SRI International
December 11, 1997





EVALUATION OF
CHARTER SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS
Part II




III. CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNANCE, FINANCE,
AND ACCOUNTABILITY

The Development of Charter Agreements
Motivations for charter school petitions
Charter-granting process
Revisions to charter proposals
Charter Opposition
The School-Sponsor Relationship
Charter school independence
Staffing and day-to-day operations
Gaining more independence
Charter school governance
Collegiality and conflict
Charter School Finances
Accountability
Advantages of Charter Status
District- and county-sponsored schools
Charter district schools
Conclusion

IV. TEACHING AND LEARNING IN CHARTER SCHOOLS

Professional Roles and Opportunities
The role of the teacher
Professional development and support
Teacher evaluation
Instructional Programs
Home-based learning and independent study programs
Standards and curriculum frameworks
Subject matter emphasis
Instructional delivery methods
Classroom practices
Conclusion

V. OUTCOMES OF CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS

Progress Toward Charter Goals
Parental Involvement and Perspectives
Student Achievement
Why aren't data available?
Philosophical and practical issues
Assessment Approaches for Charter-Noncharter Comparisons
Statewide assessment
Portfolios and demonstrations
Standardized tests
Teacher-assigned grades
Behavioral indicators
Illustrative Examples of Student Achievement at Case Study Schools
National statistics
District comparisons
Comparable-school comparisons
Within-school comparisons
Conclusion

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings
Recommendations
Recommendations for further research

REFERENCES






III. CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNANCE,
FINANCE, AND ACCOUNTABILITY

This chapter focuses on several topics: (1) the development of charter agreements, (2) the ongoing relationships between charter schools and their sponsoring agencies, (3) charter school financial arrangements, (4) charter school accountability, and (5) the advantages of charter status. We begin with a review of the motivations for charter school petitions, the charter-granting process, charter revisions, and opposition. We then report our findings on the degree of independence between charter schools and their sponsors, especially in connection with staffing, day-to-day operations, and governance. The third section of this chapter contains a discussion of charter school finance based on our research and includes information about charter school financial arrangements and liability. We then discuss several observations about charter school accountability and conclude with the advantages of charter school status.

There are four principal lessons from the data reported in this chapter. First, charter schools cannot be viewed in isolation from state and local reform efforts, from the communities within which they operate, or from the politics of their sponsoring agencies (school districts, county offices of education, and the state). In the case of conversion schools, there were also educational and organizational legacies from their precharter incarnations. Motivations to establish charter schools always occurred in the context of existing institutional arrangements or in reaction to them. Different sets of stakeholders had opinions about charter school practices at the individual school level, as well as about state and district policies and practices. Certain charter schools and charter school practices drew opposition from certain collective bargaining interests with concerns about job security and other teacher rights. Some community groups opposed charters as too selective in student admissions.

Second, few charter schools achieved financial independence, even though financial independence is permitted by the charter school legislation. In most charter schools, finances were at least partially controlled by the sponsor, although start-up schools were more likely to have financial autonomy than were conversion schools. The financially autonomous schools we studied reported that they realized significant cost savings by controlling their own budgets.

Charter schools had varying degrees of interest in having financial autonomy. Several school leaders did not want to take on the added responsibility of managing school finances. Many leaders questioned the viability of being financially independent. It is challenging, if not impossible, for most charter schools to cover facilities costs without help from the sponsor or an outside agency.

Third, sponsoring agencies held charter schools accountable for their fiscal operations more systematically than for their educational outcomes. The political and educational appeal of charter schools was the "change from rule-based to performance-based accountability" (Education Code 47601[f]) in schools that were expected to be granted autonomy within the public school system. Yet it was not always clear who was or should have been monitoring the school and student outcomes and other charter goals. In some cases, this lack of oversight was due to indifference by the sponsoring agency or the fact that the district was not accustomed to monitoring academic progress at individual schools. It appeared that some schools and sponsoring agencies intended to defer these accountability questions until charter renewal.

Fourth, we found that concerns about their own liability kept some sponsors from loosening their control of charter schools. Several sponsors reported that their belief that they would ultimately be held liable for charter schools' financial or educational failure discouraged them from giving charter schools more freedom. Sponsor liability remains a large gray area in charter legislation. CDE recently published recommendations to the State Board of Education on the financial operation of charter schools. These proposals on the assignment of fiscal responsibility, fiscal oversight, financial audits, charter school revenue limit, and average daily attendance (ADA) calculations need additional analysis and debate. The subject remains ambiguous as of the end of 1997.

The Development of Charter Agreements

Motivations for charter school petitions

There were many motivations for establishing charter schools in California. In the case study schools, these motivations included a desire for innovation, alternatives to existing programs, a particular curricular focus, or more parent participation in the education program. The particular motivation was often determined by the role and perspective of the petitioner, as the following examples suggest.

In at least five conversion schools we examined, the charter idea grew to fruition within a preexisting school. In these cases, the original charter petition was written by some combination of administrators, teachers, and parents. The charter was seen as a way to extend previous reform efforts or to pursue new ideas. In one case, the charter was sought to allow staff to lengthen the school day to allow for an ambitious foreign language program and additional time for teacher collaboration and professional development. In another case, a charter high school, its rationale included increased graduation requirements and an emphasis on foreign language instruction. The new thinking underlying another of these sites was to remake a low-performing school from the inside by redeploying and increasing the resources that were originally controlled outside the school.

In three other cases we studied, two start-ups and one conversion, parents were instrumental in bringing the charter idea to the table. In one of these cases, parents were attracted to the charter school option as a way to attract children back from the private schools by developing "an esprit de corps" within the community. In another, a group of parents wanted an alternative to district middle schools. Parents went on to staff this school after meeting the concerns of the bargaining unit and the school board about teacher qualifications and student assessment. The third school, a start-up, resulted from the efforts of parents and a teacher who wanted a school with an instructional focus on performing and visual arts.

Two charter schools we examined, one start-up and one conversion, were started by the sponsoring agency. In one case, those inside the system were looking for ways around the restrictions of the Education Code and were willing to experiment with different ways to bring about change. In the other case, those at the sponsoring agency sought to insulate existing programs from changes in external politics. In both cases, the charter concept and petition were closely coordinated by parties within the sponsoring agency rather than outside it. Instead of being approached by agency outsiders, administrators designed their own charter entities. Neither charter encountered opposition from outside the system. Today, both charters include multiple components and enjoy the continued support of their respective sponsors.

There are two outliers from the above categories. One school was a start-up with a strong home study and independent study component. It was proposed because the founding director, a teacher in the sponsoring district, wanted to give parents more control over their children's education. The other outlier school was selected as a charter experiment when a county coalition of activists and politicians approached the sponsoring school district with a school reform proposal. The district picked the school for the pilot because of its poor reputation in the community and low test scores.

Charter-granting process

The California Education Code allows public school districts and county offices of education to sponsor charter schools. It also allows the State Board of Education in conjunction with the Superintendent of Public Instruction to sponsor charter school districts. According to our survey, most charter schools reported district sponsorship (87%). In addition, seven charter schools (7%) reported county sponsorship, and six schools (6%), which were located in the two existing charter districts, reported sponsorship by the California Department of Education. Although most schools had district sponsors, the relationships schools developed with their sponsors and the process schools underwent to become charter schools varied tremendously.

The charter school approval process requires that teachers, parents, and/or administrators petition a sponsor, usually a local district. Charter school developers must address 14 areas of their schools' programs, including the governance structure of the school, the means by which the school will achieve a racial and ethnic balance, and the public school alternatives for students residing in the area who choose not to attend the charter school (Education Code, Section 47605). In practice, charter documents vary from detailed descriptions of every aspect of the school's operation to a broad outline of the school's plan.

Sponsoring agencies take a variety of approaches in considering and approving charter petitions. Fewer than a third of the sponsoring agencies responding to this item on the district and county surveys reported that they had written policies on granting charters (12 out of 41, or 29%).(43)Many seem to have informal policies; others, especially agencies that have received numerous charter petitions, have well-established routines. The following examples illustrate some of the variation in how this process played out in the schools we visited.

In one case, a variety of issues arose as a result of a charter petition and were addressed fairly systematically. The school board wanted to make sure the school would attract a student body that was representative of the district as a whole in terms of special needs and ethnicity. The board was also concerned about student assessment; this concern was resolved when the petitioners agreed to administer the same test as used in the rest of the district. The union questioned why teachers were not required to have credentials in the original petition, so the school compromised by requiring that its lead instructor be credentialed. The charter-granting process took about a year of school board meetings, a board study session, and numerous meetings between the district and charter organizers.

The process was more difficult for two other schools. In one, vocal demands by community groups and the union led to a number of retreats by the petitioners on class size, goals for student achievement, and student admission policies. The director described her appearance before the school board on behalf of the school as "a horrendous experience." She said that board members treated her "as if we were trying to do something illegal and immoral. ... [It made me feel like] I was being questioned in a way that really went to the core of my professional reputation. I did not like it at all." At the other school, there were bad memories of the charter submission, revision, and approval process. School staff who went through the ordeal describe the sponsoring agency as disorganized and inconsistent in their feedback on the petition. School respondents also sensed a suspicion on the part of the board and others in the sponsoring agency that the charter petitioners "were trying to get away with something."

Our district survey data indicated that few school districts and counties had denied approval to charter school petitions. However, it is important to note that the district and county surveys were administered to those agencies that were sponsoring charter schools and not to agencies without charter schools. Therefore, we do not have data on petition denials from districts without charter schools. Of the 45 sponsoring agencies that responded to this survey item, 41 had not denied approval to any charter petition. Most agencies, in fact, (n = 33) had received only one petition: the one they approved. The following reasons were cited by the four districts that denied one or more charter petitions (respondents were allowed to cite more than one reason): inadequate instructional program or instructional emphasis (n = 3), inadequate organizational capacity (n = 1), inadequate financial management or financial accountability system (n = 1) and inadequate accountability system for student learning/outcomes (n = 1). One sponsoring agency added that charter petitions were denied because the school organizers were unable to find a location that met earthquake safety standards. Another denied a petition because of concerns about the charter school's "impact on existing schools, particularly in relation to ethnicity." According to our district survey data, no petitions were denied because of lack of teacher support, lack of parent/community support, projected enrollment too small, opposition of teacher union, or school board not supportive of charter concept.

Revisions to charter proposals

Many charter school founders were not able to secure approval on the basis of their original charter proposal. Instead, charter school survey respondents reported that they were required to revise their original charters (31%) and/or enter into written side agreements (25%). Only 3% of schools reported that they entered into unwritten side agreements. The revisions and agreements covered a wide range of areas but frequently were related to the issues listed in Table III-1.

Table III-1
TOPICS COVERED IN CHARTER SIDE AGREEMENTS AND REVISIONS

Percentage of Schools (n=48)
Amount of funds the school would receive 44%
Teacher contract and personnel issues 42%
Financial independence 42%
Liability 38%


Other elements of the charter, such as curriculum and instruction, the charter amendment process, governance, student admissions, and assessment were less frequently included in the amendments or agreements with the sponsor. Other items that were sometimes addressed in these negotiations were transportation, the funding process, hazardous materials, enrollment growth, and business plans. The required amendments were more likely to concern administrative and financial issues than instructional issues.

A few schools thought that the changes they were required to make hindered the school's ability to implement its educational program as envisioned (13%), but most schools thought these changes either helped or had no effect. Most schools also reported that these amendments and/or agreements either helped or had no effect on their ability to do the following: select, evaluate, and/or dismiss staff; control how and where they purchase goods and services; receive the revenue limit and categorical funds generated by enrollment; remain financially solvent; and be accountable for education results. This is a significant finding because some charter school observers assume that any changes to petitions that were requested by the sponsoring agency would have a detrimental effect. Our school survey data indicate that this was not the case. In many instances, the approval process seemed to have led to appropriate revisions to charter petitions.

