Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
DOCUMENT RESUME
ED 412 609 EA 028 665
AUTHOR Saks, Judith B.TITLE The Basics of Charter Schools: A School Board Primer.INSTITUTION National School Boards Association, Alexandria, VA. Council
of Urban Boards of Education.ISBN ISBN-0-88364-212-3PUB DATE 1997-00-00NOTE 54p.
PUB TYPE Books (010) Guides Non-Classroom (055)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Board of Education Policy; *Board of Education Role; *Boards
of Education; Case Studies; *Charter Schools; *EducationalAdministration; Educational Change; Elementary SecondaryEducation; Federal Legislation; Public Schools; *StateLegislation; Unions; Urban Schools
IDENTIFIERS *Reform Efforts
ABSTRACTThis report attempts to present a balanced discussion of
several key issues in the charter school movement. Its goal is to help schoolboard members, especially those in urban districts, assess the record ofcharter schools so far, and understand the complexity of the issues involved.The first chapter presents a brief legislative history of the movement andexplains why the movement has attracted bipartisan political support. Chapter2, "The National Landscape," describes variations in state law that arecrucial to understanding the charter school movement. "Research Results,"Chapter 3, finds that answers to the critical question of whether charterschools work are not readily forthcoming, both because the movement is youngand because of uncertainty about ways to measure achievement. Chapter 4offers "A Case Study of San Diego Charters" to show charter schools in theeighth largest urban school district in the United States. In Chapter 5, "TheImpact of Charter Schools in School Reform," it is noted that as yet there islittle hard evidence of systemic school reform as a result of the charterschool movement. Chapter 6, "Teacher Union Response to Charter Schools,"discusses changes in the unions' position from opposition to cautiousacceptance of charter schools. Chapter 7 examines "The Role of School Boardsin Existing Charter Laws" and discusses the importance of the exercise ofschool board authority over charter schools. Chapter 8 presents theperspectives of the National School Boards Association and its Council ofUrban Boards of Education. These organizations suggest that charter schoolsare promising reform efforts, but not a panacea for problems in publiceducation. (Contains 2 charts and 34 references.) (SLD)
********************************************************************************
Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.
********************************************************************************
C1
THE BASICS
OF
CHARTER
SCHOOLS:
ASCHOOL
BOARD
PRIMER
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDU ATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
ThiS document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it
O Minor changes have been made to improvereprodUction quality
Points of view or opinions stated in this doCu.ment do not necessarily represent otficralOERI position or policy
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
Adional /-Affiliate-NSBA.
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
A PUBLICATION OF THE COUNCIL OF URBAN BOARDS OF EDUCATION (CUBE)
A COMPONENT OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL AFFILIATE PROGRAM
2 BEST COPYAVAILABLE
National School Boards AssociationCouncil of Urban Boards of Education
STEERING COMMITTEE1997-98
Michael Preston, ChairSeattle, Washington
Jean Quan, Vice ChairOakland, California
Albert E. "Rick" Bender5t. Louis, Missouri
E.A. Ricky BoydDayton, Ohio
Yvonne Ewell
Dallas, Texas
John H. GilbertRaleigh, North Carolina
Mary Faust HammonsDetroit, Michigan
Florence JohnsonBuffalo, New York
Linda LopezTucson, Arizona
Ann MactierOmaha, Nebraska
Luis 0. ReyesNew York, New York
Sylvia WardSan Antonio, Texas
National School Boards Association
William B. Ingram, PresidentBarbara M. Wheeler, President-ElectAnne L. Bryant, Executive Director
Harold E Seamon, Deputy Executive DirectorDon E. Blom, Associate Executive Director
Katrina A. Kelley, Director, CUBE ProgramCarol Skinner, Manager, CUBE Program
Judy Tucker, Coordinator, CUBE Program
THE BASICS OF CHARTER
SCHOOLS:
A SCHOOL BOARD PRIMER
AN 11513A COUNCIL OF URBAN BOARDS OF EDUCATION PUBLICATION
AUTHOR: JUDITH B. SAKS
COPYRIGHT @ 1997 BY
NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ISBN #0-88364-212-3
INFORMATION REPORTED IN THIS PUBLICATION DOES NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT OFFICIAL VIEWPOINTS OF THE
NATIONAL SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION
4
THE BASICS OF CHARTER 5CHOOL5 1
et 1,
FOREWORDThe charter school movement, which U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley has called the
fastest growing public school choice movement of the 1990s, has taken root in 27 states and theDistrict of Columbia since its inception in 1991. From all indications, many more states will enact
charter laws in the near future. Charter schools defined as public schools, under contract from a public
agency, that are given considerable freedom from state and local laws and regulations in return for improv-
ing student performance are still experimental and controversial. Advocates say charter schools willnot only raise academic achievement in those schools, but will ultimately improve public school systems
by injecting competition and sharing successful programs and practices. Opponents say, however, that
charter schools may siphon off badly needed resources from public schools and may duplicate programs
that already exist. They are also concerned that charters may segregrate along racial, economic, or acade-
mic lines, making traditional public schools the last, or only, resource for those students who are more
challenging and more expensive to educate.
In most states with charter legislation, local school boards are empowered to sponsor, monitor, and
renew or revoke a charter. That authority gives schools boards a special responsibility to weigh the poten-tial risks of charter schools against potential benefits. A charter school is not simply a small business sub-ject to the vagaries of the marketplace and the business acumen of its operators; it is an institution thatholds an important key to a child s future. When a charter school fails, the students whose education isdisrupted pay an immediate price. The entire school district also bears a burden as it hurries to accommo-date those students. And citizens, whose taxes paid for the failed experiment, suffer a financial loss and,
perhaps, a loss of faith in the ability of the local school board to make sound educational decisions.
Charter schools can provide an opportunity to offer creative and flexible education options thatrespond to many parents and students needs, and they may be a legitimate component of a districts edu-cational strategy. We urge those local boards that approve charter schools to exercise their responsibilityto provide oversight. Local boards should carefully determine how well a proposed charter supports a dis-trict s overall educational goals, should review each charter to make certain it does notfoster segregation,should ensure that it delivers the educational performance it promises and adheres to generally acceptedmanagement and fiscal standards, and should retain options to decertify any school that fails to meet
mutually agreed upon criteria.
By providing a balanced discussion of a number of key issues, The Basics of Charter Schools: A School
Board Primer may help answer many of your questions about charter schools. We very much hope thisreport will offer guidance as you strive to provide the best possible education for all the students in your
district.
ca",e ceA.,Anne L. Bryant Michael Preston
Executive Director Chair
National School Boards Association Council of Urban Boards of Education
5
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 3
TABLE OF CONTENTSForeword 1
Executive Summary 5
Chapter One A Brief History of the Charter School Movement 7
Chapter Two The National Landscape 11
Chart A, Comparison of Major Policy Elements of Charter School Reform Legislation 19
Chart B, Enrollment by Race for Charter Schools, 1995-96,
and All Public Schools in the Ten Charter States, 1993-94 23
Chapter Three Research Results 25
Chapter Four A Case Study of San Diego Charters 29
Chapter Five The Impact of Charter Schools on School Reform 33
Chapter Six Teacher Union Response to Charter Schools 35
Chapter Seven The Role of School Boards in Existing Charter Law 39
Chapter Eight Conclusion 45
Selected Bibliography 47
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
6
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 5
EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThis report, The Basics of Charter Schools: A School Board Primer, attempts to present a balanceddiscussion of several key issues in the burgeoning but still controversial charter school movement.Its goal is to help school board members across the country, and particularly those in urban school
districts, assess the record of charter schools thus far and understand the complexity of the issuesinvolved.
The report begins with "A Brief History of the Charter School Movement," describing the ways inwhich the charter concept has broadened and changed since it was first discussed nearly a decade ago.After outlining several school reform efforts that acted as catalysts, for charter schools, Chapter One pre-sents a brief legislative history of the movement and explains why the movement has attracted bipartisanpolitical support at both national and state levels.
Chapter Two, "The National Landscape," describes the variations in state law that are crucial to under-standing the charter school movement. Certain states have passed stronger laws that allow charterschools to flourish, while other states have enacted more restrictive laws that have inhibited the growth ofcharter schools. This chapter also offers the latest demographic data, as of summer 1997, about existingcharter schools and the students they serve. These data indicate that most charter schools are small andthat, in most states, their racial composition and proportion of low-income students mirror state averages.
Chapter Three, "Research Results," finds that answers to the critically important question, "Do charterschools work?" are not readily forthcoming, not only because the movement is still young, but alsobecause states, school districts, and charter schools are often not certain how to measure student achieve-ment. The chapter discusses the ways in which the ideology and limited scope of some current researchmay affect results, and reviews some state-level measures of charter school performance as well.
Chapter Four offers "A Case Study of San Diego Charters." As the eighth largest urban school district inthe nation, and the second largest in California, the San Diego district has lessons to teach about the issuesand challenges other urban school boards may face.
Chapter Five, "The Impact of Charter Schools on School Reform," notes that, as yet, there is little hardevidence of systemic school reform as a result of the charter school movement. The chapter does offersome anecdotal evidence including commentary from state officials in Massachusetts and Coloradothat charter schools are beginning to have a "ripple" effect on public school systems.
Chapter Six, " Teacher Union Response to Charter Schools," discusses the changes in the unions' posi-tions from opposition to cautious acceptance of charter schools. The chapter examines findings from theAmerican Federation of Teachers' charter schools report and describes the National EducationAssociation's charter schools initiative.
Chapter Seven, which examines "The Role of School Boards in Existing Charter Law," describes theboard's authority to sponsor and monitor charter schools in states that have passed legislation. The chap-ter, which includes advice from the California School Boards Association, discusses the importance ofboards' exercising oversight over the charter schools they sponsor.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE 7oJ, winlv AVAILABLE
6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Finally, Chapter Eight's "Conclusion" offers the perspective of the National School Boards Association(NSBA) and its Council of Urban Boards of Education (CUBE) on the charter school movement. NSBAsuggests that school boards recognize that charter schools hold promise but are not a panacea for theproblems in public education. The conclusion includes a resolution, passed by NSBA's 1997 DelegateAssembly, that defines the conditions under which charter schools might be appropriately included in aschool board's educational program.
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 7
CHAPTER ONE
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE
CHARTER SCHOOL MOVEMENTThe charter school movement is, according toU.S. Education Secretary Richard W. Riley,the fastest growing public school choice
movement of the 1990s. Still controversial and verymuch at the experimental stage, this new form ofpublic schooling has so far taken root in 27 statesand the District of Columbia. Many more states areexpected to enact charter laws in the near future.
Charter schools, in essence, are public schoolsunder contract or charter from a publicagency to groups of parents, teachers, schooladministrators, non-profit agencies, or businessesthat want to create alternatives and provide choicewithin the public school system. The schools oper-ate largely free of legal and regulatory restrictions,but, in return for that freedom, must show resultsand improve student achievement or risk losingtheir charter. Charter schools receive publicmoney, cannot legally exclude students, and arepublicly accountable.
Generally, those who petition to open a newschool, or convert an existing public school tocharter status, must negotiate the charter with thelocal school district or a state body empowered toapprove the contract. The contract, typically grant-ed for a three-to-five year period, explains how theschool will be run, what courses will be offered,how success will be measured, and what outcomesstudents will achieve. The charter school receivesfunding at or near the per-pupil level other publicschools in the district receive. The contract'srenewal or termination is based on a school's abili-ty to show evidence that students have gained theknowledge and skills outlined in the charter.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
The charter school idea was conceptualizednearly a decade ago, although its focus has changeddramatically since that time. In a 1988 book,Education by Charter: Restructuring SchoolDistricts, Ray Budde, a retired teacher and experton school district reorganization, proposed that aschool board directly "charter" teams of teachers toestablish new, innovative programs within a districtfor a three-to-five year period. The late AlbertShanker, former president of the AmericanFederation of Teachers
took the concepta step further, expand-ing the idea from "pro-grams" to "schools" in aMarch 1988 speech inWashington, D.C. Laterthat year, Shanker usedhis weekly New YorkTimes column to reportthat delegates to the 1988 AFT national conventionhad proposed that local school boards and teacherunions jointly develop a procedure to enable teamsof teachers to establish autonomous public schoolswithin school buildings. Paying tribute to Budde'sidea, Shanker said these "schools within schools"would be called "charter schools."
The 1983 publication ofA Nation At Risk was acatalyst for a variety ofschool reform efforts
The idea might not have taken hold, however,had it not been for the dissatisfaction expressedover the quality of public education in generaland of urban schools in particular during the last15 years. The 1983 publication of A Nation atRisk, together with the publication of a dozen othermajor studies urging the reform of America'sschools, was a catalyst for a variety of school
9
8 CHAPTER ONE
reform efforts. Over the years, educators and poli-cymakers have tried a number of strategies toimprove schools, particularly for minority and dis-advantaged youth. Many of these efforts were"attempts to inject free market forces competi-tion, accountability, efficiency, responsiveness tocustomers into what many perceived as an over-regulated, over-centralized public educationmonopoly with a strong allegiance to the status quoand no institutional incentive to improve studentperformance," writes Mark Buechler in CharterSchools: Legislation and Results after Four Years.
By the beginning of this decade, Buechler says,several trends in education policy had laid thefoundation for the charter school movement. Theywere: the accountability movement, which was evi-denced by performance-based accreditation, schoolimprovement awards, and other attempts to judgeeducators by results; deregulation, which meanteliminating many of the regulations under whichschools operate; decentralization, or a movementtoward site-based management, local control, andteacher empowerment; restructuring, or attemptsto effect fundamental change in the purpose, orga-nization, and operation of the schools; and intradis-trict and interdistrict public school choice plansthat allow parents to select the public school theirchild should attend.
It was, however, the growing threat of privateschool vouchers the most extreme form ofchoice that propelled the charter movement tothe forefront. Even many of the most ardentchoice advocates resisted the idea of giving parentspublic money to send their children to private orparochial schools that were not obligated to acceptall students, could charge tuition above the vouch-er amount, were not responsible for documentingimproved student achievement, and were not pub-licly accountable.
Describing the struggle over charter legislationin California in the September 1996 Phi DeltaKappan, legislation sponsors Gary K. Hart and SueBurr recalled: "Something had to be done to
respond to the public's frustration with publicschools, and it seemed possible to us to craft a leg-islative proposal that did not sacrifice the attractivefeatures of the voucher movement namely,choice of schools, local control, and responsive-ness to clients while still preserving the basicprinciples of public education: that it be free, non-sectarian, and nondiscriminatory."
