Table Of ContentThe 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