Charter Opposition

Opposition to original charter petitions took various forms. In the case study sample, the goals and tactics of those who wanted to open charter schools were often seen (and sometimes intended) as open challenges to established interests within public school bureaucracies. In many cases, opponents to the charter were placated by changes to the petition prior to passage. In other instances, opposition continued or new opponents surfaced during implementation of the charter.

Among the case study schools, charter opposition fell into the following categories: (1) objections or concerns raised by bargaining unit representatives representing teachers or classified employees, typically at the outset of the charter process (in some cases, this opposition has continued); (2) opposition by community groups that are outside the public system; and (3) opposition within sponsoring agencies because of relations that have deteriorated since the charter was granted.

Collective Bargaining Units. The California Teachers Association's (CTA) opposition to the current charter law in California began with the rivalry between the 1992 charter school bills in the Assembly and the Senate. The Senate bill, S.B. 1448, was opposed by the CTA because, unlike the competing Assembly bill (A.B. 2585), it did not require charter sign-off by the leadership of local bargaining units. S.B. 1448 became the Charter Schools Act of 1992 and left the details of collective bargaining to charter petitioners and local sponsors. The Charter Schools Act also allowed for a larger number of charter schools than the CTA thought was appropriate (Hart & Burr, 1996). Today, the CTA and other critics of the original law are more likely to acknowledge the benefits of charter schools under certain conditions (e.g., schools that hire credentialed teachers and require collective bargaining).

Despite the visibility of state and local union objections to the charter law and their misgivings about certain charter school practices, collective bargaining units took varying positions on charter schools in California. As the following examples suggest, local circumstances determined local bargaining unit positions regarding charter petitions. Three schools we studied encountered no opposition from bargaining units when they submitted their original petitions. In one case, teachers at the school lost their tenure and seniority rights when the charter began, but no objections were raised by any party. In another case, the charter did not encounter any union opposition because there were no unions in the district. In the third school, existing union rules were not affected by the charter, and teachers remained members of the district union.

In other cases we examined, bargaining unit representatives expressed mild concerns or raised a few questions but did not oppose the original charter. In two of these schools, where teachers remain members of the district employees' association, the unions wondered whether the charters would automatically change or suspend the contracts but were persuaded that they would not. The third school met union concerns by rewriting the charter petition to require that certain instructional personnel be credentialed teachers.

In three other charter schools we studied, initial opposition by teacher bargaining units led to more protracted negotiations and, in one of them, more substantial concessions than the instance described above. In the first school, a major compromise on hiring was negotiated to placate the teachers' association. When the school first opened as a charter entity, the principal was permitted to select one half of the teaching staff and district seniority rules were used for the other half. Teachers remained members of the association, but most were skeptical of the value of collective bargaining and resented the union for its continued opposition to the school. In this and the other two schools, teachers and the principal cooperated on interviewing and selecting new teachers, which suggests that charter hiring had become more collaborative over time, despite the original concerns of the respective teacher unions.

In a final set of three charter schools we examined, union opposition was directed at the whole charter concept or the charter concept as it was embodied in a particular school. In these schools, union opposition was not mitigated by concessions. In one start-up charter school, the union objected to its use of noncredentialed teachers. In one conversion school, the teachers' union pressured its members not to sign the charter petition. The pressure almost succeeded in stopping it; only by soliciting teachers who were nearing retirement (teachers who, therefore, would not be teaching at the new charter school) did the school's organizers get the required signatures. In another start-up, the union showed its opposition to the charter by excluding the teaching staff at the new school from the existing district contract.

Ongoing relations with unions also varied. In several cases, charter status did not alter union relationships or teachers' bargaining rights. In others, even though teachers remained on union membership rolls, there were tensions between the two parties. In a few schools we visited, it appeared that working conditions might have been better for the staff if they were part of an agency contract. According to school staffs, low pay and heavy workload in three non-union schools led to high turnover among teachers, a circumstance that may have hindered student learning. Yet there were other cases where the absence of collective bargaining had no effect on teacher longevity and teacher satisfaction. The large number of charters that are due to be renewed in the next few years will give future researchers an opportunity to continue tracking these issues.

Public Interest Groups. The second type of opposition involved community public interest groups and other activists who criticized the charter plans as divisive. Fearing, in one case, that the "white community was breaking off," these voices influenced the board to require that the school maintain an ethnic balance in its student body. Indeed, concern about persistent or increasing racial segregation may have consequences when charters are up for renewal in two schools. Interestingly, the racial homogeneity of a third case study school did not jeopardize its charter renewal recently, despite the board's earlier concerns about this disparity.

Sponsoring Agencies. Finally, another type of opposition emerged within sponsoring agencies because of deteriorating relations with schools since their charters were granted. In one case we studied, the school and the district never agreed on financial matters and the division of fiscal responsibilities. For example, the school claimed that it received "surprise" bills from the district for special education services, invoices that totaled $300,000 last year. Leadership changes in the sponsoring district may cause trouble for another charter school we examined, which district leaders criticized for insisting on too much autonomy and too little accountability for student learning. Two other schools we studied enjoyed the support of district leadership but faced strong resistance within specific offices and divisions. This resistance slowed the processing of transactions between the school and the district, or resulted in meetings and phone calls that, in the opinion of school-level respondents, wouldn't be necessary if charter school policies were more consistent across all the units of the sponsoring agency.

Charter Renewal. As we mentioned above, charter renewal may provide an opportunity to revisit the concerns and objections that were voiced in regard to the original charters. For example, some of our interviews revealed that charter school administrators may be waiting for the renewal process to address certain accountability issues. The Education Code allows charters to be granted for a maximum of 5 years. Most schools have not yet completed the first "cycle" of the charter. As of June 1997, according to our school survey, only 13% of charter schools in California had gone through a renewal process for their charters. However, 64% of the charters in the state are due to be renewed by the year 2000. Only 8 of the 41 sponsoring agencies that responded to the district survey item had written policies on charter renewal, suggesting that charter renewal may be handled on an ad hoc basis.

Charter renewal may be less contentious than the original petition process. Two of the schools we studied recently renewed their charters without encountering any opposition. In one case, the charter was renewed 1 year early. In the other, the school's small size was cited by the sponsoring district for its lack of concern about many matters, including charter renewal. This will be an important issue for future research on charter schools.

The School-Sponsor Relationship

Relationships between charter schools and their sponsors were as varied as all other aspects of charter schools. They ranged from full dependence on the sponsoring agency to nearly complete independence. Some schools, in fact, were dependent to the point that the advantages of their charter status were obscured. Some charter schools were held accountable by their sponsors for academic outcomes, but most were not (in contrast to financial outcomes). Almost all schools, though, held themselves accountable to parents. Some charter schools enjoyed collegial relationships with their sponsoring districts; others had relationships that were more contentious. Overall, the relationships between charter schools and their sponsoring districts were still evolving. Both sides of the relationship were working toward defining respective rights, roles, and responsibilities. The amount of conflict involved was in part related to how well a charter school fit with its sponsoring district's mission, or how far a charter school pushed the district to change the status quo.

Charter school independence

In theory, charter schools are free from all rules and regulations described in the California Education Code. The text of the charter school law states that "a charter school shall comply with all of the provisions set forth in its charter petition, but is otherwise exempt from the laws governing school districts except as specified in Section 47611"(44) (Education Code Section 47610). However, this unrestricted freedom was not the reality in many charter schools across the state. In fact, charter school staff and sponsors as a matter of course made distinctions between "independent" and "dependent" charter schools. Although it is difficult to come up with universal definitions of independent and dependent charter schools (different schools use the terms differently), independent charter schools were generally those that made their own programmatic, personnel, and financial decisions, whereas dependent charter schools were subject to district policies and procedures, except where they sought waivers.

Most charter schools did not take advantage of all aspects of their "automatic waiver" from state and district regulations because their sponsoring districts or counties did not allow it, or because they made concessions to the union or the sponsor during charter negotiations. For example, a charter school may be required by its sponsor or the union to follow state rules and regulations regarding teacher dismissal. In many cases, districts also maintained control over certain critical aspects of the school, often to ensure compliance with districtwide policies.
(A smaller portion of charter schools did not associate charter status with certain freedoms because they were permitted by the district before the school had a charter, e.g., flexibility with the daily calendar or student assessment policy.)

The end result of charter-granting negotiations was typically an understanding (or a compromise) regarding the amount of control or autonomy the charter school would have. As a result, most charter schools reported having varying degrees of control over school decisions, from the school budget to curriculum and assessment. Survey data indicate that few schools (11%) were fully independent, i.e., they reported having full control over all 10 areas listed in Table III-2.(45)

Table III-2

SCHOOLS REPORTING FULL CONTROL
(RANKED IN ORDER OF FREQUENCY)

Percentage of Schools Number of Respondents
Daily schedule 83% 96
Student disciplinary policies 71% 96
Purchasing of supplies and equipment 68% 97
Establishing curriculum 63% 97
Student assessment policies 56% 97
Student admission policies 51% 97
Other budgetary expenses 51% 97
School calendar 49% 97
Staff hiring, discipline, and dismissal 44% 96
Staff salaries and benefits 31% 97


Data from the district and county survey on sponsoring agency perceptions of charter schools' control of the above areas were compared with responses from the school survey. This comparison, presented in Table III-3, included cases where data were available from charter schools and their sponsors. The Level of Agreement column displays the percentage of schools and sponsoring agencies with consistent perceptions of full, partial, or no control over a particular area. Please note that these numbers include the perceptions of some sponsoring agencies that have multiple charter schools. Even though the charter school is the "unit of analysis," and the following table includes only data from the cases where the charter school and its sponsor both responded, some of the sponsoring agencies are responsible for several charter schools. Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this table is a corollary of the data presented in the level of agreement column. In many cases, there is a mismatch in the perceptions of schools and sponsoring agencies about the degree of charter school control over particular areas. For example, there are low levels of agreement in the perception of control of student admission policies, school calendar, andstaff hiring between charter schools and their sponsors.

Table III-3
Level of Agreement between School and Sponsor Perceptions of Control

Percentage of Charter Schools and Sponsors in Agreement Number of Schools and Sponsors Agreeing on Full Control Number of Schools and Sponsors Agreeing on Partial Control Number of Schools and Sponsors Agreeing on No Control Number of Respondents
Daily schedule 78% 44 5 0 63
Student disciplinary policies 73% 36 10 0 63
Purchasing of supplies and equipment 68% 33 10 0 63
Establishing curriculum 72% 31 15 0 64
Student assessment policies 63% 19 21 0 63
Student admission policies 53% 20 13 1 64
Other budgetary expenses 58% 23 13 1 64
School calendar 55% 26 8 1 64
Staff hiring, discipline, and dismissal 53% 19 14 0 62
Staff salaries and benefits 73% 17 9 20 63


Staffing and day-to-day operations

Staffing was the area over which charter schools reported exercising the least amount of control. School survey data show that only 31% of charter schools reported having full control over staff salaries and benefits (over 40% reported they had no control), and only 44% reported full control over staff hiring, discipline, and dismissal. This pattern was supported by the schools in the case study sample. Four of the seven dependent(46) charter schools in our sample were bound by most hiring-related provisions of the union contract with the district (the other three schools did not have union representation). Two of these schools, however, were given significant waivers from some contract provisions. The first school received a waiver that enabled teachers to collaborate with the principal on the selection and placement of teachers. This school was also able to implement its own hiring process, which required prospective teachers to teach a sample lesson. In the second case, the school was waived from adhering to the district's seniority system, in which teachers with seniority were given preferential treatment for positions at new schools or new positions at existing schools. As a direct result of the pressure applied by this school, the district negotiated with the union to discontinue this system in all district schools.

