Читать книгу Changing to Charter - Rebecca A. Shore - Страница 11
ОглавлениеChapter 1 discusses the conversion model at the definition level; this chapter digs deeper into the philosophical level with one very important word—why. Excluding charters that were forcibly converted due to poor academic performance, why would an existing public or private school pursue this pathway? What, about this model, is so appealing that school officials would give up their known history to move into a different space that exerts so much pressure for performance?
The private school conversion motivations are a little more understandable—the allure of public funding. Private schools traditionally operate from a tuition-based model, with fundraising as a supplement; thus, converting to a public school shifts that model to a per-student allocation. In theory, public funding makes the budget easier to balance and opens the school to a wider student population. Instead of relying upon only families that can afford the tuition, these newly converted charters are open to any child eligible to attend a public school.
This draw of public funding becomes even more appealing during times of economic downturn as fewer families are eligible to afford the private school tuition. In fact, a North Carolina Charter applicant referenced this issue back in 2013. With its enrollment dipping from 436 students to 361, the private school faced a six-digit loss of funding. Note this specific passage from the application:
The decline in the local economy has taken its toll on Vance County. Incomes have decreased significantly since 2008. 2009–2011 represented some of the darkest economic times for Vance County in several decades. This has not left Kerr-Vance Academy untouched with regard to economic performance. The depressed economy, in conjunction with the opening of two new charter schools have made for challenging financial times for KVA. Given the choice of a tuition-free, high quality academic program at a charter school versus a tuition-based, high quality academic program at a private school, many families have found themselves forgoing the latter in favor of the former. KVA has seen a decline in enrollment from 2010 to present due to a significant increase in parents unable to pay tuition.1
Needless to say, the private-to-public metamorphosis is a dream scenario if the law permits the conversation and if the proposal receives approval from the authorizing authority. Within that promising situation, however, major pitfalls exist that must be overcome.
Converting a Private School
Without a doubt, the conversion process becomes more challenging for private schools. Yes, they possess history, facilities, and current students, but those aspects create issues for the possible charter school. The private school’s history or school culture may have to undergo serious modification to convert to charter status forcing them to use a valuation model to gauge opportunity costs of loss in the current against the gain in the future.
For instance, the school may have previously required all students to wear uniforms that were purchased by the families; however, this expectation would be a barrier to enrollment for families that could not afford the uniform purchase. As such, a school undergoing the conversion process would have to decide what to do about school uniforms—keep the policy but offer assistance to families or scrap the policy entirely. This issue merely scratches the surface; but a deeper, historical matter can cause an immediate identity crisis for the school.
As an existing private school, the school leaders discussed, pondered, drafted, adopted, and lived one mission statement. In doing so, the school planned its instructional and operational plans based upon that specific mission which, sometimes, has to be completely overhauled for conversion to work. In September 2016, the Mountain Island Day School charter application was filed with the NC Office of Charter Schools. This application sought to convert an existing private, Christian school that featured “blessing before meals, an opening prayer each day, weekly Bible classes and chapel.”2
With the North Carolina educational code—§ 115C-218.50—stating that a charter school “shall be nonsectarian in its programs,”3 Mountain Island Day School had to sacrifice its mission, curriculum, operating procedures, and expectations for students. This decision may have been the first-ever in North Carolina, and the founders understood these changes could repel long-standing families and supporters of the school.
Facilities
Despite receiving unanimous approval, the hard work was just beginning. The founders of Mountain Island Day School then took steps to immediately address religious issues on the website and facility to ensure proper separation of church and state. The prior building was known for its steeple and large cross, but modifications were necessary to comply with legal requirements.4 These facility modifications, revisions to the website, and other responsibilities (e.g., marketing their school) had to be addressed without public funding as part of the process to become a charter school.
Facilities also create ownership, liability, and financial issues. The organization entity that owned the property being utilized by the private school controls those capital assets and must decide on next steps. In some instances, the prior landlord will simply lease those facilities to the newly converted charter school to prevent a spatial vacancy or to cover previously incurred financial liabilities. In a North Carolina conversion application, the prior landlord did “not intend to transfer its assets or its liabilities” to the new charter school but would, instead, “provide for an operating lease on the assets” to then “use lease revenues to service existing debt.”5
In other instances, the property is outright sold or gifted to a nonprofit entity. One private school conversion in North Carolina did an interesting split of assets—the “real property” was sold to a family trust and the deed would transfer upon final payment while “all contents” of the facility remained the property of the newly formed charter school and would convey upon its approval.6 Neither of the situations mentioned above is wrong, but some additional questions by the authorizer assuredly arose from the dealings to ensure the budgets were fiscally sound. The specifics of facility arrangements are additional considerations that any private school conversion will face and have to explain to stakeholders and authorizing entities as the process moves forward.
