During a family vacation to Disneyland last December, Rep. Robert A. Perls of New Mexico spotted newspaper accounts of a new California law permitting the creation of charter schools.
Intrigued by the concept, which gives educators wide berth to design and operate publicly funded schools, Mr. Perls called his state’s legislative-services bureau before he returned home and asked the staff to begin drafting a bill that would allow charter schools in New Mexico.
A freshman who does not serve on the House education committee, Mr. Perls nonetheless persuaded his colleagues, over the objections of the panel’s chairwoman, to pass the bill.
The Democratic lawmaker’s enthusiasm is typical of the explosive growth of the charter-schools movement in the states over the past year. Pioneered by Minnesota in 1991, charter-schools legislation was adopted only by California in 1992. But this year, 16 states have considered the idea, and four have enacted their own charter-schools programs.
The heightened level of interest is unlikely to abate, policy analysts suggest. By sanctioning the schools, lawmakers can show that they are friendly to education reform without taking on the political risks associated with school choice, vouchers, and other ideas.
“Charter schools seem to be in some respects a ‘mom and apple pie’ thing,’' observed Rob Melnick, the director of the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University. “It has the flavor of all these good principles of innovation, but it doesn’t have the emotional charge of vouchers or site-based management.’'
Four States Act
So far this year, New Mexico, Georgia, Colorado, and Massachusetts have adopted charter-schools legislation. The matter is still pending in Wisconsin, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
The legislative response to such proposals has not been unanimous. Arizona and Wyoming rejected charter-schools bills, and a charter-schools measure in Louisiana ran up against the education establishment, which argued that further study was required.
In most of the other states, however, lawmakers simply did not move the bills before adjourning. In Florida, for example, the bill disintegrated because of disagreements over the definition of charter schools.
Even in states where charter-schools bills have languished, some lawmakers who have been staunch opponents of vouchers and choice have warned that they will reconsider the idea next session if the public schools do not improve.
Such sentiments seem widespread. Clint Bolick, the vice president of the Washington-based Institute for Justice and a longtime supporter of school vouchers, recalled participating in a debate with a California lawmaker who opposed school choice but backed charter schools.
“It’s very politically palatable,’' said Mr. Bolick. “In an effort to forestall private school choice, many reformers are going halfway.’'
Shifting Power to States
Action on charter-schools bills this year also has reflected a significant shift in thinking about the process for establishing the new institutions.
Under the original Minnesota law, the authority to grant charters sought by groups of teachers and parents was given to local school boards.
However, charter advocates have since become concerned that local officials would see the nascent schools as a threat and throttle the process by refusing to approve any applications. As a result, several of this year’s bills have vested more power with the state, through a dual-approval or appeals process.
“The idea is at least to have an appeal to the state board so that you don’t have a local board controlling what all the charter schools are going to be,’' said Connie Koprowicz, an education-policy associate at the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Georgia’s new law, for example, does not give the state overriding authority. But it does require that the state board, along with the local board, approve the charter.
Two-thirds of a school’s instructional staff, as well as two-thirds of parents attending a special meeting, must also approve the measure.
Moreover, if a school board rejects a charter, the state may hold a hearing at which the board must explain its reasoning.
Georgia is the first state to adopt charter-schools legislation without restricting the number of schools. California caps the number at 100, while Minnesota began with only eight and recently expanded its number to 20.
“We don’t think school reform should be a competitive process,’' said John W. Rhodes, the director of charter schools for the Georgia education department. “If there is a cap, then it is competitive.’'
Although only a small proportion of students will attend charter schools as a result of the caps, backers say the impact will be much broader.
Ted Kolderie, a senior associate at the St. Paul-based Center for Policy Studies, maintains that districts will be forced to respond to the innovations and creativity of the charter schools, and that, in turn, will drive legislators to support the concept.
‘A Liberating Idea’
“It’s a liberating idea for governors and legislators,’' said Mr. Kolderie. “What they have always been told is there are just two choices: You’re either for public education, in which case you accept public school in its existing institutional form, or you go for vouchers, in which case you’re for private education.’'
“It turns out, there is a real option,’' he said.
New Mexico is in the early stages of approving five charter schools.
Despite Representative Perls’s success with fellow lawmakers, though, he has not been as lucky with the teachers at his 8-year-old’s school. They voted against applying for one of the $5,000 grants that are available for beginning the process of creating a charter school.
