"Charter schools," analysts Allyson Tucker and Donna Watson noted in the Arkansas Policy Foundation's 1996 report, "create an alternate form of public schooling where schools are granted significant autonomy but are held accountable for results." Unlike "other public schools," they explained, charters can be closed if they fail students.
Ms. Tucker and Ms. Watson advanced an idea: Arkansas should tolerate charters.
Nearly two decades later, there are 16,855 students in 37 charters, according to a state Department of Education communication. Eighteen are conversion charters and 19 are open-enrollment schools. They span Arkansas from the Delta to Pulaski County to Northwest.
True to the idea, 18 failing charters have closed.
The state Department of Education defines a conversion school as "a public school converted to a public charter school" that "can only draw students from within the school district's boundaries."
Open-enrollment charters are "run by a governmental entity, an institution of higher learning or a tax-exempt non-sectarian organization," and "can draw students from across district boundaries."
The advance of Arkansas' charter-school idea has not come without struggles. Some are the result of misunderstanding, and include the following examples of mistaken ideas:
Charters are private, not public schools. Act 890 of 1999 is clear in describing conversion and open-enrollment charters as "public schools."
Charters are anti-teacher. Act 890's legislative intent is clear about providing "opportunities for teachers" and other stakeholders. The measure seeks to "encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods."
Charters ignore at-risk students. Some critics perpetuate the stereotype that charters were created to benefit privileged children. They overlook multiple liberalizations of Arkansas' charter law that occurred after policymakers found charters serve at-risk students. The at-risk student encounters significant obstacles to completion of an academic program.
Two charters serving at-risk students have played important roles in this process. These are Wesley Elementary in Houston, Texas, and the KIPP Delta College Preparatory School in Helena.
Key Arkansas policymakers journeyed to Wesley, composed primarily of at-risk students, prior to the 1999 charter liberalization.
Established in 2002, KIPP is an open-enrollment charter in Phillips County, which has a per capita income only 73 percent of the national average, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. KIPP's success in Helena laid the foundation for a Blytheville charter.
Charters have little to offer student-athletes. E-STEM is a downtown Little Rock charter. In March, the E-STEM Lady Mets earned the Class 3A Girls Basketball State Championship.
Policymakers have taken many steps to advance Arkansas charters since the 1996 Tucker-Watson report. These include our recommendations to lift the charter cap, establish a virtual charter, and provide for equitable charter funding.
Recent legislative action to establish funding equity will allow charters to expand in areas as diverse as the Delta and west Little Rock.
Parent and student demand for charters is evident in both, a tribute to the enduring power of ideas.
------------v------------
Economist Greg Kaza is executive director of the Arkansas Policy Foundation (www.arkansaspolicyfoundation.org), a Little Rock think tank founded in 1995.
Editorial on 05/12/2014