The Democratic Potential of Charter Schools Studies in the Postmodern Theory of Education Joe L. Kincheloe and Shirley R. Steinberg General Editors Vol. 136 PETER LANG New York (cid:121) Washington, D.C./Baltimore (cid:121) Boston (cid:121) Bern Frankfurt am Main (cid:121) Berlin (cid:121) Brussels (cid:121) Vienna (cid:121) Oxford Stacy Smith The Democratic Potential of Charter Schools PETER LANG New York (cid:121) Washington, D.C./Baltimore (cid:121) Boston (cid:121) Bern Frankfurt am Main (cid:121) Berlin (cid:121) Brussels (cid:121) Vienna (cid:121) Oxford Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Smith, Stacy. The democratic potential of charter schools / Stacy Smith. p. cm. — (Counterpoints; vol. 136) Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and index. 1. Charter schools—United States—Case studies. 2. School choice—Social aspects—United States—Case studies. 3. Citizenship—Study and teaching— United States—Case studies. 4. Educational equalization—United States— Case studies. I. Title. II. Counterpoints (New York, N.Y.); vol. 136. LB2806.36.S65 371.01—dc21 99-055972 ISBN 0-8204-4909-1 ISSN 1058-1634 Die Deutsche Bibliothek-CIP-Einheitsaufnahme Smith, Stacy: The democratic potential of charter schools / Stacy Smith. −New York; Washington, D.C./Baltimore; Boston; Bern; Frankfurt am Main; Berlin; Brussels; Vienna; Oxford: Lang. (Counterpoints; Vol. 136) ISBN 0-8204-4909-1 Cover design by Joni Holst The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council of Library Resources. © 2001 Stacy Smith All rights reserved. Reprint or reproduction, even partially, in all forms such as microfilm, xerography, microfiche, microcard, and offset strictly prohibited. Printed in the United States of America To the members of Winthrop Academy Charter School— for having the courage to breathe life into democratic ideals.  Table of Contents List of Tables ix Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 PART ONE: Charters, Public Life, and Democratic Education 15 Chapter 1 Charter School Reform: Broadening the Terms of Debate 17 Chapter 2 Democratic Politics and Charter Schooling: A Deliberative Conception 41 PART TWO:Institutionalizing Deliberative Democracy Through Charter Schooling 93 Chapter 3 Chartering Practices for Democratic Participation 95 Chapter 4 Town Meeting as a Forum for Practice 139 Chapter 5 Charter Schools and Democratic Social Reproduction 175 Appendix A: Massachusetts Charter School Legislation 215 Appendix B: Kolderie’s “Model Charter School Law” 221 Appendix C: Methodological Appendix 235 Bibliography 271 Index 283  List of Tables Table 1.1 Traditional versus Charter Schools 24 Table 1.2 A Continuum of Socio-Political Relationships 25 Table 3.1 Winthrop Academy’s Vision 103 Table 3.2 Winthrop Academy’s Town Meeting Topics for 1995–96 108 Table 3.3 Winthrop Academy’s Town Meeting Topics for 1996–97 110 Table 3.4 Winthrop Academy’s Civics Curriculum 118 Table 3.5 Winthrop Academy’s Citizenship Report 132 Table 6.1 Civic Education at Winthrop Academy: Student Survey 258  Acknowledgments The support of many people is reflected in the pages of this book. I wish to thank the faculty and students at Winthrop Academy Charter School (pseudonym)—this study would not have been possible without their co- operation and assistance. I also want to thank my graduate school advi- sors—Dr. Kenneth Strike, Dr. Deborah Trumbull, and Dr. Don Barr—for their guidance and critical feedback. I am indebted to my friends and colleagues Alexis Kaminsky, Rob Reich, and Anne Dodd for their careful reading and exchange of ideas. I am grateful for the support of the Char- lotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship from the Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship Foundation. And, finally, the unflagging en- couragement of my husband, Matthew Arrants, provided me with the wherewithal to complete this project. I have presented some of the arguments of this book previously in other forms. The introduction, chapter 1, and chapter 5 each include expanded and/or adapted versions of segments of “The Democratizing Potential of Charter Schools” which appeared in Educational Leader- ship 56, no. 2 (1998): 55–58 and “School Choice: Accountability to Publics, Not Markets” which appeared in Journal of Maine Education 25 (1999): 7–10. Portions of chapter 2 are adapted from “Voluntary Segregation: Gender and Race as Legitimate Grounds for Differential Treat- ment and Freedom of Association,” which appeared in Philosophy of Education 1996, ed. Frank Margonis, 48–57 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1997), “Democracy, Plurality, and Educa- tion: Deliberating Practices of and for Civic Participation” which appeared in Philosophy of Education 1997, ed. Susan Laird, 338–347 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1998), and “Charter Schools: Voluntary Associations or Political Communities?” which ap- peared in Philosophy of Education 1998, ed. Steve Tozer, 131–139 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 1999). Each of these selections is used by permission of the publisher.  