Learning curve

Page 2 of 4 -- But not everyone in Lynn shares this zeal for charter schools. Last fall, the mayor of Lynn, the school superintendent, the School Committee, the head of the Massachusetts Federation of Teachers, and several state representatives all fought to bar, or at least postpone, any new charter school in Lynn. For them, the issue was simple: The Lynn public school system could not afford to support a new charter school, no matter how good the program might be.

ADVERTISEMENT

On the state level, Massachusetts lawmakers were embroiled in the same heated battle, culminating earlier this year in Governor Mitt Romney's veto of a proposed statewide moratorium on new charters. Now, four months into the new school year, and with the moratorium no longer a threat, the debates within Lynn and across the state have mostly quieted. Yet these local battles over charter schools raised important questions about education reform that reach far beyond the borders of Massachusetts. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, children across the country who attend schools identified as needing improvement have the opportunity to enroll in charter schools located within their district.

So why in the world -- no matter what its financial situation -- would a public school system aching with underachievement even think of turning away a program with proven success? On the other hand, why would a state department of education approve a school that the city itself actively fought against? How can a fledgling charter school survive, much less thrive, in a district that doesn't want it? And how, after all that, can both sides claim to be fighting for public education?

. . .

The first charter schools appeared nearly 15 years ago in Minnesota, as an arm of a much older and larger movement seeking alternatives to public schools. Today, over 3,000 charter schools operate in 41 states across the country -- 56 of them in Massachusetts.

Proponents envisioned charter schools as laboratories of innovation, places where progressive solutions could be developed and the best of them integrated back into the system. Placing power in the hands of the private sector, they claimed, would not only speed up educational reform, it would create healthy competition -- both of which would improve the overall system.

As it matured, however, the movement attracted its share of adversaries. Though (like supporters) opponents are found on both sides of the aisle, the loudest voices come from teachers' unions and liberal thinkers, who raise issues of equity. Charters, opponents claim, are unregulated experiments that siphon money and public confidence away from the system that supports them. And for every strong charter school like the KIPP Academy, they point out, there are just as many that rank below comparable schools in the district. Though charters are ostensibly held to the same state standards as regular public schools -- for instance, in Massachusetts, charter school students still must pass the MCAS -- just how well their performance compares to traditional public schools is a matter of hot debate. (See sidebar.)   Continued...