Table of Contents

Despite their strong bipartisan popularity among policymakers, charter schools are still a somewhat nebulous concept for many Americans. Although parents are flocking to these independent but publicly accountable schools, many taxpayers don't quite know how they work, what exactly they do, or who is in charge. Not surprisingly, public perceptions of charter schools have too often been shaped by complaints of district officials or headlines about the malfeasance of a few shady operators.

In fact, the growth of the national charter movement has slowed significantly in recent years, with the annual increase in new schools falling from 44 percent in 1999 to just 11 percent in 2002. Whatever the reasons (including re-regulation and the vexing problem of finding adequate facilities), charter advocates believe the movement can still thrive if supported by strong authorizers and equitable state financing.

As in many things, California serves as a charter school bellwether. Its charter schools now serve more than 150,000 students, by far the largest number of any state. Yet in recent years, the movement has been buffeted by a spate of bad press over financial scandals at a few charter campuses. With the recent passage of legislation tightening oversight, there is now additional reason for encouragement, in the form of research offering promise that the charter model is working.

California's charter schools are created under a law that set out a seven-part rationale including increased learning opportunities, innovation, and the creation of new professional opportunities for teachers. Although the movement has not succeeded on all counts -- more focused efforts are needed to stimulate continual improvement in all public schools -- California's charter schools have made significant progress.

Of course, the most important question for educators, policymakers, parents, and the public is: Are charter schools increasing academic achievement? The answer is a qualified yes: In just a decade, California's charter schools have pulled nearly even with the century-old district system on state measures of achievement. And they're doing the most good for the kids who need the most help.

While the average overall performance of charter schools remains lower than that of conventional public schools, three recent studies that look at the performance of schools and students over time demonstrate striking progress, according to analyses of the state's Academic Performance Index (API). In March 2002, a team of researchers from California State University did a three-year comparison of charter and other public schools serving low-income children. The findings were startling: "California charter schools are doing a better job of improving the academic performance (as measured by API) of California's most at-risk students ... than non-charter California public schools." The study found the greatest improvement in schools serving the most impoverished students -- a group, it notes, that charters serve in higher percentages than does the regular system.

In addition, the Charter Schools Development Center found that API scores of charters that have passed their five-year milestone exceed those of the average public school. A Hoover Institution report noted that statewide API gains by charter high schools since 1999 are double those of other public high schools.

Even the gap in current performance between charter and non-charter public schools is surprisingly small, given that a relatively large number of the charter schools are new, and that half of all charters serve at-risk populations that would be expected to have lower aggregate test scores. Since these outcomes have been attained despite serious financing inequities, there is reason to believe that charter schools are actually more productive than many traditional public schools.

There is also persuasive evidence that the success of charter schools goes beyond test scores. A raft of recent studies has established that smaller schools tend to promote higher achievement, especially among disadvantaged students. By their very nature, and often in reaction to the anonymity of large comprehensive schools, charter schools have a more intimate scale. Median school size among California charters is 178 students, compared to 561 students in other public schools. Strong parental satisfaction and high retention rates have also become hallmarks at charter schools.

Charter schools are also laboratories for systemic innovations in the classroom and peer evaluation. For example, one-quarter of California charters use project-based learning programs. More than 60 schools feature experiential approaches, and double that number fashion individualized learning plans for their students. More than 60 schools extend learning time through longer days and longer school years than other public schools.

In San Diego, 29 charter schools have joined The Accountability Project, which aims to boost achievement by creating an environment of data-driven decision-making grounded in robust accountability systems. Over the course of four years, consortium members will collect, manage, and analyze data, communicating results clearly to parents and policymakers -- and, most important, learning to integrate data into planning for school improvement and organizational growth. And, while their impacts on neighboring school districts are inconsistent -- some districts are more willing than others to see them as a source of positive competition -- forward-thinking school districts are benefiting from innovations pioneered by charter schools.

Despite rapid growth and promising outcomes, California's charter schools continue to face a variety of obstacles. The state's charter law is generally strong, but leaves far too much control in the hands of local school districts, while providing too little guidance on how they should approve and oversee charter schools. Put bluntly in a new study by the Thomas P. Fordham Foundation: "Local school boards generally do not make good authorizers," due to "local politics, inadequate infrastructure development, authorizing for the 'wrong' reasons, and the tendency of staff to stress compliance-based accountability ... ". Charter schools in California also face substantial funding inequities. And despite passage of Proposition 39 (which requires chartering districts to provide facilities), finding adequate financing and space for the charter schoolhouse will remain challenging.

California has a golden opportunity to ignite a new surge of high-quality chartering. State and local officials, authorizers, charter school operators, and private-sector leaders can take a variety of steps to ensure that California "catches the wave" of charter-led innovation and improvement in public education. In particular: