Education

Charter schools: learning from the past, planning for the future

Lea Hubbard Æ Rucheeta Kulkarni

Published online: 26 March 2009 ! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Abstract Charter schools have garnered strong support over the past decade, however, opponents question this choice option on many grounds, including their effectiveness, accountability, equity, and sustainability. This paper addresses these concerns by synthesizing what we know from the literature on charter schools, exposing areas where evidence is lacking, conflicting or ambiguous, and assessing the overall maturation of charter school reform. To help answer the question of sustainability, we draw in part on findings from our in-progress, long-term case study of a conversion charter school. This ethnographic data reveals the existence of serious challenges for researchers and policymakers, but also provides useful guidance for the future direction of the charter school movement.

Keywords Charter schools ! Choice ! Educational change

In the closing decades of the 20th century, responsibility for improving US public education shifted away from professionals and toward the larger community (Murphy and Shiffman 2002). A focus on ‘‘parents’ rights’’ emerged, along with a greater emphasis on marketization and privatization (Contreras 1995; Wells 2002). Many educators, parents, and business and political leaders began to support the idea of school choice as a solution to the seemingly intractable problems of the public school system. Charter schools quickly captured attention as an especially

L. Hubbard (&) School of Leadership and Education Sciences, University of San Diego, 5998 Alcala Park, San Diego, CA 92110, USA e-mail: [email protected]

R. Kulkarni Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA e-mail: [email protected]

123

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 DOI 10.1007/s10833-009-9109-y

promising way to provide much-needed innovation, competition, and academic improvement.

In the years following the opening of the first charter school (in Minnesota, in 1992), the movement spread rapidly.1 By 2008, according to the Center for Education Reform (2008a), a non-partisan organization that supports school choice, there were 4,100 charter schools, serving approximately 1.2 million children across 40 states and the District of Columbia. As these statistics suggest, this form of school choice has strong support. And, given President Barack Obama’s appoint- ment of charter-school supporter Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education, backing for these schools is not likely to diminish. Still, over the past 10 years, increasingly vigorous opposition has emerged from some quarters. Opponents question charter schools on many grounds, including their effectiveness, accountability, equity, and sustainability. This paper addresses these concerns by synthesizing what we know from the literature on charter schools, exposing areas where evidence is lacking, conflicting or ambiguous, and assessing the overall maturation of charter school reform. To help answer the question of sustainability, we draw in part on findings from our in-progress, long-term case study of a conversion charter school. This ethnographic data reveals the existence of serious challenges for researchers and policymakers, but also provides useful guidance for the future direction of the charter school movement.

Overview

By design, charter schools are meant to combine greater academic autonomy than is normally associated with traditional public schools with more accountability for producing positive educational outcomes (Wells 2002; see also Wohlstetter et al. 1995). Charters deliberately distance themselves from union rules and regulations and thus have more discretion in hiring and firing teachers. As the name implies, the schools operate under a charter or contract with an authorizing agent. That agent varies widely: it may be a school district, a state board of education, a university, a non-profit or a for-profit organization. It is the responsibility of the authorizing agent to oversee and hold the charter accountable. Contracts typically need to be renewed every 3–5 years.

Charter schools differ from one another across a surprisingly large number of dimensions (Lake and Hill 2006). There are, for example, differences in organizational structure—there are ‘‘start-up charters,’’ ‘‘conversion charters’’ (conventional public schools that petitioned for and received charter status), and, especially over the past 5 to 10 years, charters affiliated with either for-profit or non- profit charter management organizations (CMOs) (Lake 2007). Moreover, different types of charters serve different types of student populations, are more or less financially solvent, and face both similar and different challenges that ultimately

1 While our article is restricted to the U.S. context, it is important to note that charter-like schools exist in other countries, such as New Zealand (Ladner 2001) Chile (Larrañaga 2004), and England (Wohlstetter and Anderson 1994). Moreover, countries such as Japan are showing increasing interest (Tokyo 2004).

174 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

affect the work they are able to do. Such variations make it difficult to generalize about the effectiveness of charter schools as an educational reform initiative. Despite generally high levels of satisfaction among parents who have chosen to enroll their children in charter schools (Teske and Schneider 2001), an ongoing debate among educators, researchers, and policymakers persists, underscoring the existence of important political and educational concerns.

Among the most salient questions are the following:

• Are charter schools living up to their promise to improve students’ academic outcomes?

• Are charter schools being held sufficiently accountable? • Are charter schools improving the education of all children, or are they

contributing to a re-segregation of public education? • Are charter schools truly innovative (thus expanding choice for diverse student

needs), or are they similar in many respects to conventional public schools? • Do charter schools have the requisite leadership, teaching staff, and governance

to support their educational mission? • And finally, are charter schools sustainable as a permanent alternative to

conventional public schools?

The remainder of the paper considers each of these questions in turn. Wherever possible, we use the most current research available in order to provide an accurate understanding of the degree to which charter schools are (or are not) living up to their promise to be both innovative and accountable.

Are charter schools living up to their promise to improve students’ academic outcomes?

