"We have a law that allows us to establish charter schools here in this state. We ought to get going on it"
About this Quote
The line carries the impatience of a businessman turned governor confronting a policy that exists on paper but not in practice. Craig Benson, New Hampshire’s Republican governor in the early 2000s and a tech entrepreneur, made school choice and efficiency core themes. He points to a charter school law already on the books and challenges the state to move from permission to implementation, from debate to execution.
Across the country in the 1990s and early 2000s, states adopted charter statutes promising autonomy in return for accountability. The pitch was simple: let educators and communities establish public schools with more flexibility around curriculum, staffing, and schedules, and hold them to clear performance goals. Supporters believed this would spur innovation and competition, especially where traditional systems were slow to change. Yet laws often stalled as agencies hesitated to approve applications, funding formulas lagged behind, and local politics pitted districts, unions, and advocates against one another.
New Hampshire’s education landscape at the time was already charged by the Claremont court decisions, which forced the state to confront how it funds an adequate education. Benson’s call to get going on charters fit a broader push for alternatives and accountability without waiting for a perfect consensus. The tone suggests frustration with inertia: if the legal framework exists, government should remove bottlenecks, approve quality proposals, and let families have options.
There are real tensions beneath the urgency. Critics worry charters can siphon funds from district schools, widen inequities, or evade oversight; proponents counter that autonomy plus transparent results benefits students, especially those underserved by the status quo. Benson’s emphasis on action does not resolve these debates, but it reframes them around follow-through. A law is a promise to try, not a guarantee of success. The real test is whether the state can translate authorization into effective schools, measure outcomes honestly, and adjust course based on what helps children learn.
Across the country in the 1990s and early 2000s, states adopted charter statutes promising autonomy in return for accountability. The pitch was simple: let educators and communities establish public schools with more flexibility around curriculum, staffing, and schedules, and hold them to clear performance goals. Supporters believed this would spur innovation and competition, especially where traditional systems were slow to change. Yet laws often stalled as agencies hesitated to approve applications, funding formulas lagged behind, and local politics pitted districts, unions, and advocates against one another.
New Hampshire’s education landscape at the time was already charged by the Claremont court decisions, which forced the state to confront how it funds an adequate education. Benson’s call to get going on charters fit a broader push for alternatives and accountability without waiting for a perfect consensus. The tone suggests frustration with inertia: if the legal framework exists, government should remove bottlenecks, approve quality proposals, and let families have options.
There are real tensions beneath the urgency. Critics worry charters can siphon funds from district schools, widen inequities, or evade oversight; proponents counter that autonomy plus transparent results benefits students, especially those underserved by the status quo. Benson’s emphasis on action does not resolve these debates, but it reframes them around follow-through. A law is a promise to try, not a guarantee of success. The real test is whether the state can translate authorization into effective schools, measure outcomes honestly, and adjust course based on what helps children learn.
Quote Details
| Topic | Learning |
|---|
More Quotes by Craig
Add to List
