Wall Street Journal, Jan 20-21, 2007, p. A 6

True Charter School Idea Embodies Basic American Principles

In regard to Jason Riley’s Jan 3 editorial-page commentary, “What’s the

Matter with Kansas?: Yes, Mr. Riley is right to praise veteran Kansas

educators Betty Horton and Sandy Lassiter, who are trying to reduce the

20 point gap between white and black students in Topeka. No, PLEASE do

not call the law Kansas passed a true charter law. It is a case study

in frustration.

Having helped write the nation’s first charter law (in Minnesota) and

having been invited to testify in more than 20 states and several

Congressional committees on this subject, I think it is vital to be

clear about REAL charter laws. The central idea is that parents,

educators and community members would be able to create new,

accountable public schools, under a contract - or charter - with a

local district OR some other entity, such as a state board of

education, university, major’s office or approved social service

agency, True charter laws like those in states like Minnesota, Arizona,

Massachusetts and New York, give educators/community members the chance to present their ideas to truly neutral groups.

Real charter laws recognize that local districts often are defensive

and not willing to support innovation. In Topeka, the lead educators

are 30 year veterans who have proposed approaches using research that

has helped narrow achievement gaps. Their very strong proposals, which

I have reviewed, have proposed research-based approaches that have

helped narrow achievement gaps in other communities. But their ideas

were rejected by a 7-0 board vote. Other strong proposals have been

rejected by local boards all over the nation.

the charter idea is based on basic American principles: giving people a

chance to carry out their dreams, so long as they are willing to be

responsible for results, and while providing freedom within broad

limits, and the separation of powers, so that no single group or

organization has all the power.

Just as we do not expect one political party to approve candidates of

another party, or allow one local restaurant to decide whether another

restaurant should be allowed to open, or given one newspaper the power

to accept or reject another local competitor, the charter idea insists

that applicants should be able to go to a group other than a local

board to get permission to operate.

Some states, like Kansas, have passed pseudo charter laws that still

give local districts the power to block innovation. Other states, like

New York and North Carolina, allow advocates to go to a local or

statewide group for permission to open, but unfortunately have caps on

the number of new schools permitted. New York’s new governor wisely has

urged raising or eliminating the cap. He’s absolutely right.

In the last fifteen years, people like Mike Feinberg and Dave Levin at

KIPP, Lawrence Hernandez at Cesar Chavez, and Yvonne Chan at Vaughn

Street have used the charter idea to dramatically reduce achievement

gaps, and increase overall success. The true charter idea is America at its best.

It’s vital to be clear about what that idea is - and to hope that

Kansas and many other states, use the true charter idea as part of

their efforts to help all youngsters reach their potential.

It is noteworthy Rosa Parks spent part of the last decade of her life

trying to help create a charter in Detroit. Your editorial accurately

note that Cheryl Brown Henderson, of the Brown v. Board of Education

family, is supporting the proposed racially integrated charter in Topeka.

Honoring Martin Luther King Jr’s dream isn’t just about giving speeches

or showing tapes of his work. It is about giving power to people like

Topeka’s Sandy Lassiter and Betty Horton, so that they can make a huge

difference for young people.

Joe Nathan, Director

Center for School Change

Humphrey Institute

University of Minnesota