The short answer to the question of whether or not charter schools are raising academic achievement is that we still don’t know. Over the last decade, studies of charter school achievement nationwide have shown mixed results. A non-partisan study published in 2001 reported significant inter- and intra-state differences (RAND 2001). In Arizona, for example, charters seemed to outperform their public school counterparts in reading, and possibly in math; in Michigan, 7th grade students in the state’s newly opened charters showed no difference in test scores from their peers in conventional public schools, and at the 4th grade level, traditional school students outperformed those in charter schools. Texas charter schools that focused specifically on students at risk for poor academic performance showed an achievement advantage over conventional public schools, but the state’s other charter schools performed slightly worse than conventional public schools.

Other studies have reported more positive results. Zimmer et al. (2003) conducted a study of California charter schools and found that when charter schools provided all of their instruction inside the classroom (as opposed to delivering some of it outside the classroom), students fared better than their public-school counterparts. Some very recent research on two start-up charter schools in California found minority and low-income students outperforming their public

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 175

123

school peers academically and with respect to college entrance (Alvarez and Mehan 2006; McLure et al. 2005).

Charter school critics, on the other hand, emphasize evidence that indicates charter schools are not doing well compared to their non-charter counterparts. For instance, an analysis of National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data provided by the American Federation of Teachers (Nelson et al. 2004) shows that charter school students had test scores a half-grade lower than the scores of students in public schools. And, while black students in charter schools were found to perform about the same as black students in public schools, students in central cities and those eligible for free or reduced-price lunches scored worse. A 2005 report by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), a governmental agency, confirmed the AFT findings. Compared to their non-charter counterparts, low- income students in charter schools scored lower in reading and mathematics, were taught by teachers with less years of experience, and by teachers who lacked certification. Other studies echo these disappointing results, finding no significant differences in test scores of elementary school students in charter schools versus those in traditional public schools (Loveless 2003; Rogosa 2003).

The mixed findings on charter-school students’ academic achievement have been variously interpreted. Some charter proponents question the research designs and/or methods used to assess performance, and argue that NAEP scores are misleading because the effects of poverty and other background factors of the students who attend charters negatively influence test scores. Braun et al. (2006), for instance, call for a more sophisticated quantitative analysis using hierarchical linear modeling to enable analysis of multiple school and student characteristics. Yet, when Braun and his colleagues applied their statistical model, they derived similarly disappointing results regarding academic achievement. Charter school students’ scores in reading and mathematics were lower on average than those of students in public non-charter schools. Hoxby (2004), a charter school proponent, reported positive findings in her comparison between public school and charter school students’ reading and math scores, after accounting for poverty and other background factors. A reanalysis by the Economic Policy Institute (Roy and Mishel 2005), however, concluded that Hoxby had not adequately controlled for racial composition or low-income status. The authors’ concluded from Hoxby’s data that ‘‘when both racial composition and low-income status are controlled for, the positive effect of attending a charter school disappears for both math and reading’’ (p. 2). Hoxby’s research has been severely criticized by others, as well (see Carnoy et al. 2005).

Timing may also play a role in the mixed nature of the findings on academic achievement. Some researchers have noted that for the most part, the achievement data that has been analyzed was collected when charter schools were in the early stages of their growth. Moreover, because charter schools sometimes experiment with novel educational approaches and ‘‘collect test score data in a given grade over time without accounting for the fact that a school enrolls different students in that grade in different school years,’’ study results often are problematic (Betts and Tang 2008). Other researchers, noting that assessing academic performance is a complex undertaking, suggest the use of different kinds of assessment and urge that assessment be conducted over a long period of time (Bulkley and Fisler 2003).

176 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

Over the last decade, assessment of charter schools has remained a salient concern among educators, policymakers and parents. However, very recently, a significant change in the approach to charter school assessment has been suggested. Betts and Tang (2008) advocate a value-added approach. They use this approach, along with random assignment, in their investigation of charter school achievement. Despite considerable variation among the schools, the overall evidence shows that charters outperformed their traditional public school counterparts. The researchers suggest that, given the variety among charter schools, variation in performance should be expected and not used to dismiss charter schools in general. Betts and Tang acknowledge that the results of their study are preliminary and note that at the high school level, the findings are quite disappointing. Still, they argue that the results for elementary and middle schools offer reason for optimism.

Are charter schools being held sufficiently accountable?

In exchange for autonomy, charter schools are supposed to be held accountable for achieving the goals they set forth in their charter. Given the public’s investment in these alternative public schools, the level of accountability is both a political and an educational concern. Bulkley and Fisler (2003) note that ‘‘there is considerable variation in state approaches to governmental accountability’’ (p. 327). Although some states exert considerable control over charter schools, other states rely on market accountability or district oversight to ensure quality.

Some researchers have pointed out that even when there is some evidence of accountability, problems persist because of the kinds of relationships charter schools have with their authorizers. Wells (2002) argues that

Charter school authorizers find it difficult to know how to relate to schools on the basis of performance rather than compliance. In short, there are now massive amounts of evidence that the systemic reform vision of charter schools and their autonomy-for-accountability trade off has not materialized. We are left with a reform that, in many cases, provides a great deal of autonomy for individual schools but little public information or feedback about what takes place within them (p. 13).