Firing or dismissal was even more tightly controlled by the district or county sponsor in dependent charter schools. The single exception in our case study sample was a school in which instructors were not represented by a teachers' union. This school had full control over firing as well as hiring. There were, however, two other dependent schools without union representation that did not have the power to fire their own staff. Both of these schools were unusual in that they were started at their respective sponsors' initiative, and from the beginning the sponsors retained close control to the point that they treated these schools as if they were not charter schools.

The four independent charter schools in our sample, in contrast, had full control over hiring and firing. It is true, however, that teachers at one of these schools had return rights to the district until the expiration of the school's charter in 1998, and so would more likely be reassigned to another school than fired.

Charter schools were most likely to report that they had full control over determining their daily schedules and student disciplinary policies, as well as purchasing supplies and equipment and establishing curriculum. To a limited degree, however, dependent charter schools in our case study sample retained close ties to the sponsor regarding curriculum. For example, in at least five cases, charter schools--like their sponsors--followed the state adoption lists for instructional materials. As one principal explained, "I see the value in seeing things that have a rating from a committee." (Along these same lines, only about one-third of the schools that did not have full control would have liked more control over establishing curriculum, according to the school survey.) In a more unusual case, curriculum for the charter school was in the process of being developed in conjunction with a district committee. This school served primarily students that had been expelled from the district--students with needs similar to those served by the district's alternative high school. For this reason, the charter school was being included in the district's overall efforts to revamp its alternative education curriculum (it is not clear that the charter school was given a choice in this matter, but the director was participating in the curriculum design).

Gaining more independence

Charter schools had varying degrees of interest in gaining more authority or control over school policies. In many of our case study sites, schools that had dependent relationships with their sponsors were satisfied with these close ties. In some ways, the schools were conservative. (One principal told us more than once that she liked the traditional relationship between her school and the district.) These schools tended to be clear on what they wanted to gain from charter status, and were wary of the costs of taking on more responsibility than they could handle. In most cases, what dependent schools gained was exemption from certain Education Code and/or district regulations. For example, four dependent schools were able to use noncredentialed teachers. One school was able to serve students who had been expelled from the district. Another school was able to have graduation requirements that exceeded those of the state and the district. Another school was able to lengthen the school year to 210 days.

Data from the school survey also suggested that charter schools did not want to assume many of the responsibilities and costs of running a school. Prominent among these was the job of managing school finances. Notably, only about one-third of the schools that did not have full control wanted more control over staff salaries and benefits. The principal of one case study school explained that he did not want to fight with the district to receive the funds the school was entitled to, as he had seen happen among independent charter schools in the district. Moreover, he did not think his school could survive financially if it were completely separate from the district. Teachers at other schools were most concerned with maintaining the benefits and protections that were written in their union contracts. And in a few cases, charter schools were reluctant to lose the legitimacy that came with being part of the district (i.e., insulation from external claims that the school has no accountability).

There were exceptions to these schools' satisfaction with the status quo, however. On the survey, more than half of the charter schools that did not have full control reported wanting more control over purchasing and staff hiring, discipline, and dismissal. Among our case study sample, three charter schools that were dissatisfied with their dependent (or quasi-dependent) relationships with their respective sponsors and wanted to become more independent. In one case, the dissatisfaction stemmed from a small but vocal group of parents who believed that financial independence would benefit the school. Teachers at this school, however, were concerned about job security if the school became independent and wanted to maintain the status quo. The second school had made small steps toward becoming financially independent, with the support of both school and district staff. Leadership at the third school likened its current arrangement of financial dependence on the district to the "fox minding the hen house."

Charter school governance

Within charter schools, various governance structures evolved. Virtually all of our case study schools had some type of representative charter council or collection of committees with different areas of responsibility. Again, the degree of control vested in charter schools varied, but it was unusual to see situations where no charter-related governance or advisory bodies had evolved. Some charter councils were strictly advisory to the sponsoring agencies, which retained tight control of the school. Others councils ran the school with little or no input from their sponsoring districts. (This level of autonomy sometimes caused problems between the charter school and the district.) Some councils had autonomy over certain areas, like the instructional program, but not others, such as school revenues and expenditures. A few of our case study schools were hard to characterize because of continuing disputes with their sponsoring agencies over governance issues. Moreover, there were different distributions of power and authority, sometimes conflicting perceptions about who was in control, and varying degrees of authority vested in charter directors, charter councils, and sponsoring agencies.

According to the school survey, the majority of charter schools (88%) included parents on their governing bodies. At most charter schools, a small group of parents served on the governing bodies for a set term, such as 1 year. One school we examined reported that parents rotate in and out of the governing body throughout the year--allowing every parent to participate in decision-making for a limited time. In many of our case study schools, parents played significant roles in school decision-making, including, in two cases, hiring decisions. At one of these schools, a parent chaired the main charter governance body, and parents made up half its membership. At a third school, parents also served on the school's governance board, but they constituted a minority of its members, at the insistence of teachers. Some of the parents we interviewed at the school would like to increase the trust between the two groups "so teachers don't have to feel that they need to be the majority [on the governing board]." Finally, in a fourth school, teachers objected to the makeup of the charter governing body, where the majority of its members were parents and students. To paraphrase the concerns of one teacher, parents don't become educators overnight, but they have been given a lot of power overnight. Parents at this school need to be educated on how to be part of the process. Interestingly, overall parent involvement was quite low at this school, except for their strong presence on the governing board.

Collegiality and conflict

With few exceptions, the relationships between the case study charter schools and their sponsors were collegial. At the same time, we heard complaints about specific areas of concern from both sides of the relationship. Two schools, both dependent, complained about being treated as a low priority for training opportunities by the district. One of these schools also complained about not being used as a "lab" school by the district to test new ideas. Another school, this one independent, reported that the district routinely neglected to inform them of relevant district business. In a few cases, schools also complained about the time it took to cut through the district bureaucracy to process requests and reports, and to get waivers from district policies.

Two of the charters had relationships with their sponsors that were best described as hostile. The bitterness in both relationships stemmed from disagreements about finances. In one case, the school simply wanted complete financial autonomy. In the other case, the school and the sponsor disagreed over the amount the district charged for special education services and the amount the district "skimmed" for administrative functions. In the latter case, the principal believed that disagreements had led to a high staff turnover, and thereby had a negative impact on the school's educational program.

To a large degree, the collegial relations that charter schools enjoyed with their sponsors can be explained by the extent to which each school was a good fit with its respective sponsor's philosophy and/or reform orientation. The school that illustrated this point most clearly was actually started at the initiative of the district to serve the large number of students who had been expelled because of the district's zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy. Starting a charter school enabled the district to continue to serve these students indirectly. Other charter schools, as designed, amounted to continuing efforts of ongoing reforms in the district. It is less clear what these schools gained from being charter schools. In at least two cases, charter schools were in alignment with the sponsors' belief in providing parents with alternatives for their children's education. As one district official told us, charter schools were congruent with the community's strong support for parent choice and individual rights.

Charter School Finances

In most charter schools, finances were at least partially controlled by the sponsor. According to the school survey, only 27% of schools had financial autonomy (i.e., they had full control over staff salaries and benefits and other budgetary expenses). Start-up schools were more likely to report financial autonomy than were conversions (85% vs. 15%).

A theme that runs throughout the issue of charter school finance is fluidity and uncertainty. Although schools tended to categorize themselves as financially autonomous or dependent, a continuum would be a more accurate way to describe them. Financial agreements between many charter schools and sponsors were works in progress. Several sponsors told us that the way they funded their charter schools was still being worked out. Negotiations year-to-year (or more often) seemed to be commonplace, particularly with independent schools. Schools and sponsors were still working toward defining respective rights, roles, and responsibilities with regard to finance and other areas.

Funds Retained by the Sponsoring Agency. As part of their financial agreements with charter schools, many sponsors required charter schools to pay them a portion of their budgets to cover centralized costs, such as administrative and maintenance services provided by the district. There is much confusion over the exact amount retained by the sponsoring agency. Charter schools, on average, reported paying their sponsoring agency 11% of the total revenues generated by their schools (the range was 0% to 40%). However, 30% of the schools reported that they did not know the amount retained by the sponsor, indicating that this average may not accurately represent the amount of funds charter schools are required to pay districts. Many schools' ignorance on this point reflects their lack of knowledge about financial matters in general. This issue is discussed later in the chapter.

On the other hand, sponsoring agencies reported withholding an average of 8% of the total revenues generated by charter schools, according to the district and county surveys. This number must be interpreted with caution, since it represents only 39 of the 80 "Charter School Supplements" completed in conjunction with the district survey (see Appendix A for a copy of this survey supplement). Sponsoring agencies gave no response for 32 charter schools. Nine other supplements were discarded because the sponsoring agencies reported that they withheld all or nearly all the revenues for these charter schools, suggesting that the charter schools had dependent relationships with their sponsors and controlled few, if any, of their revenues.

Almost all charter schools (54 of 57, or 95%) and sponsoring agencies (61 of 63, or 97%) responding to the respective survey items reported that charter schools received services in exchange for these funds. Thirty-nine percent of the schools that were required to pay the district this fee for centralized goods or services reported that they would have purchased them elsewhere if allowed to do so. On the district and county surveys, sponsoring agencies reported (n=64) that they performed the following services in exchange for retained funds: payroll,performed for 84% of charter schools; bookkeeping, 83%; budget preparation, 70%; meeting state regulations, 78%; supplies and equipment, 42%; reduced or free rent, 62%; and other goods and services, 53%.

Some schools contracted with external agencies or individuals other than the district or county for financial accounting or management services. Charter schools reported contracting out for bookkeeping (20%), payroll (17%), budget preparation(15%), and other services, such as preparation of audits and financial statements (11%).

Dependent Charter Finances. Among the case study schools, the most typical financial arrangement between schools and their sponsors was one in which schools were essentially funded as they would be if they were not charters. These schools received the same pro rata share of state revenue limit and categorical funds as other schools in the district. Like other schools in the district or county, charter schools paid for their share of centralized services provided by the district. Typically, the schools had control over certain funds, such as School Improvement, some categorical funds (although not special education), grants awarded to the site (e.g., Annenberg), and money from fundraising efforts. This, again, was no different from other schools in most districts. Under these arrangements, districts provided special education services, as well as all facilities services and administrative functions, such as payroll, accounting, and reporting.

All purchase orders from these financially dependent charter schools went through district purchasing departments (i.e., got district approval), but none of the schools reported that this was a barrier. At the same time, district officials made statements indicating that their role in purchasing went beyond being a rubber stamp. For example, one district business officer told us that he has discussions with the school director about what's "appropriate" for the school to purchase.

Independent Charter Finances. The financially independent schools in our sample had more variable financial arrangements with their sponsors. All three received an allocation based on ADA, which is calculated according to charter regulations.(47) Beyond the revenue limit funds, these schools, we were told, received the categorical funds "that they are entitled to." We found that the financial knowledge base of the school leader made a profound difference in the level of resources that an independent charter school received. On one end of the spectrum was a large conversion school whose director's financial expertise had enabled the school to negotiate allocations and district withholding and increase the school's share of district funds. At the other end of the spectrum was a small start-up school with a director who was unfamiliar with school finance. The director was unsure of how much the district retained to cover administrative costs, and he was unaware of whether the school was eligible for any special education or GATE funding (on the basis of what he told us about his student body, the school was probably eligible for both).

Low levels of knowledge regarding school finance were not unique to independent schools, but these schools were at a disadvantage without it. School survey data showed that unfamiliarity with the financial side of schools was widespread among directors of all charter schools. For example, 24% of the charter school directors surveyed did not know whether they were eligible for Title I (these were mostly start-up schools). Also, only a small proportion of school directors were able to report funds received in budgetary categories other than state revenue limit, making the data unusable for this study.

