shifting terrain a short history of charter schools in the u.s. january 7, 2014

Shifting TerrainA Short History of Charter Schools in the U.S.

January 7, 2014

The Pre-History of ChartersEconomic theory and vouchers

Milton Friedman introduced the idea of vouchers as an antidote to “public school monopoly” as early as 1955, although many date this to Capitalism & Freedom (1962).

The Pre-History of ChartersThe Complication of Race

Required by law

Prohibited by law

Determined by local option

Not legislated

Segregation by State, 1954

The Complications of Race

Prince Edward County, VirginiaClosed public system in 1959White families transferred to private academyTuition grants and tax credits to familiesJustice Black: “…could not be clearer that [P.E. schools] were closed

and private schools operated in their place with state and county assistance, for one reason, and one reason only…” [Griffin v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 1964]

The Pre-History of Charters

The Complications of Race

Friedman: “The state of Virginia has adopted a plan having many features in common with that outlined in the preceding chapter. Though adopted for the purpose of avoiding compulsory integration, I predict that the ultimate effects of the law will be very different….”

If the conclusions of my argument are correct, if Virginia’s voucher system is not abolished, “we should see a flowering of schools available in Virginia, with an increase in their diversity, a substantial if not spectacular rise in the quality of the leading schools, and a later rise in the quality of the rest under the impetus of the leaders.”

The Pre-History of Charters

The Pivot to Public School Choice

The Pivot to Public School ChoiceVouchers as a Hard Sell

EXHIBIT TO COME:

IMAGES/ICONS OF BILLS

"I've long argued that more choice would lead to better education."

The Pivot to Public School Choice“Repackaging” Magnet Schools

• Magnet schools are “one of the great successes of the education reform movement.” - President Reagan, January 21 1988

• ''There has been a shift…Republicans and conservatives have come to realize that the Federal role in education is here to stay and that you ought not to blow it up. They also recognize that it is silly to concede the education issue to the Democrats.'’

- Secretary of Education, William Bennett, January 25, 1988

Charters: Emergence, Legislative Spread, & The Battle Over Framing

Charters: Emergence, Legislative Spread,& The Battle Over FramingFirst Charter Law in Minnesota

• Minnesota’s vision had less to do with markets than decentralization and variety.

• But nationally charters became proxy battle ground over vouchers.

• Origin myths and the controversy over “What Al Shanker Really Thought.”

Charters: Emergence, Legislative Spread,& The Battle Over FramingRapid Dissemination


1991


1992


1993


1994


1995


1996


1997


1998


1999


2001


2002


2003


2010


2011


2012

Expansion & Maturation

ExpansionGrowth in Number of Charter Schools

Total Number of Schools (1999 – 2013)

MaturationTotal Number of Charter Schools by State

201 - 300

Fewer than 50

51 - 100

101 - 200

301 - 500

501 - 1000

More than 1000

None/No Data

MaturationPercentage of Charter Schools to Public Schools by State

11 to 20%

1 to 5%

6 to 10%

More than 20%

None/No Data

Maturation: Going to Scale, Managing Charter as Systems & Concentration Effects

MaturationFrom Mom & Pop to Networks

MaturationFrom Mom & Pop to Networks: Variation by State

MaturationManaging Charter Systems

HEI, 43ICB, 13

LEA, 876

NEG, 3NFP, 19SEA, 20

Total Number of Authorizers by Type, 2012

MaturationTop 10 Districts with the Largest Market Share

Detroit 51%

New Orleans 79%

District of Columbia

43%

Flint 36%

Kansas City 36%

Gary 35%

Hall County 32%

Cleveland 29%

Dayton 28%

Indianapolis 28%

Philadelphia 28%

Albany 27%

Roosevelt S.D. (Phoenix) 27%

Toledo 27%

Grand Rapids 26%

San Antonio 26%

Privatization Typology• Pragmatic: A tool to make government more effective, efficient,

responsive.

• Tactical: A weapon for advancing personal, organizational, or partisan interests by attracting new allies, and rewarding supporters.

• Systemic: A strategy for fundamentally reducing the role of government by lowering expectations of what government should and can do, reducing oversight and enforcement infrastructure, and altering the landscape of interest groups so that there is reduced support for government growth.

Final Thoughts

References

• Slide 3:• Wikipedia, “School Segregation in the United States,” Last modified April 7,

2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_segregation_in_the_United_States

• Slides 11-28:• The Center for Education Reform (CER), 2013 Charter School Law

Ranking and Scorecard, Washington, DC: CER, 2013. https://www.edreform.com/2013/01/2013-charter-law-ranking-chart/

• Slides 29-31:• National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), “Total Number of

Schools, 2012-13,” In The Public Charter Schools Dashboard, Washington, DC: NAPCS, 2014. http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/schools/year/2013

References

• Slides 33-34:• Gary Miron and Charisse Gulosino, "Profiles of for-Profit and Nonprofit Education

Management Organizations: Fourteenth Edition—2011-2012," Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, University of Colorado, 2013. http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/emo-profiles-11-12.pdf

• Slide 35:• National Alliance of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), “The State of Charter School

Authorizing 2012: 5th Annual Report on NACSA’s Annual Survey,” Chicago, IL: NACSA, 2012. http://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/Documents/Publications/2012%20Facts%20Report.pdf

• Slide 36:• National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), “A Growing Movement:

America’s Largest Charter School Communities,” Washington, DC: NAPCS, 2013. http://www.publiccharters.org/publications/growing-movement-americas-largest-charter-school-communities-8th-edition/

shifting terrain a short history of charter schools in the u.s. january 7, 2014

Documents

framing slide

legislative spread

public school choice

private schools

leading schools

proxy battle ground

public school monopoly

public system