A common assumption is that the market will drive accountability, but there appears to be no additional academic accountability for charter schools (Wells 2002). Proponents maintain that charter schools that do not provide quality education simply will not remain open, since parents will remove their children from unsuccessful schools. Research on this issue, however, reveals that this assumption may not be correct.

Research on charter schools has shown that parents generally are more satisfied with their choice to enroll their children in charter schools as opposed to traditional public schools and that they are more involved in their children’s education (Teske and Schneider 2001; Vanourek et al. 1998) than they were previously. This high level of satisfaction may be a rationalization. Parents who have made the extra effort to choose a charter school believe that the charter must therefore be superior to a conventional public school (Fuller et al. 1996). This conviction may weaken over

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 177

123

time (Ogawa and Dutton 1994). Nevertheless, across the research studies we reviewed, there is general consensus that parents seem pleased with their choice.

A study of charter schools in Texas found that parents are more likely to pull their children out of ineffective charter schools (i.e., ones that boost students’ test scores by less than average) than effective ones (Hanushek et al. 2007). Yet, charters vary in their goal specificity. This can make it difficult for parents to accurately measure the schools’ performance. Carnoy and his colleagues (2005) point out that the basic assumption that parents will hold schools accountable often is invalid, since ‘‘parents may choose charter schools for other than academic reasons;’’ moreover, the sheer complexity involved in assessing a school’s academic performance makes it unlikely that parents would consistently ‘‘be able to discern a charter school that was more academically effective’’ (p. 4). Experiences in California would seem to confirm Carnoy’s assertions. In May 2007, accountability issues drew intense media attention after a series of very public charter school closings. These closings followed the discovery of serious mismanagement that had gone unnoticed by parents.

Perhaps the most dramatic change in the area of charter school accountability has been the actions taken by states to rein in charter schools. In California, following the passage of legislation, the California Charter School Association (CCSA) added its support to the push for greater accountability, launching, in May 2007, the Certified Charter Schools Program. In the decades since the start of the charter school movement, the CCSA has ‘‘evolved from a loose network of charter leaders and idealists swapping ideas and information to an influential political player with financial backing from such philanthropic heavy-hitters as the Walton Family Foundation’’ (Maxwell 2008). The CCSA’s transformation into a powerful special- interest group is ironic, since CCSA founders had fought to rein in the power that another special interest group—the California Teachers Association—exerted over the state’s public school system (Fuller et al. 1996). The organization’s certification program broke new ground. This was

the first time that a state’s charter school sector had agreed on a set of quality standards and said it would recognize schools that lived up to them. Seventy percent of the charter schools in California are CCSA members and are putting themselves under the scrutiny of an outside reviewer to judge how well they educate children, govern themselves, and manage their finances (Maxwell2008).

Whether this combination of state legislation and CCSA certification will continue to ensure accountability across California’s charter schools remains to be seen.

Are charter schools improving the education of all children, or are they contributing to a re-segregation of public education?

The question of equity in the charter school context has several components. Here we focus on issues of equity in access and equity in financial resources. In the subsequent sections, as we discuss issues of innovation and capacity, we take up the additional concerns of curriculum equity and human capital equity. It is in these areas that the potential for an unequal education is greatest for charter school students.

178 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

Access

In the aftermath of Brown v. Board of Education, creating heterogeneous public schools has gained greater importance, and the imperative to preserve that heterogeneity extends to all charter schools (Arsen et al. 1999; Cobb and Glass 1999). Lopez et al. (2002) warn that segregation may be growing along with the spread of charter schools. They point out that charter school founders often build what may be termed ‘‘cultural communities,’’ which define charter schools in opposition to other public schools (p. 131). When schools are free to control who gets in and who does not, when they can ‘‘invite’’ certain groups of students and create microcosms of populations with the same or similar values and beliefs, racial/ethnic composition, and social class standing, maintaining equity becomes problematic. Moreover, when low-income students are excluded because attending schools outside their residential neighborhood is not feasible, or because considerable amounts of parental involve- ment are required and additional costs associated with attendance preclude these students’ enrollment, more privileged students are granted an advantage.

Access to school choice also seems to be driven by who knows about the options, and in this regard, research suggests that more educated, middle- or upper-income white parents are more aware (Henig 1996). Teske and Schneider (2001) argue that charter schools are contributing to re-segregation due in part to the behavior of ‘‘higher-SES parents and white parents [who] appear more likely to favor schools with fewer low-income students or minorities. Expanded choice systems therefore could exacerbate stratification or segregation because different types of parents systematically make different choices’’ (p. 614).

A demographic study conducted by RPP International in 2000 suggests a different scenario. Researchers found that 70% of the charter schools they examined had student populations with racial and ethnic compositions similar to district non- charter schools, 17% had a higher portion of students of color, and about 14% had a lower percentage of students of color. This finding, however, has not been replicated elsewhere, according to Bulkley and Fisler (2003).