Student Enrollment
Private schools also face a specific challenge due to their previous existence and a current student body. The choice to convert from private to public means that the school must hold an open enrollment period, whereby, they determine if they must hold a lottery for students. For example, if the school has 450 seats and more than 600 applications for those seats, then a blind lottery is held to determine the school’s enrollment. Students previously enrolled in the private school cannot be given an advantage over any new applicants, and this stark realization can create parental opposition toward the conversion effort. The newly converted public school must act in such a way that its integrity is without question as many will be watching and scrutinizing every decision regarding enrollment.
In August 2013, a new North Carolina private school conversion had to reopen its enrollment due to a complaint filed with the NC Department of Public Instruction. The conversion school increased its grade level caps from kindergarten through eighth grade beyond those approved by the state, meaning that they would not receive funding for those additional students. The allegation rested upon the fact that families not affiliated with the private school were not given the same opportunity at enrollment as were the previously enrolled private school students. While the school denied that any families were not given the fair opportunity, they did recognize how their actions could have been perceived as unethical.7
The heart of the matter focused on whether or not proper notice and time for enrollment were given to families not affiliated with the private school. In fact, the complaint letter provided information indicating confusion within the enrollment process—multiple days of enrollment leading to multiple days of possible lottery, only one day’s notice of accepting applications, a short time-frame to complete enrollment documents, and applications would only be accepted during the school day.8
While school officials denied any wrongdoing and presented a plan to try and rectify the situation, the motivations and intentions of the school were called into question. Any private school converting to charter status must take seriously their efforts to host an unimpeachable enrollment process and lottery.
Converting a Public School
Conversely, converting an existing public school to a charter school has its own unique aspects too. To gain a better understanding of the differences, the focus here is on a specific example from South Carolina in 2006—the Orange Grove Elementary School became the Orange Grove Charter School. One needs to understand the policy and authorizer environment to create a foundation for why the school took specific actions in order to convert to charter status. Whereas this is one policy environment for public school conversion, understand that each state will have laws that govern conversion status that readers, if pondering a conversion, will need to know and understand during the application process.
Application Process
Every state has its own application and process to determine which proposals will receive a charter. A cursory look across the applications themselves reflect the uniqueness and variety within charter school laws. As stated previously, NAPCS does not go deep in the charter conversion area by merely recommending the inclusion of a stakeholder approval section to the regular charter application. Each authorizer, pending their state’s law, can go deeper with questioning; and some, due to their local context, have done just that.
North Carolina created an entire section to address conversions of charter schools because the advisory board that reviewed these proposals believed more information was needed. After an applicant selects their designation as a conversation proposal, the application divides between public and private school conversion. A public school conversion is much simpler within the application as candidates must provide this information: the six-digit school identification number and evidences of support for the conversion. The evidences sought by the authorizer “must include:
1. Statement of Support signed by the majority of the teachers and instructional support personnel currently employed at the school,
2. Last payroll outlining current staff receiving compensation from the traditional public school,
3. Current school enrollment, and
4. Parental support of the conversion.”9
Later in the application, questions arise on student lottery as any converted public school must give preference to students who lived in the attendance zone previously served.
For private school conversion applicants, their level of scrutiny increases significantly with more robust questioning. First, the previously existing private school’s name and location must be provided. Second, the application demands the compilation of a three-year financial history, including any IRS-900 forms, to review the financial viability of the private school.
Undoubtedly, this request seeks to gauge the acumen of the business leaders and if the real conversion motive was to cover previously accrued debt. Finally, the application digs deep with questions covering these topics: rationale for conversion, compliance with nonsectarian clause of the law, enrollment/demographic trends of the last three years, evidence of the private school’s academic success, and staffing plans (including possible turnover due to the state’s teacher certification requirements).10
Authorizer Considerations
Once the application has been packaged and sent to the authorizer, the applicant wait begins. As these charter proposals can be more than 150 pages, and many proposals are submitted each cycle, the review process takes time. Authorizing entities often read and score an application determining which should come forward to receive a face-to-face interview. The applicants discover the concerns of that initial review and then prepare to address them in a formal interview. When the review and interview are completed, the authorizing entity votes on whether or not to extend the charter.