The financially autonomous case study schools reported significant economies gained by controlling their own budgets. Unlike dependent charter schools, these schools did not have to go through the district purchasing process, but could make autonomous decisions about how to spend their money and which suppliers to use. Two schools we visited controlled their own maintenance and operations budgets and were able to purchase supplies and equipment at local retailers rather than using district purchasing procedures, which were described as slower and more expensive. At one school, a teacher gave an example of being able to purchase floppy disks directly from the supplier much more quickly and for one-fifth the cost charged by the district. Another school was able to offer staff a benefits package that was greater in scope than that offered by the district.

Financial Viability. There is a question of whether charter schools, as funded by law, have the financial resources to operate truly independently. According to officials in several sponsoring agencies, the answer was no. As one district business officer explained, revenue limit funds were insufficient to cover facilities costs.(48) Without help from the sponsor or an outside agency, paying for facilities was a real challenge for charter schools. They either had to borrow money (if possible) or cope with inadequate facilities. An independent study conducted in one school district to ascertain the viability of charter schools operating as financial entities reached the same conclusion. Survey and case study data supported this assertion as well. Fifty percent of charter schools surveyed reported using a district facility at no cost. Two of the three independent case study charter schools paid virtually no rent (one school paid $1/year). The third school rented three rooms in a local community building; the school's low personnel costs (e.g., the director also taught half-time; parents volunteered to teach electives) made this arrangement affordable. The dependent schools' facilities costs were covered by the sponsors (with the exception of some of the independent study/home school charter sites). Several of the dependent schools also pointed out that their sponsors subsidized them in other ways, such as covering start-up costs and providing security and financial services, making it clear that full independence was unrealistic for the schools.

At the same time, 76% of financially autonomous schools responding to the survey rented facilities independent of the sponsor, so facilities were clearly affordable for some. It is not known, however, how many of these schools paid market rates; anecdotal evidence suggests that not all did.

Currently, a source of financial support for charter schools is grants awarded by the California Department of Education through Title X of the federal Improving America's Schools Act (IASA). In addition to using these funds to help with start-up costs, the CDE uses these funds to address the state's "three core components of successful charter schools: high educational standards and a powerful assessment system, a strong fiscal base, and an organizational/governance structure that empowers all participants to work effectively for the success of the school."(49) Thirty-four grants were awarded to charter schools and developers during the 1996-97 school year upon successful completion of a rigorous application process. Twenty-five of the grants were awarded to existing charter schools, and nine were given to charter developers. The total dollar value of the awards was $1,430,164, and individual awards ranged from $9,150 to $50,000. The CDE also created a Charter School Revolving Loan Fund to assist new charter schools (conversion schools are not eligible) with start-up costs. The CDE began making loans in the 1996-97 school year.

Financial Benefit to Sponsors. There were a few case study examples in which sponsors appeared to be receiving a financial benefit from their charter schools. In one case, the sponsoring district expanded the original charter school to include off-site centers that operated GED and job training/placement programs. In exchange for 40% of the ADA-related funds the centers generated, the district provided curriculum, staff development, and administration, so that the centers could offer students a high school diploma. It appears that the district comes out ahead with this financial arrangement. This expansion was done at the district's initiative, not the original charter school's. The district was able to effect this change because it had very tight control over the day-to-day operations of the charter.

In the other two cases, the districts were open to the charter concept, at least in part, because they saw it as a way to reverse declining district enrollment. It was believed that having a charter school or schools would encourage parents to keep their children in public schools. And in both cases, the charters have drawn significant numbers of students from outside district boundaries, thereby netting an increase in district enrollment.

Liability. Concerns about their own liability kept some sponsors from loosening their ties to charter schools. According to district and county surveys, 15 (38% of responding sponsors) prohibit charter schools from becoming legally independent, while 11 (28%) allow, but do not require, charter schools to become legally independent. Other sponsoring agencies reported not having a formal policy on legal independence.

Several of our case study sponsors reported that their belief that they would ultimately be held liable for charter schools' financial or educational failure discouraged them from giving charter schools more freedom. In at least three districts in our case sample, this point of view was shaped by past negative experiences with charter schools. For example, one district previously sponsored an independent charter school with minimal oversight, only to discover later that the school was failing to provide a legitimate education for its students. (Interestingly, whereas some districts were concerned with their ultimate liability, several districts appeared willing to give their charter schools independent status. In one case, the district was concerned with liability if the school did remain closely tied to the district. In another case, the district wanted to prevent further accusations that it was denying the school all the resources to which it was entitled.) Open-ended responses on the district survey included several comments about liability concerns. In the words of one district respondent, "We are concerned about district liability. We seem to have responsibility but not authority."

Sponsor liability remains a large gray area in charter legislation. We were told by districts that the state charter office has no definitive guidelines on liability, and that issues will not be resolved until cases are litigated. On the other hand, a state-level official calls liability a "straw man" that districts use to keep from giving charters independence. The California Department of Education recently issued several recommendations to the state board of education regarding the financial operation of charter schools (California Department of Education, 1997a). However, the recommendations are only "a starting point for discussion and debate on the precise nature of changes that need to be made in statute and regulation in order to address these difficult issues" (page 14). Until clarification is made by the Legislature or the courts, the liability issue remains ambiguous.

Clearly, sponsors' liability concerns are not allayed by schools' coverage through liability insurance, because survey data show that 98% of charter schools had some form of coverage. Table III-4 describes the various charter school liability arrangements.

Table III-4
CHARTER SCHOOL LIABILITY COVERAGE
Percentage of Schools (n=96)
Coverage under sponsor's policy 75%
Insurance purchased from a private commercial carrier 13%
Insurance purchased from a local or statewide school insurance pool 7%


Three percent of charter schools reported that they had some other arrangement for liability coverage, such as being covered under a policy of their charter partner or fiscal sponsor, or having some combination of sponsor and private coverage. Financially independent charter schools reported very different liability arrangements than other charter schools: only 36% were covered by their sponsoring agency (compared with 89% of non-financially independent charter schools), and 40% purchased insurance from a private commercial carrier (compared with 3% of non-financially independent charter schools).

Accountability

It is the intent of California charter law that charter schools will substitute performance-based accountability for conventional rule-based accountability systems. In other words, charter schools are supposed to be given freedom from certain restrictions in exchange for more accountability for academic outcomes. For the most part, however, charter schools seem not to be held to a higher standard of accountability for students' academic performance than are noncharter schools. This is not to say that charter schools are not assessing student progress on their own, because they are (see Chapter V). Nor is it to say that there is widespread abuse of the freedoms given to charter schools. The schools we examined had measurable (to varying degrees) academic goals stated in their charters, but most reported that they were not held accountable for achieving these goals by their sponsoring district or county. Likewise, the case study charter district had not been held accountable for academic progress by the state. Although 85% of schools said they reported student achievement data to their sponsors, only 4% reported that the sponsor had ever requested specific actions or imposed sanctions in response to any data, achievement or otherwise, according to the school survey. Although not representative of the universe of sponsoring agencies, data from the district and county surveys paint a similar picture. Three sponsoring agencies (8% of those responding to this item) said that they requested actions or imposed sanctions on charter schools in response to these data. The number was higher with respect to noncharter schools in the same districts and counties: seven sponsoring agencies (17%) requested actions or imposed sanctions. In the case study sites, sponsors did not routinely compare case study charter schools' test scores with those of noncharter schools in the district. And even less frequently did sponsors look at charter schools' progress toward attaining their stated goals as part of an annual review process. Several of the schools reported providing the sponsor with an annual report (either oral or written), but these reports usually did not include outcome data. When asked, districts often said that accountability was something they needed to address district- or countywide, that it was a problem that went beyond charter schools.

On the other hand, district and county sponsors were much more diligent about financial accountability. According to the survey, 91% of schools reported finance and accounting data to their sponsor. All the schools in our case study sample reported submitting periodic financial reports to the district, and charter law requires all schools to have annual audits. Sponsor and, in some cases, school staff were determined not to let their charter schools become headline stories of fiscal mismanagement. Some of the dependent charter schools mentioned this kind of district oversight as an advantage.

It may be that a reorientation toward accountability is needed for districts to become accustomed to holding schools accountable for academic performance. As it is, noncharter public schools are not held accountable for academic outcomes by districts, and districts are not held accountable for academic outcomes by the state (but districts are held accountable for finance), and so it should not be surprising that districts appeared to be continuing in the same pattern with charter schools.

It may also be that sponsors are waiting until the formal renewal process to evaluate how well the school has done in meeting its objectives and determine whether or not the charter will be renewed. As mentioned above, only 13% of schools had gone through a renewal process as of June 1997. Sixty-four percent of the schools reported that they will have gone through the renewal process by the year 2000.

In contrast to the lack of accountability to sponsors for academic outcomes, most charter schools reported feeling accountable to parents in this area. Ninety percent of schools reported that they systematically assessed parent satisfaction by using multiple methods, including surveys (100%), interviews or focus groups (59%), and behavioral indicators (40%). Charter schools also reported determining parent satisfaction by some other means (32%), such as informal communication with parents, parent meetings, volunteerism, or returning enrollment.

Table III-5 displays data from the district and county surveys on accountability reporting requirements for charter and noncharter schools. There is a strong degree of consistency in the accountability requirements for charter and noncharter schools in the same district or county. For example, almost all sponsoring agencies required student achievement test scores and finance and accounting data from both charter and noncharter schools, among those sponsoring agencies that responded to this item. In two cases, the sponsoring agency did not require the reporting of student achievement data from any of its schools; in five additional cases, these data were required from noncharter schools but not from charter schools. Teacher-assigned grades stood out as the type of data with less consistency in reporting requirements across the sample of districts and counties: 41% of sponsoring agencies responding to the surveys required reporting of grades from noncharter but not charter schools.

Table III-5
Sponsoring Agency Accountability Data Requirements for
Charter and Noncharter Schools

Percentage of Sponsors with Same Requirements for Charters and Noncharters Percentage of Sponsors Requiring Type of Data from Charters andNoncharters Percentage of Sponsors Not Requiring Type of Data from Charters or Noncharters



Number of Respondents
Finance and accounting data 97% 92% 5% 37
Other data 91% 5% 86% 37
Student achievement test scores 87% 81% 6% 36
Parent satisfaction data 78% 51% 27% 37
Student scores from authentic assessment tests 78% 47% 31% 36
Student behavior indicators, e.g., attendance 76% 73% 3% 37
Teacher-assigned grades 59% 43% 16% 37


Advantages of Charter Status

District- and county-sponsored schools

As we demonstrate throughout this report, there is tremendous variability in what it means to be a charter school. One way to gain insight into the perceived benefits of charter school status is to analyze the school within its sponsoring agency's context. In other words, would a regular public school in the district or county have the flexibility that the charter school has, or is this flexibility a result of charter status? Charter schools reported that their charters provided them with unique opportunities in several areas, ranging from personnel to finance. When school survey respondents were asked specifically what charter status allowed them to do that they could not have done under the traditional district management structure, charter school directors most frequently reported that they were able to allocate resources in a manner different from the district norm (87%). Table III-6 illustrates the frequency with which survey respondents specified the benefits of charter status.

Table III-6(50)
BENEFITS OF CHARTER SCHOOL STATUS
Percentage of Schools(n=85)
Allocate resources in a manner different from the district norm. 87%
Contract for services with nondistrict providers. 84%
Provide support to teachers to improve their skills. 82%
Purchase materials in a manner different from the district norm. 80%
Dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance. 54%
Reward teachers for exemplary performance. 52%


Perceptions of charter impact varied greatly, depending on the charter school leaders' sense of autonomy. Financially autonomous (FA) schools were more likely to report that charter status enabled them to dismiss unsatisfactory teachers (85% of FA vs. 40% of non-FA) and purchase materials in a different manner (92% of FA vs. 74% of non-FA). Start-up schools were also more likely to report being able to dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance, compared with conversion schools (67% vs. 38%).

