The debate over what to do about the declining quality of public education continues unabated. The unyielding stance taken by the teacher’s union, the economic decline of rust-belt, inner-city neighborhoods, the erosion of the two-parent home, and the unmanaged growth of immigration are all blamed for the decline. There doesn’t seem to be an answer that everyone can agree on.

History

In 1992, the educational professionals in the state of Minnesota decided that they should take control of education out of the hands of the educational bureaucracy and put control in the hands of parents. They introduced the charter school concept.

Charter schools are publicly funded, privately managed and semi-autonomous schools of choice. They do not charge tuition. They must hold to the same academic accountability measures as traditional schools. They receive public funding similar to traditional schools. However, they have more freedom over their budgets, staffing, curricula, and other operations. In exchange for this freedom, they must deliver academic results, and there must be enough community demand for them to remain open. (Currently, there are 164 charter schools in operation in Minnesota serving approximately 57,000 K-12 students.) (National Conference of State Legislatures)

How is it Working?

Whatever the reason, Minnesota decided that education professionals could not stem the quality decline in public schools so why not let parents open their own public schools? After 25 years, this so-called parental choice movement now includes charter schools, open enrollment systems, school tuition vouchers, and tax credits in various combinations in 46 states. How is all this working? Are the schools better? What are the problems?

Let’s Ask Minnesota

After 25 years, here’s what the educational professionals in Minnesota are debating:

Minneapolis Star Tribune, June 2017:

Because state education funding now follows the pupil, the student exodus from their home district to other cities and charter schools is magnifying budget pressures in districts that lose more students than they gain. It’s also transforming the racial diversity of schools across the Twin Cities. The result: chronic budget shortfalls that are forcing many districts to cut more programs and confront questions about the viability of some neighborhood schools.

It seems the more the balance is shifted toward parental choice, the more schools must compete for scarce resources.

Scott Croonquist, executive director of the Association of Metropolitan School Districts told the Star Tribune that districts “try to do everything they can to retain students.” But then asked the question, “Do the choice options lead to segregated schools and inadequate and inequitable educational opportunities for students?”

Joe Nathan, director of the Center for School Change then entered the debate in the Star Tribune: “No one can fault parents for seizing options to do what’s best for their children. It’s about the students. People of all races deserve options.”

The Debate Continues

Are new parental options destroying the equality of opportunity of our “public” school system? Do parents have every right to flee underprivileged school districts? Is this just another way to perpetuate the poverty cycle?

Proponents of charter schools argue that, due to their freedom from state oversight, they can adopt more innovative educational approaches. This allows them to cater to their higher-risk school age populations, which are generally composed of more minority and poor students.

Critics argue that charter schools divert funds from traditional public schools, which continue to enroll significant majorities of public school students, thereby compounding problems at failing schools and generating unequal outcomes for students.

Where do You Come Out?

Good question. We welcome your opinion.