In one sense, charter schools can be seen as acompromise that adheres to the central ideals ofpublic education even while it embraces competi-tion and other free market tenets. Charter propo-nents say they believe charters strike exactly theright balance. While still being retained within theboundaries of the public school enterprise, charterschools, advocates say, increase choice, variety,and innovation in public schools; result in moreindividualized and specialized attention for morestudents; and free publicly funded schools fromstate and local education regulations. In addition,say advocates, charter schools are more account-able and focus on results, provide new andincreased opportunities for teachers, and increaseparental involvement. They also provide competi-tion for public schools that may spark improve-ments throughout entire systems.
Voucher opponents have expressed concernthat charter schools may siphon off badly neededresources from public schools and may duplicateexisting innovations. Opponents say charterschools may become elite and exclusionary seg-regating along racial and economic lines and linesof academic ability. Some worry that traditionalpublic schools will become the dumping ground forchildren, particularly those with special needs, whoare harder and more expensive to educate; othersworry, conversely, that charter schools will attractonly those students whom the system has given uptrying to educate. Some opponents are concernedthat liberating charters from conventional schoolregulations will also result in freeing them from thescrutiny necessary to deliver an effective educa-tion.
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 9
"Urban areas have become particularly fertileground for the development of charter schoolsbecause there is a great need to find ways toimprove education in the face of poor resourcesand overcrowding in the public schools," says theNovember 1996 Digest of the ERIC Clearinghouseon Urban Education. However, because mosturban students are either economically disadvan-taged or minority group members, there are con-cerns that charter schools may cream off the whiteor middle class students frequently defined as easi-est to teach, "leaving the remainder to founder inarguably inferior conventional public schools," thereport says.
As the public's growing frustration with thepace and scope of school improvement increased,many governors and state legislators from bothpolitical parties turned to charter schools as thereform of choice. Of the first eight states to launchcharter schools, four had Democratic governorsand four had Republican.
In 1991, Minnesota, which had a history of offer-ing open enrollment and other public school choiceprograms, became the first state in the nation topass charter legislation. That law was limited inscope, authorizing no more than eight schoolsstatewide and requiring the local school board toapprove each one. The original law, considered apolitical compromise, was later amended: It nowpermits 40 charter schools and allows the stateboard of education, upon appeal, to authorize acharter school after a local district has turned itdown.
In 1992, after an exceedingly difficult legislativebattle, California passed a stronger law thatallowed up to 100 charter schools in the state. Thecharter school movement grew slowly in 1993,when Colorado and Massachusetts passed stronglaws. Michigan's law, also passed in 1993, had arocky start when a Circuit Court judge ruled thatcharter schools (called "public school academies")did not qualify as public schools for funding pur-
poses. The Michigan Legislature rewrote the law in1994, although a pending lawsuit still seeks todeclare it invalid. By 1994, 11 states had enactedlegislation.
The charter school movement gained realmomentum in 1995 and 1996. Six more states(Alaska, Arkansas, Delaware, Louisiana, NewHampshire, Rhode Island, Texas, and Wyoming)passed charter school laws in 1995, and, in 1996,another six states (Connecticut, Florida, Illinois,New Jersey, North Carolina, and South Carolina)and the District of Columbia joined the movement.After seeing a spate of new laws enacted, the char-ter school movementappeared to slow downconsiderably in 1997,however. By summer1997, only two newstates Pennsylvaniaand Mississippi hadpassed charter legisla-tion.
At least 10 morestates, including NewYork and Oregon, areseriously consideringcharter legislation. Inother states, such as Iowa, however, charter schoolbills have not made it past the committee level, andthe charter school idea stills remains politicallycontroversial. In 1997, seven states, includingVirginia and Nevada, turned down charter legisla-tion.
Urban areas havebecome particularly fer-tile ground for thedevelopment of charterschools because there isa great need to findways to improve educa-tion in the face of poorresources and over-crowding in the publicschools.
Charter schools have received bipartisan sup-port at both national and state levels because manyRepublicans and Democrats see these schools as apromising strategy. The charter school movement"stirs up heated debate all along the political spec-trum, often making strange bedfellows of peoplewho are used to arguing against one another," saysCharter Schools at the Crossroads, a summary ofthe proceedings of the November 1996 Northwest
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
10 CHAPTER ONE
Symposium for Charter School Policy. The chartermovement, the report says, has the power toinspire and the potential to "unite warring factionsof the school-reform forces."
President Clinton has made charter schools aprominent part of his education strategy. A federalPublic Charter Schools program, passed into law aspart of the 1994 amendments to the Elementary andSecondary Education Act, helps support charterschools in states where they are legally allowed.The law authorized funds for charter school devel-opment and for a national study to assess theimpact of charters. In October 1996, U.S. Secretaryof Education Richard W. Riley announced theaward of $17 million in grants to 19 states, PuertoRico, and the District of Columbia to support thestart-up and development of hundreds of additionalcharter schools. These grants help pay for plan-ning, design, and other initial costs.
"As the fastest growing public school choicemovement of the 1990s, charter schools provide a
good way for communities to roll up their sleevesand move forward with charter in hand tostrengthen options within public schools andencourage effective innovation coupled with publicaccountability," Riley says.
The U.S. Congress increased federal funding forthe Charter Schools Program to $51 million in fiscal1997, and President Clinton has asked congression-al appropriations committees to double that fund-ing to $100 million for fiscal 1998. U.S. EducationDepartment officials predict that, in 10 years, some3,000 charter schools will be open in 40 states.However, a May 1997 Study of Charter Schools:First-Year Report, funded by the EducationDepartment, says that charter school expansionwill depend on a variety of state and local factors
including perceptions by policymakers and thepublic about the ultimate value of charter schools.
12
THE BASIC5 OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 11
CHAPTER TWO
THE NATIONAL LANDSCAPE
Because the charter movement is burgeoning,the national landscape is changing constant-ly. As of summer 1997, nearly 500 charter
schools were operating in 27 states and the Districtof Columbia. Specifically, 480 charter schools nowserve 105,127 students, according to theWashington, D.C.-based Center for EducationReform, which tracks charter school progress, and190 more have been approved to open in fall 1997.
The three states with the preponderance ofcharter schools are Arizona, with 164 charters thatserve 17,000 students; California, which has 109charters educating nearly 45,000 students; andMichigan, with 76 public school academies servingnearly 12,000 students. Among major cities, LosAngeles, with 16 schools, has the most charterschools in the nation, but Chicago has approved 10charter schools expected to open in fall 1997.
Charter school legislation varies widely amongthe states that have passed these laws, however. "Itreally is pointless to talk about 'states with charterlaws,' contends Ted Kolderie, one of the origina-tors of the charter school concept. In his August1996 A Guide to Charter Activity, Kolderie saysthat "with eight states having chartered 95 percentof the schools and another eight states having char-tered five percent of the schools, it remains essen-tial to distinguish between strong laws and weaklaws, live laws and dead laws." (Chart A on pages19-22 offers a summary of key provisions in statelaws in 25 states and the District of Columbia.)
Charter Schools: State Developments andFederal Policy Options, a May 1997 report to theU.S. Congress by the Congressional Research
BEST COPY AVAfLABLE
Service (CRS), notes that state laws generally fallinto two major categories: laws that provide moreautonomy or freedom from regulation by state andlocal education agencies and laws that provide lessautonomy. Not surprisingly, those laws that pro-vide more autonomy tend to foster the creation of agreater number of charter schools. With the excep-tion of Georgia, the eight states that had 10 or morecharter schools in fall 1996 have charter laws thatare said to offer more autonomy, the report says.
According to the CRS report, state charterschool laws provide more automony if they:
set either very high or no limits on thenumber of charters that may be granted;
set few or no limits on what sorts of indi-viduals or groups may apply for a charter;
allow charters to be granted not only forthe conversion of existing public schoolsbut also for totally new schools and/orexisting schools that previously were pri-vate;
authorize a wide variety of entitiessuch as state education boards, collegesand universities, and local schools boards
to grant charters;
treat individual charter schools as if theywere separate local education authoritiesand provide for the allocation of state,federal, and even certain local revenuesdirectly to the charter schools, bypassinglocal school boards;
provide financial and technical assistance
13
12
for acquiring school facilities, meetingother start-up costs, and meeting theadministrative responsibilities of partici-pating in federal and state aid programs;
specify that charter schools are entitled toreceive federal, state, and even local rev-enues that are no less than those allocat-ed to the regular school boards;
waive a wide variety of state regulations,particularly collective bargaining andother labor-management issues, andrelease the charter schools almost com-pletely from school board control or regu-lation;
do not require teachers or other staff tomeet certification requirements that applyto staff in regular public schools;
provide relatively long-term (five years ormore) charters; and
allow flexibility in the selection ofaccountability criteria to be used to deter-mine whether a charter should berenewed.
In contrast, says the report, state charter lawsare described as offering less autonomy if they:
set relatively low limits on the number ofcharters that may be granted in any oneyear or in the aggregate;
allow only limited types of individuals orgroups (such as certified teachers) toapply for charters;
allow only existing public schools (oftenwith the approval of school staff and/orparents) to convert to charter status;
authorize only the school board or a verysmall number of public entities to grantcharters;
treat charters as part of the "regular" local
CHAPTER Two
education authority for funding purposes;
provide little or no technical or financialassistance for acquiring buildings or meet-ing other start-up costs;
either do not specify the level of federal,state, or local funds charters are entitledto receive, or specify that charters willreceive less than regular public schools;
waive only a limited number of stateand/or local regulations, and excludelabor-management relations from thewaiver;
require teachers and staff to meet certifi-cation and other requirements;
limit charters to a relatively brief timeperiod (two to three years); and
allow little or no flexibility in the selectionof the accountability criteria by which thecharters will be judged.
At one end of the state spectrum is Arizona,whose charter law is judged by some to be themost liberal in the nation, says Chris Pipho in theMarch 1997 Phi Delta Kappan. It permits anunlimited number of charter schools to be estab-lished and lets virtually any person or organization,public or private, petition to start a charter school,he says. Charters are good for 15 years, privateschools can easily convert to charter status, andtwo state agencies, the Board of Education and theState Board for Charter Schools, a separate charter-granting body, may approve proposals, as can localschool boards. Charters may keep any propertybought with state funds, may hire family members,may pay any salaries they wish, and may keep anyfunds left at the end of the school year, Pipho says.
Pipho notes that Arizona's approach was thesubject of a front-page Wall Street Journal articlein late 1996, which described one charter school inPhoenix that filed for bankruptcy, an Indian reser-vation district that charged a charter school
t4
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 13
$175,000 for sponsorship, and stories of other char-ters that were misusing transportation money."The major point of the article and of quotes fromstate officials was that major loopholes in the origi-nal legislation needed to be closed," he recounts.
"This is the wild west," Kolderie says of Arizona,with "probably lots of good things but also bigpotential for trouble." He says a 1996 change mov-ing the term of the contract out to 15 years "prettywell removes the accountability to public authori-
At the other end of the spectrum is RhodeIsland, considered a state with a very weak lawthat provides little autonomy or flexibility to char-ter schools. "Little was expected from this law, andno expectations have been disappointed," saysKolderie. The 1995 law has generated no charterschools to date, and only three applications hadbeen received by the December 1, 1996, deadline,according to the Center for Education Reform.The AFT, however, endorses the Rhode Island law
which gives public school personnel the chanceto create new schools and enables existing publicschools to convert to charter status as themodel for the country. The legislation explicitlyrequires that the local school board and the localteachers bargaining unit share their views aboutthe charter with the state board of regents, whichmakes the ultimate decision to grant the charter,writes Joe Nathan in Charter Schools: CreatingHope and Opportunity for American Education.
Among states that have passed charter legisla-tion more recently, observers point to the 1996North Carolina law as an example of a strong char-ter bill, although, in 1997, lawmakers were consid-ering changes that would reduce the number ofcharter schools allowed within the same district.Currently, the bill permits 100 charter schoolsacross the state (with no more than five per dis-trict) and gives broad latitude in curriculum devel-opment.
The two charter laws passed in 1997 are con-
siderably different from each other. Observerscharacterize Mississippi's law, which allows sixexisting public schools to convert to charter status,as a weak statute whose impact is likely to beextremely limited. Pennsylvania's law, on the otherhand, appears stronger because it allows an unlim-ited number of charter schools. However, localschool boards are the only sponsoring agency, withno appeal to a state charter board permitted until1999.
Certain provisions of state laws may have a sig-nificant impact on school boards, on teachers, andon the regular public schools in a district. Theyare:
Funding: Funding is a critical issue forcharter schools and affects them in manyways, says the Boston-based Institute forResponsive Education, which analyzedcharter school legislation through 1995.Nearly every state, however, has a differ-ent, and often confusing, funding mecha-nism or formula. Some states, for exam-ple, specify that extra money will followspecial education students because itcosts more to educate those with specialneeds. Several states, such asMassachusetts, Michigan, and Hawaii,have established funding levels in theirlegislation. In Michigan, for example,every student who leaves a district toattend a charter school takes up to $5,800in state funds along. In the Lansing dis-trict alone, two charter schools opened infall 1996 already have more than 1,100students. Had those students gone topublic school, the district would havereceived $6.3 million in additional rev-enue.
In other states, funding levels are nego-tiable on a school-by-school basis, a situa-tion which has sometimes led to tensionsbetween school boards and charterschools. In Colorado, for example, where
14 CHAPTER Two
districts and charter schools must negoti-ate funding levels, the law says discus-sions must start at 80 percent of the dis-trict's per-pupil operating costs. In 1994,economics played an important, althoughcertainly not the only, role in the Denverschool board's decision to reject an appli-cation from the Thurgood Marshall char-ter school, which had initially asked toreceive 120 percent of per-pupil costs.The district, facing a $15 million shortfallat the time, was not willing to commitmore than the 80 percent funding requiredby law and was also concerned that thecharter school would incur hundreds ofthousands of dollars in other costs it hadno resources to cover. In the March 29,1995, issue of Westword, Denver schoolboard member Lynn Coleman, calling theColorado law an "unfunded mandate," isquoted as saying: "If the state thought thiswas such a dandy idea, then it shouldhave cut loose the money to go with it."
District revenues: Revenues that go tocharter schools reduce a district's overallavailable funds without allowing it to ben-efit from a reduction in overhead, saysJoan Buckley, the AFC's associate directorfor educational issues. Because the dis-trict generally does not know which stu-dents or teachers will choose a charterschool, it cannot close specific buildingsor lay off specific staff members.
In a December 1996 article in SchoolBusiness Affairs, however, Eric Premack,director of the Charter Schools Project ofthe Institute for Education Reform atCalifornia State University at Sacramento,says that the fiscal effect on a districtdepends on the nature of the district andits charters. "Districts in a decliningenrollment mode often find that revenuesdrop faster than expenditures due to fixedcosts," he says. "The bite can be particu-
larly severe if the district is left with a dis-proportionately higher level of senior andhigher paid teachers." The effect on thedistrict may be minimized, however, if thecharter has a high proportion of studentsfrom neighboring districts or privateschools and if the charter schools pur-chase support services from the district.Some districts also levy an oversight oroverhead charge on the charter school,Premack adds.
