Private vs. Public

An email from a Maine school superintendent: "John, can you in a few sentences tell me how a private charter school is funded and governed differently that a public charter school?" I think so...depends on what is meant by a "few sentences" and by "private charter school."

A private school is a private school: parents pay tuition, the school selects which kids are accepted and which are not. Hyde School, North Yarmouth Academy, The Center for Teaching and Learning. A public school is, in theory at least, open to any child who lives in the area which that public school serves - and that applies to public charter schools as well. No examples in Maine, 4,936 examples in 40 other states.

Public charter schools are, according to National Alliance for Public Charter Schools:

"independent public schools that are allowed the freedom to be more innovative, while being held accountable for improved student achievement.

• tuition-free and open to every student who wishes to enroll

• non-sectarian, and do not discriminate on any basis

• publicly funded by local, state and federal tax dollars based on enrollment, like other public schools

• held accountable to state and federal academic standards"

While that should be straightforward, it is not.

Some states allow schools that have previously operated as private schools to reconstitute themselves as charter schools - not a strategy I recommend, with some exceptions for schools that genuinely seek to reinvent in ways that serve kids from a wider spectrum than most private schools. (One exception is private schools such as Hyde that have become charter school operators - taking a model that has worked as a private school and "replicating" that model in states and cities that have charter laws. In that case, Hyde's Bath campus is a private school (parents pay tuition, some students accepted, others not), but its charter schools in Washington, DC and New York, for instance, are public schools.)

There is yet another distinction - between for-profit or "private" corporations that seek to operate charter schools (Edison Schools, K-12) and non-profit organizations (Hyde, KIPP Schools, Expeditionary Learning Schools, Maine Enterprise Schools, Big Picture Company) that seek to do the same. In this case, the difference is not (or should not be) in how the schools operate or govern, who is admitted, etc., but is simply (or should be) whether doing so creates a profit or not. A "charter" is granted, certain performance benchmarks are established, and if a for-profit company can achieve those benchmarks and make money doing it, then everyone wins, right? Probably not - experience and data says this approach will produce far more losers than winners, but I'll save that for another entry.

Governance of public chartered schools is determined by the state law that authorizes charters, so it varies from state to state. I've advocated for a "strong" charter law: Massachusetts being the best example, where charters are authorized and held accountable by a state charter board or local school district, but are governed by a board of directors charged only with the ensuring the school satisfactorily meets the conditions of its charter. The KEY difference is that public chartered schools are independent and autonomous, meaning that decisions about budget, curriculum, staffing, and assessment are made at the school level by those closest to the kids (the parents, teachers and, in the Maine Enterprise Schools model, small business and non-profit partners).

Why does independence and autonomy matter? Because is helps put the focus on serving kids and holding the individual school accountable for results - rather than "feeding the beast," as one colleague described the well-documented inefficiencies and mediocre performance of many public school systems. And lest my public school colleagues interpret this as a slam - my emphasis is on the systems, NOT on the dedicated folks who work in those systems. One of the ironies, having done this work in several states, is that teachers and principals often clamor for kinds of autonomy charters have, but are less eager to embrace the accountability that comes with it.

Such autonomy also helps strong schools or promising innovations sustain the inevitable churn of superintendents, school committees, and state mandates. As the superintendent who asked this question knows, change is VERY possible in public schools, but requires RARE and strong leadership and is buffeted by all kinds of things that have NOTHING to do with kids. With a well designed charter law and competent authorizers, public chartered schools get good at what they do and stay good regardless of politics and shifting winds. Weak schools can be "de-authorized" - meaning if they can't raise what is often profoundly mediocre student performance, they're "fired."

Public chartered schools are by no means a magic bullet. But they can be part of the solution, especially for students not well-served by traditional schools that in most communities in Maine are the only game in town. The National Charter School Research Project’s meta-analysis of charter school studies...that use the best data and the most sophisticated research techniques show charters outperforming comparable traditional public schools."

There is a reason for that: in many of the places charters thrive, the "comparable traditional schools" set a pretty low bar. We need not argue the degree to which, in general, Maine's existing public schools bear out that generalization - let's just say some do better than others. But if we insist that all of our resources go into the buildings, people, strategies, political realities, etc. that they currently go to, we should expect - despite the best efforts of the folks who work there - more of the same.

Why? It is neither realistic nor wise to insist that a single elementary, middle, or high school be all things to all people. Nor is it accurate or wise to say that public schools are THE problem, when in fact the problems are multiple and varied. (If we need quantification of those problems, we can look to the Maine Coalition for Excellence in Education and it's Prepare Maine Project; to task forces and summits on Juvenile Justice and Dropout Prevention, to the Maine Compact for Higher Ed, the Mitchell Institute, and the "Georgetown" study.)

What is wise, accurate, and realistic? We can acknowledge that, done well, chartered schools are able to control key variables and focus the energy of parents, students and communities in such a way that they are PART of the solution. We can avoid letting ourselves be confused by attempts to obfuscate, sow fear, protect turf, and in general cling to a system that we've pretty much proven does not work for nearly as many kids as we think it should. We can do so in a way that learns from what has worked, avoids what has not, and genuinely gives Maine a chance to use the public policy process to produce "the greatest good for the greatest number."

What we call it...public, private, charter...doesn't matter nearly as much as how it plays out for the next generation of Mainers, and the one after that, and the one after that, and...