In 1993 and 1994, Albert Shanker turned against his own idea: charter schools.
Once an avid proponent, he became convinced that they would become a vehicle for privatization.
Here is one of his columns reflecting his disillusionment with what had been his own creation:
Where We Stand
by Albert Shanker
President, American Federation of Teachers
NEW YORK TIMES – July 3, 1994
Noah Webster Academy
$4 million – for starters – will be going to a group of people who are eager for public funds but could
care less about public education.
A key idea behind charter schools, the latest movement in education reform, is that many terrific
opportunities to improve public education are lost because they are squelched by school bureaucracies.
Charter school laws, which have been passed in 12 states and are pending in 9 or 10 more, are supposed to
allow teachers and others the chance to establish public schools that are largely independent of state and local
control. Supporters say that throwing away the rule book will unleash creativity and that the fresh, new ideas
developed in these charter schools will revitalize all public schools. But it’s not so easy to draw the line
between encouraging schools that have the freedom to experiment and ones where doing your own thing has
nothing to do with improving public education.
This problem is already obvious in Michigan. Charter school legislation goes into effect this fall, and the first
“school” out of the gate will be the Noah Webster Academy, which is nothing but a clever scheme to get
public money for children who are already being educated by their parents – at home.
According to reporter Steve Stecklow’s story in the Wall Street Journal (June 14, 1994), Noah Webster’s
founder, a lawyer specializing in home schooling cases, has signed up 700 students – mostly Christian home
schoolers – for a school that is actually a computer network. The students will continue to study at home the
way they do now, but every family will get a taxpayer-paid computer, printer and modem, and there will be an
optional curriculum that teaches creationism alongside biology.
Does this actually fall within the Michigan charter school law? Barely. Stecklow quotes a Michigan state
administrator who says it is “ push[ ing] the envelope…just about as far as you probably can.” Critics had
predicted that something like this would happen, and the response was that charters would be issued by
school boards or colleges and they could be trusted to be responsible.
But Noah Webster’s founder discovered a tiny, impoverished school district – it has 23 students, one teacher
and a teacher’s aide, and it nearly went broke a few years ago. It agreed to sponsor his school, and give it a
99-year charter, in return for a kickback of about $40,000. Based on current applications, Noah Webster,
which is eligible for state funds to the tune of $5,500 per pupil, will get something in the neighborhood of $4
million of public money in the coming academic year.
Last year, Michigan suffered a big educational and financial crisis when the state decided to stop using
property taxes to pay for education and had to scramble for other ways of financing its schools. The previous
system gave a big advantage to wealthy districts, and the new one has provided some measure of equalization
between wealthy districts and poor ones. Nevertheless, kids in wealthy districts are still getting more public
money spent on them than kids in cities like Detroit. And now, the charter school law, which is supposed to
be about using public money to test ideas that could improve education is troubled schools districts like
New York Times – July 3, 1994
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Shanker heard from some members who were not interested in seeing new schools created – who wanted to focus only improving existing schools ( a viewpoint often represented on this discussion board). it’s also a theme that innovative district school teachers heard when they tried to start new options within the district.
Shanker also envisioned charters that would be approved both by districts and charters. But even before his proposal re chartering there were state funded public schools that were not part of districts. Some of his members did not like that either.
Some innovative Minnesota and Wisconsin innovative districts and educators have created their own virtual schools which some families have found very useful and helpful for their youngsters.
For some of us, it’s not about relying just on improving existing schools, or reducing poverty or creating new schools. Each strategy is important and can be helpful.
“. . . created their own virtual schools which some families have found very useful and helpful. . . ”
Joe,
Can you give examples, perhaps ones that have last at least ten years and how many students they serve, and even copies of coursework, schedules, and/or drop out rates, graduation rates, etc. . . . Please explain how they work.
Gracias!
Duane – and others interested:
Here are a few examples of hybrid or virtual charters started in Minnesota by groups of educators:
http://www.cybervillageacademy.org/
http://www.edvisionshighschool.com/
http://wolfcreek.chisagolakes.k12.mn.us/
You can contact them for further details.