Issues of equity are even more complicated in the case of conversion charter schools. In the last decade, the number of conversion charters has increased dramatically, as No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requirements have forced takeovers or closures of underperforming schools. These schools typically educate the same neighborhood students who had been attending the local, now-closed conventional public schools. Since public schools today are more segregated than ever (Orfield and Eaton 1996; Orfield and Lee 2007), converting them to charters does not interrupt segregation. Instead, conversions perpetuate—and in some cases exacerbate—the segregation already present in the school systems from which they have stemmed.

Financial equity

Charter schools are entitled to the same Average Daily Attendance (ADA) funds allocated by individual states to their traditional public schools (Center for Education Reform 2008b). Theoretically, this should ensure financial equity between the two types of schools. Slayton (2002) found, however, that in practice,

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 179

123

not all charter schools receive the same funding from their districts. The Center for Education Reform reports that ‘‘charter schools across the United States are funded at 61% of their district counterparts’’ (2008b). This imbalance leads many schools to seek private funding—a difficult and time-consuming endeavor—and one that often results in failure.

Conversion charter schools may face double jeopardy. The authorizing agent for this type of charter typically is the local school district, and conversion charter schools often continue to occupy district-owned facilities. Thus, the district has the option of raising the rent on these facilities, assigning additional special education students to these schools, and determining the level of support to provide for special needs students. In some districts, conversion charters may also be responsible for supplying professional development for teachers and administrators, an expense that was previously covered by the district. Meeting these and other externally imposed responsibilities can quickly become a major financial burden. It is not surprising, then, that in many cases, individuals who are interested in starting a charter school turn to CMOs, who help with start-up funds and locating potential school sites, and often also provide curriculum and the professional development necessary in order to open the school (Scott and Holmes 2002). This increasing reliance on CMOs is, arguably, one of the greatest changes that has occurred within the charter school movement over the past decade. The additional financial burden experienced by most charters, given they often do not receive the same local and facility funds that regular public schools receive (Speakman 2008), can undermine the quality of the education children in a charter school receive, as opposed to those in an equivalent conventional public school (Fuller et al. 1996; Wells 2002).

When charter schools do not provide equal access and when tight finances reduce the number and type of educational resources that can be made available to students, the highly probable result is an ever-wider gap in achievement, not only between charter and traditional public schools, but also between students of different races and classes.

Are charter schools truly innovative (thus expanding choice for diverse student needs), or are they similar in many respects to conventional public schools?

One of the more exciting expectations of charter schools was that they would offer a venue for innovation, which could potentially not only expand choice but also address the needs of a greater number of students. Hill (2006) confirms a trend among charter schools to provide a college preparatory curriculum to inner-city students, a course of study often not available to them. Some charters extend school hours and the school year to enhance learning opportunities.

Wohlstetter and Griffin (1998) suggest, however, that charter schools do not take advantage of their autonomy when it comes to practice. Lubienski (2003) seems to concur. His review of research on charter schools that report using more innovations than district schools found that there was a ‘‘trend toward standardization of practice—rather than innovation—in many of the schools’’ (p. 417). Charter schools may be looking more like their traditional counterparts because parents who do not want their children to be guinea pigs may make few demands for innovation (Lake

180 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

and Hill 2006). Although they still hold the promise of bringing much-needed change, in their fervor to achieve strong test results and to respond to federal and state accountability mandates, charter schools may be moving more toward the practices common in their public school counterparts. As they move toward the mean, charter schools are experiencing what Kemerer has referred to as ‘‘regulation creep’’ (personal communication, December 12, 2008).

Do charter schools have the requisite teaching staff, leadership, and governance to support their educational mission?

While the autonomy granted charters provides distance from unions, it also raises concerns as to whether these schools are able to hire effective teachers and, importantly, whether they are able to retain the brightest and best teachers once they have been hired. The ability of charter schools to provide the kind of human capital to best educate children is particularly problematic if a charter school is already struggling financially and has little margin with which to keep teacher salaries at competitive levels. The need to control costs often prompts the schools to hire a greater number of new, inexperienced teachers, which in turn raises questions about teacher quality (Darling-Hammond and Prince 2007; Darling-Hammond and Youngs 2002). Moreover, charter schools often demand that teachers work a longer school day and year. Many otherwise strong, committed, veteran teachers may burn out under this added burden and choose to leave, while colleagues with less impressive credentials, who therefore are less likely to land jobs in other non- charter schools in the district, remain in place. Of course, this scenario could, arguably, instead result in the retention of the most able and the most dedicated teachers. Further research is called for.

Obviously, leadership is important for the success of any school. Charter schools face several challenges on this front, starting with the problem of recruiting capable individuals to lead the schools. Education Week’s fifth annual ‘‘Leading for Learning’’ report notes that according to an estimate made by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, charter schools are expected to need between 6,000 and 21,000 new principals over the next decade, a figure that ‘‘dwarfs the 4,300 charter schools in existence as of last school year’’ (Robelen 2008). Most principals have not been trained in the skills and knowledge necessary for leading charter schools effectively. In addition to having instructional knowledge and administrative skills, charter leaders need to know how to negotiate relations with charter school authorizers, school boards, parents, and teachers. They must be prepared to handle legal issues and financial problems, including the need to raise money. Preparing individuals to lead charters is a challenge that must be met by our principal preparation programs, if we are to ensure the promise of quality education. Over the past few years, we have witnessed some positive programmatic changes. Universities attempting to address the needs of charter school principals have developed innovative curricula that often includes more field experience and problem-based learning, additions likely to be very helpful to these future leaders (Jackson and Kelley 2002).

