The Ray Budde and the Origins of the 'Charter Concept'
By Ted Kolderie, July 1, 2005, Center for Education Reform
When Ray Budde died the news made the New York Times. This is not easy to do. The Times obituary page is reserved for people of special interest and of significant accomplishment. Susan Saulny, who covers education, wrote the story. It was reprinted elsewhere. On the West Coast National Public Radio did an interview about it. So this was pretty special for the charter idea.
The attention to Ray Budde did puzzle people. "Who was Ray Budde? What did he have to do with chartering?".
It is an interesting story. It helps to explain where the charter idea began. And it is important for what it says about the way ideas start and spread, and about the way movements grow and develop.
Ray said he'd always had a strong interest in "the way things are organized" and in "how things work or don't work in organizations". He'd been a teacher, then junior high principal in East Lansing MI. In the late 1960s he was teaching educational administration at the University of Massachusetts when the dean reorganized its school of education. He was interested in organizational theory, and in 1974 offered the Society for General Systems Research some ideas for the reorganization of school districts, in a paper he titled "Education by Charter".
As he told the story years later in a piece he wrote for The Kappan (September 1966) he asked colleagues and friends: "Does this make sense? Is it workable? Would a district be willing to give it a try?" The response? Zero. Nobody thought there was a problem significant enough to require such a restructuring. The attitude then was: Get a good new program idea, run some inservice training. That'll do it. So Ray put the idea away and went on to other things.
Then came the 1980s: The Nation At Risk report and all the media attention and the Carnegie Forum report that followed. And suddenly everyone was talking 'restructuring'. So Ray dusted off his paper and in early 1988 got it published by the Northeast Regional Lab. He sent it around widely; even to then-President George H.W. Bush. Then he waited. And waited.
One Sunday in July his wife put down the newspaper and said: "Hey, Ray, you've made the New York Times!" And she showed him the column reporting the American Federation of Teachers' support for the idea of teachers setting up autonomous schools. Albert Shanker, president of the AFT, had in fact floated the proposal in a talk at the National Press Club in the spring of that year. He said Ray Budde had the best name for these schools: charter schools.
Budde's proposal was actually for a restructuring of the district: for moving from "a four-level line and staff organization" to "a two-level form in which groups of teachers would receive educational charters directly from the school board" and would carry the responsibility for instruction. It dealt with existing schools. This is the concept that Paul Hill later called the 'contract district'; that the Education Commission of the States later termed the "all-charter district'. Shanker introduced the idea of the teachers starting schools new (though within existing school buildings). But like Budde, Shanker simply put his idea out there; did not move to implement it.
Implementation began in Minnesota. A study committee of the Citizens League, chaired by John Rollwagen, then CEO of Cray Research, picked up the idea early after Shanker's Press Club talk. It further modified the idea; envisioning it in a framework of state policy, and with schools being approved by the state as well as by a local board.
In October 1988 the Minneapolis Foundation brought Shanker to Minnesota for the Itasca Seminar. Two legislators present - Sen. Ember Reichgott and Rep. Ken Nelson - picked up the idea and, as legislators are wont to do, began thinking about state legislation.
Sen. Reichgott's charter provision got into the Senate omnibus bill in 1989 and again in 1990. The House would not accept it. As the conference committee was breaking up in 1990 Rep. Becky Kelso went over to Reichgott and said, "If you'd like to try that charter idea again next year I'd like to help you". And in 1991 Kelso and Nelson did get a - compromised - version through the House. The Senate agreed. Gov. Arne Carlson signed it into law.
In 1992 California enacted a chartering program, in somewhat different form. In 1993 six states acted, introducing more variations on the original idea. Through the 1990s the concept continued to evolve; an 'open system', like LINUX, continually changed and improved by all those working on it.
Charter school law needs adjustments
GRIPES DESERVE ATTENTION OF LAWMAKERS
San Jose Mercury Editorial, October 25, 2006
Approving and monitoring charter schools has become increasingly contentious.
That became clear in testimony last week at a hearing that Sen. Joe Simitian, D-Palo Alto, held at the Santa Clara County Office of Education. And it was borne out in the same building 12 hours earlier, when trustees of two local school districts and members of the county education board sparred over two charter applications.
In what has become a familiar pattern, the local districts had rejected the charters out of hand. On appeal, the county office conscientiously, but somewhat resentfully, reviewed the applications. The board conditionally approved one -- Rocketship -- despite San Jose Unified's veiled threat to sue. There are now 20 charter schools in Santa Clara County.
``It is bizarre to us that local school districts don't want to charter schools any more,'' county board member Bill Evers said at one point.
The Legislature crafted the charter school law to ensure local districts would evaluate charter schools on merit, based on nine criteria. It hoped districts would work with and learn from innovative charters. County education offices were designated as appeals boards, but the Santa Clara County office has become the de facto chartering agency.
Many school districts resent charter schools' competition for students and state dollars. Some will always be defiant, regardless of what's good for families that want alternatives. However, the Legislature could improve the chartering process and reduce the acrimony by:
- Softening the financial impact on districts. By law, school boards are prohibited from considering the financial impact on their districts when evaluating charters. But the loss of roughly $6,000 per student to charter schools is the real reason why many districts vote no.
Some states offer a grace period, continuing to reimburse districts for a year after students leave. Illinois weans the districts over several years, on a declining scale.
California should explore this idea. This year, the Legislature took the opposite approach, passing AB 2954, which would have given districts with declining enrollments the right to reject charters. Fortunately, Gov. Schwarzenegger vetoed it.
- Expanding building aid. Under Proposition 39, districts are obligated to provide suitable classroom space to charter schools. Many refuse; others give them the worst space. (San Jose Unified, which provided Downtown College Prep with a former elementary school, is a notable exception.)
The state should expand its lease assistance program for charters located off district grounds in high-poverty areas.
- Allowing other groups to grant charters. Giving districts a veto over charters is like giving Microsoft power over Google. Qualified charter school applicants deserve fair reviews and constructive oversight. Other states, like New York and Minnesota, allow university schools of education to authorize and monitor charter schools. California's legislators killed a bill allowing this a few years ago; it's time for another try.
- Covering costs of review. A district that authorizes a charter is entitled to receive from 1 percent to 3 percent of a charter's annual tuition revenue for oversight fees: between $12,000 and $36,000 for a school of 200. But there's no reimbursement for the initial application review. The Santa Clara County Office of Education, which works collaboratively with charters, can spend hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars on each application. To encourage this cooperation, the state should cover the board's costs.
California has a basically sound charter law. But the state could do more to ease tensions and recognize, as Simitian said, the complaints of ``legitimate competing interests.''
Governmental Survey of Private Schools 2003-04
Return to Reform Home Page
TOP
Send mail to mikemcmahonausd@yahoo.com with
questions or comments about this web site.
Last modified: November 16, 2004
Disclaimer: This website is the sole responsibility of Mike
McMahon. It does not represent any official opinions, statement of facts or
positions of the Alameda Unified School District. Its sole purpose is to
disseminate information to interested individuals in the Alameda community.