For the most part, urban parents are unhappy with their kids' schools. But there are exceptions, and those exceptions point the way towards real reform.

 Researchers at Opinion Dynamics surveyed six Massachusetts school systems, all in urban areas, to see what parents thought of education. Boston was one of the areas surveyed, as were Fall River, Worcester, Springfield, Lawrence and Lynn.

 The results were not a surprise. Only 37 percent of parents gave their children's school a grade of "A" and only 35 percent described their schools as "excellent."

 What was a surprise is that some schools — notably the state's charter schools — got much better results. Sixty percent of charter school parents gave "A"s and 67 percent called their children's charter schools "excellent."

 Indeed, when asked, if money were not an issue, whether they would enroll their children in the same school, 78 percent of charter school parents said yes versus only 50 percent of district school parents.

 What is it about charter schools that makes them so much better? One charge is that charter schools skim off the best students, and the disparate results are because the student populations are so different. But the same survey found that in fact charter school parents tend to be less well off and less well educated than district school parents.

 Is it some unique educational model? Again, the answer seems to be no. Charter schools vary wildly from each other in size, curriculum and academic approach.

 My suspicion is that what makes charter schools a success is their organizational model. They are stand-alone schools, free of the normal centralized controls that rule most district schools. Each school has its own mission and each works aggressively to involve all players — students, teachers, administrators, members of the surrounding community and, most critically, parents — in the educational process. In effect, charter schools succeed by creating a community of learners.

 There is no reason why this model of success has to be confined to charter schools. Indeed, Boston has experimented with it quite successfully in a number of its schools. Boston's eleven pilot schools, for example, are also freed to most centralized controls and seem to have levels of satisfaction much higher than regular Boston schools.

 There are a few other examples as well. The Gardner School in Allston, for example, has struck out on its own, developing its own after-school programs and working aggressively to secure parental involvement in the education of its students. Similarly successful has been the Quincy School in Chinatown. Led by an especially strong principal, the Quincy works because, although nominally under the system's centralized control, it is in reality operating independently. (Both schools, by the way, are considering applying for pilot school status.)

 The message here is simple. Ceding more authority to schools, allowing them to operate virtually independently, can create a system of public schools notable for its diversity and excellence.

 There are risks to this as well. Financial managers like central controls because they allow them to better control funds and reduce the risk of misspending. And independent schools, each with its own culture, are harder to manage.

 They are worthwhile risks however. The tragedy that is often urban education must be fixed. Charter and pilot schools are the model for that reform.