Teacher Issues: Many of the state lawsare unclear about collective bargaining,retirement benefits, and other issues thataffect both teachers and school boards.In 15 states and the District of Columbia,charter schools may act as their ownemployer, but in the remaining 10 states,teachers must be employees of the localdistrict, according to A Study of CharterSchools, which analyzed state charterlaws passed as of August 1996. In 13states, charter schools are subject to statecollective bargaining laws, but in six otherstates, the legislation does not addresscollective bargaining arrangements. Theremaining states and the District ofColumbia either exclude charter schoolsfrom collective bargaining arrangementsor allow schools to address collective bar-gaining as part of their charters, the feder-al report says.
On the issue of teacher retirement, somestates specify that teachers either mustparticipate in or are eligible for the retire-ment system, but they are often silent onthe issue of who pays for that participa-tion. If charter school teachers remainschool district employees, the district mayshare in the cost of retirement benefits,but if the charter school is the employer,that school may have to use its own fundsto contribute to the retirement system.However, even states which allow charter
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 15
school teachers to remain in the stateretirement system generally make no pro-vision for new teachers, notes Buckley.As one example of state law, Minnesotaallows teachers to continue to accrue dis-trict retirement credits while at a charterschool, but they must pay both employerand employee contributions. In Florida, acharter school may be either a public or aprivate employer. As a public employer,the charter school may choose to partici-pate in the state's retirement system; if itdoes, its employees become compulsorymembers of that system.
Some states (Colorado and Minnesota, forexample) provide protected leaves ofabsences so teachers can leave their pub-lic school posts and teach in charterschools, but other states such as Georgiaand New Mexico do not even mention aleave for their teachers. A few statesrequire charter school teachers to be cer-tified. Some states require demonstratedteacher support for the charter applica-tion or mandate that the charter school'sgoverning board include teachers, accord-ing to the Institute for ResponsiveEducation's analysis.
Admissions Policies: Some statesrequire schools to admit students by lot-tery; others require schools to give prefer-ence to those who live within geographicproximity to the school. In a few states,the law allows charter schools to limitadmission based on the subject area focusof the school. Some states mention theneed to maintain racial balance, says theInstitute for Responsive Education.
Autonomy: Autonomy is a critical issuein determining the rights and responsibili-ties of charter schools. The degree ofautonomy can influence the way charterschools and local districts interact. The
17
states with stronger legislation grantbroad autonomy by waiving state regula-tions, offering a number of sponsorshipoptions, and providing an appeals processwhen an application is denied. Somestates grant a "superwaiver" whichsweeps away volumes of red tape. Instates with weaker legislation, charterschools must legally remain part of aschool district and may be afforded nogreater autonomy than traditional publicschools. Often, however, the law doesnot make it clear exactly which rules arevoid and where potential liability lieswith the district or with the charterschool. In Charter Schools at theCrossroads, Doug Thomas of theUniversity of Minnesota's HumphreyInstitute of Public Affairs described theapproach in many districts as "don't ask,don't tell." With the exception of healthand safety standards, to which charterschools must adhere, no one reallydefines which standards are waived, hecontends.
Equity: The advent of charter schoolshas raised concerns about educationalequity. Many state laws do not addressthe issue of racial balance in charterschools, presumably expecting charterschools, because they are public schools,to abide by state and national laws in thatarea. However, some states say explicitlythat charter schools must not violate stateand federal nondiscrimination statutes.Some states (Michigan, for example) man-date that charter schools in school dis-tricts with court-ordered desegregationplans operate in accordance with thecourt order. Other states require charterschools to reflect the racial compositionof the area in which the school is located.
Lawmakers considering charter legisla-tion should pay attention to the impact of
16
charter schools on all populations of stu-dents, said educators and policymakers inCharter Schools at the Crossroads. Somewho attended the Northwest Symposiumfor Charter School Policy expressed con-cern that charter schools will becomeracially isolated and may affect a district'scourt-ordered or voluntary desegregationplan. Doug Thomas predicted that therewill be a "major desegregation case"around the choices made by charterschool operators and customers. JoyceHarris, director of the Northwest RegionalEducational Laboratory's Center forNational Origin, Race, and Sex Equity,added: "The desegregation centers arevery concerned about charter schools andtheir impact on desegregation. Charterschools open up a can of worms withrespect to equity. Let's face ityou'regoing to end up with charter schools thatare racially isolated." Others at the char-ter school symposium pondered the equi-ty implications of, for example, a newalternative school in Oregon that is opento everyone but has an American Indianemphasis.
Failure: Chester Finn, Bruno V. Manno,and Louann Bierlein, authors of CharterSchools in Action: What Have WeLearned? raise another concern: Whathappens when a charter school fails?While some schools may be expected tofail, the authors say the situation will bebad if some children are stranded mid-year or before graduation when theirschool closes, and even worse when fail-ure involves malfeasance, corruption,abuse, or immorality among charterschool staff or board members. "Yet wehave not found a single state with a well-formed plan for dealing with these contin-gencies," these authors write. "Nor, inmost cases, does a state even have a ser-
CHAPTER Two
viceable monitoring program for furnish-ing early warnings of schools in trouble,or a technical assistance capacity that cantry to avert disaster by helping a shakyschool solve its problems."
"By now it's clear that not all charter programsare created equal," contend Finn and co-authorsGregg Vanourek and Bruno V. Manno in the April30, 1997, Education Week. "Many states have enact-ed weak, Potemkin-style statues that display thefacade but not thereality of charter leg-islation, binding char- In the constantly chang-ter schools to most of ing leglislative land-the crippling con- scape, the main trendsstraints faced by con- seem to be: restrictingventional public the control of localschools." The authors school boards, helpingargue that some of with the initial start-upthese constraints are phase, and allowing"bureaucratic acci- greater fiscal freedomdents," while others"are there on purpose, "imposed by enemies of charter schools who,unable to strangle this infant reform in its crib,have done their utmost to keep it from growing bigand strong."
Despite the difficulty of passing expansive laws,however, almost half of the charter school stateshave managed to do so, notes Lori Mulholland inCharter Schools: The Reform and the Research.When substantial changes have been made to laws,they have usually expanded the law, regardless ofits initial strength, she says. For example,Minnesota's relatively expansive law was amendedto raise the number of possible schools from eightto 40, add an appeals process, and include collegesand universities as potential sponsors. Wisconsin'srestrictive law was amended to lift the cap on thenumber of charter schools; and Georgia's restric-tive law was amended so that school conversionscould occur with only a majority of teachers in sup-port rather than the two-thirds previously needed,she explains.
18
THE BA5IC5 OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
Moreover, from a legislative point of view, thelandscape is constantly changing, and new ideasare starting to appear in bills in some state legisla-tures, according to Pipho. He says the main trendsseem to be: restricting the control of local schoolboards, helping with the initial start-up phase, andallowing greater fiscal freedom. Extending originalcharters as they reach the end of their initial termwill become a bigger concern in the next few years,Pipho predicts. Reauthorization will bring to thesurface "controversies surrounding local boardsaccused of dragging their feet on initial charterapprovals, boards turning down charters only tohave the state board override the decision, andquestionable actions by some charter operatorsthat are being spotlighted by groups opposed tocharters," he contends.
Looking down the road, Pipho says the evolu-tion of charter schools will probably come in smallsteps, although some states will take those stepsvery quickly.
The results of these widely differing state lawshave been a set of schools very different from oneanother. Some maintain close ties with sponsoringorganizations; some serve special needs popula-tions; others cater to a more mainstream audience.They use a wide variety of instructional programsand models.
"Freed from rules and requirements about suchthings as length of day, class size, curriculum,teacher training, and how subjects must be taught,charter schools have tackled a range of innova-tions, limited only by creative imagination andmoney," writes Mary Hager in the spring 1997America's Agenda. "Some try to re-create thelearning environment of the one-room schoolhouseby grouping all ages together, sometimes in a singleroom. Some place special emphasis on scienceand technology, or the arts, while others are gearedto special populations, such as dropouts or minori-ty students."
In their survey of 34 charter schools in seven
17
states, which the authors believe are a "reasonablecross section of the charter school universe," Finn,Marano, and Bierlein say they found "distinctive butnot weird education programs." Most of the char-ter schools they saw were either variants of "pro-gressive" education, versions of traditional educa-tion, or interesting efforts to blend the two. "Wehaven't stumbled on any witchcraft schools or Klanschools," they write in Charter Schools in Action."Perhaps the most 'far out' versions we have spot-ted are a couple of 'virtual schools' that use mod-ern technology to bring instructional resources tostudents (including 'home schoolers') who are notphysically on their premises."
A Study of Charter Schools, the recent studyfunded by the U.S. Education Department, bases itsdescriptions of charter schools on telephone sur-veys of 225 charter schools, supplemented by sitevisits to 42 of those schools. The study, whichexamines charter schools in operation in 10 statesas of January 1996, finds:
Ik.
Most charter schools are small. About60 percent enroll fewer than 200 students,while only about 16 percent of other pub-lic schools have fewer than 200 students.Differences are most striking at the sec-ondary level, where almost 80 percent ofcharter schools enroll fewer than 200 stu-dents, compared with only 25 percent ofsecondary public schools.
Most charter schools are newly creat-ed. About 60 percent came aboutbecause of the opportunity created bycharter legislation, while the remainderwere pre-existing schools that convertedto charter status.
Charter schools often do not fit thetraditional elementary, middle, andhigh school pattern. Charter schoolsare much more likely to span grades K-12,or to combine elementary and middleschools, or middle and high schools. Only
OST COPY AVAILABLE
18
52 percent of charter schools fit the tradi-tional grade-level configuration, comparedwith 83 percent of all public schools inthe 10 charter states studied.
Charter schools have, in most states,a racial composition similar tostatewide averages or have a higherproportion of students of color.Massachusetts, Michigan, and Minnesotaenrolled a much higher percentage of stu-dents of color than the average of all pub-lic schools in each of these states.California and Colorado, however, have ahigher percentage of charter schools sew-ing predominantly white students com-pared to all public schools in those states,although the differences are not great andcould easily change as more charterschools open, the report says. Wisconsin,New Mexico, and Hawaii have too fewcharter schools to make reasonable com-parisons to their state totals. (See Chart Bon page 23 for state-by-state racial datacomparing 1995-1996 charter schoolenrollments with the most recent compa-rable national data, from the 1993-1994school year.)
Among the states studied, at least one in fivecharter schools serves predominantly minority stu-dents; one in three serves a diverse group of whiteand minority students; and somewhat less than onein two serves predominantly white students.Preliminary research, the report says, did not findevidence that charter schools engage in discrimina-tory admissions practices or "cream" desirable stu-dents from the population.
Charter schools serve, on average, alower proportion of students with dis-
CHAPTER Two
abilities, except in Minnesota andWisconsin. Based on self-reports fromthe charter schools, the study notes that7.4 percent of students enrolled in charterschools had received special educationservices before being enrolled, as com-pared with 10.4 percent of all studentsnationally who received such services.Telephone surveys revealed that 15 char-ter schools enroll more than 25 percentspecial education students, and two ofthose enroll 100 percent of students withdisabilities, the report says. "Charterschools not specifically created to servestudents with disabilities are sometimesreluctant to classify students as 'specialeducation' because they believe everychild should have an individualized learn-ing program," the study notes. Therefore,determining which students are eligiblefor special education assistance or whatservices they should or do receive is diffi-cult, the report adds.
Charter schools serve, on average, alower proportion of limited-English-proficient (LEP) students, except inMinnesota and Massachusetts. Twenty-one charter schools, however, serve stu-dent populations composed of more than25 percent LEP students.
Charter schools enroll roughly thesame proportion of low-income stu-dents, on average, as other publicschools. About one-third were eligiblefor the National School Lunch Program,about the same proportion as in all publicschools.
20
CH
AR
T A
- C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OF
MA
JOR
PO
LIC
Y E
LEM
EN
TS
OF
CH
AR
TE
R S
CH
OO
L R
EF
OR
M L
EG
ISLA
TIO
N
(25
ST
AT
ES
PLU
S D
IST
RIC
T O
F C
OLU
MB
IA, A
S O
F A
UG
US
T 1
996)
Stat
e/ye
ar la
wpa
ssed
Cha
rter
appr
ovin
gag
enci
es a
ndsp
onso
rs
App
eal o
fch
arte
r de
nial
Cap
on
num
ber
ofch
arte
rsal
low
ed in
stat
e an
d by
dist
rict
Aut
omat
icw
aive
r of
mos
tst
ate
educ
atio
n la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
em
ploy
and/
or b
arga
inw
ith s
taff
inde
pend
ently
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
be
inde
pend
ent
lega
l ent
ity
Bas
icop
erat
iona
lfu
ndin
gge
nera
llyco
mpa
rabl
ew
ith o
ther
scho
ols
Scho
olop
erat
esun
der
limite
d-te
rm,
perf
orm
ance
-ba
sed
cont
ract
Ala
ska
1995
Loc
al b
oard
sN
o30
sta
te1-
10 d
istr
ict
No,
may
app
lyfo
r w
aive
r of
loca
l pol
icie
son
ly
No
No
No
Yes
Ari
zona
1994
Loc
al b
oard
,st
ate
boar
d, a
ndst
ate
boar
d fo
rC
hart
er S
choo
ls
No,
but
may
appl
y to
mul
tiple
gran
tors
No
caps
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
, but
long
15-y
ear
char
ter
term
Ark
ansa
s19
95St
ate
boar
d(w
ith lo
cal b
oard
and
barg
aini
ngun
it ap
prov
al)
No
No
caps
No,
may
app
lyfo
r w
aive
rsN
oN
oY
esY
es
Cal
ifor
nia
1992
Loc
al b
oard
sY
es, c
ount
ypa
nel
100
stat
e, 1
0di
stri
ct (
21 in
Los
Ang
eles
)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
, neg
otia
ble
Yes
Col
orad
o19
93L
ocal
boa
rds
Yes
, sta
te b
oard
may
ord
er lo
cal
boar
d to
gra
ntch
arte
r
60 s
tate
(cap
exp
ires
in19
97)
No,
may
app
lyfo
r w
aive
rsY
esY
esN
egot
iabl
eY
es
Con
nect
icut
1996
stat
e bo
ard/
loca
lbo
ard
for
conv
ersi
ons.