Authorizing agents play a big role in the governance of charters. Depending on the authorizing agent’s level of control, charter leaders have varying degrees of

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 181

123

decision-making power. For example, in reviewing how various agents approach their responsibilities, Lake and Hill (2006) describes Central Michigan University as taking ‘‘a very top-down approach to oversight’’ that includes a willingness ‘‘to impose a specific idea of good instruction and replace board members for the schools they oversee, even if that means all schools end up with similar approaches’’ (p. xii). The State University of New York, by contrast, prefers ‘‘a more arms-length relationship’’ with the charter schools it oversees (Ibid.). Which kind of relationship produces better results is an open question, but as Lake observes, the resemblance between top-down, centralized approaches and ‘‘conventional school district oversight is striking’’(Ibid.).

Many charters have 501C status and are governed by a full board of directors. As some experts have pointed out, however, many boards are ill-equipped to handle their responsibilities effectively. Board members are drawn from constituents who have an investment in the school, including community members, parents, teachers, partnership representatives, and administrators. In some areas, charter school associations have assumed the job of training boards—explaining state laws regulating charter schools, teaching members how to work with the authorizing agent, and, sometimes, providing coaching on how to fund-raise. There are some concerns that this kind of intervention may give charter school associations too much power—power that ought to rest in the hands of the local charter school community. In other words, as charter schools mature, they may be in ‘‘danger of repeating the very same mistakes, with regard to whole school solutions and top-down fixes that [they] set out to correct in the traditional education system’’ (Lake and Hill 2006, p. xi).

Are charter schools sustainable as a permanent alternative to conventional public schools?

Much of what we know about charter schools is based on analyses of quantitative data (e.g., NCES 2005; RAND 2001; Zimmer et al. 2003). Although there are some important exceptions (e.g., Fuller 2000; Stulberg 2008), overall, there is a startling absence of long-term case studies and the rich data they provide. This has led to a circumscribed understanding of the cultural, practical, and political decisions that are being made by actors within and external to charter schools. We need to know more about the relationships, challenges, and conditions charter school educators and administrators face as they work to keep their schools open and effective.

Almost all charter schools that have closed—whether by their own decision or as a result of revocation or non-renewal—have done so for reasons unrelated or only indirectly related to educational performance (Center for Education Reform 2008c). The most common reasons for closure are ‘‘organizational chaos, management melt- down, and fiscal shenanigans’’ (Finn et al. 2000, p. 137). What causes these kinds of problems? To begin the process of answering that question, in the next section, we briefly describe the experiences of one California conversion charter middle school, tracing its transition from a traditional public school to a charter school now in its fourth year of operation (see Hubbard and Hands 2008 for a detailed discussion of this). The lessons generated from this case study speak to the question of the overall sustainability of charters.

182 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

Culture, communication, and collapse

After being part of California’s Immediate Intervention for Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) and failing to meet its NCLB performance targets, Barbara Jordan Middle School (pseudonym) was placed in Program Improvement. In the spring of 2000, only a third of the school’s nearly 700 students tested at or above 50% on the state’s standardized mathematics and reading tests. Student achievement began to improve in 2001, under the leadership of a newly appointed principal who formerly had been a Jordan Middle School teacher. The Academic Performance Index (API) climbed from 546 in 2001 to 629 in 2004, but the school remained in Program Improvement status through the 2004–2005 school year. The threat of a takeover by the state galvanized the local community. Members protested in front of the district school board, charging that their children had suffered from the district’s neglect. The school community fought for and won the right to convert to charter status. In 2004–2005, the school re-opened as a charter school, under the new name of Barbara Jordan College Preparatory Academy, and with a new executive director. The local school district is the authorizing agent.

Faced with an array of challenges, including developing greater financial resources and human capital, the new executive director reached out to a neighboring university, hoping to forge a supportive partnership. This is an increasingly common strategy among charter leaders in California. According to the California Charter Schools Association, the number of charter schools in the state that operate in conjunction with a university has nearly doubled recently. In 2007, there were 12 charter schools associated with universities. By fall 2008, 10 more were slated to open, with several other campuses planning similar kinds of partnerships in the near future (Maitre 2008).

