Читать книгу Changing to Charter - Rebecca A. Shore - Страница 10
Оглавление“Charter schools” have existed for nearly thirty years in the United States; however, misinformation abounds. Some of this misinformation is channeled through those studying public K–12 education. These scholars and students often miss important factors that would contribute to a full and more accurate understanding of charter schools. The misrepresentations may be traced back to some difficult battles that have occurred within the education setting, and parties on both sides of the charter school debate have assumed poor intent and played loose with the facts.
In a sense, time may heal wounds, but, in some areas, the scars remain. Regrettably, one of those scars is a lack of understanding that cuts across many circles of influence—political, legal, familial, educational, and social. For instance, some people thought that charter schools were for-profit organizations or were just another type of magnet school. Still, other groups believed that charter schools were “private” schools that received public funding.
According to the National Charter School Resource Center (NCSRC), an organization sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education, charter schools are defined as “independently managed, publicly funded schools operating under a ‘charter’ or a contract between the school and the state of jurisdiction, allowing for significant autonomy and flexibility.”1
Charter schools themselves contribute to this confusion as the sector is complicated with differences abounding between charter school types. As charter schools are state regulated based upon individual state laws, adopted regulations, or proffered policies, we cannot generalize to the granular details but must stay focused on the state level. If one were to seek specifics for a particular state, an important first piece of advice would be to research that state’s laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. We can, however, clarify some basic terminology that establishes a frame upon which a true understanding of the charter model can be constructed. The terms “publicly funded” and “charter” are significant in the definition cited above. To have a clear understanding of charter schools both terms must be understood and applied correctly.
Publicly Funded
Charter schools are “publicly funded,” meaning that state funds, and in some cases federal funds, are allotted to the schools for the purpose of educating students. Pending the structure of a charter school in accordance with state law, some charters can receive federal funds such as special education or Title I funds. As a condition upon accepting these monies, charter schools must assure compliance with both the state and federal funding requirements, including all testing requirements, like traditional public schools.
Charter school funding is determined by state laws and regulations, but whether or not a charter school ever opens its doors is totally dependent upon the number of students choosing to attend. Some states call this average daily attendance (ADA) while others refer to it as average daily membership (ADM). Charter schools, as a nonprofit, may also apply for private, competitive grants.
The Charter
“Charter” is another key term in the definition of charter schools. The charter is an agreement or a contract between the governing board of the school and the entity that decided to grant the charter—an authorizing entity. Charter authorizing entities can include state boards of education, institutions of higher learning, school districts, or other nonprofit entities. Again, process details are state-specific; yet, these authorizers are granted authority by law to create an application cycle that includes a call for proposals, application submission, review, awarding a charter, and renewal procedures.
A charter document describes the required components of the school such as mission and vision, instructional program, governance structure, personnel plan, budgetary assumptions, enrollment projections, and academic accountability measures. The charter often incorporates the application to set the stipulations for how the school will perform and be measured over the duration of its lifetime. Any amendments to the charter must be approved, in advance, by the authorizing entity to ensure fidelity to the school’s operational aspects.
Charter schools exist because of a dual exchange—more operational freedom alongside more outcome accountability. Although free from some requirements (e.g., teacher certification), charter schools do face increased accountability measures in that they can be closed for poor performance whether in finances, academics, or operations. Charter schools cannot discriminate in admission policies. Charter schools cannot charge tuition for students. Charter schools cannot pick and choose student enrollments as they are required to utilize a lottery if more students apply than seats are available. Charter schools cannot ignore performance on state-mandated assessments. Charter schools cannot spend public dollars any way they want because they are bound by state and federal mandates.
While charter schools may look very different, they all must adhere to regulations and policies much like traditional public schools. The volunteer governing board is legally responsible for every aspect of school operation, and authorizers are expected to regularly monitor the school’s outcomes. As part of their monitoring responsibilities, authorizers may conduct site visits, hold desk audits, perform document reviews (e.g., board meeting minutes), examine financial records, or host informal conversations. These monitoring protocols vary across authorizing organizations, but their intent is the same—judge the charter school’s outcomes to forge a determination in whether to renew or terminate a charter.