Respondents in four case study sites had difficulty identifying just what they gained from being a charter, that is, what they were doing differently because they had charter status. In three cases, it is likely that the schools would have been able to implement their educational programs without being charters, given the reform orientation of their respective districts and the history of reform efforts within the schools before becoming charter entities. Charter status, however, insulated these schools--at least theoretically--from district policy changes that responded to shifts in the political climate. For example, one principal expressed his belief that a few years ago it would have been difficult for his school to institute its rigorous graduation requirements, which exceeded those of other schools in the district, given the prevailing views in the district at that time. Being a charter school allowed the school to implement a program that was less vulnerable to change from outside forces. In the fourth case, the charter's vision and sense of purpose were lost when the founder left. For the first three schools mentioned, however, charter status gave the staff a sense of empowerment and of being part of a significant reform process. One teacher explained, "The fact that we are a charter, that we are in charge of our destiny, has forced an attitude change. We have a sense of power we never had before, whether it is true or an illusion." Also, there appears to be a public relations advantage associated with being a charter school that helps the schools attract parents.

Charter district schools(51)

Overall, schools in charter districts did not report overwhelming changes as a result of converting to charter status. When asked specifically what charter status allowed them to do that they could not have done under the traditional district management structure that existed before they became a charter district, most school leaders reported that they were able to do the following (see Table III-7):

Table III-7
BENEFITS OF CHARTER STATUS FOR SCHOOLS IN CHARTER DISTRICTS
Percentage of Schools(n=5)
Allocate resources in a manner different from the district norm. 40%
Contract for services with nondistrict providers. 80%
Provide support to teachers to improve their skills. 40%
Purchase materials in a manner different from the district norm. 60%


On the other hand, charter district schools unanimously reported that charter status did not allow them to reward teachers for exemplary performance or dismiss teachers for unsatisfactory performance.

When asked to describe what they gained at the school level from being in a charter district (i.e., how the school compared with when it operated in a noncharter district), school leaders reported moderate changes:

"It hasn't changed a whole lot yet. One thing is that it has added more options to meet the needs of kids who aren't making it. . . . Ask me in a couple of years and you'll probably see more."

"It is tightening everything up. . . it is holding people more accountable."

One principal noted that they were just in their first year, and thus a lot was similar to how things were prior to becoming a charter district. "We wanted to take it slow," he noted. He added that there had been some deviation on instructional materials (different from the state). In addition, the school also had the option of hiring noncertificated staff (which they had not done yet).

Another director reported that a lot of what they were doing they would have done even without charter status. "We were on the track of doing what we wanted to do" when the charter law came around and "fit into our vision." He noted one specific change: parent involvement had increased since it had become mandatory. In his opinion, there had been good compliance with the minimum hour requirements and the strategy had "paid off"--it had kept lines of communication open, and parents felt that they could "come, talk, and be heard."

"It focused professional development. . . and made the change process easier because it focused us on the pillars of the charter. It gave the school a focus." This principal also noted that a lot of what they were doing at their school was "nothing particularly new" and that many others were also doing these things without charter status.

It is important to keep in mind, however, that one of the districts had received charter status only 1 year prior to this study.

Conclusion

As we have demonstrated elsewhere in this report, it is difficult to generalize about charter schools in California. Our findings about charter school governance, finance, and accountability are no exception. There were many motivations for starting charter schools, numerous outcomes of the charter-granting process, several types of charter opposition and support, and a variety of relationships between these schools and their sponsoring agencies. However, a few patterns emerged with respect to charter school finance and accountability. There was fluidity and uncertainty in the fiscal affairs of both financially autonomous and financially dependent schools. Financial liability was another area of uncertainty and concern in most, if not all, charter schools and sponsoring agencies. Accountability requirements for charter schools and noncharter schools in the same sponsoring agencies tended to be consistent, with a stronger emphasis on financial accountability than on accountability for student achievement. Finally, although some schools had difficulty articulating the advantages of charter status, the most commonly cited advantages were the freedom to allocate resources in a way chosen by the school, to contract for services and purchase supplies from nondistrict providers, and to provide support for teachers.

In the next chapter, we expand on the topic of accountability for student learning when we present our findings on teaching and learning in charter schools.


IV. TEACHING AND LEARNING IN CHARTER SCHOOLS



The California Charter Schools Act states that charter schools are intended to "encourage innovative teaching methods," "provide parents and teachers with expanded choices in the types of educational opportunities that are available within the public school system," and "create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning at the school site" (Education Code, Section 47601).

The interpretation of these goals, however, is open for debate. For example, innovation can be thought of as a uniqueapproach--implying that charter schools are expected to implement new and unconventional classroom practices. On the other hand, innovation can be viewed in relative terms--suggesting that a charter school's educational program is innovative if it is different from the norm within its local district or, in the case of a conversion school, if it represents a change from its precharter program and practices. Some charter school proponents argue that innovation can also be accomplished through changes in a school's locus of control. In other words, in their view, a charter school's newly gained power--in exchange for increased accountability--over a range of matters, including governance and finance, as well as instructional methods and materials, regardless of what these features look like or whether they are implemented, constitutes innovation and the potential for creating change in the classroom. Charter schools can also be seen as innovative in competitiveness. By providing alternatives within the public school system, charter schools might create competitive pressure on school districts to change their practices in ways that improve education throughout the public school system.

In addition to these definitional problems, the comprehensive nature of changes within charter schools also complicates the assessment of whether they have achieved "innovation." Many charter schools evolved out of a desire to experiment with new organizational and management structures. For example, they may have wanted to become a charter school to gain more control over purchasing or teacher selection and dismissal. Although not directly related to pedagogy or curriculum, these changes are inextricably linked to principles of teaching and learning. In these cases, it can be difficult to separate such organizational changes or "innovations" from the academic ones.

Given these challenges, we found it difficult to evaluate the quality and nature of teaching practices within charter schools. From the perspective that charter schools should invent entirely new and unique instructional methods, we did not see convincing evidence that charter schools accomplished this goal. This finding is not surprising, since school reformers in and out of charter schools have looked at the same body of literature that identifies the characteristics of effective curricula, methods, and schooling. Thus, we would expect to find charter schools experimenting with techniques and ideas that may have been implemented elsewhere. A more context-dependent definition of innovation, however, yields a different picture.

Our work indicates that it may be too early to accurately assess the types of teacher practices within charter schools. Many charter schools were at different stages of their experimentation and change processes. Some charter schools sought charter status to experiment with curriculum design, instructional programs, and professional development opportunities and succeeded in realizing this purpose. Others had been reforming these areas for years before becoming a charter school and used charter status to expand or continue these practices. Other charter schools articulated visions of new teaching techniques and curriculum in their charter petitions, but struggled to bring them to life within their classrooms. A few schools adhered to more traditional approaches to teaching, but argued that they had gained greater freedom to implement their educational program as they defined it.

In this chapter, we first examine professional roles and growth opportunities for teachers within charter schools. The remainder of the chapter focuses on the instructional programs: the use of standards, subject area emphases, delivery methods, teaching practices, home-based learning programs, and special education. Throughout the chapter, we draw on both survey and case study data.

Professional Roles and Opportunities

The role of the teacher

From virtually all perspectives in debates about education, the role of the teacher is considered to be critical. The training that teachers receive, the methods they use, and the workplace support provided to them have been the focus of educational reform efforts for years.

The roles of teachers in our case study sites varied, with most teachers taking on additional administrative or curricular responsibilities in their schools. Many charter school teachers saw themselves in distinctive roles¾as academic "coaches" or facilitators in students' learning¾especially if they were involved in home or independent study charter schools. At most of the schools we visited, teachers served on the school's governing body. Teachers in a few schools also served in an administrative capacity. For example, one teacher was also the Director of Curriculum and Instruction. In addition, some teachers participated on evaluation, curriculum, or other school committees and had taken on additional responsibilities, such as peer coaching and evaluation, developing schoolwide standards and assessments, and designing their schools' educational programs.

In some cases, these role changes may have produced negative effects. For example, teachers at several case study schools reported that teaching in charter schools required increased hours and work. Others noted a lack of clarity and confusion over their exact role and responsibilities. At other case study schools, teachers described more positive effects. Many teachers noted that they were more satisfied with these schools because they had more control over their own classrooms. These teachers thought they were better able to serve the needs of their students, many of whom had fallen through the cracks in the regular public school system.

In some of the case study schools, teachers did not appear to take on additional roles outside of the classroom. However, teachers at many of these schools reported an increased sense of ownership over the educational program. Teachers told us that they felt empowered and able to make more decisions. Charter school proponents expect that more enthusiasm and creativity in the classroom can contribute to an improved educational program.

Professional development and support

Professional development is considered to be a critical tool for enhancing teachers' knowledge and skills, informing them of new instructional and assessment methods, and building collaboration and a sense of professional community among colleagues. For most teachers throughout the country, professional development activities take the form of district-sponsored,
1-day workshops (Darling-Hammond, 1997). The majority of case study sites reported providing more appropriate professional development opportunities because these were determined on a schoolwide or individualized basis rather than being designed by the district. At times, teachers attended district- or county-run trainings or sessions, but most often they participated in opportunities provided by consultants, professional associations, or their own teaching staff.

Charter schools, for the most part, devoted a similar amount of time to professional development as other schools in California. Charter schools in the state, on average, had approximately five staff development days during the school year, as did regular public schools.(52) Our case study sites described a range of professional development opportunities for instructional staff. Only one of our case study sites did not provide (through either the school or the district) any formal staff development opportunities. Our case study sites most frequently reported professional development opportunities emphasizing literacy, standards, and assessment. Other topics reported by teachers were special education, math/science curriculum, technology, and brain research.

Schools where parents or instructional aides had substantial instructional roles allowed all instructional staff to participate in these trainings, as opposed to just teachers. Three schools we visited had implemented a shortened school day for students every week to ensure that these staff development activities would occur on a regular basis. These shortened school days also enabled teachers to meet in small groups, usually as grade-level teams. Some respondents indicated that their charters enabled them to modify their weekly schedule to allow for these opportunities.

Teacher evaluation

Private-sector models (e.g., Total Quality Management), as well as many theories of teaching, rely on systematic performance evaluations for improving teacher accountability and practice. In the case of teachers, it is hoped that evaluations will change teachers' attitudes and behavior, which will ultimately translate into better classroom practices and improved student learning.

On the survey, nearly all charter schools (89%) reported having annual performance evaluations for teachers. However, in our case study schools, teacher evaluation systems had not yet been fully implemented. Although school directors reported that they evaluated teachers, most seemed to do so informally. Only 4 of the 12 sites we visited had a formal process for evaluating teachers. The evaluations at these four case study sites were based on observations (by principals and/or peers), professional portfolios, and/or peer review. For example, one school evaluated new teachers every 9 weeks for the first 2 years that they taught at the school. Each new teacher prepared a professional portfolio and discussed his or her performance regularly with the principal and a veteran teacher who was assigned to help in this process. Veteran teachers were evaluated by the principal every 2 years. Nearly all the schools that had not implemented an evaluation process for teachers reported that they were planning to do so.

Instructional Programs

Home-based learning and independent study programs

Traditional notions of schools define them as physical places where educators and students come together each day in an organized fashion to participate in learning activities. By changing the first part of this equation, home schools and independent-study programs dramatically alter traditional models of schooling. Charter schools based on home and independent study models are different from other charter schools and thus, by definition, are difficult to compare with other charter schools or regular public schools. These schools are based on school visions or philosophies that result in new structures and instructional delivery systems, but not always in innovative curricula. Home study charter schools are built on the idea that each family or student is responsible for developing an individualized learning plan. Student learning in these charter schools may occur at different times of day and in different locations. At times, the student may work individually, be taught one-on-one by a parent or a charter school teacher, or participate in small-group classes.