The process for conversion charters operates just like others; however, the depth of questioning faced by these applicants can get much deeper. For example, the chair of the NC Charter School Advisory Board (CSAB), in reviewing a charter school conversion proposal, did not mince his words when he said, “I feel like there’s another layer of scrutiny that should be applied.” One of his colleagues focused upon private school conversions by indicating their board would judge a candidate’s gravity in commitment to become a public school and watching for any attempt of transferring private debt to the public coffers.11 Authorizer board members want to see schools succeed and must ask diligent questions in order to make the difficult decisions.
Back-to-Back Applications in One Meeting
At its regularly scheduled meeting in December 2017, the NC Charter School Advisory Board experienced a rather interesting situation—back-to-back private school conversions in a formal interview. The applicants were about as different as possible: Hobgood Academy resided in the rural, eastern part of the state, served grades K–12, and would close unless the conversion gained approval. Conversely, Mountain Island resided in the suburban, western part of the state and was religiously based.
Hobgood Academy, where no prior charter school existed, received a vigorous debate. Concerns were voiced, but members of the board were sensitive to the fact that no public school choice existed in the area. Ultimately, this application was denied in a split vote due to concerns about debt transfer and the grade structure of the school. While officials representing the proposal could not effectively answer the questions posed by the review board, they were reminded that they could “apply in the following year as long as the applicant fixes the issues.”12
This applicant did return in the next cycle and went through the process again. To address many of their concerns, they partnered with a CMO for limited services—financials and student data—while completely overhauling their board. Further, the school modified its grade configuration to focus on K–8 leaving 9–12 as private. This change garnered quite a few questions to ensure the two entities were separated in every matter so as not to cause an audit finding.
Board members were better prepared and answered questions to the satisfaction of the authorizer. In fact, the authorizing entity thanked them for their “hard work and dedication” while stating they are “now ready for conversion.” Prior to the vote, the authorizing board chair said the following: “This is a strong application and an indication of the importance of a rigorous application process.”13 Knowing that they received unanimous approval reveals an important lesson—a negative vote does not end all hope for an application in the future.
Mountain Island, while receiving unanimous approval, faced its own challenges during the interview. Concern arose around the name of the school as it resembled the name of another charter school in that same area. Discussion also hovered around the topic of debt and note to the words of a CSAB member, “the school must figure out the financials” but they did “not see the same glaring financial issues from the prior school.”
As a motion was made to approve the proposal, an objection arose causing that motion to be withdrawn. A member noticed a particular course requirement that could exclude students and they were not “comfortable recommending approval of another charter with that piece.”14 The issue was resolved, but it reveals the detailed analysis and review that all charter applicants must face—whether they succeed or fail in their endeavor to earn a charter from their state authorizers.
Stakeholder Support Expectation
NAPCS, in publishing its model charter school law, has defined conversion charters and included information recommended for inclusion in state charter school laws. Within the expectations for a charter application, NAPCS includes this singular endorsement for the law:
In the case of a proposed charter public school that plans to convert an existing non-charter public school to charter public school status, the application shall additionally require the applicants to demonstrate support for the proposed charter public school conversion by a petition signed by a majority of the teachers, a petition signed by a majority of parents of students in the existing non-charter public school, or a portion signed by a majority of the school. Board.15
Notice the use of the term “or” in the groups that should be petitioned for approval, meaning that only one should be set as an expectation. The intent is without question—ensuring that stakeholders have an opportunity to voice their opinions regarding the possible conversion—because NAPCS understands the unforeseen and often unstated issues that can arise before, during, and after the conversion process.
South Carolina, rather than inserting language into their charter law, promulgated regulations that set forth the expectations for public school conversion; and the State Board of Education went further than NAPCS recommended by instituting at least two venues of support: parental and staff. Evidence, within the charter application, shall include that an “adequate number of parents or legal guardians with students eligible to attend the proposed school” support it, meaning the proposed budget is solid.
While this requirement exists for all charter schools, conversion charters had to go one step further in that two-thirds “of the voting parents or legal guardians voted to support” filing of the conversion application. The regulation removes all doubt of how this process should work by dictating that “parents or guardians shall have one vote for each of their children enrolled in the school.”16 The law recognizes that not all parents want to offer their opinion but emphasizes that each parent should be given the opportunity to voice those concerns.
In turning to the staff, South Carolina breaks from NAPCS by adding instructional staff to the mix of school-based officials that must be solicited for approval. The broader group of school staff serves as an insurance policy that protects the students. If the majority of the staff is committed to the conversion, then they would, most likely, continue working at the school after the process concluded. This stability protected school culture and offered some familiarity as the winds of change were about to gust.
