Winnowing the Charters

State Rep. Jim Dunnam hears testimony on the state of Texas' charter schools. (Photo By Michael May)

When the first 20 charter schools opened in Texas six years ago, the intention was that charter schools -- publicly funded but privately managed -- would be an experiment in entrepreneurial education, and that the best practices from the very best schools would provide a blueprint for the future. There are now 270 charter schools, costing the public school system $188 million, and only 15 are rated "exemplary" by the Texas Education Agency. Almost half are "low-performing."

So what happened? State Rep. Jim Dunnam, D-Waco, chairman of the House subcommittee on charter schools, would certainly like to know. At a late-June Capitol hearing, he questioned State Board of Education member Judy Strickland about the board's decision to continue to grant charters despite the schools' overall record of poor performance. (The board is considering adding another 44 charters this year.) "Has anyone on the board stopped to ask if this experiment is developed enough to keep expanding?" Dunnam asked.

Considering the board's demonstrated zeal to grant charters, the question was rhetorical. In 1997, the board received 109 charter applications, and they approved every single one -- without so much as interviewing the applicants. Many of these so-called "third generation" charters have been in the headlines for all the wrong reasons: financial mismanagement, extravagant administrative pay, and poor student performance. "The third generation," says Rep. Dunnam, "is as colossal a mistake as I have ever seen in state government." Last session, the Lege limited the number of charters to 215 -- the board responded by allowing already approved schools (some low-performing) to open new "campuses" under their original charters (still technically within the law).

Dunnam doesn't think charter schools are inherently a bad idea. "If we had kept to our original plan," he says, "and only expanded the very best examples of the original 20 schools, we could have created a strong alternative. But suddenly, without adequate planning, it was transformed from an experiment to a wholesale practice. It is clear that academic performance has not been given much consideration. If you haven't stolen money, you can continue, and even expand."

A select number of Texas charters are bona fide success stories. KIPP Academy in Houston, where students are required to sign contracts promising to attend school six days a week and do two hours of homework a night, is one of the top-performing middle schools in the state. But KIPP's students (and families) must be motivated enough to agree to the contract, and the school is selective about whom it accepts.

Many other charters take on the state's most problematic students. In 2001, 39% of the state's charters were considered "alternative" -- an umbrella term that includes schools for delinquents, dropouts, drug addicts, and other students who, in theory, are ill-equipped to function in a normal public school. These schools are not held to the same TAAS test standards as conventional public schools. "Many charters are educating children that come in the door three or four years behind grade level," says Patsy O'Neill, director of the Charter School Resource Center of Texas. "You have to give them a few years to work with these students before you judge them."

But with only eight TEA staff members monitoring 270 charter schools, the question is whether the schools are low-performing because they are alternative, or vice versa. "The TEA has an application process to be considered 'alternative,'" says Kelly Shapley, a researcher with the Texas Center for Educational Research. "But it does allow these schools to justify [TAAS] passing rates substantially lower than would be considered acceptable."

For critics and proponents alike, the major issue is that charter schools are allowed to manage their finances as they see fit, with minimal state control. This may allow for more flexible use of funds -- but it also explains, for one example, how the head of Houston charter Prepared Table, who has no college degree, has been allowed to pay himself $210,000 and his wife $50,000.

At the June hearing, Houston Democratic Rep. Harold Dutton Jr. said that the sensationalized news coverage of charters like Prepared Table have led people to think that charters are "either all good or all bad, depending on what side of the horse you're standing on." If KIPP is at the head, strong teeth and all, then Prepared Table sits at the rear -- and it certainly stinks. Prepared Table has received $15 million in tax dollars since May 2001, when the TEA said that it should be shut down for continued financial irregularities. Of its 1,300 students in two campuses, only about 20% have passed the TAAS. TEA counsel Jim Thompson explained that the law guarantees due process to every charter, no matter how corrupt, and that takes time.

Dunnam remains unconvinced. "Last session, we gave the TEA everything they asked for to shut down charter schools," he said, referring to House Bill 6. "I think they have the power but are unwilling to use it. There is always a political reason for this kind of stalling." But even Dunnam isn't sure what needs to be done to weed out the worst charter schools. "We will have to see what all the research says before we figure out the next step." Considering the brief but troubled history of Texas charters, that would constitute a bold new approach.