Our survey indicated that 29% of all charter schools employed home-based learning with the parent as primary instructor, and 22% employed independent study with the teacher as primary instructor. Many of these schools also reported using other instructional delivery methods, such as classroom instruction, as described later in this chapter. Three of our case study schools served students in these nontraditional educational settings or configurations. All of these schools' educational programs were characterized by an overarching philosophy of individualized, self-paced learning--which was seen as particularly relevant and effective for students who were not succeeding in the regular public schools. In addition, all of these schools offered a menu of programs based on different instructional delivery methods to meet the specific needs of their targeted student populations. However, only one site (described below) offered a markedly different or nontraditional curriculum.

One charter school we visited offered both home study and independent study programs, as well as small-class instruction. When a student enrolls in the school, the parent, student, and facilitator (or teacher) meet to determine the student's learning plan. At this point, the parent and the facilitator outline their roles--for example, the parent may decide to teach but the facilitator may determine the curriculum, or vice versa. Each student must demonstrate proficiency in different areas of learning to graduate from the program. This school's "curriculum" was the most unusual of these three case study sites. Depending on long-term plans and individual talents or interests of the student, the learning program may be based on a more traditional curriculum to enable the student to return to regular public school, or on a more creative curriculum to allow the student to learn thematically.

The second case study site based on home study also provided several options to students. The charter school operates two home study programs and a separate program for high-risk and frequently court-referred teenagers. This school also offers a parenting and academic program for pregnant teenagers and teenage mothers and an extended day program at elementary schools in its county. The unifying theme of these programs is that the school serves students and families who were not succeeding in or chose not to attend regular public schools. All of the curriculum is based on the sponsoring agency's standards-based curriculum to ensure that students are able to obtain credit for their work if they return to the regular public schools in the area.

The third charter school offered students either an independent study or daily classroom-based program. Upon enrollment, students were assessed to determine what competencies/
credits they had mastered and what they still needed to graduate. Assessment results were used by the school staff to craft a set of projects or classes based on the students' needs. Students were allowed to move through either the independent study or classroom program at their own pace. In the daily classroom-based program, students could work on extra projects outside of class to earn extra credits and could also "test out" of certain classes by demonstrating mastery on various tests. The curriculum in this school was comparable to a more traditional independent study program. In fact, the textbooks used in this school were the same ones used in the district's alternative education program.

Several directors used their charter status to add structure and resources to their programs--features that were not present in noncharter independent study or home school programs. For example, the case study charter schools with home study programs offered electives in a classroom setting to support parents' efforts to educate their children, so that the students were exposed to courses that were taught in regular public schools. At one school, "instructional leaders" (who may or may not be credentialed teachers) offered elementary-level students electives in drama, Spanish, and science and offered high-school-level students electives in math and science, to name a few. The other school offered a range of classes taught by certified teachers, parents, or community members that focused primarily on art, music, and athletics, but also included high school math and English classes.

The structure provided by charter home and independent study schools is attractive to a certain population of students; all three schools had enrollments of more than 500 students. Remarks from a former home school parent at one charter school may provide insight into this appeal. The parent thought that having her children attend the charter schools provided the "best of both worlds"¾not only was the learning program adapted to her children's skills and interests, but also she had the administrative and curricular support of a trained professional.

As the above examples illustrate, the charter vehicle has been used to create distinctive variations on the home school idea.

Standards and curriculum frameworks

At the local, state, and federal levels, efforts are under way to create meaningful standards by which to shape curriculum and instruction, and to evaluate its effectiveness. Reformers and policy-makers have introduced many such mechanisms over the past decade or so, including the federal Goals 2000 and the California Curriculum Frameworks.

In synch with this push toward standards-based reform, most case study charter schools recognized the importance of standards and high expectations for their students. Many of our case study schools reported that they followed the California Curriculum Frameworks as guides for curriculum and instruction. Several schools mentioned the use of district or county standards and curriculum guides. As mentioned above, one charter school's home study program followed the county's standards-based curriculum so that students who chose to reenter public schools later would be on track and receive credit for their home study coursework. Another charter school adopted the California Challenge District Standards and appointed teachers as "standards consultants" for the various disciplines. These consultants evaluated the appropriateness of different standards for use in the school, attended standards conferences, and continually engaged in regional and national discussions of standards.

A small group of charter schools developed--or were in the process of developing--their own standards for some or all disciplines. A few schools articulated "grade-level expectancies" for students and shared those documents with parents during open house or parent-teacher conferences. One charter school had developed content standards and curriculum guides for every grade level, which included monthly "benchmarks" or tasks. A home study charter school articulated learning goals or "growth areas" in which students must demonstrate competency. Over the years, the charter revised these goals and added specificity to each area. For example, one goal--student reads and writes effectively--was broken into subcategories, such as "student reads actively and derives meaning from written word," "student adjusts tone and style of writing for purpose and audience," and "student organizes ideas in a variety of ways." It is important to note that many of these schools had developed or started to develop these standards documents before gaining charter status. In sum, these standards-related practices, to varying degrees, reflect the educational and/or organizational missions of the charter schools.

Subject matter emphasis

Traditionally, schools teach to a range of areas of development that correspond to state or district curricular guidelines. For example, reading, mathematics, and language arts are the core subjects in most elementary schools. To find out the ways in which charter schools organized instruction, we asked directors in our survey to report on their emphases of subject matters. The majority of charter schools reported that their educational programs had equal emphases on all disciplines (71%). Some charter schools emphasized a particular subject area or discipline, such as technology (9%), English/language arts (9%), science (7%), and math (6%). Fourteen percent of charter schools reported an emphasis on other areas, such as vocational education, prevention of substance abuse, therapy, foreign languages, and character development.

Although many of our case study charter schools provided an equal emphasis on all subject areas, several schools focused on 1 or two disciplines. These foci often drove how the school organized time, students, curriculum, and instruction. One school emphasized literacy and foreign language instruction and offered daily instruction in Spanish and English for all students (implementation began 1 year before the school's charter was granted). One charter high school implemented an international relations focus, requiring students to take an international relations course, geography, environmental science, and four years of a foreign language.

An elementary school serving a large LEP population emphasized literacy and language acquisition. Along with primary language instruction in the lower grades, the school developed a phonics-based language arts curriculum in both Spanish and English. Another elementary school offered an arts, technology, and science program one morning per week (e.g., we observed Bulgarian dance, introduction to drums from around the world, and problem-solving games in the computer lab). Finally, one school emphasized visual and performing arts.

Instructional delivery methods

Most schools use a classroom-based approach to delivering instruction--placing a teacher with a group of students for all or part of the day. Although 87% of charter schools responding to the survey reported using the more traditional, classroom-based approaches, many charter schools (48%) reported using more than one instructional delivery method.(53) Some charter schools also employed home-based learning with the parent as primary instructor, independent study with the teacher as primary instructor, work- and/or community-based learning, and distance learning. Figure IV-1 illustrates the primary instructional delivery methods used in charter schools. Unfortunately, we do not have the data to allow for comparisons of instructional methods with noncharter public schools.



Comparisons among charter schools reveal interesting patterns of instructional delivery. Start-up charter schools were more likely to use home-based learning as a primary method (although not necessarily the primary method for the majority of students)¾41% of start-up schools, compared with 17% of conversion schools. Similarly, rural schools implemented home-based learning more frequently than schools in other locations--69% of rural schools reported home-based learning as a primary instructional method, compared with 16% of urban schools, 22% of suburban schools, and 25% of small-town schools. Finally, large schools were more likely to have implemented distance learning as a primary instructional delivery method (24% of large schools, compared with 15% of medium/large schools, 9% of medium/small schools, and no small schools).

Classroom practices

Research suggests that teachers who emphasize meaning and understanding in their teaching are most likely to find ways of connecting instruction to students' home lives, thereby engaging students more successfully in academic learning and enabling them to perform better academically. Research also indicates that to support the expansion of teachers' instructional repertoires, there needs to be a balance among pressure for change in instructional practice, permission for professional autonomy, and provision of support (Knapp et. al., 1992). Sometimes, the use of various teaching and organizational practices--such as thematic and interdisciplinary instruction, team teaching, multi-age grouping, and uses of technology--can lead to the type of "teaching for meaning and understanding" and increases in teachers' "repertoires" that are supported by this research.

Although this study did not entail the collection of appropriate comparison data on classroom practices in noncharter public schools, we sought to determine whether case study charter schools were engaging in effective teaching practices. In our observations of classrooms, we found the implementation of these stated classroom practices to be uneven. At some schools, these practices appeared to be consistently implemented schoolwide. At other schools, they seemed to be more isolated within a select number of classrooms. At still other schools, we heard talk of such practices but did not observe them in action.

Thematic, Interdisciplinary Instruction. At its best, thematic, interdisciplinary instruction brings together curricula in several subject areas under the umbrella of one overarching concept or theme. Thus, teachers present a range of disciplines as an integrated whole instead of isolated, discipline-specific units--adding context and meaning to students' learning experiences.

At a few schools, we observed schoolwide implementation of integrated thematic curricula. In one elementary charter school, "families" from grades 1 through 6 gathered every other Friday to work on thematic units. Daily classroom lessons were also characterized by rich integration of multiple subjects. For example, we observed an integrated math and reading lesson in which the teacher read a book, 12 Ways to Get to 11, then students worked through various problems that added to 11 and illustrated the problems with pictures and words. In another classroom at the same school, students worked on the building of an early New England village--a long-term project that integrated geometry, math, drawing, history, and natural science. On the day of our visits, students were developing plans for their houses and businesses, constructing budgets, building models, and using the metric system for measurements.

At another elementary school, we saw evidence of consistent use of thematic, interdisciplinary, and hands-on instruction: bulletin boards were rich with student-made projects and artwork; students were actively working with manipulatives, writing books, making models; and several activities we observed were student-centered (e.g., titles of projects on the wall included: "amazing alliterations all about us," "our priceless personalities"). One family of four classrooms was engaged in a thematic architecture unit. In language arts, they developed a glossary of architectural terms, read books on architects, and wrote research papers about a favorite architect. To tie in math, the students learned how to make scale drawings of their classroom and to measure large and small spaces. In addition, students took field trips to architecture landmarks and heard presentations from local architects. On the day of our visit, we observed students creating their "dream room." All four classrooms in this family showed signs of this architecture theme: walls were covered in related projects and materials, such as "what clues tell us why these buildings were built," and student drawings of cities accompanied by poems.

At other schools, we witnessed instances, but not schoolwide implementation, of thematic or integrated instruction. At one school, we observed a classroom that was engaged in interdisciplinary learning tied to a theme of oceans. Bulletin boards displayed student ocean haikus, paintings from a story about the sea, drawings of fish, and giant paper-stuffed whales. At the beginning of the observed lesson, students listened to a story entitled See the Ocean. After reading the story and briefly discussing the use of descriptive language, the teacher asked students to identify all five senses used to describe the ocean. To heighten their own senses, the teacher passed out apples and asked students to use their senses to describe them. At the end of the lesson, students were asked to create a "step book," using one page per sense to describe and illustrate the ocean (e.g., "I see . . ." "I feel . . ."). The use of integrated or thematic instruction was not evident in the few other observed classrooms at this school.

One charter school serving students who were not succeeding in traditional schools had originally stated goals of implementing technology and project-based and thematic learning. The school's director reported that this plan "fizzled" during the first few years of the charter and was something that they would like to build back up. Our classroom observations, although limited, indicated a high level of teacher-directed instruction. Another school talked a lot about thematic instruction and integrated curricula, but our observations failed to uncover examples of these methods inside classrooms.