Introduction Since Minnesota first enacted legislation in 1991, charter school reform has swept the country. Within the span of eight years, thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have passed charter legislation, and many other state legislatures are now considering proposed bills. Charter schools are unequivocally public entities—they must provide a free education to all eligible public school students and they are funded by public moneys, often based upon a per pupil expenditure from the state. But charters blur the boundary between “public” and “private” schools in a few differ- ent ways. First, they are similar to private schools in that they are schools of choice with distinct missions. Second, charter schools are autonomously managed by groups of parents, teachers, or community members; but unlike private schools, they are under contract with a public agency. Fi- nally, charters are freed from many bureaucratic structures governing public schools at the state and local levels; they make most of their own deci- sions about budget, personnel, and curriculum. Because charter schools blur traditional boundaries between public and private schools in a variety of ways, they revive questions of balanc- ing public and private interests in education which we in the United States have struggled with since public education became compulsory early in the twentieth century. In large part because of tensions particular to this public/private struggle, debate about charter schooling has been lively, and often heated and contentious. Many supporters tout charters as the best hope for public education, while equally vocal critics insist that char- ters will bring about its demise.1 Although their stances are vastly different, both proponents and oppo- nents of the movement emphasize the privatizing aspects of charter school reform. Proponents draw heavily upon language associated with the mar- ketplace. They refer to students and parents as consumers and clients, play up the attributes of bringing competition into the public educational 2 Introduction  sphere, and often refer to charter school founders as entrepreneurs. It is precisely this market orientation that concerns skeptics and critics of the charter movement. Alex Molnar, for example, claims that charters threaten the common purposes traditionally associated with public education: Charter schools, like private school vouchers and for-profit schools, are built on the illusion that our society can be held together solely by the self-interested pursuit of our individual purposes. Considered in this light, the charter school movement represents a radical rejection not only of the possibility of the common school, but of common purposes outside the school as well. The struggle is not between market-based reforms and the educational status quo. It is about whether the democratic ideal of the common good can survive the onslaught of a market mentality that threatens to turn every human relationship into a commercial transaction.2 Molnar’s critique illustrates a common tendency among naysayers to charter school reform—they frame the entire movement as inherently antidemocratic. To the extent that charter schools are conceived of only in terms of a “market mentality” such concerns about the rejection of common purposes are quite valid. But what this position overlooks is the possibility that there might be more to the charter school reform move- ment. The tendency to emphasize the privatizing, market-oriented as- pects of charter reform is overly simplistic. Consequently, virtually all debate on the topic neglects, or at best downplays, the democratizing potentials of charter schools. Educators and others concerned with preserving the “public” nature of public education should not summarily write off charter school reform as a move toward privatization. The alternative organizational model of charter schools raises some interesting possibilities for fulfilling public interests in education. Before outlining these possibilities I will briefly explain some of the primary, and often conflicting, interests in the educa- tion of children in the United States. Two fundamental types of interests are at stake in educating future generations of Americans. The first type can be referred to as particular or private interests in education. These private interests have to do with parents’ stakes in transmitting specific identities and values to their chil- dren. A Jewish family, for instance, may wish to pass on cultural tradi- tions, religious values, and a sense of identity to its children. The family is interested in such cultural transmission because it views a Jewish way of life as an exemplar of “the good life” and hopes to prepare its children to take part. The family is also interested in preparing the children to carry