We, as authors, have studied vastly different schools from project-based, arts-based schools to direct-instruction schools to classical schools, and these pedagogical variances highlight their operational freedom. While each school held true to its mission and vision, they did so while successfully meeting their state’s required accountability measures, thus showcasing their outcome focus. Simply put, a failure in either area would compel an authorizer to review programmatic adherence and performance achievement to determine the future status of that charter school.
For-Profit or Nonprofit
One of the most popular questions involving charter schools is whether they are not-for-profit or for-profit entities. Charter schools, in accordance with state laws, operate as a public school, and the volunteer governing board is a nonprofit entity. As such, charter schools are not-for-profit organizations. These governing boards are constituted in accordance with their Articles of Corporation and Bylaws which vary widely but must comply with state mandates. The Articles and Bylaws describe the number and term of board members, procedures for electing new members, committee/meeting structure, and basic parliamentary procedures. These documents, along with the charter, determine how the board will, much like their traditional counterparts, partner with for-profit companies to deliver services for students.
Without question, the majority of charter schools are governed by volunteer charter school boards but all of them partner with other for-profit businesses to assist them in their school operation, just like traditional schools and districts. The discussion of profit in education is often segmented only for the charter school sector; however, the issue is broader than most people will permit the discussion to go. For instance, simply answer this question: do textbook organizations, athletic companies, furniture businesses, construction firms, or insurance corporations make profit by working with traditional schools? The answer is an unequivocal yes.
This question turns, however, in the role of what is called an educational management organization (EMO). These entities provide an array of services and expertise to the governing boards in exchange for a fee. The services, just to name a few, could include marketing, curriculum, financial bookkeeping, professional development, and facility acquisition. How widespread is the presence of EMOs within the charter community? According to the National Alliance of Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), less than 15 percent of charter schools are managed by a for-profit EMO.2 Despite the small footprint, some states are now taking steps to put forward specific regulations surrounding the for-profit status of charter schools.
During the 2017–18 legislative session, California included language in the law that “a charter renewal or material revision application shall not operate as, or be operated by, a for-profit corporation.” The legislation goes further by defining the terms “operate as, or be operated by,” to include the following factors: providing services before the board has approved in a public meeting, making budgetary expenditures not approved by the board, employing/dismissing employees of the school, and controlling membership of the board.3
Charter School Types
While we are focusing on leaders of conversion charter schools, it is only one of many types of charters; and as mentioned above, the different forms often contribute to additional confusion. The most prevalent charter school iterations include the following: Independent, Charter Management Organizations (CMO), Vender Operated Schools (VOS), and Hybrid Charter Schools and Conversion Charter Schools. Each of these public charter schools is bound by their Charter Agreements to follow the same state and federal regulations while offering enrollment to all students. These schools do, however, fluctuate in their form of management.
Independent Charter Schools are the most common making up two-thirds of all charter schools across the country.4 This familiar type of nonprofit charter school is independently overseen by a volunteer governing board. Independent charter schools stand alone and bear total responsibility for operating the charter school. While there may be several schools (K–5, 6–8, and 9–12), the charter school as a whole is led by one governing board through their administrative and staffing hires. This school is not a part of a larger organization but may contract out certain services to entities that have found profitability in a niche market.
The most commonly contracted out services are interrelated—management of student information services and the financial operation. If these contractors make mistakes that result in an authorizer investigation, the governing board remains the responsible party to answer questions or suffer consequences. Ultimately, the authorizer expects this board to vet contractors carefully and to monitor their work regularly.
CMOs are a little more complicated to define as their definition varies greatly due to their organizational construct. Where the definitions converse with unity in terms of organizational control as well as a number of separate charter schools, historically, a CMO holds the charter that has been granted by the authorizer and operates at least three separate schools.
These separate schools need a little further clarification because models differ—the schools could be exact duplicates of grade span and mission (e.g., three K–8 schools that offer classical education), continuation of grade span but divided into separate buildings with separate school numbers for accountability purposes (e.g., one K–5, one 6–8, and one 9–12 school), or a mixture of anything else (e.g., one K–5 arts-focused school, one 9–12 career-ready high school, and one K–12 direct-instruction school). The models depend upon the individual state laws, the capacity of the CMO, and the approval of the authorizer.
Despite the model differences, the CMO controls all school operations, including instructional practices, personnel policies, finances, and operations. CMOs can be nonprofit or for-profit entities, depending upon what state policy will permit to occur.