Non
e sp
ecif
ied
2 sc
hool
dis
tric
t;4
cong
ress
iona
ldi
stri
ct
24 s
tate
(ca
pex
pire
s in
199
9)N
o, m
ay a
pply
for
wai
vers
Yes
Yes
Yes
for
new
star
ts;
conv
ersi
ons
nego
tiate
Yes
Del
awar
e19
95L
ocal
boa
rds;
stat
e bo
ard
also
for
new
sta
rt-u
ps
No
5/ye
ar s
tate
it Y
esY
esY
esY
es
..
Yes
*Sou
rce:
A S
tudy
of
Cha
rter
Sch
ools
, Fir
st-Y
ear
Rep
ort
2122
Cp
CH
AR
T A
- C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OF
MA
JOR
PO
LIC
Y E
LEM
EN
TS
OF
CH
AR
TE
RS
CH
OO
L R
EF
OR
M L
EG
ISLA
TIO
N
(25
ST
AT
ES
PLU
S D
IST
RIC
T O
F C
OLU
MB
IA, A
S O
FA
UG
US
T 1
996)
CO
NT
INU
ED
Stat
e/ye
ar la
wpa
ssed
Cha
rter
appr
ovin
gag
enci
es a
ndsp
onso
rs
App
eal o
fch
arte
r de
nial
Cap
on
num
ber
ofch
arte
rsal
low
ed in
stat
e an
d by
dist
rict
Aut
omat
icw
aive
r of
mos
tst
ate
educ
atio
n la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
em
ploy
and/
or b
arga
inw
ith s
taff
inde
pend
ently
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
be
inde
pend
ent
lega
l ent
ity
Bas
icop
erat
iona
lfu
ndin
gge
nera
llyco
mpa
rabl
ew
ith o
ther
scho
ols
Scho
olop
erat
esun
der
limite
d-te
rm,
perf
orm
ance
-ba
sed
cont
ract
Was
hing
ton,
D.C
.19
96D
C b
oard
, new
char
ter
scho
olbo
ard,
oth
eren
titie
s as
desi
gnat
ed b
yD
C C
ounc
il
Subj
ect t
oju
dici
al r
evie
w10
dis
tric
twid
e in
1996
, 20
per
year
ther
eaft
er
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
, but
long
15-y
ear
term
Flor
ida
1996
Loc
al b
oard
san
d st
ate
univ
ersi
ties
inso
me
case
s
Yes
, sta
te b
oard
and
judi
cial
revi
ew
No
stat
e ca
pY
esY
esY
esY
esY
es
Geo
rgia
1993
Stat
e bo
ard
(with
loca
l boa
rdan
d un
ion
appr
oval
)
No
No
caps
Yes
May
be
nego
tiate
d;ot
herw
ise
no
No
Yes
Yes
Haw
aii
1994
Stat
e bo
ard
No
25 s
tate
Yes
Not
spe
cifi
edN
ot s
peci
fied
Yes
Yes
, but
non
-re
new
al r
equi
res
two-
thir
ds v
ote
Illin
ois
1996
Loc
al b
oard
sL
imite
d ap
peal
spr
oces
s45
sta
te15
eac
h in
3 re
gion
s
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Kan
sas
1994
Loc
al b
oard
sN
o15
sta
te2
dist
rict
No,
may
app
lyfo
r w
aive
rsN
oN
oN
ot s
peci
fied
Yes
Lou
isia
na19
95L
ocal
boa
rds
(sta
te b
oard
for
dist
rict
-ini
tiate
dpr
opos
als)
No
No
stat
e ca
pV
aria
ble
loca
lca
ps
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
2324
N
CH
AR
T A
- C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OF
MA
JOR
PO
LIC
Y E
LEM
EN
TS
OF
CH
AR
TE
R S
CH
OO
L R
EF
OR
M L
EG
ISLA
TIO
N
(25
ST
AT
ES
PLU
S D
IST
RIC
T O
F C
OLU
MB
IA, A
S O
F A
UG
US
T 1
996)
CO
NT
INU
ED
Stat
e/ye
ar la
wpa
ssed
Cha
rter
appr
ovin
gag
enci
es a
ndsp
onso
rs
App
eal o
fch
arte
r de
nial
Cap
on
num
ber
ofch
arte
rsal
low
ed in
stat
e an
d by
dist
rict
Aut
omat
icw
aive
r of
mos
tst
ate
educ
atio
n la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
em
ploy
and/
or b
arga
inw
ith s
taff
inde
pend
ently
Cha
rter
ech
o 1
may
be
inde
pend
ent
lega
l ent
ity
Bas
icop
erat
iona
lfu
ndin
gge
nera
llyco
mpa
rabl
ew
ith o
ther
scho
ols
Scho
olop
erat
esun
der
limite
d-te
rm,
perf
orm
ance
-ba
sed
cont
ract
Mas
sach
uset
ts19
93St
ate
boar
dN
o25
sta
te2/
city
exc
ept 5
in2
maj
or u
rban
area
s
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
May
be
less
depe
ndin
g up
onlo
cal c
ondi
tions
Yes
Mic
higa
n19
93L
ocal
boa
rds,
univ
ersi
ties,
com
mun
ityco
llege
s
May
pet
ition
toha
ve is
sue
plac
ed o
n ba
llot
for
next
ele
ctio
n
No
abso
lute
cap
;on
ly 8
5 (r
ises
to15
0 by
199
9) to
be is
sued
by
univ
ersi
ties
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
, but
cap
ped
at s
tate
wid
eav
erag
e
Yes
Min
neso
ta19
91L
ocal
boa
rds,
stat
e bo
ard
(on
appe
al),
colle
ges
&un
iver
sitie
s
Yes
, sta
tebo
ard
(if
two
vote
s on
loca
l boa
rd)
40 s
tate
Yes
Yes
Yes
May
be
less
inso
me
case
sY
es
New
Ham
pshi
re19
95L
ocal
boa
rds,
stat
e bo
ard
onap
peal
(with
pre
-co
nditi
ons)
Yes
, sta
te b
oard
10/y
ear
until
2000
whe
n ca
pex
pire
s2/
year
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
, for
conv
ersi
ons;
new
sta
rts
rece
ive
am
inim
um o
f 80
%at
the
disc
retio
nof
the
Dep
t. of
Ed.
Yes
New
Jer
sey
1996
Stat
eco
mm
issi
oner
No
135
stat
e (c
apex
pire
s 19
98)
No,
reg
ulat
ions
only
may
be
wai
ved
upon
requ
est
Yes
, for
"ne
wst
arts
"N
o fo
r"c
onve
rsio
ns"
Yes
No,
90%
to 1
00%
nego
tiate
dY
es
New
Mex
ico
1993
Stat
e bo
ard
No
5 st
ate
No,
may
req
uest
wai
vers
fro
mst
ate
boar
d
Not
spe
cifi
edN
ot s
peci
fied
No
Not
spe
cifi
ed
2526
N
CH
AR
T A
- C
OM
PA
RIS
ON
OF
MA
JOR
PO
LIC
Y E
LEM
EN
TS
OF
CH
AR
TE
R S
CH
OO
L R
EF
OR
MLE
GIS
LAT
ION
(25
ST
AT
ES
PLU
S D
IST
RIC
T O
F C
OLU
MB
IA, A
S O
FA
UG
US
T 1
996)
CO
NT
INU
ED
Stat
e/ye
ar la
wpa
ssed
Cha
rter
appr
ovin
gag
enci
es a
ndsp
onso
rs
App
eal o
fch
arte
r de
nial
Cap
on
num
ber
ofch
arte
rsal
low
ed in
stat
e an
d by
dist
rict
Aut
omat
icw
aive
r of
mos
tst
ate
educ
atio
n la
ws
and
regu
latio
ns
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
em
ploy
and/
or b
arga
inw
ith s
taff
inde
pend
ently
Cha
rter
sch
ool
may
be
inde
pend
ent
lega
l ent
ity
Bas
icop
erat
iona
lfu
ndin
gge
nera
llyco
mpa
rabl
ew
ith o
ther
scho
ols
Scho
olop
erat
esun
der
limite
d-te
rm,
perf
orm
ance
-ba
sed
cont
ract
Nor
th C
arol
ina
1996
Loc
al b
oard
s,st
ate
univ
ersi
tytr
uste
es, s
tate
boar
d
Yes
, sta
te b
oard
100
stat
e5
per
year
, per
dist
rict
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Rho
de I
slan
d19
95St
ate
boar
d of
rege
nts
(with
appr
oval
of
Com
mis
sion
eran
d/or
loca
lbo
ards
No
20 s
tate
No,
may
app
lyfo
r w
aive
rsN
oN
oY
esY
es
Sout
h C
arol
ina
1996
Loc
al b
oard
sY
es, b
ut s
tate
boar
d m
ay n
otac
tual
ly g
rant
char
ter
No
caps
Yes
Yes
, for
"ne
wst
arts
"N
o fo
r"c
onve
rsio
ns"
Yes
Yes
Yes
Tex
as (
Cam
pus)
1996
Loc
al b
oard
sN
oN
o ca
psY
esN
ot s
peci
fied
Pres
umab
ly y
esN
ot s
peci
fied
pres
umab
lyne
gotia
ted
No,
no
term
spec
ifie
d
Tex
as (
Ope
nE
nrol
lmen
t)19
96
Stat
e bo
ard
No
20 s
tate
Yes
Yes
Pres
umab
ly y
esY
esN
o, n
o te
rmsp
ecif
ied
Wis
cons
in19
93L
ocal
boa
rds
only
exc
ept
Dep
t. of
Pub
licIn
stru
ctio
n m
aygr
ant t
oM
ilwau
kee
No,
exc
ept D
PIm
ay g
rant
inM
ilwau
kee
No
caps
Yes
No,
exc
ept
Milw
auke
eN
o, e
xcep
tM
ilwau
kee
Neg
otia
ble
Neg
otia
ble
Wyo
min
g19
95L
ocal
boa
rds
No
No
caps
Not
spe
cifi
edN
ot s
peci
fied
Not
spe
cifi
edY
esY
es
I 11
278
N
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHART 5 - ENROLLMENT BY RACE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS, 1995-96, AND ALL PUBLIC SCHOOLS IN
THE TEN CHARTER STATES, 1993-94
23
State
Percentage of enrollment in charter schoolsand in all public schools in the state
White Black HispanicAsian orPacific
Islander
AmericanIndian orAlaskanNative
Number ofStudents
Californiacharter 47.5% 12.0% 31.6% 7.9% 1.0% 34,015state 42.2% 8.7% 37.0% 11.2% 1.8% 5,268,501
Arizonacharter 53.5% 10.8% 20.2% 0.7% 14.8% 6,744state 59.7% 4.2% 27.6% 1.6% 6.9% 710,827
Michigancharter 47.3% 43.9% 2.7% 1.4% 4.7% 4,639state 78.1% 17.1% 2.4% 1.4% 1.0% 1,523,793
Coloradocharter 82.1% 4.0% 11.1% 1.6% 1.2% 3,860state 74.1% 5.4% 17.1% 2.4% 1.0% 625,062
Minnesota charter 56.9% 22.5% 1.5% 10.2% 8.9% 1,588state 88.7% 4.2% 1.7% 3.5% 1.9% 810,266
Massachusettscharter 51.4% 12.3% 25.3% 6.1% 4.9% 1,822
state 79.2% 8.1% 8.8% 3.7% 0.2% 878,798
Wisconsincharter 81.1% 12.8% 4.1% 0.9% 1.1% 563state 84.3% 9.1% 2.9% 2.4% 1.3% 843,741
New Mexicocharter 41.3% 6.4% 40.3% 4.8% 7.2% 3,826state 40.6% 2.3% 46.0% 0.9% 10.2% 321,100
Georgiacharter 80.9% 15.5% 1.3% 2.2% 0.1% 1,892state 59.8% 37.1% 1.5% 1.4% 0.2% 1,234,984
Hawaiicharter 34.1% 3.7% 2.5% 58.4% 1.3% 671state 23.7% 2.6% 5.0% 68.4% 0.3% 180,430
*Source: A Study of Charter Schools, First-Year Report
29
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
r
CHAPTER. THREE:
RESEARCH RESULTS
Do charter schools work? Do they raise theacademic achievement levels of their stu-dents? Those are the essential issues with
which education and policymakers are concerned.As the charter school movement matures andgrows, solid evidence of student achievement willbe a paramount issue.
To date, however, much of the evidence of char-ter schools' effectiveness has been scattered andanecdotal rather than comprehensive and scientific.On the national level, a 1995 study done by the U.S.General Accounting Office (GAO) found greatdiversity in the methods used to assess studentsand the specificity of outcomes described in char-ters. Lori Mulholland, who surveyed much of theexisting research, says the GAO report questionedwhether adequate baseline data were being collect-ed to evaluate changes in student performance andwhether data would be reported in such a way thatthe progress of different demographic groups couldbe tracked.
In Charter Schools in Action, authors Finn,Bruno, and Bierlein say they have not seen a singlestate with a thoughtful and well-formed plan forevaluating its charter school program. States andindividual charter schools ought to be better pre-pared to agree on the evidence and criteria andmake such judgments accordingly, they write.
This research picture is likely to change andimprove over the next few years, however, as theresults of a comprehensive study of charterschools, funded by the U.S. Department ofEducation and conducted by RPP International, aBerkeley, California-based policy research center,
25
are published over a four-year period. While thefirst-year report, discussed in this publication, pre-sents only descriptive information about charterschools for school year 1995-1996, later reports willcontain results of achievement tests of a matchedsample of charter and regular public schools.
Additionally, the U.S. Department of Educationwill spend more than $2 million to fund fourresearch projects on special issues in charterschools (equity, account-ability, fiscal manage-ment, and special educa- At present, little or notion) and to fund three systematic evidence isdemonstration pro- available to help deter-grams. Of particular mine whether charterinterest to school board school students aremembers will be a learning more, or less,demonstration program than their regular pub-to foster the cross-fertil- lic school counterparts.ization of ideas andpractices among charterschools and other public schools. Department ofEducation officials said they expected to selectresearchers for these projects by August 1997; first-year reports should be published within a year.
El
At present, little or no systematic evidence isavailable to help determine whether charter schoolstudents are learning more, or less, than their regu-lar public school counterparts, according toCharter Schools: Legislation and Results afterFour Years. Author Buechler says the lack of evi-dence may not be a function solely of the youth ofthe charter movement. "Studies of charter schoolsin Minnesota and California suggest that, despitemandates in the legislation, many approved charter
30
26
schools have not developed rigorous performanceexpectations for students, nor have they specifiedprecisely the methods by which performances areto be measured," he writes.
