Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, September 16, 1995 TAG: 9509180019
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A7 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROGER W. O'DELL
DATELINE: LENGTH: Long
Whether or not one agrees with Gov. George Allen and Sen. Brandon Bell on most points (I certainly don't), one need not look very far to find some very good reasons to support the establishment of charter schools. Regretfully, those opposing them have chosen to do so for all the wrong reasons. Most arguments against are actually some of the best reasons for such schools.
Let us examine the main issues.
nMoney. The claim most often made is that charter schools would siphon money away from public education. Charter schools are also a form of public education. Public funds are simply being applied to an alternative use, to a different ``department.''
School boards do this all the time when they choose to allocate funds to counseling rather than coaching, administering rather than teaching, or science rather than drivers' education. Charter schools just expand the options.
More important, it's highly likely most organizers of charter schools will very aggressively pursue foundation and corporate grants and gifts. They also may prove much more successful in obtaining donations from parents of their students and from alumni. Many more joint ventures between public education and private enterprise are similarly probable. The net result could mean far more dollars being brought into public education than we see today.
Further, it's reasonable that school boards should offer the services of their existing ``core'' schools to independent charter schools as well - for a fee, of course. Charge them for using gymnasiums, auditoriums, libraries, band rooms, musical instruments, technology centers, art studios, laboratories, athletic fields, etc., or for services (counseling, coaching, administration, janitorial, etc.). Even charge them cost plus 10 percent, and make money on it.
Very few charter schools will be large enough to offer facilities and services comparable to those made possible through the economies of scale of much larger existing public schools. To attract students, charter schools will need what school boards have to sell.
Diversity. With charter schools, like-minded students would flock to limited-focus schools propagating a very narrow world view. Or would they? Diversity would be totally absent. Or would it?
School diversity now is constrained by geographic boundaries: The socioeconomic characteristics of a school are a function of the socioeconomic characteristics of the geographic area it serves. Charter schools would know no such bounds. Of course, charter-school populations could become even less diverse than those of public schools. And, if left to their own devices, maybe they would.
However, a school board could and should take an active role in creating and publicizing charter schools in its district. It might survey charter schools, and publish a catalog comparing and contrasting the various offerings. It could act as a matchmaker, identifying current students who are candidates for various charter schools, and facilitating connections. It could even design several different styles of charter schools and encourage their formation.
The curricula public schools offer are basically the same, with a few variants in magnet schools and governor's schools. Imagine the wide range of forms education could take if we only let it! Charter schools could give evidence to the proposition that one way is not the best way for all. What if charter schools discovered better ways of learning, more successful ways of teaching? The possible good outcomes are worth the risk.
Control. School boards wouldn't be able to exercise control over charter schools. Well, that's great! Here's an opportunity to see how well parental and teacher control could work. And while we're at it, how about allowing students to have some control? Are they really too immature or irresponsible to handle it? With charter schools, we could find out.
Decentralization of control is one of the best features of charter schools (as long as the governor and General Assembly don't get their hands into it). An enlightened charter school could constructively engage its community in a way that gives all a sense of ownership in the process and a stake in its outcome.
Equality. It's an ideal that could be approached more closely through charter schools than through traditional ones. In current practice, it means all students must be exposed to the same three R's, be in school during the same hours, dress according to the same dress codes, be able to pass the same tests, etc. This is akin to the kind of equality that could be assigned to each product on a conveyor belt in an assembly line! This isn't equality.
Charter schools offer the opportunity to begin to treat people as individuals and as equals. They can give form to the concept of ``communities of scholars,'' and can recognize that we're all learning, and, in particular, we're all learning from each other. Students could exchange knowledge: One who is good with computers could teach another who is good at artistic expression, and vice versa. If distinctions among teachers, students and administrators would blur, then perhaps true equality might come a step closer.
Many school boards and public-education advocates have elected to run away from charter schools as fast as they can. But charter schools, or something like them, are inevitable. Instead of tearing them down before they're built, let's raise them with thoughtful intention and careful planning.
School boards have a crucial role to play in this arena. They shouldn't shrink from that responsibility. Through active, prospective involvement, school boards could enable charter schools to become an effective and valued component of the public-education system.
Roger W. O'Dell, of Roanoke, is a self-employed consulting engineer.
by CNB