The teachers across the nation, who have survived eight George W. Bush years of No Child Left Behind fixated on standardized testing, are now bracing themselves for the Race to the Top courtesy of Barack Obama. Parents have always wanted the same goal for their children – the best possible education – while theorists, administrators and legislators have pursued different paths to reach that goal.

Charter schools have become the darling of some educational reformers including Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and President Obama. Yet, experts in the field who once championed charter schools, now see them as failures and harmful to public education as a whole. Let’s take a look at both sides of the issue.

First, the basics:

Charter schools are publicly financed with taxpayer dollars, but run by private management companies. Most firms are forprofit. Nonprofit charter operators have created only 350 schools in the past ten years with $500 million subsidies from donors. All charter schools are different from private schools, K-12, with private funding where parents pay tuition.

There are about 5,000 charter schools nationwide, enrolling 1.5 million students from kindergarten through high school – 3 percent versus 97 percent of students in the public school systems.

Charter schools have been aimed at inner city minority students – 55 percent black and Hispanic, where more than one third qualify for free or reduced price lunch, a measure of poverty.

Cities with the highest percentage of students in charters include: New Orleans, 57 percent, Washington D.C., 36 percent, Detroit, 32 percent, Kansas City, Mo., 39 percent, Dayton, 27 percent, St. Louis, 25 percent, Flint, 24 percent and Minneapolis, 22 percent.

Most teachers throughout the nation belong to unions that negotiate contracts with school districts as to working conditions, performance evaluation, tenure and salaries/pensions. Charter schools usually employ teachers who are non-union.

• • • •

From the first charter school that opened in Minneapolis in l992, there are now charter schools in 72 cities. This is a jump from 45 cities three years ago, according to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. There has been enthusiastic support for charters from philanthropic groups such as the Gates Foundation and wealthy financiers. They usually seek schools that are succeeding and provide money for expansion. Media attention puts the spotlight on individual schools that have made amazing progress, like Harlem Village Academies, where 93 percent of 8th graders passed the state math, English, science and social studies exams. Celebrities have hosted fund-raisers and joined the boards of certain charter schools. President George W. Bush had been a strong supporter. President Obama upped the ante when he offered $4.3 billion in education aid to states that comply with administration goals – including an increase in numbers of charter schools. Illinois, Louisiana and Tennessee lifted their cap on the number of charter schools to better qualify in the contest.

• • • •

Despite all the enthusiasm from supporters, research on performance of charter school students nationwide shows very disappointing results. Last year, Stanford University researchers in a comprehensive study based on student achievement on standardized tests, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools across the country offered a better education than comparable local schools. Half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.” The Center for Research on Education Outcomes warned, “this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well” as students in traditional schools.

• • • •

An important factor in success or failure of charter schools appears to be the rigor of state authorities who grant charters and the oversight that follows. New York state, where oversight is strong, is known for higher performing schools, while Texas, Arizona and Ohio where oversight and accountability are minimal have shown poorer performance of their charter schools. Teachers unions have been critics of charter schools for the fundamental reason that they drain dollars away from public education of most students across the country. They also cited evidence in January that charters in New York City enrolled a smaller percentage of special education students and those still learning English, thus increasing the odds that the achievement levels of the students would be higher.

• • • •

There was no greater advocate for charter schools in the early years of the movement than Diane Ravitch, the education historian who served in the first Bush administration’s Education Department. She was a leading advocate of standardized testing and charter schools in those years. She is widely recognized as one of the most influential scholars of recent decades and she has now completely reversed her original positions. She says, “School reform today is like a freight train, and I’m out on the tracks saying, ‘You’re going the wrong way!’” She deplores No Child Left Behind with its emphasis on standardized tests in math and reading as having driven important subjects like history and science out of the classroom. Jeffrey Mirel, professor of education and history at the University of Michigan summed up her journey, “First she angered the Marxist historians, and later the fans of progressive education and the multiculturalists. But she’s always defended public schools and a robust traditional curriculum, because she believes they’ve been a ladder of social mobility.”

In April, Dr. Ravitch spoke at a convention of school superintendents in Phoenix. She said, “Nations like Finland and Japan seek out the best college graduates for teaching positions, prepare them well, pay them well and treat them with respect. They make sure that all their students study the arts, history, literature, geography, civics and foreign languages, the sciences and other subjects. They do this because this is the way to ensure good education. We’re on the wrong track.” The superintendents gave Diane Ravitch a standing ovation.

Editor’s Note:

In last week’s Dimensions column, under the section titled Worker Safety, a paragraph following the subhead Offshore Oil Rigs, was inadvertantly omitted. It should have read:

Offshore Oil Rigs. Proposed rule. June 2009. Oil companies would be required to develop safety plans, covering mechanical equipment and operating principles. The plans would be audited every three years to ensure compliance. We now know that this rule was not implemented in time to prevent the oil rig explosion, deaths of workers and disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Joyce S. Anderson is the author of “Courage in High Heels,” “Flaw in the Tapestry,” “If Winter Comes” and “The Mermaids Singing.” She can be reached at JSAWrite@aol.com.