Lewis Offers One More Argument in Favor of Charters

Over at Education Policy Matters blog, Wayne Lewis has advanced his second and third arguments in favor of charter schools for Kentucky. His first was that charters offer parents choice.

His second installment asserts "a simple truth," that "the only children who attend public charter schools are those whose parents decided to enroll them in one."

So, charters are better because the folks who enroll their children in charters "are people who were believe that their children are be better served by the program(s) avaiable at their chosen charter school"(sic)? Even if the school is not performing poorly, so long as "parents are not satisfied" that the school is meeting their childrens' "specific needs" then charter schools ought to be available, Lewis argues.

"That's it. Nothing more. Public charter schools give parents options," Lewis writes, making school choice his first argument and his second argument.

Later he proposes Horace Mann's original conception of what the common schools should be: that is, as well supported as the best private schools. Alas, it didn't work out that way. Lewis argues that,

Saying no to the creation of public charter schools in Kentucky says to those Kentucky parents that because they don't have the resources that more affluent and connected Kentuckians have, their children don't deserve access to the same educational opportunities as other children.

Unfortunately, that is exactly what the public has said for decades. The public has long shown its desire to place limits on the amount of funding schools receive. Public schools never operated as though they were private. If they had things would have been different.

Argument number three is different, at least.

"In exchange for the increased autonomy or independence that charter schools receive they are held to high accountability standards," Lewis writes.

The phrase "in exchange" is curious. Traditional public schools are held to the very same high standards in exchange for...doing their jobs.

But charter schools have an important advantage, Lewis argues."The benefit of the charter school...is that if it does not work we can close it down."

There is mounting evidence that this is just not done in far too many cases where charters fail to meet their goals, so I'm suspicious. The suggestion seems to be that the market place will create good schools in response to demand, but it doesn't seem to always happen. And my guess is that options are fewest in more economically depressed neighborhoods. Besides, how strong of an argument is that?

In the present preschool market (including private preschools), parents are able to switch schools anytime they are unsatisfied with the school. Yet I hear preschool parents complain about their inability to find good options for their kids. Worse, I hear preschool teachers complain about the quality of care in some preschools. Apparently, it's not at all guaranteed that - if left to the marketplace - an adequate school will be within easy reach of every community.

There is also an historical "property rights" argument related to schools that have been chartered by the state. But I don't know if today's courts see that issue the same way they once did.

For Kentucky, we want a charter school law that has a high threshold; meaning applicants wanting to open charter schools will have to meet a rigorous standard before being granted a charter. We also want the law written so that charter schools that fail to meet their agreed upon expectations will be shut down with minimal difficulty. In addition to this outcomes-based accountability that comes with charter schools, any parent that is unhappy with the charter school that their child attends simply takes the child out of the charter school and sends him/her to another school. That's consumer accountability (Lewis & Fusarelli, 2010).

I'm not sold on the consumer accountability argument but I certainly agree that Kentucky ought to have a strong charter school law.