Team Teaching. In its best form, team teaching allows teachers to share instructional responsibilities for the same group of students--allowing them to develop collegial relationships with their partners, plan together, experiment with student grouping strategies, and specialize in a more narrow range of topics. At a few charter schools we visited, teachers regularly co-taught or shared responsibility for teaching the same group of students. At one school, these "teaming" arrangements varied from grade level to grade level. In one cluster of three 1st-grade classrooms (which shared a large space), team teaching occurred for math, Spanish, and writer's workshop. During these rotations, each teacher took responsibility for one discipline. In the 4th grade, the four teachers rotated for writer's workshop, science, history/social studies, and Spanish. Teachers kept their own students for language arts and math.

At another school, team teaching occurred exclusively for mathematics. Students were grouped somewhat heterogeneously, although with less skill range (i.e., low-middle, middle-high) than a pure heterogeneous grouping. Each teacher took responsibility for a few units within the curriculum and then taught that unit twice. School administrators and teachers believed that this arrangement allowed teachers to specialize in certain strands of the curriculum and to develop rich units on a more manageable set of topics.

Student Groupings and Multi-Age Classrooms. As a teaching technique, student grouping allows teachers to tailor instruction more effectively to students' individual needs. For example, those using multi-age grouping strategies believe they can better adjust curriculum and instruction to students' developmental needs, which do not always correspond to the age-based grade-level groupings in most traditional classrooms.

Most charter school classrooms we visited experimented with a variety of student grouping strategies. We observed students working in small groups, individually, and with their entire class. Several schools also experimented with multi-age groupings. One small charter school organized all of its grade 5-8 students into three mixed-age groups, based largely on their math proficiency level. Students were grouped according to grade level for social studies in order to follow the state frameworks more closely. School staff viewed the multi-age grouping strategy as a critical element in their educational program--allowing more individualized and self-paced student learning.

Other schools experimented with a limited number of ungraded classrooms. One elementary school recently introduced a multi-age classroom of 60 students from grades 4-6. Students enrolled in the class by choice and were taught by two teachers and an instructional aide. To ensure coverage of the school's 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-grade curriculum, the class cycled through the curriculum for a different grade level each year (e.g., when we visited, the class work was comparable to the scope and sequence of the school's other 6th-grade classes).

Another elementary school recently created a K-2 class for at-risk LEP students. It was seen as a way to give better, more individualized attention to students struggling academically. This same school also implemented two multi-age classrooms with students from grades 1-5 that could not be placed in regular, single-grade classrooms. This grouping strategy did not appear to operate within an overarching pedagogical framework. Instead, it served more of an administrative need to preserve the 20:1 student-teacher ratio required to receive funding for the state class size reduction program.

Technology. Many educators believe technology is an effective tool for enhancing student engagement and learning. A few charter schools in our case study sample attempted to integrate technology into their core educational programs. In one, a computer and technology lab had state-of-the-art equipment for student-constructed multimedia presentations and Web pages. Home study students enrolled in the charter school had virtually unlimited access to the computer lab for coursework and other school projects. Students in the other charter programs also used the lab extensively. Another school implemented an unusually extensive array of technology throughout the school--a schoolwide network; multiple computers, printer, TV, and VCR in all classrooms; 5th-grade classrooms with one computer per child; a broadcasting room with video equipment; and voice amplification systems in classrooms.

At another school, technology was originally intended to play a large role but never became a reality. The only actual role it played was in assessing students. The school recently acquired a new computer-based tool that assesses student competency, creates lessons that students can perform on the computer, reassesses students at the end of the lesson, and generates pre-post comparisons. School staff were still developing this tool and used it primarily for remediation.

Conclusion

The complexity of the term "innovation" makes it difficult to comprehensively assess teaching and learning within charter school classrooms. For many schools, charter status was part of an evolution of reform--converting to a charter was viewed as the next step in improving the school's educational program. For other schools, charter status was seen as a means to create or experiment with an entirely new educational program. Yet, for others, charter status was directly related not to pedagogy or curriculum, but instead to organizational or managerial changes that, as they argue, create the potential for educational changes.

Thus, whereas some schools implemented creative and strikingly "different" teaching methods and professional opportunities, others claimed to be innovative in their newfound freedom to control their educational programs. One feature of teaching and learning that did stand out, however, was the unique configurations implemented at independent study and home-based learning charter schools.

Given the lack of appropriate comparison data, we were unable to evaluate fully the relative innovation within charter and noncharter schools. Although it is clear that many of the professional roles and teaching practices described in this chapter can be found in reform-minded, noncharter public schools, we do not know whether the implementation of these approaches differs in degree, kind, and quality. We believe that this is an area for future research. More broadly, future research can explore the nature of charter schools' educational programs--how they are formed, how clearly they articulate learning goals. Future research efforts can uncover how some charter schools are able to establish clear educational programs, and what can be done to help others do the same.


V. OUTCOMES OF CALIFORNIA CHARTER

SCHOOLS

Any discussion of education in the 1990s includes some reference to outcomes. In the case of charter schools, the shift from rule-based to performance-based accountability is a direct reference to an emphasis on outcomes. As previous chapters have illustrated, charter schools vary considerably in virtually every descriptive category, including the goals they hope to achieve, the populations they serve, their governance structures, etc. Likewise, the variety of outcomes resulting from their efforts to increase student learning can be expected to be similarly broad in scope. To varying degrees, California's charter schools have instituted changes in many areas of school operations, including staffing, financial arrangements, curriculum and instruction, and parent involvement. Each of these changes can legitimately be considered outcomes at both the level of the individual charter school and the level of the charter school experiment as a whole. In this chapter, we focus on three important outcome areas: (1) progress toward charter goals, (2) parental involvement and perspectives, and (3) student achievement. The available data do not allow us to draw definitive conclusions about charters' performance in any of these areas, in part because it is too early in the reform process, and in part because the available data are insufficient. However, we are able to address the usefulness of each in considering the success of California's charter school experiment. For each of the outcome areas, we present some of the complexities of issues surrounding it, as well as the strengths and weaknesses of each in presenting a broad picture of California's charter schools. We rely on illustrative examples from survey and case study data to support our analyses. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the types of information that will be required for future research efforts.

Progress Toward Charter Goals

One way to address the outcomes issue is to look at the degree to which charter schools are meeting the objectives that they specified in their original charters. This approach is valuable for several reasons. First, it allows the school to be evaluated in terms of the entire range of objectives that it was seeking to accomplish, as opposed to focusing on one or two issues. For example, many charters directly propose changes in governance, staffing, parent involvement, curriculum and instruction, and student outcomes. A fair evaluation of the school should take each of these areas into account, particularly since progress across different outcome areas is likely to be uneven. Second, some objectives may be difficult to define or to achieve in a relatively short time. In this instance, there may be interim evidence of progress toward achieving the ultimate goals. For example, if a charter school identifies high levels of parent involvement as a goal, the creation of mechanisms to achieve it (e.g., site council, parent contracts) may constitute evidence of steps in that direction, even if the level of participation is not consistent with that specified in the charter. In addition, we found that some charters established very ambitious goals that may take considerable time to achieve--possibly more than the 5-year timeframe. Results that show improvement toward those goals can also be viewed as positive, if interim, outcomes. Third, such analyses have local relevance because the goals were established and pursued locally. Presumably, these results of the evaluation could be used in an ongoing fashion to improve the school and help to achieve its goals.

Our school survey did not specifically ask charter school directors to comment on their own system for assessing their progress toward their charters' stated goals. However, the survey indicated that charter schools engage in practices that would assist them in such efforts. First, the majority of charter schools reported that they collect and report a wide variety of data to sponsors, including student achievement, behavioral indicators, financial data, and parent satisfaction. Second, charter schools employ a wide range of strategies for the assessment of student learning. Third, nearly all charter schools reported that they systematically assess parent satisfaction through surveys and/or focus groups. Taken together, there is evidence that most charter schools collect information that would allow them to assess their progress. Charters approach this self-reflective task quite differently and situate themselves along a continuum from concrete and quantitative to informal and process oriented.

At one end of the continuum, several case study charter schools took a very concrete approach to addressing their progress toward their goals through the collection and analysis of data, and the documentation of those analyses in their annual reports or other formats. In its annual report, one school listed each of its objectives--a longer school year, parent involvement, teacher-parent governance, the creation of a preschool, the creation of a health clinic, racial balance, technology and arts foci, high expectations and achievement--and documented whether or not each objective had been reached over the course of the previous school year. In the cases where the goals had been achieved (e.g., parent involvement and governance), a detailed description of the process that brought the mechanisms into place and documentation of their effectiveness were provided (e.g., site council bylaws, participants' names, meeting schedules, decisions reached). In cases where the goals were not completely achieved (e.g., student achievement), an explanation of the results was included (e.g., program start-up with inexperienced teachers, testing schedule) with a prescription to remedy the problems in the following year (e.g., teacher inservice training). In other instances, the report identified some successes as well as challenges in meeting certain goals. For example, although computers had been purchased for all of the school's classrooms, not all the teachers had received sufficient training to make optimal use of them in their classes. Another school hired a third-party evaluator to look at a number of issues, including student achievement, mobility, program creation, fiscal autonomy and efficiencies--all objectives that were specified in its charter. This school's report also identified successes, challenges, and implications for action in successive years. The report documented a series of fiscal efficiencies that had been achieved and described the benefits of flexibility in staffing. In each of these schools, the breadth of the changes under way at the school level was particularly evident, as well as a diversity in the level of success that they had achieved in various outcome areas.

Several other schools we visited took a less formal approach to evaluating whether or not they were achieving their charter's objectives. In one of these schools, some of the charter goals were similar to those described above. At others, the charters were written by using broad language descriptive of the school, its environment, philosophy, and programs. One school produced an impressive book containing student illustrations, prose, and poetry. The staff viewed this publication and the well-attended performances held each semester as evidence that their work was succeeding in the spirit of the charter. At another school, our observations indicated that the school was using portfolio assessment and thematic instruction--in accordance with its charter--but did not document this fact in a systematic way for themselves or external parties.

It is important to stress two other factors related to progress toward charter goals. First, many of these charters were written in the early days of the law and few had experience writing or evaluating them. Second, many charter schools included goals in their charters that are difficult to measure. For example, many charter schools included goals such as the appreciation of cultural differences, the empowerment of staff and parents, stronger community ties, or improved social skills. Charter schools, like social scientists and anthropologists, had trouble documenting whether these goals had been achieved and the degree to which charter status itself contributed to their achievement. Our evidence in these areas relies on interviews with teachers and parents. In one school, teachers were articulate in speaking about the expansion of their roles in curriculum design and the creativity that they had been able to bring to the classroom. They were convinced that these changes were due to their charter status. In another school, the teachers were more mixed in their assessment both of how well the school was meeting its goals and whether charter status was central to the school's operation.

Parental Involvement and Perspectives

As we described earlier, there was a considerable presence of parents at many California charter schools. They played a variety of roles in support of day-to-day operations, the delivery of instruction, decision-making, and governance. This level of parent participation is consistent with many charter schools' stated objectives to increase the levels of parent involvement. This type of school-parent partnership is supported by a large body of research that shows that parent involvement is linked to a range of positive outcomes, including increased achievement and fewer discipline problems (Epstein, 1987; Comer, 1988). Also, unlike other alternatives of school choice, the impetus to create charter schools often comes from parents. For the purposes of evaluating the outcomes associated with the California charter school experiment, the parent perspective is additionally important because parents choose to send their children to charter schools, as opposed to other public schools. In this sense, parents "vote with their feet" so that their decisions to stay or to leave can be considered both independent of and in conjunction with other outcomes. These factors and the California charter law's intent to give parents and students expanded choices further document the importance of parents' views.

From this perspective, many California charter schools have achieved considerable success in the eyes of parents. According to our survey, 63% of schools reported having wait lists for entrance into their schools, and an additional 69% expected to increase enrollment in the coming year. These results suggest that most charters had strong local support among people whose children would be most affected by the pros and cons of the schools' programs. This is an especially important finding in the range of outcomes associated with charters.