South Carolina also added an interesting twist to the conversion process that certainly helped with the staff vote but potentially created future budgetary issues. The regulation specifically says that those working at the school before conversion that chose to stay “will remain employees of the local school district with the same compensation and benefits including any future increases.”17 Teachers, who may have been undecided on the actual conversion and worried about compensation or benefits, were granted immediate and future relief.
The school had to create a budget that covered any future increase for these individuals as the district may offer salary or benefit incentives. The larger budget implication faced by school administrators hinged upon the hiring of new teachers who would not be members of the local school district. This could possibly create a dual-salary system within the building that would erode school culture; yet, astute administrators address that issue on the front end to prevent its occurrence.
Once the recommendations have been made and voting has been finalized, the real work for the successful applicants begins; and the duration of that work can depend upon state law and authorizing entities. Some states—both North and South Carolina—require charter applicants to go through a mandatory year of planning. This rationale was rooted in historical figures reflecting earlier struggles of these schools.
For example, earlier approved charters granted in March for an opening less than six months away became viewed as unrealistic with such a short turnaround. Over time, policymakers recognized that not all applicants need that mandatory year and created a process to fast track those applicants. In the case of North Carolina conversion schools, most received motions for “accelerated opening,” and that decision makes sense.18 With already existing facilities, name recognition, students, and faculty, the plausibility of those schools opening quickly is higher than an applicant lacking those aspects.
As shown, attention to the detail of the ever-changing state charter statutes is critical for accessing the most up-to-date requirements and resources. One national resource is the Education Commission of the States (ECS), which was founded in 1967 to share information, tools, and competence across all the states. While the ECS provides basic information on charter schools, the greatest value is their compilation of in-depth “individual state profiles.” These state-specific profiles cover nearly every area imaginable—accountability measures, school finance, teacher status—and includes statutory citations.19
The statutory details from South Carolina’s conversion process are important to understand the story of Orange Grove Elementary School in chapter 9. At the time of Orange Grove’s conversion, it was only the second school in South Carolina to go through that process—ironically within the same district. As the reader can surmise, part II will shift considerably from theory to practice by presenting actual case studies of schools that have successfully converted to charter status. These individual examples cover a cross-section of the country—from California to the Carolinas—and highlight critical leaders, historical steps, and situational distinctives in the quest for individual autonomy within the charter sector. Their stories offer direction and resources for anyone currently considering the conversion process.
NOTES
1. Kerr-Vance Charter Application, pp. 37–38, accessed on October 6, 2019 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/applications/15-16/kerrvance.pdf.
2. Ann Doss Helms, “Christianity is Out, Public Money is in as Charlotte School Makes Rare Conversion,” accessed on October 5, 2019 from https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article197550394.html.
3. NC Education Code, Article 14A, Section 115C, accessed on October 15, 2019 from https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_115c/Article_14A.pdf.
4. Helms, Christianity Is Out.
5. Kerr-Vance Charter Application, p. 38.
6. Hobgood Academy Charter School Application, p. 36, accessed on September 28, 2019 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/applications/20-21/hobgood.pdf.
7. Ali Rockett, “Robeson County’s Southeastern Academy Reopening Enrollment, Adding more Students,” accessed on October 6, 2019 from https://www.fayobserver.com/article/20130807/News/308079792.
8. Social Coalition for Social Justice complaint letter to the NC Office of Charter Schools, accessed on October 5, 2019 from http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Southeastern-Academy-Complaint.pdf.
9. NC Charter School Application, p. 11 and 23, accessed October 13, 2019 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/charterschools/applications accessed.
10. Ibid., pp. 11–12.
11. Helms, Christianity is Out.
12. “Minutes of the NC Charter School Advisory Board Meeting on December 17, 2017,” p. 12, accessed on October 19, 2019 at http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/board/minutes12-2017.pdf.
13. “Minutes of the NC Charter School Advisory Board Meeting on January 14, 2019,” pp. 24–25, accessed on October 20, 2019 at http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/board/minutes01-2019.pdf.
14. Ibid., p. 12 and 13.
15. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “Model Charter School Law,” p. 58, accessed October 5, 2019 from https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools/charter-school-faq.
16. SC State Board of Education Regulation R 43-601, “Procedures and Standards for Review Charter School Applications,” p. 2, accessed on October 5, 2019 from https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/File/stateboard/documents/601.pdf.
17. Ibid., p. 1.
18. NC Charter School Advisory Board Meeting Minutes (December 2017), p. 12.
19. The Education Commission of the States charter school state profiles can be located here: https://www.ecs.org/charter-schools-policies-state-profiles.
