10.1086/662009
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/662009
Race, Charter Schoold, and Conscious Capitalism: On the Spatial Politics of Whiteness as
Property
Kristen L. Buras
Harvard Educational Review, Summer 2011: 81, 2 ProQuest
Resources on Minnesota Issues: Charter Schools
Minnesota Legislative Resource Library
Last Reviewed September 2014
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/issues.aspx?issue=charter
Charter Schools and Integration
Martha Minow
Friday, August 13, 2010
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/08/charter-schools-and-integration.html
Charter Schools as a State Policy Innovation: Assessing Recent Developments
Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari
State & Local Government Review, Vol. 29, No. 1 (Winter, 1997), pp. 43-49
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4355169
A View from the Middle: Rethinking charter schools
David C. Virtue
Middle School Journal, Vol. 44, No. 2 (November 2012), p. 5
Published by: Association for Middle Level Education (AMLE)
Article Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41763113
Evaluation of Charter School Impacts, NCEE 2010-2049
Phillip Gleeson, Melissa Clark, et al
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance
US Department of Education