He adds that charter schools have the sameproblem that has plagued other efforts to evaluatethe effect of school reform on student achieve-ment: finding assessment instruments that enablefair comparisons across schools and measure whatis important for students to know. "Traditionalmultiple choice tests make comparisons easy, butthey probably do not provide an authentic measureof students' abilities to learn across disciplines,think creatively and critically, write well, solveproblems, or apply what they have learned thekinds of abilities many charter schools aredesigned to foster," he says.
One example of the difficulty of assessmentcan be seen in the Community Involved CharterSchool in Jefferson County, Colorado. In the springof 1996, it posted standardized test scores thatwere among the lowest in the school district,according to a March 4, 1997, article in The DenverPost. An independent evaluator gave the schoollow marks even when judged against its own goalsand said not enough students graduate. The evalu-ator also said, however, that tests used by the dis-trict are "incompatible" with the school's program,which encourages students to set their own learn-ing goals and design major projects in six generalareas, rather than take a certain number of coursesto graduate.
While the availability of results is a problem, aneven more pressing problem may be the politicizednature of much available charter school research.Frequently, the advocates, or opponents, are theones conducting the research. "Until recently, manyindependent researchers at colleges and universi-ties and the major research organizations shiedaway from the politically charged subject, whichhas often been linked with vouchers and privatiza-tion," writes Linda Jacobson in the November 6,1996, Education Week. "The field was left primari-
CHAPTER THREE
ly to supporters or critics of the charter move-ment."
Jacobson notes that some observers havealready raised concerns about the U.S. Departmentof Education study because some researchers onthe project are strong advocates of charter schools.Her article states that the president of RPPInternational said he had worked hard to design aneutral study strong enough to withstand the biasesof a few members of the research team.
Gary K. Hart and Sue Burr, sponsors ofCalifornia's charter legislation, concur that "theimpact of charter schools should be carefully andobjectively evaluated." Writing in the September1996 Phi Delta Kappan, they say: "We emphasizeobjectively because we have noted a predilectionamong researchers to approach such scholarshipwith a noticeable bias. Some hostile universityresearchers believe that charter schools are inher-ently unfair or are just a subtle attempt to under-mine public education. On the other end of thespectrum, conservative think tanks, looking to vali-date any kind of free market venture, bring a posi-tive bias to any research on charter schools."
They suggest that teachers and charter schoolsshould be evaluated against the expected outcomesarticulated in state law. In California's case, thoseoutcomes are: Do they improve student learning?Do they increase learning outcomes for all stu-dents, especially those identified as low achievers?Are they cost effective? Do they encourage the useof innovative teaching methods? Do they createnew professional opportunities for teachers? Dothey provide parents and students with expandedchoices within the public school system? "Onlyafter these questions are carefully and objectivelyanswered will we have an accurate assessment ofcharter schools' promise for the future of publiceducation," they contend.
Another problem is the limited scope of theresearch. In Charter Schools: The Reform and theResearch, Mulholland notes that much of the
31
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
research to date has focused on charter schools ina particular school or district, city or state. Sincethe character of charter schools varies widely, anexamination of charter schools in a particular areamay not have broader implications."Unfortunately, when researchers are not aware ofthe diversity, conclusions may not be presented intheir appropriate context," she says.
Further, charter schools have a natural self-selection bias, Mulholland notes. The fact thateveryone has chosen to be there has special bear-ing on research outcomes and may make compar-isons between students in charter schools and stu-dents in regular schools problematic, she explains.She adds that methodology problems or ideologymay skew results and suggests that reviewers ofresearch examine research methods carefully andask for additional information where necessary.
But while the jury is still out on the effective-ness of charter schools, and no single study has yetattempted to review all the charters, some state-level evaluations offer evidence of both successesand concerns.
At the request of the Minnesota state board ofeducation, the Center for Applied Research andEducational Improvement evaluated Minnesota's 16operational charter schools. The study, released inFebruary 1997, reported a number of positive fmd-ings:
Compared with other public schools inthe area, the typical Minnesota charterschool has significantly greater racialdiversity, more students with disabilities,more students who are limited Englishspeakers, and more students who are eli-gible for free and reduced-price lunch.
Parents report being more involved withcharter schools than they were with theirformer schools; a greater percentage par-ticipate in decisions regarding curriculum,policy development, and budgeting.
27
A full 90 percent of parents give the char-ter school their child attends an A or B,while only three percent give the school aD or F.
More than 25 percent of the students atcharter schools report that they do morehomework and spend more time doingrecreational reading than at their previousschools.
While the student population at charterschools includes a higher percentage ofstudents "at risk," their attendance levelswere the same as at other public schoolsand suspensions were lower than report-ed by other schools.
The study also noted a number of concerns:
Different school districts seem to inter-pret the requirements for oversight andaccountability differently. Only nine ofthe 16 operating schools completed anannual report of student achievement lastyear.
Students at charter schools had a greaterinvolvement in crime than those at otherpublic schools and spent less time inextracurricular activities.
In Massachusetts, the Pioneer Institute forPublic Policy conducted a survey of 15 charterschools, serving 2,565 students, at the end of 1995-1996. "The data we have compiled tell a story ofremarkable success, especially considering thatthese new schools have had to struggle through theobstacles and growing pains that afflict all start-upoperations," the report says. The survey is basedon reports filed with the state, a questionnaire cir-culated to charter school managers, and mail sur-veys of charter school parents and students. Thereport, based on 874 completed surveys, pointed tothe following areas of success:
About 80 percent of respondents to theInstitute's parent/student survey report
32
28
that their charter school experience wassuperior to that in their previous schools.
Seventy-five percent of parents report thattheir child's interest in learning hasincreased since entering a charter school,and 70 percent of students confirm thattheir interest has grown.
Ninety-five percent of currently enrolledcharter students plan to return to theirnew schools next fall.
The report also notes that, on average, eight per-cent of the students enrolled in charter schools leftbefore the end of the school year. "Student depar-tures ranged from a low of one percent to a high of37 percent," the report says, adding that two of theschools with the highest withdrawal rates arespecifically targeted to high-school drop-outs, sotheir high withdrawal rates were not unexpected.
A study from the Hudson Institute, although itdoes not contain concrete data on academicachievement in charter schools, reveals thatcharter school students, teachers, and parents arewell satisfied with the education offered. They areless satisfied, however, with food service, sports,the school building, transportation, and other non-academic issues.
The Hudson Institute study, Charter Schools inAction, is based on surveys and interviews gar-nered from 50 charter schools enrolling some16,000 students in 10 states. Nearly 3,000 parentsand 5,000 charter school students in grades five andabove completed survey forms.
More than two-thirds of parents say class size,school size, and individual attention by teachers are"better" at the charter school than at the school
CHAPTER THREE
their child would otherwise attend, according toCharter Schools As Seen by Those Who KnowThem Best: Students, Teachers, and Parents, oneof several Hudson Institute charter school reports.More than three-fifths of parents say teaching quali-ty, parental involvement, curriculum, academicstandards, extra help for students, and disciplinealso are "better" at the charter school. The chil-dren agree: Nearly 61 percent of students say theircharter school teachers are "better" than those attheir previous schools, and half (49.9 percent) ofstudents say they have "more" interest in schoolwork.
The study notes that, across the board, bothchildren and parents report that students are faringbetter academically at their charter schools than attheir former schools. Among children performing"poorly" at their previous school, nearly half arenow doing "excellent" or "above average" work,their parents say, while 16 percent are still perform-ing below average. After enrolling in charterschools, the number of students doing "excellent"or "good" work rose 23.4 percent for African-Americans and 21.8 percent for Hispanics, thereport notes; low-income students of all races madesimilar gains.
"Of course, it's one thing for charter school stu-dents to feel they are getting a good education andanother to demonstrate it (on a statewide assess-ment, for example)," the report says, adding thattest scores, now being collected in various parts ofthe country, will be an important part of the story"Meanwhile, another chapter of the story is beingwritten by families and teachers who are choosingthese independent public schools, reporting muchlearning within their walls, and sticking with them,"the report concludes.
33
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOL5 29
CHAPTER. F
A CASE STUDY OF
SAN DIEGO CHARTERSTo a great degree, the experiences of the SanDiego (California) City Schools with chartershighlight many of the complex issues that
other urban districts may face when they approvecharter schools.
San Diego has six charter schools, serving atotal of 4,500 students,
One of the first districtsin California to sponsorcharter schools, SanDiego is the eighthlargest urban district inthe nation and the sec-ond largest, after LosAngeles, in the state.Its 133,000 school chil-dren are a microcosmof America's increas-ingly diverse society:16.8 percent areAfrican American, 34percent are Hispanic,8.1 percent areFilipino, 7.1 percentare Indochinese (fromVietnam, Cambodia,and Laos), 2.5 percentare Asian (from China,Japan, Korea), and 29percent are white.
or 3.4 percent of thetotal school population.A seventh has wonapproval and will openin fall 1997. TheNational EducationAssociation, togetherwith San Diego StateUniversity, is helpingdevelop a community-based charter schoolthat is expected to openin 1998. The existingcharter schools havebanded together in a for-mal consortium and holdregular self-help andtechnical workshopswith the assistance ofthe San Diego Chamberof Commerce BusinessRoundtable forEducation.
The school district has been generally receptivetoward charters, although the school board revokedthe charters of two schools. It closed the WindowsSchool in 1996 over matters related to fire codes,
earthquake standards, and other facilities issues.The closing of the Johnson Elementary/UrbanLeague Charter School was a more complex issue.San Diego's Urban League had collaborated withthe Johnson Elementary School to convert theschool to charter status as part of a strategy to sig-nificantly upgrade the academic achievement of SanDiego's African American students, writes EricPremack in the September 1996 Phi Delta Kappan.But in late 1996, the board voted unanimously torevoke the charter, alleging that the school had vio-lated California law by asserting its legal indepen-dence from the district and retaining its own legalcounsel. That revocation, Premack says in anupdate on the Internet, may signal the start of amajor battle over a fundamental issue in Californiastate law whether a charter school may be con-stituted as a legal entity independent of its sponsordistrict. He adds, however, that the disagreementsover the school may be part of larger political con-flicts as well: The school district and the UrbanLeague have been at odds for nearly two decadesover desegregation and student performance.
The Johnson Elementary School has nowreverted to regular public school status, althoughthe Urban League has requested an opinion fromCalifornia's attorney general on whether a chartercan be considered a separate legal entity.
The dispute, Premack adds, may lead torenewed calls to protect charter schools from high-level board politics by clarifying California's charterprocess, adding an appeals option to the revocationprocess, and allowing entities other than school dis-tricts to grant charters.
34 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
30
Reviewing overall academic achievement in thecharter schools, School Board President RonOttinger says the academic results from the dis-trict's annual standardized tests have been "mixed,"with some schools near the bottom, and someschools showing improvement. "I expected theresults to be mixed," he says. "When you're askingeducators to take over operations as well as cur-riculum, there's bound to be some growing pains."Further, he adds, the district does not yet have ascoring system for student portfolios, an importantpart of some charters' assessment systems.
Overall, he sees many positives in the city's char-ter schools: smaller classes and more personalattention, more structured learning environments,school uniforms, and a greater use of technology.Additionally, he says, parents and faculty have beenmore involved in governance. Innovation in staffinghas been one of the best features of charters, headds. Freed from collective bargaining constraints,the charters have been able to hire teachers whobest match the school's curriculum, and "we seeteacher evaluations being tied more closely to stu-dent performance," Ottinger says.
The O'Farrell Community School, which hasreceived nationwide publicity, is one charter schoolthat seems to be making important contributions tourban education. Serving a middle-school popula-tion of 1,400 African American, Filipino, Hispanic,Asian, and white children, O'Farrell opened in 1990as a public school. (The school building in whichO'Farrell is located had once housed a junior highschool and, more recently, was the home of a popu-lar magnet school for the creative and performingarts.) Most of its students are poor: O'Farrell is aTitle I school (68 percent of the students receivefree or reduced-price lunches), and seven out of 10come to school performing significantly undernational median standards.
According to Bob Stein, the school's CEO (chiefeducational officer), the school built on the prin-ciples of teacher and community empowerment,interagency collaboration, and interdisciplinary
CHAPTER FOUR
teaching had generally experienced positive rela-tionships with the district and had made greatprogress for the first three years. But, as he writesin the September 1996 Phi Delta Kappan, threeevents occured that led the school to apply forcharter status. First, the district's counselors andpsychologists filed a grievance against the school,charging that O'Farrell did away with those posi-tions to hire more teachers. (That issue was laterresolved in mediation.) Second, the district adopt-ed a policy preventing schools from using funds torent off-campus facilities for meetings and retreats.Third, the school had a "running battle" over statecredentialing laws related to middle school teach-ing. O'Farrell had difficulty getting the statewaivers promised under California law, and hadconstant problems with the district-level credential-ing staff in the central office, Stein writes.
Stein thought he could foster his dream of ahigh-quality education for his students more effec-tively outside the system, and O'Farrell becameCalifornia's 48th charter school in January 1994.Educationally, the school sets very high expecta-tions, both academically and in terms of behavior.Students are broken up into "families" of 150 stu-dents each; each family gets the same advancedcurriculum. To meet the broader social and eco-nomic needs of the students and their parents, theschool has five social workers, three welfare eligi-bility workers, staff on the premises from 25 socialservice agencies and a thrift shop, Stein says.
Stein says one of the chief benefits of charterstatus is the flexibility to hire the teachers theschool wants, "teachers who believe teaching isstill a verb, who believe that all children are capa-ble of learning and should not be kept out of powerclasses." He adds: "I'm not saying we have 75 ofthe best teachers in America, but we are not sub-ject to the district's assigning us teachers no otherschool wants or giving us the top five on the senior-ity list. We have the right to peer selection: Parentsand teachers can interview the people we want."
In terms of academic achievement, Stein says
35
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 31
O'Farrell's charter states that 80 percent of childrenwho stay in the school for three years will be ableto enter any high school at the college preparatorylevel. School officials were puzzled by the factthat, despite extensive reform strategies, O'Farrellstudents were slightly below district means in read-ing, language arts, and mathematics. Maintainingthat the district's standardized test was not alignedwith either the school's or the district's curriculum,O'Farrell staff members said they believed a betterindicator of school success would be students' highschool performance.
So, Stein asked an independent evaluator fromthe San Diego schools to assess how well studentsin the class that had started at O'Farrell in 1992-1993 (the year before it received charter status)were faring in 10th grade a pivotal year for manystudents. The analysis, conducted in fall 1996,focused on the 131 O'Farrell graduates who attend-ed nearby Morse High School.
The study found:
O'Farrell students were enrolled in morerigorous and advanced courses whencompared to other students in the samegrade.