Often confused with CMOs are schools that fall into the VOS category. VOS entities are contracted, by local charter school boards, to provide a myriad of services to more than three separate schools; however, unlike a CMO, they do not hold the charter from the authorizer. The key, here, is contracted work with more than one school or it would simply be an Independent Charter School.
The VOS services range widely from a singular offering (e.g., professional development for teachers) to the school’s entire operations (e.g., compliance, academics, finances, facilities). The most distinguishing factor between a CMO and VOS is in that possession of the charter. Since the VOS does not hold the charter, they report directly and regularly to the volunteer governing board. The VOS, much like the CMO, can be nonprofit or for-profit organizations based upon state law.
Hybrid Charter Schools are an iteration within the charter space in that they include characteristics of both CMOs and VOSs. As the name implies, Hybrid Charter Schools may include a CMO that holds the charter but contracts services from a VOS or multiple VOSs. Again, these Hybrid organizations may be for-profit or nonprofit. According to research conducted in 2017, only 1 percent of charter school organizations are in this category.5
Conversion Charter Schools
According to the NAPCS, Conversion Charter Schools, the topic of this book, are charter schools authorized by the state or local school district to take over an existing traditional public school often as a result of issues with school quality or poor growth. In other instances that do not include lackluster performance, an existing public school and/or private school could petition an authorizer authority to convert to charter status. The motivations for this self-selected conversion vary and will be discussed in-depth below.
Most states (thirty-nine of the forty-four) with existing charter school laws permit conversions according to the Education Commission of the States (ECS).6 For whatever reason determined by their legislatures, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington do not allow for conversions. It is also important to note that while thirty-nine states allow for conversions, each state has its own stipulations and regulations regarding conversion charter schools. As an example, Texas law grants the district an opportunity to charter status creating what is called “a home-rule school district charter,” but that conversion would require a majority vote in an election where “at least 25 percent of a school district’s registered votes participate.”7 As you can image, this mandate acts as a considerable hurdle that is yet to be overcome.
The largest percentage of conversion charter schools is located in the following states: California, Iowa, Maryland, Georgia, Arkansas, and Louisiana. While the primary focus of this book is California, we will include case studies from the Carolinas as well. With the legislatively imposed cap in North Carolina having been lifted nearly a decade ago, that state has seen an increase in its number of conversion schools—particularly the private to charter variety.
Conversion charter schools can be led by the district or managed independently or by a CMO. Three of the conversions detailed in this book include both types, but they are all nonprofit charter schools. Their stories highlight benefits of converting failing traditional schools and founders focused on the ability to tailor instruction/curriculum to better meet the needs of the population and budgeting. With charter school autonomy, curriculum can be based on the mission and vision of the newly formed charter with monies allocated to provide the professional development needed to match those needs. Freedom from bureaucratic regulations allows energy to be directed at the charter school level; and if that focus needs to change, it can do so quickly for programmatic improvement.
These conversion charter schools were converted from traditional public schools in the early 1990s: they are Vaughn Next Century Learning Center, Fenton Center Public Charter School, and Feaster-Edison Charter School. Each conversion school has matured in the past twenty-five years modifying their names and organizational structures; however, each original leader continues to serve a role in the conversion charter school’s existence. More can be learned about the schools and their leadership journeys through specific case studies in the book.
Shifting from this theoretical explanation of a charter school conversion, this book examines motivations for conversion by highlighting real-world examples. This book includes application expectations and what authorizers consider in their review of charter proposals. Ultimately, the intent of this book is to inform.
NOTES
1. National Charter School Resource Center, “What Is a Charter School?” accessed December 31, 2018, from https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/what-is-a-charter-school.
2. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “Charter Schools FAQ” accessed December 31, 2018, from https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools/charter-school-faq.
3. California Legislative Information, “Bill No. 406, Approved by Governor September 7, 2018” accessed September 29, 2019, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB406.
4. James L. Woodworth, Margaret E. Raymong, Chunping Han, Yohannes Negassi, W. Payton Richardson, and Will Snow, Charter management organizations 2017, (Stanford, CA: CREDO – Center for Research on Education Outcomes), 1.
5. Ibid, 3.
6. Education Commission of the States, “50-State Comparison” accessed January 19, 2019, from http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestNB2C?rep=CS1702.
7. Texas Education Code, “TEC §§12.021‐12.022” accessed on October 6, 2019, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.12.htm.
