newjerseynewsroom.com

BY DR. FRANK J. ESPOSITO

COMMENTARY

Born in the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960's, school choice was initially created as a means of facilitating school desegregation through magnet schools that provided for racial balance while allowing some degree of parental choice.

By the 1980's districts in several states began promoting theme based magnet schools within district lines and allowing for parental selection of schools based on the student's area of interest.

These early choice districts provided useful examples of the value in restructuring local districts to allow for choice of schools where meaningful curricular differences were provided. They also heralded what was then a unique concept: children will learn better if they are in a school they and their parents selected and with a theme or learning approach in which they had an interest.

From these early examples educational reformers learned that while school choice was not a panacea for all that ailed urban schools, it did bring hope to these districts and frequently resulted in dramatic improvements in graduation rates, college acceptances and parent involvement, but it was not until the administration of Gov. Christie Whitman, a legislative bill passed the legislature with bipartisan support, the charter School Act of 1995. To date, over 50 charter schools have been established in New Jersey. Some have been outstanding models of highly effective educational programs while a few have failed and have been closed. The majority have stayed in business and proved valuable alternatives for students largely in urban districts.

As one of the architects of that law, I feel compelled to comment on its success and its current inadequacies. First, our intent-and we believe a strength of the charter law - was that failing schools should be closed. They must meet their stated goals or they will be shut down. Compare that to some urban schools that have failed two generations of students and are still in business.

In designing the charter school law we did get a few things wrong. We only provided 90 percent of the per student funding per district. This put charter schools at a great disadvantage in managing their budgets. Despite this, charter school students compare favorably with their urban district counterparts. Some, such as Robert Treat Academy in Newark, have achieved national prominence for their student learning achievements.

Another ongoing problem with the creation of charter schools has been in the implementation of the law regarding funds to open newly created schools. Founding board members, usually parents of prospective students, are unable to receive state funds until after the school opens in September. They are forced to seek bridge loans from corporations or foundations in order to open. In past years, Prudential was a major supporter of their efforts.

Despite these problems, charter schools can greatly increase the number of quality school choices available to parents and students, but we must address their flaws. My running mate Chris Daggett has pledged to correct these inadequacies and to greatly expand the number of charter schools. We would also promote the replication of successful models, such as the ones at Robert Treat and North Star academy, where there is a high student rate of student academic achievement. There is also a little known part of the 1995 law that permits the conversion of existing public schools to charter status. We would like to provide incentives to districts to promote this policy.

When the 1995 law was being drafted we envisioned it impacting both urban and suburban areas. To date, it is largely an urban innovation thus reflecting the broad community dissatisfaction with the quality of education in many of our largest cities. While that is understandable, we should not lose sight of the fact that suburban and rural charter schools can also promote greater choices, and improved schooling, for students.

Chris Daggett and I both believe that school choice, involving charter schools and theme based schools, should be available in all large school districts. Even smaller districts could use school choice to create greater learning options through such approaches as "schools within a school." In order to promote school choice in our neediest districts we will work to implement a scholarship program that will use tax incentives to corporations that award

scholarships to students to attend private or religious based schools. We will do whatever it takes increase learning opportunities for our most economically challenged students, but we don't believe that dollars alone are needed. More money alone has not produced the kind of results we should be seeing in urban districts. We need new approaches to learning and school organization.

As the large urban dropout rates and the large number of failures on the HSPA (High School Proficiency Assessment) show, too many students are not receiving a quality education.

It is unconscionable that both major political parties have allowed this situation to continue.

This is the time for change in New Jersey education - and for new accountability.

Dr. Frank J. Esposito is a former high school history teacher, and a Distinguished Professor of History and Education at Kean University. He is a candidate for Lieutenant Governor on the independent ticket of Chris Daggett.