O'Farrell students were performing athigher levels within those courses, asdemonstrated by letter grade distribu-tions. For example, during the secondsemester of the ninth grade, 77.7 percentof O'Farrell students earned grades of "C"or better in English, compared with 60.3percent of their peers. In second semes-ter math, 75.2 percent of the charter grad-uates earned grades of "C" or better inmath, compared with only 53.8 percent oftheir peers.
In a standardized test given during 1995-1996, 53.6 percent of the O'Farrell gradu-ates scored at or above the publisher'smedian in reading comprehension, com-pared with 43.0 percent of their peers.
Similarly, in mathematics, 66.3 percent ofO'Farrell graduates scored at or above thepublisher's median, compared with 56.3percent for their peers.
The evaluator concluded: "These are very posi-tive findings that reflect on how well these stu-dents are prepared to succeed in high school,something the school has held all along as its pri-mary goal. Although O'Farrell students are notshowing immediate, consistent or dramaticimprovement in test scores, there appears to be anundeniable cumulative and long-term effect whenexamining measures of success in high school."
While Stein is happy with the students' academ-ic progress and with other statistics the schoolhas the fifth lowest suspension rate of 22 middleschools and an average daily attendance rate of 96percent he is not always satisfied with the char-ter's relationship to the district. He says the dis-trict says it believes in cooperation but does notalways display cooperation in practice. "The dis-trict is playing bumper cars with reform veryfew dollars are at the discretion of the school siteor rest with individual schools," he charges.
While the O'Farrell Community School is work-ing well, other charters have had their share ofgrowing pains. Although district staff did not sup-port it, the school board nevertheless approved acontract for The Charter School at Harriet TubmanVillage, a K-6 elementary school based on theteachings of Rudolf Steiner and his Waldorf modelof education. Soon, however, seeing that theschool was having a difficult year, the districtasked the West Ed Policy Support Group, part of afederally funded agency that serves education com-munities in Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah,to study the situation. "Tubman's case is an impor-tant one, one that helps those involved in the char-ter school movement better understand the com-plexities involved in starting a new charter school,"states the report, From Paper to Practice:Challenges Facing a California Charter School.
36
32
Drawing its information from a wide variety ofsources, including extensive interviews with par-ents, teachers, board members, and others, thereport found a number of problems with the schooland its relationship with the district. It said, forexample, that lines of authority and liabilitybetween charter schools and the district wereambiguous, and also found that the board's reviewand approval process did not produce a charterthat is clearly consistent with state legislation orthe district's requirements.
The report notes that the ambiguity in theCalifornia law raises important questions: To whatextent can charters really create ground-breakingmodels when districts maintain control during theapproval process and have oversight authority?How can districts allow a certain element of riskwhile avoiding the natural tendency to respond tomistakes or conflicts with blanket policies or cometo conclusions about a school's success basedexclusively on traditional public school norms?
The West Ed report, Ottinger says, helped theschool board decide to keep the school open, butwith changes in leadership. The Tubman Schoolhas since requested to expand to include the sev-enth grade, a request the school board seems likelyto grant.
At present, the district is drafting a proposedrevision of guidelines that affect charter schools.These guidelines clarify the rules under which char-ters operate and also protect the district from lia-bility, says Roxie Knupp, program manager in thedistrict's Title I Grants and Charter Schools Office.For example, charter schools using non-districtfacilities that may not meet earthquake standardswill need "hold harmless" agreements and building
CHAPTER FOUR
liability insurance naming the school district as anadditional insured party. Another guideline willmake it clear that charter principals who usedistrict-owned buildings cannot make changes tothe property at will; they must first explain whatchanges they intend to make and work cooperative-ly with the district, she says.
"The charter school folks feel they have to jumpthrough too many hoops, but there are liabilityissues," Ottinger points out. If a charter goes under,the district not the charter's founders areresponsible for the financial loss, he says.
After the district's senior management council(which also acts as the charter review committee)approves the guidelines, the guidelines will go to allcharter principals for discussion, and then back tothe council before being sent to the school board.
Knupp also says accountability may become amore important issue between the district and itscharter schools. The school district, she says, hasrecently adopted an accountability system thatholds schools accountable for student achieve-ment. "There will be variety of opinions aboutwhether charters need to adhere to that systemabsolutely or develop a system that is similar to oraligned with the district's," she says.
Although there have been growing pains,Ottinger says he believes the charter experiment inSan Diego has been a valuable one, and he wouldlike to see enough charters operate to create a criti-cal mass from which to learn. "Having charterschools pushes the envelope and allows everyoneto see what might happen when you do free upschools," he contends.
37
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHAPTER FIVE
THE IMPACT OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
ON SCHOOL REFORMThe charter school movement is still tooyoung to assess its impact on school reformand student achievement. "The most signifi-
cant effects so far and what many consider themovement's real purpose are the so-called sec-ondary or ripple effects," writes James N. Goennerin the September 1996 Phi Delta Kappan.
Goenner, senior associate director of the CharterSchools Office at Central Michigan University, saysthere is evidence the traditional school system isalready responding. For example, he notes, a localsuperintendent was quoted in the Grand RapidsPress as saying, "We have to work hard to pleaseour customers and make our programs and ser-vices so good they don't want to leave us."
California's Premack writes that charters areforcing changes at some central administrativeoffices. In a Phi Delta Kappan article, he says thatJoe Rao, a member of the Los Angeles district'sschool reform unit, noted that the district hadremoved several principals from its non-charterschools at the end of the 1994-1995 school year.Rao believes the district's increased scrutiny of siteleadership is a direct result of the charter experi-ence, Premack writes.
School board members and central officeadministrators, adds Premack, are finding thatcharter schools can be a "powerful tool" to developprograms that would be difficult to start in the reg-ular system. He says board members in theOakland (California) Unified School District men-tioned that factor when they approved two newcharter schools one that would focus on theneeds of Native American students and the second,
BEST COPY AVAILABLE 38
33
developed by a nonprofit organization, that wouldfocus on service learning.
In testimony before the U.S. House Committeeon Education and the Workforce on April 9, 1997,Scott Hamilton, associate commissioner of charterschools for the Massachusetts Department ofEducation, said charter schools have begun toreshape the educational landscape in that state."Already, the competition for charter schools hashelped reform-minded education leaders in Bostonand other communities implement changes in regu-lar public schools. Charter schools are pursuinginnovative methods of helping students learn thatcan be replicated in other schools ranging fromthe jury assessment system, a series of year-endoral examinations at City on a Hill to the`Kid lab' at Neighborhood House, a laboratory merg-ing the learning of science with art."
He says that other promising practices in char-ter schools include a longer school day and year,longer class periods, school uniforms, more home-work, individualized approaches to learning, char-acter education, foreign language instruction atearly grades, extraordinary teacher autonomy, andstrict codes of conduct. "These and other innova-tions in teaching, testing, governance and finance,which are at the center rather than the periphery ofcharter school designs, doubtless will be borrowedand improved upon by reformers in other publicschools," he says.
William Wind ler, senior consultant in schoolimprovement with the Colorado Department ofEducation, indicates that he is similarly optimistic.In the September 1996 Phi Delta Kappan, he
34
writes: "Charter schools in Colorado in and ofthemselves have increased the number of publicschool choices available, have brought a new levelof competition and have spurred districts to devel-op more attractive alternatives. For example, theBoulder Valley School District, which lies north andwest of Denver, has implemented the concept offocus schools that have a special identity createdas a result of an application process similar to thatfor charter schools."
He adds that, as a result of consumer and par-ent demand, "districts are consciously and purpose-fully beginning to respond by developing more andmore schools of choice and by becoming more andmore receptive to the charter school idea."
In Charter Schools: Legislation and Resultsafter Four Years, Mark Buechler writes that char-ter schools in Colorado and other states withstrong laws are "experimenting with new types ofdecision-making arrangements, teacher contracts,salary structures, budgets, organizational structures(non-profit, for-profit, cooperative), and forms ofcollaborations with organizations such as business-es, museums, governmental agencies, and commu-nity groups." Charter schools could prove moreinnovative in these areas than in curriculum orinstruction, he notes.
The small size of charter schools could be aproblem in transferring ideas to a school district,however, writes Alex Medlar, a policy analyst forthe Education Commission of the States, in the
CHAPTER FIVE
March 1996 American School Board Journal.Their size could diminish the schools' impact onnearby school systems because their capacity is toolimited to make a dent in public school enrollmentand because lessons from these schools might behard to apply in a larger setting. Further, charterschools' isolation from other schools and other dis-tricts might prevent their advantages and lessonsfrom being transferred beyond their walls, he says.
Chris Pipho notes that good ideas learned fromcharter schools will have a difficult time influenc-ing the education establishment, as do many otherreforms. In a March 1997 Phi Delta Kappan arti-cle, he says that when charters are viewed as anoutside force, the new ideas they produce may gaineven slower acceptance. Further, says Pipho, "thefree-market principle that competition will forcethe existing structure to change will probablyremain an elusive goal for some time in the future
that is, unless the education establishment startssponsoring large numbers of charter schools or thelegislature mandates sweeping changes."
Gary K. Hart and Sue Burr, writing in theSeptember 1996 Phi Delta Kappan, say that, whilecharter schools represent powerful tools for sys-temic change and can spur innovation in traditionalschools, they should not be viewed as a panaceafor all that ails our schools. They are not the onlysettings in which public education can thrive. "Noone in the education reform arena has a monopolyon innovation, effectiveness or virtue," they write.
39
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
CHAPTER Six
TEACHER UNION
RESPONSE TO CHARTER SCHOOLSBecause charter schools are often freed fromcollective bargaining agreements, teacherunions have frequently been among the
charter school movement's most vocal opponents.More recently, however, the American Federationof Teachers (AFT) and the National EducationAssociation (NEA) have cautiously embraced char-ters.
"In most states, teacher unions have tried toprevent the charter school concept from getting areal test," contends Joe Nathan in Charter Schools:Creating Hope and Opportunity for AmericanEducation. "The idea threatens their power andtheir concept of how public education ought tooperate."
Nathan says a federally funded study of the first11 states to adopt charter legislation found that"none of the charter school bills passed the statelegislature without controversy, and much of theopposition came from teacher unions. Unions gen-erally opposed charter schools because the lawsshift power, particularly in the areas of funding andpersonnel, away from the district and the mastercontract to the individual schools."
Although other groups such as the NAACP havealso opposed charters, the teacher unions have hadthe money and the political clout to make theirvoices heard. In several of the 15 states that haveconsidered but not passed charter legislation, char-ter advocates blame failure directly on teacherunions, writes Monika Guttman in the spring 1997America's Agenda. "Even in the charter legislationthat was finally passed in many of the 25 states andthe District of Columbia, particularly in the earliest
35
proposals in 1992 and 1993, provisions were insert-ed specifically to quell union opposition. In only 10states do the charter laws allow noncertified indi-viduals to teach at charter schools. In only half docharter schools have legal autonomy where teach-ers are employees of the individual school and notthe local school district," she says.
In some states, union compromise meant limit-ing the number of charter schools allowable underthe law. Delaware's bill permits only five charterschools, for example. Some states also mandatethat a percentage of public school teachersapprove the charter petition. In Arkansas, whereonly existing public schools may apply for charterstatus, the law requires that the charter petition beapproved by the local teacher union if the schooldistrict has a bargaining agreement with that orga-nization.
California's law requires that any charter peti-tion include the signatures of 10 percent of theteachers in the school district or 50 percent ofteachers at a given school site. Interestingly, indrafting the California law, its sponsors say theyused the writings of the AFrs Albert Shanker."Because we both had great respect for Shanker'sideas on education reform, his writings gavegreater credibility to the concept of charter schoolsand spurred us on," write Hart and Burr in theSeptember 1996 Phi Delta Kappan. Ironically, theauthors note, "opposition to charter school legisla-tion among some local teachers unions affiliatedwith the AFI' has been fierce."
However, as the charter school movement hasblossomed, some teacher union leaders and mem-
40 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
36
bers have changed their views. "We're not opposedto charter schools," says AFT spokeswoman JanetBass, quoted in the America's Agenda article. "Wejust want to make sure they are of high quality interms of the learning environment. We also don'tthink they're the magic bullet that will solve allproblems. We think they're worth looking into."
The AFT's August 1996 report, Charter Schools:Do they Measure Up? endorsed charter schools asa useful vehicle for reform, but identified someproblems that may keep charter schools from ful-filling their promise. The report examines charterlegislation in 25 states, using AFT criteria to evalu-ate the likelihood that the laws will produce qualityschools and/or serve as examples of how publicschool systems should operate.
The AFT found:
Not all states require that charter schoolsdevelop programs consonant with stateand/or local standards; nor do theyrequire that schools participate in thestate accountability system. Withoutschool participation, it will be difficult tohold the schools accountable for resultsnot already achievable in existing schools,the report says.
Some schools are chartered by the stateor another entity not directly connectedto the local district. The likelihood ofthose schools influencing school districtpolicies and providing models for changeis remote, the report notes.
The reporting systems required in legisla-tion in virtually all states are insufficientto determine whether students in charterschools perform as well or better thantheir counterparts who remain in publicschools.
For states drafting new legislation or amendingolder charter laws, the AFT recommends that char-ter schools be based on high academic standards
CHAPTER SIX
for all students and suggests that charter schoolstudents take the same tests as other students inthe state and district. It also recommends thatcharter schools be required to hire certified teach-ers and that charter school employees be coveredby the collective bargaining agreement. Further,the AFT says charter schools should have theapproval of local school districts and should berequired to make information available to thepublic.
The NEA has gonefurther than the AFT: Itlaunched a charterschool initiative throughwhich it will sponsor sixcharter school start-ups(one each in Hawaii,California, Arizona,Colorado, New Jersey,and Connecticut). Itstechnical assistanceteam will help schoolfounders in areas suchas assessment, facilities,philosophy, and fiscalpractices. Teachers atthe charter schools instates with collectivebargaining will have thesame benefits and jobprotection as otherteachers, but theschools will be free toexperiment with instruc-tion, assessment, andhiring. The initiative will also assess the impact ofcharter schools: An independent team from theUniversity of California at Los Angeles will conductresearch which will then be shared with a nationalaudience.
NEA Charter SchoolPrinciples are: (1)school admission mustbe open to, and meet theneeds of, all students;(2) staff members, par-ents, and other stake-holders must beinvolved in the designand governance of theschool; (3) teachersmust be certified profes-sionals; (4) schoolsmust submit to rigor-ous fiscal and academicaccountability; and (5)charter schools mustshare what they learnin order to promoteimprovements in otherpublic schools.
In the December 4, 1996, Education Week, NEAPresident Bob Chase criticized "permissive" lawsin states such as Massachusetts, Michigan, andArizona. "These permissive charter laws allow any-
41
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 37
one to found a charter school, including thosewithout previous experience as teachers or schooladmininstrators," he says. "They allow charters tohire uncertified teachers and maintain restrictiveadmissions policies. And in a number of states,charter laws fail to provide for even the most rudi-mentary public oversight and accountability."