A board was appointed, with members drawn from the local community, from among parents of students enrolled in the school, from the charter’s teaching staff, and from the partnering university. A somewhat contentious relationship developed with the school district as a result of steep increases in rent for the charter’s facilities, located in a mixed-use, low-income neighborhood (the same site the school had occupied before the conversion). Some board members described the new rent as commensurate with the going rate for pricey real estate in one of the area’s exclusive beach communities. This troubling financial scenario (one all too- familiar in the charter school movement, as noted in our earlier discussion of financial equity) was exacerbated by a change in district superintendents. Unlike his predecessor, who had been supportive, the new superintendent was critical of charter schools in general. Additional problems occurred when the district increased the assignment of special education students to the school without providing the requisite support. Meanwhile, although the school successfully shed its ‘‘need for improvement’’ status, academic achievement has been faltering recently. Some children are showing improvement, but there is evidence that all children are not experiencing academic gains, thus raising questions as to the ability of this charter school to improve academic achievement.

Relationships between the school and the community also have been deterio- rating. Previously extremely supportive, the community is now less committed and

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 183

123

some members express feelings of alienation. For example, some parents complain that they and their community are viewed as deficient by the executive director and that they feel marginalized. A school staff person who is a parent and long time community member told us that members of the Latino community in particular do not feel that their needs are being taken into account, or that school administrators are being held accountable for their actions. For example, although the school arranged for parent meetings, they scheduled them at a time when most of the parents were working and could not attend. Moreover, when parents did attend school functions they were not shown the respect they felt they deserved.

The university–school partnership is splintering as well. Neither side had clearly articulated their expectations when the partnership was first created; with the passage of time, charter representatives have come to view the university as self- serving, and as failing to provide the level of monetary and tutoring support they expected and the school needed. For their part, the university representatives now feel that no matter how much support they provide, it is never considered ‘‘enough’’ by their charter partners. In year three of the charter, amid increasingly poor communications and strained relations, the executive director resigned, under some pressure from the board.

This resignation required the board to search for and hire a new director. When the first candidate search proved unsuccessful, the former executive director’s number two person was appointed as interim director. Later, when the board decided not to appoint him as permanent director, some teachers and parents rebelled. They believed the board was simply capitulating to directives issued by the university and was no longer meeting its obligation to be accountable to the community. Thus, they demanded termination of the school’s partnership with the university. The charter contract, which is up for renewal in the 2009–2010 academic year, is reliant upon strong direction from the school leadership, but to date, the school remains without a permanent executive director, and teacher and community sentiment concerning the interim director is split. One of the few things all parties agree on is that the survival of this charter is at great risk.

From our perspective, this conversion charter school’s experiences confirm many of the research findings that have emerged over the last 10 years. Like other charters across the country, this school has been plagued by issues of uneven academic achievement, limited accountability, and financial and human capital inequity. Sadly, the additional problems of inexperienced leadership and contested gover- nance have further hobbled the school’s efforts to meet its educational mission.

Lessons learned

What accounts for the school’s rapid decline? Are there any general lessons to be learned from its particular course of development, its implementation processes, and/or its responses to the many challenges to even its short-term sustainability? We think so. Suggestions for fixing the problems of this school will not, of course, apply to all charters, nor even necessarily to ones that face similar threats. But we believe that several findings that have emerged thus far from this case study can help guide

184 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

researchers, educators, parents, and policymakers as we all think about and craft the future direction of charter school reform. These key points are as follows:

• Cultivate relationships. Relationships among all key constituents (board members, university partners, administrators, faculty, parents, and authorizing agents) must be deliberately cultivated and carefully negotiated on a continuing basis. Open, on-going communication is essential. The case study findings indicate that when expectations are not fully articulated and/or when they are ambiguous, key participants become confused or disappointed and, ultimately, they will become disengaged as well. Ruptured communications can lead parents and community members to perceive school administrators, faculty and board members as not sufficiently accountable to them, a perception that may eventually endanger charter school survival.

• Prepare key participants. Charter school participants have roles and responsi- bilities that differ, sometimes significantly, from those of their counterparts in conventional public schools, underscoring the importance of adequate prepa- ration. Preparing all participants so that they are able to fulfill their responsibilities is imperative. Barbara Jordan College Preparatory Academy board members might have prevented some of the missteps that plagued the school if they had received board training. Similarly, if the executive director, who was new to the role of principal and untrained in leading charter schools, had been properly trained, she might have more expertly negotiated the financial and legal demands imposed by the authorizing agent and worked more effectively with the board. Securing grants and soliciting private and/or foundation support are not functions public school principals are trained to undertake. This will have to change, at least for charter school leaders.

• Provide adequate support and training for partners. Maintaining successful partnerships is hard to do, yet these joint ventures might well prove to be the salvation for charter schools. The need for both financial and educational support makes it likely that charter schools will continue to reach out to universities. The breakdown of the university–charter school partnership in the case study reinforces the point made in the literature that we reviewed that it is essential that all those involved in such partnerships receive adequate training. Universities and schools have different cultures. For example, university professors need to do research, and they often want to provide professional development for charter school teachers, but professors and school administra- tors work within different time schedules and may have somewhat different ways of approaching practice. School administrators—and teachers—tend to focus on practical, short-term goals; they need to get work done. Practitioners also need assurance that researchers will not expose their limitations, especially to administrators. In the conversion charter school we are studying, there has never been any acknowledgement of the cultural differences between the university and the school, nor any clear articulation of the sometimes differing needs of each partner. Training in how to articulate goals and how to negotiate to reach them is needed for all participants, if partnerships between charter schools and universities are to succeed.

