In the 13 years since the first charter school opened its doors in Minnesota, the impact of these innovative public schools on the education landscape has been dramatic. Some of the changes prompted by charter schools have been immediate and obvious, such as the remarkable gains in student achievement at inner-city schools like Bronx Prep, Amistad Academy in Connecticut, and the KIPP schools around the country. In other cases, trends are just beginning to emerge. For example, charter schools are showing the potential to make a significant and positive impact on one of the most troubled areas in public education – the composition and quality of the teaching workforce.

In a recent study on teacher quality published in Education Next, economists Caroline Hoxby and Andrew Leigh found that a compressed union-controlled pay scale, combined with the narrowing of the gender wage gap in other professions, has led to a marked decrease in the number of female graduates from top schools who are choosing to become teachers. The problem has been exacerbated by an increase in the number of teachers coming out of bottom-tier colleges.

The evidence is startling: Teaching is an increasingly attractive profession to those with lower aptitude; the smartest of our graduates, male and female, are heading into other fields.

In the current union-controlled environment, teachers follow the same pay scale regardless of merit, beginning and ending their careers with virtually the same salary as peers who may be worse – or better – at the actual job of increasing student performance. There is no individual freedom to negotiate a higher pay raise, no bargaining for extra staff development beyond what is union-enforced and approved, and no bonuses at the end of a school year for a job exceptionally well done.

Charter schools, however, are free from many of the choke-hold rules and regulations imposed on traditional districts, and in New York, most charter school staff need not be represented by a union. In these charter schools, amazing things have begun to happen for teachers, in large part because of market driven competition. Teachers working in non-union charter schools have earned yearend bonuses based on the principal’s determination. Teachers also have been able to individually bargain for a higher base salary, arrange for management to pay for higher-level schooling, or request professional training as part of their employment contract.

The individual contractual freedoms available to teachers in charter schools are bold with good reason. Most charter schools demand more of teachers than their traditional counterparts: longer school days and years, effective implementation of unique curricula, frequent communication with parents, and an insistence on the accountability of adults for the performance of students. The ability to set salaries and benefits outside of the rigid union contract has proven crucial to attracting and retaining talent at charter schools.

In addition, while tenure and locked-in pay raises force traditional public schools to provide guaranteed paychecks to teachers regardless of their performance, non-unionized charter schools can refuse to hire teachers who have failed to show that they can improve student learning and achievement. Charter schools are not forced to accept or retain teachers based solely on seniority, and can simply fire or not renew the contracts of incompetent teachers who under traditional circumstances would “own” their jobs through tenure.

Over the next few years, scrutiny of the quality of teaching at individual charter schools – and the student academic achievement associated with these teachers – will disclose whether teachers perform at a higher level when they are treated as true professionals rather than as civil servants. Such analysis also may show that skilled teachers flock to environments where professionalism is demanded, expertise is expected, and the potential exists for merit-based salaries, regardless of the number of years spent on the job. The evidence just might convince school boards to take a stronger stance when negotiating labor agreements, and may encourage competent teachers to reject union representation outright.

Given enough time for market effects to work, the smartest students from top schools may again consider teaching. But as long as the best and the brightest are faced with earning less than others who have simply put in time on the job, and are constrained from asking to be paid what they are worth, teaching won’t be a profession that savvy graduates choose, no matter how much they might be attracted by the intangibles.

Ms. Hoxby’s and Mr. Leigh’s study does not imply that all teachers today are of low aptitude or solely concerned with salary. The facts, however, indicate that less-qualified teachers are increasingly responsible for education, a trend that must be reversed. Public charter schools are leading the charge in the right direction. Now let’s see if the nation’s smartest graduates answer the call.

Ms. Rogers is a research associate with the New York Foundation for Education Reform and Accountability in Albany.