Chase says the NEA's own charter school initia-tive is "premised on principles that should be at theheart of every sound charter school law."
Some critics claim several problems exist withthe teacher unions' current public positions. Forone thing, many of the state and local associationsdo not follow the national leaders. While national-ly the unions have become more supportive, theirstate affiliates sometimes work hard to block laws.For example, the Milwaukee Teachers Union hasfiled suit to dismantle Wisconsin's charter law on atechnicality, according to the Center for EducationReform's state-by-state summary of school reformin the United States. The union charged that thedistrict's approval of Highland Community CharterSchool, and charter school provisions in the stategenerally, are unconstitutional because the charterlaw was attached to a budget bill and not passed asa separate education bill. In 1996, the ColoradoEducation Assocation fought an increase in charterschool funding, although the NEA will open a char-ter high school in that state in late 1997.
In Texas, on the other hand, the HoustonFederation of Teachers is helping a state-sponsoredcharter school that will be independent of the dis-trict and run in conjunction with the Tejano Centerfor Community Concerns, reports Nathan. (The
1996 Texas law, amended in June 1997, allows localschool boards to establish "campus" charterschools and now permits the state board of educa-tion to grant up to 100 state-approved charterschools, a major increase over the law's initial capof 20 state-sponsored schools. The state boardmay approve an unlimited number of such schoolsif at least 75 percent of the students they serve aredropouts or are at risk of dropping out.) UnionPresident Gayle Fallon, a supporter of charterschools that do not have to be sponsored by localdistricts, will hold a seat on the school's board ofdirectors, Nathan says.
Other critics say unions may be simply payinglip service to the charter concept and hiding theirreal concerns the continued membership growthand strength of the union. In the April 30, 1997,issue of Education Week, Finn, Vanourek, andMarino call the teacher unions, and others in theeducational establishment, "false friends" of char-ter schools because they "wave the banner of char-ter schools even while favoring near-clones of con-ventional schools that must obey most of the usualrules."
In any case, it has become clear that states thathave not yet passed charter legislation will need towork more closely with the teacher unions."Dealing with the unions will be the key to futurelegislation in Montana," said Robert Anderson ofthe Montana School Boards Association at the 1996Northwest Symposium for Charter School Policy."The collective bargaining issues haven't beenresolved."
42
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 39
4.,
CHAPTER. SEVEN
THE ROLE OF SCHOOL BOARDS IN
EXISTING CHARTER LAWIn most states with charter legislation, localschool boards have a major role in approvingor denying charter petitions. (See chart A on
page 19-22.) Massachusetts is the only state thatgives local boards no role: The state board of edu-cation is the only chartering authority. In NewJersey, charter applications are made to the statecommissioner and the local school board; the com-missioner has final authority, although both thelocal school board and the charter applicant canappeal to the state board of education. In its analy-sis of 25 state charter laws, A Study of CharterSchools found that, in 12 states, the local schoolboard is the only body that can grant a charter,although three of those states allow an appeal to ahigher authority. In the District of Columbia andthe remaining 13 states, other bodies such as thestate board of education, a state chartering authori-ty, or a college or university may also grant acharter, the report says.
Many local boards have embraced the charterprocess, not only willingly sponsoring charters butinitiating them as well. For example, the Duluth,Minnesota, public school system advertised nation-ally for proposals to operate a public elementarycharter school that is research- and performance-based, starting in the fall of 1997. Some boardmembers have sought stronger laws. In RhodeIsland, the state board gave preliminary approval toa charter application from the city of Woonsocket,but some local school board members said a pub-licly supported independent school could not beindependent enough under current law, accordingto an article in the January 22, 1997, EducationWeek. Warning that the state charter law could
eventually cause major obstacles for the grouphoping to start the new school, Woonsocket schoolboard Vice Chairman John Ward contacted staterepresentatives to see about introducing an amend-ment to the charter law that would allow schoolorganizers more autonomy, the article states.
Many critics contin-ue to accuse schoolboards of puttingimpediments in the way,however. In CharterSchools in Action, Finnand his co-authors notethat three states(Arizona,Massachusetts, andMichigan) of theirseven-state sample hadoptions other thanboard sponsorship, "andthose three rank amongthe most dynamic interms of charter schoolgrowth and diversity."They report that theoverwhelming majorityof the 15 schools sur-veyed in those threestates said they wouldnot exist in anythinglike their present formhad they been forced to
"Support for charterschools is by no meansunanimous among localboard members, andmany feel hostile orthreatened by the char-ter concept, at least ini-tially," writes Premackin the September 1996Phi Delta Kappan."Significant numbers ofboard members, howev-er, are coming to recog-nize charter schools asa new way to developand manage schoolsand are finding that awell-developed chartergives school boards theability to focus on stu-dent achievement in amuch more powerfulfashion than is possiblewithin the confines ofthe traditional system."
seek local board spon-sorship.
"Except in a few jurisdictions where charter
43BEST COPY AVAILABLE
40 CHAPTER SEVEN
schools are commonly sponsored by the state itself(such as Massachusetts and Arizona), or by univer-sities (Michigan), people seeking charters mustinvest immense amounts of time and energy in try-ing to convince local school boards to approvetheir proposals," the authors note. "The politicalbattles can be so intense and protracted that, afterwinning their charter, the school's founders findthemselves weary, frazzled, and with just a fewweeks before the school is due to open. Althoughwe do not doubt that some local board involvementis a good thing, even those charter schools that areultimately sponsored by the local board frequentlywind up in a strained (if not openly hostile) rela-tionship with it. And in situations where localboards have the upper hand as in California andColorado an awful lot of resources are expend-
ed, sometimes fruitless-ly, in the quest for char-ters."We have the federal
government telling usone thing and the stateanother. We are tryingto get some clarificationon what is required of acharter school in SouthCarolina," says JohnWilliams, communityrelations manager,Beaufort County SchoolDistrict.
In many states, ofcourse, boards do nothave the final say, andconflicts between thelocal board and thestate can sometimeslead to court battles. InSouth Carolina, forexample, legislationrequires that the racialcomposition of charterschools match within 10
percent the racial makeup of the district in whichthe charter is located. Citing concerns about racialbalance and enrollment, the Beaufort Countyschool board which has been operating under avoluntary desegregation agreement and reportsenrollment numbers to the U.S. Office of CivilRights rejected the application of the LighthouseCharter School. The state board of education, how-ever, overturned the local board's decision andapproved South Carolina's first charter school,although the state still required the school to meetminority enrollment requirements. The school
board refused to grant the charter and filed suit inthe South Carolina Circuit Court, where litigation isin process. To further complicate matters, thestate's Attorney General, in a non-binding decision,argued that the charter law's racial requirement isunconstitutional. "We have the federal governmenttelling us one thing and the state another. We aretrying to get some clarification on what is requiredof a charter school in South Carolina," says JohnWilliams, community relations manager, BeaufortCounty School District.
Colorado also has an appeals process to thestate board of education. If the state agency deter-mines that denial of the charter petition is not inthe best interests of students, the school district,and the community, the state board can ask thelocal board to reconsider its decision. If a localboard denies a charter application a second time,and if the state board determines that denial washarmful, it can order the local board to grant thecharter.
The Denver school board, however, is challeng-ing the constitutionality of the law, questioningwhether the state legislature had the right to grantthe state agency that power in the first place.Patrick Mooney, an attorney representing theDenver school board in a controversial case involv-ing the Thurgood Marshall school, a charter schoolwhose application the school board has twicerejected, says Colorado's constitution gives localschool boards specific authority for instruction.The state board's ability to tell a local school boardthat it must approve a charter offering a certainkind of instruction is clearly an incursion into localauthority, Mooney maintains. The school board hasasked the Court of Appeals, which had remandedthe Thurgood Marshall case back to the state boardof education, to examine the constitutional issues,he says.
William Windier, a senior consultant with theColorado Education Department, says, however,that "the appeals process was directly responsiblefor helping six of the 29 approved charter schools
44
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
to get started after the first appeal." In theSeptember 1996 Phi Delta Kappan, he notes that"Since 1993 the state board has heard some 29appeals and remanded 14 back to local boards forfurther consideration. Six of the 14 are still in theprocess of being renegotiated at the local level."
Windier suggests that school systems that con-tinue to resist the charter school idea may find thatnew or modified legislation reduces their role inthe charter process. The Charter Schools StudyCommission in Colorado recommended that thestate board be allowed to sponsor charter schools.And, in California, the Little Hoover Commission,after a six-month study of charter schools, recom-mended that the existing charter law be modifiedto allow sponsors other than the school board togrant charters and to allow charter schools tobecome separate, legal entitites. "It is ironic thatthose educators who continue to resist the idea ofcharter schools simply encourage policymakersfrom both political parties to consider laws that aremore supportive of this innovative idea," Windiercontends.
In fact, some statutes are being drafted thatwould constrain a local school board's discretionso that a charter must be granted to any group thatcan meet established criteria, explain Marc DeanMil lot, Paul Hill, and Robin Lake in CharterSchools: Escape or Reform? "Once a charter isgranted, a school's survival would depend onwhether the parents and teachers who run it deliv-er the kind of instruction promised and whether,on objective measures, students are learning," theywrite. The authors contend a move toward objec-tive criteria "protects qualified applicants fromlocal boards that would deny charters merely toavoid competition, even while it protects the publicfrom unqualified charter providers."
Some boards have already had to face the issueof charter operators who did not live up to expec-tations. Although the charter school movement isstill young, a number of charter schools haveclosed because of financial problems or misman-
41
agement or had their charters revoked by schooldistricts. In Arizona, a state grand jury indicted thefounder of Citizen 2000, a bankrupt Phoenix char-ter school, on 31 counts of theft, fraud, and themisuse of $179,000 in public money, according tothe Arizona Republic. In Los Angeles, the districtclosed Edutrain, a charter school for troubledteenagers, after auditors found discrepanciesbetween the number of students the schoolclaimed it had and received public money forand the number it actually had. The school admin-istration had allegedly used tax money to help paythe principal's rent, lease a sports car, and hire abodyguard. The school had $1 million worth ofunpaid bills when it finally shut down.
"To some charter school supporters the failureof Edutrain was an example of the educationalmarket imposing its discipline," writes Alex Molnarin the October 1996 Educational Leadership. Thatrationale misses the point, he says. The education-al market does not punish the people who set up aschool the way a financial market punishesinvestors in stocks and bonds when share pricesplummet or a bond issue defaults. "In the Edutrainfiasco, the people punished were the students whohad their education disrupted and the taxpayersand students in the Los Angeles Unified SchoolDistrict who were out of education money andreceived nothing in return," he argues.
And in Washington, D.C., the Marcus GarveyCharter School became the center of a controversyinvolving the alleged mistreatment of a newspaperreporter and possible theft of property. "The blow-up could focus attention both on the charter opera-tors and on the original board of education for itsfailure to provide close supervision," writes Piphoin the March 1997 Phi Delta Kappan. "How theboard handles this crisis could influence the futureof charter schools in this major urban area, whereCongress was involved in writing the initialenabling legislation." However, the District ofColumbia's stalled charter process, whose proce-dures had been under review after problems at theMarcus Garvey school, may get a fresh start now
45
42
that the D.C. Board of Education has approved anew charter application process. According tonews reports, the application process allows twooptions: Prospective charter operators may applyeither to the elected school board or to an indepen-dent Public Charter School Board that was createdin 1997.
Unforeseen problems with certain charterschools make it clear how important but howdifficult the local school board's oversight rolecan be. "School districts are finding that charterschools are both difficult and potentially reward-ing. Reviewing, monitoring and overseeing a char-ter school can be hard work," notes Premack."Assessing the capacity of a school or group ofindividuals developing a charter is more of an artthan a science." He points out that some carefully
CHAPTER SEVEN
developed proposals look solid on paper but can bederailed by financial, interpersonal, or logisticalproblems at the charter school. And, when charterschools run into trouble, they can drain extensivedistrict time.
For charter schools to become central to a com-munity's education efforts, they must have clearand reliable relationships with community agenciesthat can authorize charters, guarantee funding, andhold school operators to their promises, say Millot,Hill, and Lake. The authors suggest that charterschool laws should not bypass school boards, butshould transform them from "operators of a highlyregulated bureaucracy into managers of a system ofindividual schools, each with its own mission,clientele, and basis of accountability."
EXERCISING OVERSIGHT: ADVICE FROM CALIFORNIA
Boards across the country may benefit from guidance supplied by the California School Boards Association(CSBA). In an advisory, the association urges local boards to be supportive of the charter process and to view it as anopportunity to encourage district-wide innovation. The advisory, however, also recommends that the board take greatcare to ensure that any approved charter school is likely to enhance the quality of education for its students and not
have a detrimental impact on other schools and students in the district. The following suggestions, adapted and con-densed from the CSBA advisory, could (depending on state law) pertain to many boards across the country. CSBArecommends that the school board should:
Determine, through discussions with the superintendent and leadership staff, how the charter school con-cept fits into the district's overall plan for strengthening education. How will the district establish the crite-ria for approving or denying a charter petition? Who will be involved in reviewing the petition?
Adopt a board policy reflecting the board's charter school philosophy and the responsibilities of the petition-er and the board.
Determine how district staff will ensure that charter petitioners understand the district's criteria forapproval.
Disseminate charter school information through informational workshops, written notifications, and othermethods of communication.
Have district professional staff (supplemented by outside consultants or committees if appropriate) reviewthe petition for completeness and quality.
46
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 43
As the board reviews the charter, it should address these issues:
Instructional/curricular: How well does the charter identify the goals of the educational program?Does the educational plan ensure equal access for all students to a quality educational program?Does it address the needs of those students who are low-achieving, have limited English, or havespecial needs? What is the role of parents? Are courses of study and curriculum aligned with theschool's philosophy, goals, and objectives? Is there a process for the planning, periodic review, revi-sion, and evaluation of the curriculum? Is there a process for reviewing textbooks? How well doesthe charter describe the method for assessing pupil outcomes and progress?
Governance: Does the charter make clear who is responsible for fiscal matters, the education pro-gram, and other areas? How well does the charter provide for the health and safety of students andstaff? If the charter provides for ongoing relationships with the district in the governance area, whatare the parameters of those relationships?
Fiscal, business, maintenance, and operations issues: How well does the charter provide for fiscalaccountability of public funds? To what extent does the petition describe the methods to be used inconducting annual audits of the financial operations of the charter? What will a district charge acharter school for use of the school building, or will the district sell the building to the charterschool? Will the charter school be allowed to modify the structure of a school? What are the plansfor ongoing maintenance of school facilities?