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 185

123

• Involve the community. It is not unusual for charter schools to seek community involvement in the early stages, when the schools need support for start-up. It is much less common, but arguably much more important to continue to cultivate community support over time, as the schools grow, ponder their direction, and perhaps reconsider their mission and vision for the future. Schools need to make sure they are continually responsive to the parents (and students) they serve, and that parental input is welcomed as an important part of the decision-making process. When parents feel that their interests are not being considered, when their concerns over lack of accountability mount, they begin to question the extent to which their children’s needs are being served. Parents ultimately will abandon charters if they feel the schools do not represent them.

• Educate authorizing agents. The extent to which authorizing agents exert control, create or alleviate financial burdens, dictate curriculum or allow independence can significantly affect a school’s likelihood of success or failure. Our case study illustrates the problem endemic to the charter school movement, as noted in our review of the literature. When agents assume a disproportionate amount of power and do not know how best to work with charter schools, success is threatened. Authorizing agents must learn how to work with charter schools in ways that hold the schools accountable, while also allowing autonomy.

• Facilitate the research–practice connection. If we are to correctly understand the strengths and weaknesses of charter schools, more ethnographic research is needed. Analyzing test score data is important, but we must also gain a better understanding of the challenges and conditions under which charter schools function (or fail to function) in order to support the growth and improve the quality of these schools. From our perspective, this means that research must be designed to be formative. Educators and policymakers need the richest information possible about the conditions that are likely to continue to shape the future direction of charter schools.

Summary

Charter schools continue to be an appealing alternative within the public educational system. At their best, they have offered the opportunity for innovation and academic improvement for a greater number of students. At their worst, they have failed to show significant gains for all the students who attend and, equally important, they have failed to provide equitable access for all students.

Although the many differences among charters make broadly applicable solutions to their problems unlikely, researchers nevertheless can make valuable contributions to the future of this choice initiative by engaging in more comprehensive studies designed to expose both the range and the depth of the issues that confront charter schools. It is essential that the charter school movement be guided by recommendations that will help make these public institutions truly serve the public—charter schools must deliver on their promise to extend to all students an equal opportunity for a high-quality education.

186 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

References

Alvarez, D., & Mehan, H. (2006). Whole-school detracking: A strategy for equity and excellence. Theory into Practice, 45(1), 82–89.

Arsen, D., Plank, D., & Sykes, G. (1999). School choice policies in Michigan: The rules matter. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

Betts, J., & Tang, Y. E. (2008, December). Value-added and experimental studies of the effect of charter schools on student achievement: A literature review. Seattle: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education, National Charter School Research Project. Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/pub_ncsrp_bettstang_dec08.pdf.

Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). A closer look at charter schools using hierarchical linear modeling (NCES 2006-460). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006460.pdf.

Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17(3), 317–342.

Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press.

Center for Education Reform. (2008a). Charter school facts. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http:// www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStats&pSectionID=15&cSectionID=44.

Center for Education Reform. (2008b). Charter school funding. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http:// www.edreform.com/charter_schools/funding.

Center for Education Reform. (2008c). Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.edreform.com. Cobb, C. D., & Glass, G. V. (1999). Ethnic segregation in Arizona charter schools. Education Policy

Analysis Archives, 7(1). Retrieved January 7, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v7n1/. Contreras, A. R. (1995). Charter school movement in California and elsewhere. Education and Urban

Society, 27(2), 213–228. Darling-Hammond, L., & Prince, C. D. (2007). Strengthening teacher quality in high-need schools:

Policy and practice. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved January 7, 2009 from http://www.ccsso.org/publications/details.cfm?PublicationID=354.

Darling-Hammond, L., & Youngs, P. (2002). Defining ‘‘highly qualified teachers’’: What does ‘‘scientifically-based research’’ actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31(9), 13–25.

Finn, C., Vanourek, G., & Manno, B. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Fuller, B. (Ed.). (2000). Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Fuller, B., Elmore, R. F., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (1996). Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Rivkin, S. G., & Branch, G. F. (2007). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 823–848.

Henig, J. R. (1996). The local dynamics of choice: Ethnic preferences and institutional responses. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 95–117). New York: Teachers College Press.

Hill, P. (2006, February). Put learning first: A portfolio approach to public schools. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.ppionline.org/documents/ Portfolio_Districts021006.pdf.

Hoxby, C. (2004). A straightforward comparison of charter schools and regular public schools in the United States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http:// econweb.fas.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/charters_040909.pdf.

Hubbard, L., & Hands, C. (2008, November). Reculturing a conversion charter school: Community involvement and school change. In Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Anthropological Association, San Francisco.

Jackson, B. L., & Kelley, C. (2002). Exceptional and innovative progress in educational leadership. Educational Administrative Quarterly, 38(2), 192–212.

Ladner, M. (2001-10-01). School choice, Kiwi-style: When New Zealand abolished school boards. Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Retrieved January 21, 2008.

