Remember when public education was the exclusive territory of school systems, districts, and boards? Nowadays, a new crop of alternative schools is challenging that traditional structure. In response to a long, dry spell in academic achievement, the heat of politics, and the light of recent research, these hybrid schools are changing the way communities think about education. Although it's too soon to evaluate the long-term effects, the short-term picture is interesting.

Alternative Schools: What do they have in common?

• Flexibility
• Experimentation
• Innovation
• Accountability
• Small size
• Close collaboration between home and school
• Community support

They're the new guys on the block and they're gaining in popularity. Education reformer Deborah Meier calls them "upstart" schools. They consciously challenge existing systems and they deliberately rattle the cage that shelters public-education-as-usual. Most noticeably, they resist the control and direction of a school board. What their founders seek is the opportunity to downsize and experiment in ways they never could in regular public schools. "What is striking about the past two decades," says author and educator Ted Sizer, "particularly in urban American school districts, is both the high quality and determination of many leaders in education and the strict limitations that are placed on their ability to improve the performance of their students. If it isn't the people who are the problem, it must be the system. A growing number of influential Americans understand that."

Proponents of public-school choice point out that America's increasingly diverse population of students should be able to select schools that respond to their life situations. Those speaking limited English, for example, or those with disabilities, might join the mainstream at a much faster pace if they attended schools that consciously addressed their needs. As historians point out, American public education started out in just this way -- small, locally controlled schools that met the needs of their constituents.

Establishing a contract

Small size and local control are typical of charter schools, which are run by groups of teachers, parents, or other community leaders. They operate with a contract, or charter, that explains in detail how the school will function and what its standards of performance are. If a charter school fails to live up to its contract, the consequences are simple: it has to shut down. In return for this kind of accountability, charters get increased autonomy -- freedom from oversight by school committees or teachers' unions. Though laws vary from state to state, charters receive roughly the same per-pupil funding as other public schools. The schools themselves vary dramatically in their educational approaches. Nationwide, more than 700 charter schools operate in 23 states and the district of Columbia.

Vocal opponents

Some teachers' unions have been vocal opponents of charter schools, largely because salaries, hiring and firing practices, and the length of the work day aren't dictated by hard and fast regulations. The unions are more apt to welcome pilot schools (often indistinguishable from charters) as a more acceptable alternative. Like charter schools, pilots tend to be small and innovative, but unlike charters, they remain part of the larger system under district control. The Mission Hill School, Deborah Meier's pilot school in Boston, has union support -- and a special agreement with the Boston Public Schools that exempts it from many traditional regulations. Don't let the different names and labels confuse you. Whatever they're called, these schools are clearly committed to challenging the existing system with multi-age classrooms, strong teams of teachers, flexible work hours, community involvement, and a longer school day.

A question of management

Many reformers are taking the idea of school choice to another level. The book, Reinventing Public Education: How Contracting Can Transform America's Schools, proposes that school boards get out of the business of operating schools and look to outside management to run the show. In this scenario, the school board would review a number of management proposals, choose one (or more), and make contracts with each, spelling out clear expectations and goals. Board members would set policy, establish standards, and determine broad educational direction. No micromanaging would be allowed. If, later on, the board became dissatisfied with a manager's performance, the contract wouldn't be renewed. Critics of contracting worry about privatization, but proponents are quick to point out that it's public bodies -- school districts and boards -- that write the specifications for the schools, keeping control in the hands of taxpayers.

The last few years have seen the emergence of private, for-profit management companies such as the Educational Development Corporation, Advantage Schools, Inc., The Edison Project, and Education Alternatives Inc. Typically, these companies offer to manage finances, control costs, and deliver top-quality education. Whether they can actually turn a profit remains to be seen. A new venture called Mosaica specifically targets charter schools."We want to position ourselves as a choice in the community and raise the standards for everyone," says Dawn D. Eidelman, the company's president. "Charter schools seemed like the perfect way to do this. They're about results. That's our bottom line: student achievement. That's what will win us further business."

Business considerations aside, student achievement is at the root of everything that drives school choice. And no matter what forms alternative schools are taking, a collective message resonates: We're stepping out on our own. No more marching to the same old drummer.