Personnel: Who is the employer? How effective is the plan for staff selection, and what qualifica-tions are required of teachers? Are issues of salary, schedules, benefits, leaves, work day and workyear, evaluations, and grievance and dismissal procedures adequately addressed? How well does thepetition address the manner by which staff members will be covered by a retirement system?
Liability and legal issues: What are the unique characteristics of the petition that have legal and lia-bility implications for the district? How do petitioners address those concerns? (The CSBA recom-mends that school boards consult with local legal counsel in this area)
Student admissions and student rights: How well does the petitioner describe the admissionsrequirements, if any? How effective is the charter school's plan for achieving racial and ethnic bal-ance representative of the general population in the district? How well does the petition describepupil suspension and expulsion processes?
If the charter is approved, the board must have a process for ongoing monitoring and review, a processthat should specify a schedule for assessing the charter and the criteria by which the charter will be evalu-ated.
If the charter is denied, the board should clearly state its rationale and may include factors such as the rec-ommendation of the professional staff, the charter's potential for success or failure, its effect on the educa-tion or financial viability of the district, and the incompleteness of the charter petition.
The board has a responsibility to revoke a charter if it has violated a law, failed to meet generally acceptedstandards of fiscal management, or failed to meet or pursue any of the student outcomes identified in thecharter petition.
47
THE BA5IC5 OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 45
CONCLUerNBelieving that all public schools should pro-vide a high-quality education for each stu-dent, the National School Boards
Association (NSBA) supports locally developedpolicies and program options that give parents thechance to select public schools or programs fortheir children.
Within the realm of public school choice, char-ter schools can, under certain conditions, be aviable option, say NSBA officials. During its April1997 Delegate Assembly, NSBA passed a resolutionrecognizing charter schools as one of several mech-anisms available to local school boards, providedthat the school board:
a) retains the sole authority to grant thecharter;
b) retains options to decertify any school thatfails to meet criteria set forth in the charter or asotherwise specified by the local school board;
c) maintains accountability, such as determiningthe criteria, standards, or outcomes that will beused in establishing the charter; and
d) ensures that the charter does not fosterracial, social, religious, or economic segregation orsegregation of children with disabilities.
As NSBA executives noted in an editorial in theFebruary 27, 1997, School Board News, charterschools raise numerous governance issues forschool boards. Those issues include: Should enti-ties outside the school system be empowered togrant a charter? What is the district's legal liabilityfor the self-governed actions of the charter school?What kinds of services must the district provide nomatter who grants the charter?
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
School boards must also address personnelissues regarding the hiring and firing of publicschool teachers, the due process rights of studentsand staff, and staff qualifications. Additionally,boards must address a broad range of operationalissues pertaining to performance standards; thepercentage vote of parents needed to convert anexisting school to a charter school; the enrollmentof private, religious, or home-schooled students;and various issues relating to the funding of a char-ter. NSBA says it believes all these issues andmore must be addressed if charter schools are tobecome a constructive force in American educa-tion.
Since charter schools are new, longitudinal dataon student achievement do not yet exist to demon-strate their effectiveness, NSBA officials contend.The long-term success of any charter school, or ofthe concept as a whole, probably will depend to alarge degree on the sustained energy of the parentsor teachers to perform a broader range of responsi-bilities than their counterparts in traditional publicschool programs, the editorial states. Accordingly,NSBA believes most state legislatures have beenwise to limit the number of charters that can beestablished.
Finally, NSBA says, it should be recognized thatwhile 27 states have passed legislation, barely 500charter schools were operating at the end of the1996-1997 school year. As small schools, with anaverage enrollment of less than 300 students, char-ters educate only a tiny fraction of the 44,621,776million students who were enrolled in 1995-1996.
"Hence, regardless of merit, charter schoolsare, at best, a marginal strategy from which we canlearn," NSBA executives say. "They are not a
48
46 CHAPTER EIGHT
panacea and certainly should not be viewed as anexcuse for legislators to give short shrift to theircommitment of resources to the schools where thevast majority of the public school children arebeing educated."
In an effort to maximize the successes of thecharter school movement, NSBA and its Council ofUrban Boards of Education support:
Continuing objective and comprehensiveresearch on charter school effectiveness.As noted in this report, much of theresearch conducted on charter schools sofar has had limited scope and certaininherent biases.
Continuing accountability. New statelaws and amendments to existing lawsshould define very precisely the methodsand timelines by which charter schoolswill measure student achievement. On
the local level, school boards should makecertain each charter clearly spells outmutually agreed upon methods ofaccountability.
Dissemination of successful practices.The U.S. Department of Education andstate laws should ensure that successfulcharter school practices and programs arewidely disseminated, so that traditionalpublic schools can incorporate, whereappropriate, those strategies into theireducational systems.
Clearly, charter schools will be a fast-growingcomponent of many public school systems in theforeseeable future, and urban school boards in par-ticular must be ready to meet the challenges, andtake advantage of the opportunities, which thisnew form of schooling can provide.
49
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS 47
SELECTED 13 IBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKSNathan, Joe. Charter Schools: Creating Hope and Opportunity for American Education. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1996.
CONGRESSIONAL TESTIMONYU.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce. Scott W. Hamilton, Associate
Commissioner for Charter Schools, speaking for the Massachusetts Department of Education. April 9,1997.
Available online at: http://www.edexcellence.net/iss /subject/charters/charterl.html
REPORTSAmerican Federation of Teachers. Charter Schools: Do They Measure Up? Washington, D.C.: American
Federation of Teachers, 1996.Available online at: http:// www .aft.org/edissues/chartrep.htm
Borton, William. How are They Doing? A Progress Report of O'Farrell Community School Center forAdvanced Academic Studies. San Diego, Calif.: San Diego City Schools, 1996.
Buechler, Mark. Charter Schools: Legislation and Results after Four Years. Bloomington, Ind.: IndianaEducation Policy Center, 1996.
California School Boards Association. CSBA Advisory on Charter Schools: The Board's Role. WestSacramento, Calif.: California School Boards Association, 1992.
Corwin, Ron, Lisa Carlos, Bart Lagomarsino, and Roger Scott. From Paper to Practice: Challenges Facinga California Charter School. Executive Summary. San Diego, Calif.: WestEd Policy Support Program,1996.
Available online at: http://www.wested.org/policy/pb_tubm.htm
Finn, Chester E., Jr., Louann A. Bierlein, and Bruno Manno. Charter Schools in Action: What Have WeLearned? Indianapolis: Hudson Institute, Inc., 1996.Available online at: http:// www. hudson .org/hudson/charters/toc.html
BEST COPYAVAILABLE 50
48 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kolderie, Ted. A Guide to Charter Activity. Sacramento: California State University: Institute for
Education Reform, 1996.Available online at: http://www.csus.edu/ier/charterwho.html
Mulholland, Lori A. Charter Schools: The Reform and the Research. Arizona State University: Morrison
Institute for Public Policy, 1996. (This policy brief was supplemented with an addendum later in 1996.)
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. Charter Schools at the Crossroads: Proceedings of the
Northwest Symposium of Charter School Policy, edited by Lee Sherman Caudell. Northwest Regional
Educational Laboratory, 1996.
Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research. Massachusetts Charter School Profiles. Executive Summary,
1995-1996 school year. Boston: Pioneer Institute for Public Policy Research, 1996.Available online at http: / /edreform.com/pubs /pioneerl.htm
Riddle, Wayne, James Stedman, and Steven Aleman. Charter Schools: State Developments and FederalPolicy Options. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, May 16, 1997
The Center for Education Reform. School Reform in the United States, State by State Summary.Washington, D.C.: The Center for Education Reform, spring 1997.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement. A Study ofCharterSchools, First-Year Report. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Department of Education, Office ofEducation
Research and Improvement, 1997.
Wedl, Robert J. Memorandum to Minnesota State Board of Education summarizing an evaluation ofMinnesota s charter schools by the Center for Applied Research and Educational Improvement,February 3, 1997.
Weiss, Abby, and Nancy Sconyers. A National Survey and Analysis of Charter School Legislation.Boston: Institute for Responsive Education, 1996.
KVE IFKPIKR AHD ii.,., gaJT
Bingham, Janet, Charting a New Course, The Denver Post, March 4, 1997, sec. A, p. 01.
Chase, Bob, Which Charters Are Smarter? Education Week, December 4, 1996, p. 52.
Goenner, James, Charter Schools, the Revitalization of Public Education, Phi Delta Kappan, September
1996, p. 32.
Guttman, Monika, Charter Schools: The Union Influence, America s Agenda, spring 1997, p. 18.
Hager, Mary, Common Cause, Americas Agenda, spring 1997, p. 8.
51
THE BASICS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS49
Jackson, Steve, "Charter Members," Westword, March 29-April 4 1995, p. 15.
Jacobson, Linda, "Under the Microscope," Education Week, September 6, 1996, p. 21.
Medlar, Alex, "Promise and Progress," The American School Board Journal, March 1996, p. 26.
Mil lot, Marc Dean, Paul T. Hill, and Robin Lake, "Charter Schools: Escape or Reform?" Education Week onthe Web, June 5, 1996.Available online at: http://www.edweek.org/ew/vol-15/37hi11.h15
Molnar, Alex, "Charter Schools: The Smiling Face of Disinvestment," Educational Leadership, October1996, p. 9.
Pipho, Chris, "The Evolving Charter School Movement," State line Column, Phi Delta Kappan, March 1997,p. 489.
Premack, Erik, "Charter Schools: A Status Report," School Business Affairs, December 1996, p.10.
Premack, Erik, "Charter Schools: California's Education Reform Power Tool," Phi Delta Kappan,September 1996, p. 60.
Schwartz, Wendy, "How Well Are Charter Schools Serving Urban and Minority Students?" ERICClearinghouse on Urban Education Digest, No. 119, November 1996.
Stein, Bob, "O'Farrell Community School," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1996, p. 28.
Vanourek, Gregg, Bruno V. Manno, and Chester E. Finn, Jr., "The False Friends of Charter Schools,"Education Week, April 30, 1997, p. 60.
Wind ler, William, "Colorado's Charter Schools," Phi Delta Kappan, September 1996, p. 66.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
National School Boards AssociationCouncil of UrbanBoards of Education
The NSBA Council of Urban Boards of Education (CUBE) wasestablished by the NSBA Board of Directors in 1967 toaddress the unique needs of school board members servingthe largest cities in the United States.
Any school board that is a National Affiliate of NSBA andserves a community with a core-city population of at least100,000 persons is eligible for membership in CUBE, as is anyNSBA National Affiliate school board that is a member of astate-level urban council in its respective state school boardassociation. CUBE is governed by a 12-member SteeringCommittee of urban board members.
Purpose
CUBE exists to enable school board members to gather infor-mation, develop recommendations, and take appropriateaction to improve the quality and equality of education pro-vided in densely populated cities inhabited by people of widelyvarying, diverse, and heterogeneous backgrounds.
Program
Through its subcommittees and staff, CUBE uses confer-ences, workshops, specialized publications, School BoardNews, consulting services, telephone contacts and all of theresources of the NSBA National Affiliate program to improve
the policy making effectiveness of urban school board mem-bers. In cooperation with the NSBA Board of Directors, CUBEserves as vehicle for bringing the urban perspective before fed-
eral officials and members of Congress.
Steering Committee
The CUBE Steering Committee, which meets quarterly, is com-posed of 12 urban school board members from across theUnited States, and the Immediate Past Chair. The Presidentand the Executive Director of the National School BoardsAssociation serve as ex-officio members of the Committee.
Committee members are elected by the CUBE membership toa 3-year term. The CUBE Chair appoints a NominatingCommittee to oversee the compilation of a slate of nomineesfrom CUBE members in good standing. The NominatingCommittee gives consideration to slating nominees so that aregional balance is maintained as well as to assure nondis-crimination on the basis of sex, race, etc. The CUBE Chair andVice Chair are elected by the Steering Committee.
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
about NSBA...The National School Boards Association is the nationwide advocacyorganization for public school governance. NSBA's mission i5 to fos-ter excellence and equity in public elementary and secondary educa-tion in the United States through local school board leadership.NSBA achieves its mission by amplifying the influence of schoolboards across the country in all public forums relevant to federal andnational education issues, by representing the school board perspec-tive before federal government agencies and with national organiza-tions that affect education, and by providing vital information andservices to Federation Members and school boards throughout thenation.
NSBA advocates local school boards as the ultimate expression ofthe unique American institution of representative governance of pub-lic school districts. NSBA supports the capacity of each schoolboard acting on behalf of and in close concert with the people ofits community to envision the future of education in its communi-ty, to establish a structure and environment that allow all studentsto reach their maximum potential, to provide accountability for thepeople of its community on performance in the schools, and to serveas the key community advocate for children and youth and their pub-lic schools.
Founded in 1940, NSBA is a not-for-profit federation of state asso-ciations of school boards across the United States and the schoolboards of the District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, andthe U.S. Virgin Islands. NSBA represents the nation's 95,000schoolboard members. These board members govern 15,025 local school dis-tricts that serve more than 40 million public school studentsapproximately 90 percent of all elementary and secondary schoolstudents in the nation. Virtually all school board members are elect-ed; the remainder are appointed by elected officials.
NSBA policy is determined by a 150-member Delegate Assembly oflocal school board members from throughout the nation. The 24-member Board of Directors translates this policy into action.Programs and services are administered by the NSBA ExecutiveDirector, assisted by a professional staff. NSBA is located in metro-politan Washington, D.C.
NSBA's Mission StatementThe mission of the National School Boards Association, working withand through all its Federation Members, is to foster excellence andequity in public education through school board leadership.
NSDA's Vision for Public EducationThe National School Boards Association believes local school boardsare the nation's preeminent expression of grass roots democracy andthat this form of governance of the public schools is fundamental tothe continued success of public education. Adequately funded, stu-dent-centered public schools will provide, in a safe and supportiveenvironment, a comprehensive education for the whole child and willprepare all of America's children for a lifetime of learning in a diverse,democratic society and an interdependent global economy. America'sschool boards, by creating a vision of excellence and equity for everychild, will provide performance-oriented schools that meet today'sproblems as well as the challenges of tomorrow.
5-
National School Boards Association1680 Duke Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Phone: 703-838-072Fax: 703-683-7590
Excellence and Equity in Public Education through School BoardLeadership
7(,- Nitional___--
Affilide.-NSBA.
National School Boards Association1680 Duke Street
Alexandria, Virginia 22314-3493http://www.nsba.org
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
54
(9/92)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
NOTICE
REPRODUCTION BASIS
E OA,"
ERIC
This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.
This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Releaseform (either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").