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 187

123

Lake, R. J. (2007, May). Identifying and replicating the ‘‘DNA’’ of successful charter schools: Lessons from the private sector. Seattle: University of Washington, Center on Reinventing Public Education, National Charter School Research Project. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://www.crpe.org/ cs/crpe/download/csr_files/brief_ncsrp_dna_may07.pdf.

Lake, R. J., & Hill, P. T. (Eds.). (2006). Hopes, fears & reality: A balanced look at American charter schools in 2006. Seattle: University of Washington, Center for Reinventing Public Education, National Charter School Research Project.

Larrañaga, O. (2004) Competencia y participación privada: la experiencia chilena en educación. Estudios Publicos.

Lopez, A., Wells, A., & Holme, J. (2002). Creating charter school communities: Identity building, diversity, and selectivity. In A. S. Wells (Ed.), Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity (pp. 129–158). New York: Teachers College Press.

Loveless, T. (2003). Charter schools, achievement, accountability and the role of expertise. In T. Loveless (Ed.), 2003 Brown center report on American education: How well are American students learning? Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http:// www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/bc_report/2003/2003report_part3.pdf.

Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.

Maitre, M. (2008). Stanford charter school prepares students for college. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://ed.stanford.edu/suse/news-bureau/displayRecord.php?tablename=susenews&id=188.

Maxwell, L. (2008, September 8). California group puts muscle into charters. Education Week. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/10/03wallace-7.h28.html.

McLure, L., Strick, B., Jacob-Almeida, R., & Reicher, C. (2005). The Preuss school at UCSD: School characteristics and students’ achievement. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from http://create.ucsd.edu/ Research_Evaluation.

Murphy, J., & Shiffman, C. (2002). Understanding and assessing charter schools. New York: Teachers College Press.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2005). The nations report card. America’s charter schools: Results from the NAEP 2003 pilot study (NCES 2005-456). Washington, DC: National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Nelson, F. H., Rosenberg, B., & Van Meter, N. (2004, August). Charter school achievement on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO. Retrieved November 7, 2007 from http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/ NAEPCharterSchoolReport.pdf.

Ogawa, R. T., & Dutton, J. S. (1994). Parental choice in education: Examining the underlying assumptions. Urban Education, 29(3), 270–297.

Orfield, G., & Eaton, S. E. (1996). Dismantling desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.

Orfield, G., & Lee, C. (2007). Historic reversals, accelerating resegregation and the need for new integration strategies. Retrieved January 12, 2009, from UCLA Civil Rights Project web site http:// www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/deseg/reversals_reseg_need.pdf.

RAND Research Brief. (2001). What do we know about vouchers and charter schools? Separating the rhetoric from the reality. Retrieved January 25, 2007 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_ briefs/RB8018/index1.html.

Robelen, E. W. (2008). ‘‘Wanted: The perfect person.’’ Education Week Leading for Learning, 28(3), S3. Retrieved December 16, 2008, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2008/09/10/03wallace_1. h28.html.

Rogosa, D. (2003) Student progress in California charter schools 1999–2002. Unpublished manuscript, Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from http://www-stat.stanford.edu/ *rag/api/charter9902.pdf.

Roy, J., & Mishel, L. (2005, April). Advantage none: Re-examining Hoxby’s finding of charter school benefits. Briefing Paper 158. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved November 7, 2007, from http://www.epinet.org/briefingpapers/158/bp158.pdf.

RPP International. (2000). The state of charter schools: 2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Scott, J., & Holmes, J. J. (2002). Public schools, private resources: The role of social networks in California charter school reform. In A. S. Wells (Ed.), Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity (pp. 102–128). New York: Teachers College Press.

188 J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189

123

Slayton, J. (2002). Public funds for California charter schools: Where local context and savvy meet formula. In A. S. Wells (Ed.), Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity (pp. 77–101). New York: Teachers College Press.

Speakman, S. T. (2008). Back to the future: Sustaining an equitable public-private model of school funding. In M. Berends, M. J. Springer, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Charter school outcomes (Chap. 4). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stulberg, L. M. (2008). Race, schools, and hope: African Americans and school choice after brown. New York: Teachers College Press.

Teske, P., & Schneider, M. (2001). What research can tell policymakers about school choice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 609–631.

Tokyo. (2004, April 8). Charter schools attracting Japanese. The Washington Times. Retrieved January 14, 2009 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/apr/08/20040408-104644-5195r/.

Vanourek, G., Manno, B., Finn, C., & Bierlein, L. (1998). Charter schools. In P. Peterson & B. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 187–211). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Wells, A. S. (Ed.). (2002). Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity. New York: Teachers College Press.

Wohlstetter, P., & Anderson, L. (1994). What can U.S. charter schools learn from England’s grant- maintained schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(6), 486–491.

Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning communities: Early lessons from charter schools (OP-03). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331–358.

Zimmer, R., Buddin, R., Chau, D., Gill, B., Guarino, C. M., Hamilton, L. S., et al. (2003). How California charter schools operate and perform. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB8022/.

J Educ Change (2009) 10:173–189 189

123