The Study
David Plank and Gary Sykes, professors in the Department of Educational Administration, presented preliminary findings to legislators and educators in October on two currently ongoing studies on the effects of charter schools and schools of choice. The entire text of their remarks can be found on the World Wide Web at http://ed-web3.educ.msu.edu/reports/policy/president's_forum/report4.htm

The Findings
Proposal A, rather than the introduction of school choice, has radically diminished the importance of school districts and the power of school boards. School districts no longer have an independent revenue base, and instead depend on the state for their funds, greatly increasing the state's leverage over local schools and school districts.

The researchers hypothesize that the kinds of innovation that "choice policy" is likely to stimulate are those that may be added on to the existing structure and functioning of schools, as well as those that will attract a constituency. It appears unlikely that charters and choice will stimulate those innovations that require deep changes in the nature of instructional practice.

It appears that schools of choice have a tendency toward more traditional approaches to teaching and learning, including phonics-based approaches to literacy, and a more traditional teaching of mathematics. These schools are likely to stimulate such instructional regimes because they more closely accord with what parents and communities want to see taking place in the classroom.

Choice and charters are analogous to allowing new competitors into a formerly protected market. They can only succeed by offering a more attractive package of services for the same level of per student funding. They are capable of more efficiency by doing such things as shifting costs to parents, e.g., the cost of transportation or extracurricular activities. Another way to gain efficiency is to pay lower salaries by hiring younger or less experienced teachers, or by keeping out teacher unions in the case of charter schools.

This new educational marketplace is likely to produce two kinds of competitors. One is a more focused and relatively small scale school that aims to capture a niche market. An example would be an African-centered school. These schools are most likely to be offered in urban districts where demand for schooling is highly diverse and where a single provider faces difficulties in responding to the expectations of all constituencies. The other competitor is likely to go head-to-head with traditional public schools. Examples include Edison Project schools and the Michigan Education Development Corp.

The biggest change that school choice has fostered is the pooling of students from what had formerly been independent school districts. A school district could count on enrollment from its local student base, but now that student base may have to be shared with neighboring school districts. Parents already have educational options. They have the choice of where they live, the public schools their children attend, etc. It is unclear that the addition of charter schools and interdistrict choice expand the choices parents already have sufficiently to bring about significant change in the education system.

School choice and charter schools represent different strategies for change and are likely to have very different consequences, and the specific rules governing schools and students matter decisively in evaluating the effects of expanded opportunities for choice.

Ultimately, it is clear charter schools and interdistrict choice are not a panacea. By themselves, they will not solve the most serious problems of Michigan's educational system.

<back to 1997 ed-research reports