The real question is not whether schools should be independent but when and under what circumstances.
The idea of charter schools is getting favorable attention from a number of business people because they see a parallel with a popular and successful business practice: giving branch offices substantial authority to manage their own affairs. The large companies doing this have found that the branches often are more creative and productive than when they were under the direct management of the main office.
This is applicable to schools because, like branch offices, they are subject to top-down management -- and are often stifled by it. If you lift that, charter school supporters say, and give schools freedom to manage their own affairs, all kinds of pent-up creativity will be released. And, they conclude, this will probably lead to a school-by-school reform of the entire education system.
But there's a major difference between giving this kind of freedom to a branch office in the business world and giving it to a school. The company knows what its product is, and it has a system for managing quality. Our education system has not even decided the business of the schools.
Should all high school graduates be required to reach a certain level of proficiency in mathematics? Should they be required to read and write English at a certain level? Or is it more important that they attain high levels of self-esteem? Should schools be mainly concerned with delivering the social services students need: health and child care or psychological counseling? Are they responsible for making sure students maintain their particular group's cultural heritage or is it enough that they educate students in what it means to be an American? The Goals 2000 legislation should eventually lead us to a definition of what the "business" of our schools is supposed to be, but we are still far from reaching a consensus.
Moreover, U.S. education lacks the kind of incentive system that forces business people to constantly think about and improve their product. If a company make shoddy products or loses money year after year, it goes out of business. But a high school diploma is just about inevitable if a kid shows up at school for four years. So is college entrance for high school graduates who get money from Uncle Sam or their parents. The incentive system is no better for youngsters going right to work because employers never ask for high school transcripts, and a student who did well in school has no advantage over one who barely got through.
Supporters claim that charter schools will establish accountability, so that good schools will flourish and bad ones will shrivel up and die. But without an external incentive system that demands a certain kind of quality, success will be based on popularity rather than quality. Why should youngsters go to a school that has a rigorous curriculum, where they may have to work hard just to get C's, when they can get A's somewhere else -- and have a good time? Few colleges reward this kind of effort, and few prospective employers even notice it.
We are in the process of defining our education "product" through Goals 2000, and when we do so and want to pull the education system together to achieve it, what effect will charter schools have on this effort? Suppose the Coca-Cola Company put a number of independent units in business without telling them what kind of drink they should be making. And then, after some had started making beer and others wine, it came along and said, "You're supposed to be making Coke!" Will the schools we have liberated be willing to accept the goals of public education? Will we see a coalition of schools that have gotten their independence and are no longer willing to pull with the rest?
Other advanced industrial democracies have national or provincial standards, and curriculums and assessments embodying those standards, and they have strong incentives for students to work hard. Kids know getting into college or getting a job or admission to an apprenticeship program depends on their doing well. The schools know it, too. And with a system like that, it makes sense to give people in the schools the freedom to decide on how to meet the standards -- on things like how the school day should be structured and how best to teach their particular students to read, write and count.
Many of our schools now suffer because of bureaucratic, top-down management, but giving them the freedom to do whatever they choose will not solve the problems of our education system. Indeed, encouraging them to do their own thing before we have decided what we want our students to know and be able to do could be very destructive. The real question is not whether schools should be independent but when and under what circumstances.