Some local boards might eventually oversee all-charter systems. Then, local boards would no longer operate schools themselves. They would be more like the Federal Communications and Securities and Exchange commissions, which promote fair competition and protect consumers, than like an armed service or police department, which runs everything directly. Without some external support, charter schools must provide for themselves all the protections once provided by the district, including start-up capital, liability insurance and teacher retirement, legal advice, and other professional services. As some charter school operators have already found, skimping on assistance and advice puts the whole enterprise at risk, including children's educational opportunities, the founders' own time and money, and the public's funds.
Total autonomy is an illusion.
If they are to become central to a whole community's effort to educate its children, charter schools must have clear and reliable relationships with community agencies that can authorize charters, guarantee funding, and hold school operators to their promises. If the local mix of schools depends entirely on individual initiative, no one is responsible for the overall quality and appropriateness of a community's schools. This consequence is scarcely different from the results of a voucher scheme,under which schools are provided only by private entrepreneurs. All charter school supporters agree that charter schools should be run by their own founders and staff, and freed from most of the process requirements that limit how current public schools hire and teach. But it matters whether charter schooling is about escape or reform.