Although NCLB called attention to the issue of low-performing schools, states had already identified more than 8,000 public schools around the country as needing improvement prior to the law's passage. Now that NCLB requires public school choice options for students in these schools, the lack of high-quality public options in some areas is quickly becoming apparent.

In some communities there simply are not enough good public schools to meet the demand and affluent communities are often notoriously reluctant to accept poor and minority transfer students. Therefore, in addition to demanding more public school choice, policymakers must also expand the supply of good public schools, particularly in under-served communities.

One of the most promising strategies to accomplish this is through expansion of public charter schools. Charter schools are public schools that are open to all students, publicly funded, and accountable to the public for their operations and performance. But unlike traditional public schools, parents, teachers, community organizations, and even museums and universities can open and operate public charter schools. Essentially, the theory behind public charter schools is that the "publicness" of a school is determined not by ownership and governance but rather by whether it serves the public's children and is publicly accountable.

Since the first one opened in Minnesota in 1992, nearly 3,000 charter schools have opened in more than 30 states. About three-quarters of a million students attend charter schools and 7 in 10 charter schools have waiting lists. By creating space for local organizations and even national groups like the National Council of La Raza to open and operate public schools, charter schooling expands educational choice and customization.

Although most students can master challenging academic material, it's unrealistic to expect them all to do it at the same pace or in the same way. Charters complement NCLB, and standards more generally, by providing options for students. In fact, many charter schools have opened precisely to serve "at risk" students. Charters also help meet the demand for greater choice that exists in most sectors of American life but, as opposed to vouchers, do so in a publicly accountable way.

However, the charter school reform is itself in need of some mid-course reforms. While the majority of charter schools are doing a good job, too many are failing to make the grade. There are several reasons for the problems.

First, some charter operators clearly underestimated the difficulties and challenges of running good schools, particularly schools serving a high percentage of low-income students. The shortcomings of urban public school systems and other schools serving concentrations of low-income students are well documented, but noticeably less attention is paid to the dearth of demonstrably successful models. It takes more than just a change in school governance to solve the thorny problems in urban education.

Second, in too many communities political opposition hinders charter schools every step of the way. Whether the issue is access to facilities, equitable funding, or simply fighting off unfair characterizations and political attacks, too many charters have their backs to the wall and are forced to pour energy into these fights rather than their primary educational mission. Glaring fiscal inequities doom many charter schools from the start.

Finally, oversight and support for charter schools is decidedly mixed. States like Minnesota that put a premium on balancing school autonomy with public oversight and accountability have struck a pretty good balance. Not coincidentally, Minnesota's law and its authors were honored in 2000 with a prestigious Innovations In American Government award from Harvard University. Unfortunately, other states decided to emphasize ease of obtaining charters or raw numbers of charters at the expense of accountability. This is in part why 20 percent of the charter schools in Texas have been identified by the state as low-performing and negative headlines from states like Arizona continue to give the charter movement a black eye nationwide.

All these issues must be addressed in order to sustain and build support for public charter schools and for charter schooling to realize its potential as a progressive modernizing reform. Yet while one of the great strengths of the charter school "movement" is its grassroots nature, tackling these challenges head-on requires national leadership too.

There is a clear precedent for federal help for charters and now, as charter schooling matures, a new kind of federal leadership is necessary. The federal government provides more than $220 million to help charter schools start up and obtain facilities. To meet the NCLB challenge, this funding must be at least tripled and used more strategically. States that have weak charter laws, for example not allowing entities other than local school boards to authorize charter schools, should not receive federal charter school funds. Likewise, states not meeting clear standards for oversight and accountability, perhaps based on the Minnesota model, should not receive funding. Charter schools must also have more leeway in using funds to obtain facilities, which charter operators consistently rank as the number one obstacle they face.

Even in flush times, and particularly with current state budget woes, fiscal concerns are often raised to block expansion of charter schooling. By putting on the table substantially greater funding for charter schools and public school choice, and targeting resources to states with better charter laws, Washington can strengthen the hand of state level charter advocates trying to pass charter laws in states that still do not have them and strengthen existing but weak laws.

Moreover, by emphasizing accountability and quality, national leaders can also check the excesses of a minority of low-performing charter schools that threaten to imperil support for the charter concept overall.

As a rhetorical matter, it is important that national leaders and the Bush Administration not conflate charter schools and school vouchers. Among those who favor more choice in education there are sincere and principled disagreements over vouchers. Linking charters and vouchers might make for good politics on a state and national level, but it plays right into the hands of those fighting against any increase in educational choice.

Although NCLB threw down a gauntlet that persistent failure to educate poor and minority students was unacceptable, the law alone cannot solve this problem. Rather, a variety of national and state policies must be changed to support the goals of NCLB. Charter schools can be a vibrant part of this effort but only if their most zealous proponents and opponents are reined in and only with stronger national leadership.

Blueprint Keyword: Extra Charters

Andrew J. Rotherham is director of PPI's 21st Century School's Project.