KALAMAZOO — To critics of Michigan`s public education system, the core problems are clear: Disengaged parents, unions that care more about the adults than children and a culture of mediocrity enabled by schools` geographic monopoly.

The common lament is that if only we could have public schools that are free of union rules and that face competitive pressure to stay in business, who could serve families that really want to be there.

Here`s what`s interesting: We already have that, in the form of charter schools.

No unions? Check. Must attract families to stay in business? Check. Engaged parents? The very act of enrolling in a charter school, especially one that lacks transportation as many do, is an indicator of a family taking a active role in a child`s education.

Here`s what is also interesting: In recent years, study indicates that academic outcomes at charters aren`t that different from traditional public schools. To be sure, there are some outstanding charters in Michigan and across the country. But  the research suggests that charter-schools students, as a whole, perform about the same as regular public school kids or maybe even slightly worse.

So what`s up with that?

After all, even many supporters of public education readily acknowledge that union rules CAN hamper reform and disengaged families ARE a major factor in academic underachievement and there IS a culture of mediocrity in some districts.

In fact, charters have the additional advantage of being able to target a niche market and adopt a if-you-don`t-like-you-can-leave approach. That`s not a luxury available to regular public schools who are required to reach out and serve all families, no matter how dysfunctional or uncooperative.

Based on the conventional wisdom of the education reform movement, charter schools should be consistently outperforming their traditional counterparts.

So why aren`t they?

I recently posed that question to Dan Quisenberry, president of the Michigan Association of Public School Academies.

"It was never the intention to say that all charter schools were going to work," he said.

"The strength of charters is that they are new, small, independent and flexible," he said. "But the challenge is that they are new, small, independent and flexible."

Another perspective has been offered by Gary Miron, a Western Michigan University professor who has studied charter schools for more than a decade and is one of the foremost researchers in the nation on that topic.

Miron says there are "some real successes" in the charter school movement. But for the most part, charters have shown "lackluster performance." He attributes that to  “pursuit of profits,” high teacher turnover and a lack of money put into the instruction.  

This theory also is backed by Diane Ravitch, a education historian who was once an ardent proponent of charter schools but did a high-profile switcharoo a few years back. Despite some "notable exceptions," Ravitch says, the charter-school movement has become more focused on profits and market share than the needs of children.

My point here is not to put traditional public schools on a pedestal or to minimize the value of parent choice. One only needed to watch last year on Detroit Public Schools to make the case that families deserve options, particularly when the traditional public system is floundering.

But as Michigan expands its charter school system and the debate over education reform continues to build, the contrast between the original vision and the actual reality of the charter school movement should give us pause.

On one hand, it is clear the educational status quo needs a shakeup, as we face growing and glaring evidence about the need to do a better job of educating today`s young people.

On the other hand, there`s considerable evidence that at least some of the proposed solutions are less effective than many suppose.

While there`s value in allowing  families to pick the "right" school for their children, it turns out that the role of effective parenting as it regards academic achievement is much, much more complicated than that.

While teacher unions may put the needs of adults before children, it turns out that charter-school companies may do the same, and putting money into profits instead of the classroom may actually hurt children by making it harder to recruit and retain the best teachers.

While lack of competition may make traditional public schools complaisant, there`s little to no evidence that introducing competition improves academic quality.

The thing to remember here is that parental choice should be the means to end, not the end itself. The ultimate goal should be improving academic outcomes and raising the bar for everybody.

Are we really moving in that direction?

Julie Mack is a reporter for the Kalamazoo Gazette. Contact her at jmack1@mlive.com or 269-388-8578, or follow her on Twitter at Twitter.com/kzjuliemack For all posts by Julie Mack, click here.