The problem is when public money is going into the pockets of entrepreneurs instead of being spent on the students.
http://source.nysut.org/weblink7/DocView.aspx?id=1010&searchhandle=17410&page=1&hitoffset=120
We don’t have enough money to be funding parallel school systems, funding the failed charter school experiment or giving public money to private schools and religious schools (school vouchers).
Joe, “there is not enough money” to fund options is what opponents of innovative district public schools have heard for several decades. That’s part of the reason that Shanker wrote that educators trying to create new public school options often were treated “like traitors or outlaws for daring to move outside the lockstep.”
In fact, there is no single best school for all youngsters. Fortunately some districts have recognized the value of offering families options, whether they are Montessori, project-based, language immersion, etc. Some districts have found they can offer several different styles of schools right within the same building. Boston, NY and LA are all examples of districts that have allowed local educators to create new options – called “Pilots” for example in LA and Boston, and “New Visions” in NYC.
Personally, I’m opposed to allowing any of these schools to use admissions tests. I know a number of people on this discussion board are ok with admissions tests if they are approved by a local board. I’m not.
Moreover, some educators welcome the opportunity to create a new option that uses research they think will help some young people achieve their potential…who are not doing so in the more traditional self-contained classroom.
There is money for the top priorities. I think one, no the only but one priority should be to allow public school educators to create new options, open to all, from which families may choose.
Thoroughly agree that admissions tests (and I don’t consider geographic boundaries as an admissions test) have no place in public education, even magnet schools. Come one, come all, we will accept you, should be the model.
We agree.
The thing is that the “profit” motive was supposed to bring out the best and brightest to dedicate their resources to developing a sustainable model that would improve outcomes since the perception seemed to be that not enough of the “best and brightest” were committing themselves to education and devising innovative ways to bring poverty-stricken children up to standards.
What it has done instead is bring out people who have no background in education (the intent) but instead of developing new systems that meet children’s needs, they’ve found every way to game the statistics possible (and even some in innovative ways) to still get their money. And even if they don’t attract enough to game the system, they can still collect a few hundred thousand dollar paycheck for a few years, get some nice tax kickbacks, and some Wall Street connections.
Options are only good if they’re both cost effective, and meet the needs of a large segment of the population (or scale in cost to meet the smaller groups) – schools as a whole though have entrenched costs except for virtual charters which as we now know, have abysmal records in educating children by practically any standard.
I don’t see the research supporting these new “options” from the charter sector – the research they purport to use is usually funded by them, or someone who has a vested profit motive in the sector, and are almost never peer reviewed – they do not stand up to scrutiny.
I think we can now say we’ve learned that the market won’t rise to meet the needs of the children to get their profit. The market will profit through the path of least resistance whether the children’s needs are met or not.
I have said many times over the years Shanker should have known better than to EVER come up with some utterly harebrained idea as “charter schools” given the reality administrators would NEVER allow teachers to have any real autonomy. All he did was give the neoliberals and far right something to seize upon when taxpayer-financed vouchers would never get public approval.
It was too little, too late for Shanker to change his mind. The damage had already been done.
Fortunately, a number of states were and are ready to give educators a chance to create different kinds of schools.
Which states and in what way do the laws guarantee that the public, the taxpayers will not be fleeced?
As we have seen with both district & charter public schools, no state has found a way to guarantee there won’t be financial scandals. But a number of states (I can’t tell you exactly how many) require yearly outside audits and have adopted conflict of interest provisions.
There are a few charter schools in CA that still enjoy a sense of autonomy and do not have ties to for profit or even non-profit charter chains. Unfortunately, the ultimate string is attached: testing. If they do not test well, their charter is threatened and therefore they become just like the rest of us: testing factories that narrow the curriculum despite their original intent. The charters that accept everyone end up taking the quickest route to higher test scores by “counseling out” kids that don’t test well or drain money due to special needs.
“If they do not test well. . . ”
Any system using assessments based on standardized tests can only cause harm. Start with crap (educational standards and the accompanying standardized testing-see Wilson for why), end up with crap, that is unfortunately dumped primarily on the heads of the innocent, the students.
[…] idea misappropriated in the creation of anti-democratic, privately managed public schools. He later realized that charters were going to a group of people who were “eager for public funds but could care […]