At most of our case study sites, we asked parents to reflect on whether the school's charter status had made a difference for them and their children. Their responses depicted a positive and complicated view of parent involvement. At one school where parents served in both support roles for the day-to-day operations of the school and on the school's governing board, parents were pleased with the opportunity to be included in the decision-making processes regarding the hiring of instructional staff, purchasing of materials and supplies, and general school policies. These parents linked this level of engagement directly with the school's charter status, citing precharter and other public school experiences as counterexamples to make their point. At a second school, parents were also very supportive of the school but were frustrated by some of the policies and control of the board. Nonetheless, they were supportive of the school because they felt that they could directly approach the instructional staff with their concerns and that they would be heard and given appropriate attention. They also cited the potential for change and accommodation that would not be present elsewhere. In both of these cases, parents supported the schools and intended to keep their children in attendance.

Student Achievement

As stated earlier, the appropriate data are not currently available with which to draw conclusions about student achievement in California charter schools. However, in its very first provision, the 1992 California Charter Schools Act states that charter schools are ultimately intended to improve student learning. Indeed, the regulatory freedom enjoyed by charter schools is predicated on fulfilling that promise. However, the language in the legislation is sufficiently general that it can be nearly universally supported. There is also agreement on broad goals such as the need to teach students to be able to compete in the economy of the next century, or to teach students to gain problem-solving and teamwork capabilities. However, disagreements arise quickly when the discussion turns to the specific educational contexts and activities that are intended to achieve such important goals. The debate can become even more complicated when the achievement of these objectives must be demonstrated empirically. In short, neither the state of California nor the nation's larger educational community as a whole have been able to agree on specific definitions of academic achievement or on how it should be measured. California charter schools find themselves in the middle of this debate. This diversity of assessment practices, philosophies, and available data--either from the state or what we were able to collect from schools--has led us to conclude that a simple answer to the question "are students performing better in charter schools?" is not currently attainable. Although the lack of statewide data is problematic, the controversy surrounding complicated issues related to the appropriateness of various approaches, comparison groups, and timeframes are likely to continue once data become available.

In this section, we first explain why data are not available at the time of this report. Next, we present a discussion of overarching philosophical and practical issues relating to achievement and the types of assessment used in charter schools. We continue with an analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of different assessment strategies for making charter-noncharter comparisons. Finally, we present four examples from survey and case study data to illustrate some of the complexities of different perspectives on standardized test scores.

Why aren't data available?

There are a number of reasons that data are not available to allow conclusions to be drawn regarding the performance of charter schools in comparison with other public schools. First, the repeal of the California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) left the state without a statewide testing program. Second, many charter schools did participate in the Pupil Testing Incentive Program (PTIP), the data for which were collected by the California Department of Education in the spring of 1997. However, those data were not available for analysis within the time line of the interim study. Third, our charter school survey indicated that a large majority of schools used standardized tests to measure student performance. However, the survey asked for achievement data from a single year (1995-96) and from specific grade levels (4, 5, 8, and 10). Some newer charter schools did not have achievement data for that year, and others just began using tests this past school year (1996-97). Others may not have had the types of scores for the grades we requested (i.e., percentiles or Normal Curve Equivalents). In short, only 30% of the schools were able to provide test scores on the survey. Fourth, we sought to collect data from schools, sponsoring districts, and comparison schools at each of our case study sites. We were able to obtain aggregated data from 8 of the 12 sites but do not have student-level data from any of them. Thus, we are able to use these data as examples to illustrate the complexities associated with the achievement questions, but these comparisons cannot be extrapolated to all charter schools in California.

Philosophical and practical issues

As described earlier, charter schools in California vary greatly in size, target populations, instructional delivery methods, and long-term goals. The same is true when it comes to the assessment of student learning. Philosophically, some charter schools view standardized tests as the best measure of their school's performance in comparison with other public schools. Other schools view these tests as necessary to convince opponents of their effectiveness, even if they believe that they are not the best way to measure student performance. Still others abhor such tests on the grounds that they do not measure true student abilities and may even be injurious to children. Our survey of charter school directors assessed both schools' use of different assessment approaches and the importance of each in assessing student performance at their schools. Schools were asked to report whether they felt that each technique was essential, important, used but not considered, or not used to assess student performance (Figure V-1). The figure shows that charter schools employed a great variety of methods in assessing students' performance. Overall, schools considered the use of both traditional teacher-assigned grades and alternative assessments, such as portfolios and locally developed performance-based tests, to be essential or important to their assessment of student progress.

Standardized tests and local performance-based tests were also used, but were less frequently considered to be essential or important. Other approaches, such as the use of behavioral indicators and student interviews, were also important. It is equally important to note that some common assessment approaches were not used at all by some charter schools. Fourteen percent of charter schools reported that they did not use standardized tests, and 17% did not use teacher-assigned grades. The majority of schools did not use national performance-based tests.



The start-up vs. conversion charter school distinction had relevance for the use of assessment approaches. Start-ups were more likely than conversions to employ portfolio assessment methods as an essential part of their assessment strategies, whereas conversions were more likely to view teacher-assigned grades as essential. Both types of schools were comparable in their use of standardized tests. It is possible that start-up charter schools favored less traditional forms of student assessment. This possibility has implications for our ability to compare student performance in some charters with that in other charter schools or in noncharter public schools.

Schools that did administer standardized tests ¾ whether they felt it was an essential or important component of their assessment system or whether they did not consider it in assessing student performance¾used a variety of different instruments (see Table V-1). Their variety of different tests notwithstanding, the use of these tests remains controversial because of disagreements about their validity and equity for all students. Finally, it is also important to note that these debates regarding assessment and measurement are not unique to charter schools and are often topics of discussion in public school settings. Thus, differences may be more a matter of degree than of kind.

Table V-1
ILLUSTRATIVE STANDARDIZED ACHIEVEMENT TESTS
USED BY CALIFORNIA CHARTER SCHOOLS

Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE) Kaufman Achievement Test
APRENDA Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA)
California Achievement Test (CAT) Stanford Achievement Test (SAT)
Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) Terra Nova
Individual Test of Academic Skills (ITAS) Test of Adult Basic Education (TABE)
Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT)


Assessment Approaches for Charter-Noncharter Comparisons

As described above, California charter schools used a variety of approaches to the assessment of student learning. In terms of addressing the issue of whether students attending California charter schools learn more or better than students in other public schools, each type of assessment has both strengths and weaknesses. Below we describe the pros and cons associated with five primary methods for comparing charters and noncharters.

Statewide assessment

Even though universal agreement on content or process is unlikely, a statewide assessment in which all students in California participate would serve as a reasonable way to compare students in charter schools with peers in public noncharter schools. We should note, too, that at the time the legislation was passed, the now canceled California Learning Assessment System (CLAS) was still under development. Many charters, like other schools, had planned to use this assessment as one of their primary assessment tools, as described in their charter applications. The cancellation of the CLAS left those charters without clear evaluation plans. Recent passage of the Statewide Testing and Reporting Program (STAR) and adoption of a common standardized test to be used throughout the state (Harcourt Brace's Stanford Achievement Test [SAT-9]) by the State Board of Education will provide useful data in addressing the question of student learning in charter schools. It will still take several years of administering the same test statewide before analyses comparing relative growth of charters and noncharters will be possible.

Portfolios and demonstrations

The use of portfolio assessments is increasing generally, and many charters use such methods. Portfolios are showcases of actual student work (e.g., reports, projects) collected over time. Portfolios have several advantages over other assessment approaches. They document students' actual work in the context in which it occurs rather than paper and pencil tests that measure a skill compared with an external standard. Thus, portfolio assessment methods are effective tools for showing both the process behind learning and its final product. Further, portfolios are especially congruent with the educational philosophies espoused by many charter schools. As such, it would be reasonable to judge charter schools by employing an assessment system that they value. However, for the purposes of assessing whether or not students in charter schools learn more or better than other public school students, portfolios also have some significant problems. First, although it is technically possible to do so, portfolios are not designed to be easily aggregated and compared across schools. Variation in their implementation, as well as likely differences in their content, would make such comparisons expensive and possibly inconclusive. Finally, comparisons of charter schools that rely solely on portfolio assessment with noncharter schools that do not are impossible.

Standardized tests

As documented above, a great variety of standardized tests are available that are designed to measure academic achievement. All of these tests have been designed to meet psychometric standards through statistical analyses of their validity and reliability. National comparisons are possible because there is a nationally representative norm group who have taken the test and against whom students' scores can be compared. These tests typically have sections that correspond to traditional content areas, such as reading, math, and language arts. These assessments have several advantages for comparing charters with other schools. They provide a national yardstick against which to evaluate student performance that is presumably similar for charter and noncharter students. They are also quite common and relatively inexpensive. Some charters are eager to compare their students' performance on standardized tests with those of other public schools as a way of demonstrating the competitiveness of their approaches.

However, there are significant problems associated with these tests for comparative purposes, as well. Some argue that the tests overemphasize product over process, rely on artificial testing situations to test skills out of context, and correlate to strong test-taking skills rather than to actual student learning. Although Normal Curve Equivalents (NCEs) are intended to allow cross-test comparisons, there will always be some question about whether or not the assessments address the same underlying constructs. For example, whether the Spanish-language APRENDA and the English-language CTBS are directly comparable remains a question.

These tests are likely to continue as one important way to compare charter and noncharter performance. However, our analyses have demonstrated that specific types of analyses and comparison groups can lead to somewhat different conclusions. Thus, when appropriately used, such tests can play a part in a comprehensive strategy for comparing charter and noncharters.

Teacher-assigned grades

The grades that teachers give children have historically been a major part of the assessment of student performance. They continue to play an important role, particularly in communicating to parents about student progress. The advantage of using such measures for comparison is that their familiarity to most of the population allows them to be readily understood. Further, since both charters and noncharters make extensive use of this system, it would seem logical to use grades as an approach to comparison. The disadvantages, however, are also significant. There is little standardization of grading practices across teachers, schools, and districts. Some schools use different measurement scales. Others do not use grades at all. Thus, although useful in a descriptive sense, teacher-assigned grades may not yield conclusive data on the effectiveness of charter schools.

Behavioral indicators

Behavioral indicators such as attendance, suspensions, and expulsions are good measures of student engagement in school. Student engagement is essential to success in any educational institution. Certainly, if students are not physically present at the school, they will not have the opportunity to learn. Thus, the importance of these measures must not be underestimated. Indeed, many charter schools cite such measures when referring to the success of their programs (e.g., reduced absenteeism). These measures are also available for both charter and noncharter schools, so comparisons between the two are relatively easy. As is the case with teacher-assigned grades, however, there are significant differences across school districts in the criteria that are used, as well as the data collection systems designed to track them. Further, important as they are, these indicators may or may not be good proxies for student learning. We believe that behavioral indicators should be used in conjunction with other methods, rather than be the sole basis for judging student progress.

Illustrative Examples of Student Achievement at Case Study Schools

Once a particular assessment approach is chosen, conceptual and methodological issues continue to complicate the interpretation of the data and can yield different answers depending on how the question is framed. Further, there are often alternative explanations of the results that may or may not have anything to do with charter schools per se. In the examples below, we rely on standardized test scores provided to us by schools and districts for these comparisons to illustrate the complexity of the task at hand. They address, in different ways, the following issues. First, even once a metric for comparison has been established, there remains the additional problem of choosing the appropriate comparison group. There are many ways that students can be sorted and compared, including with students from the state, the school district, or demographically similar schools. Second, should averages of single points in time be considered, or is growth in student performance over time more appropriate? Each of these decisions has implications for the conclusions that ultimately might be reached regarding student learning. Furthermore, precise analyses would require that data be available at the individual student level for charters and noncharters and include appropriate control variables, such as socioeconomic status, parental educational attainment, etc. Unfortunately, such data were not available. However, we have created four different scenarios based on school-level data that provide different perspectives on these issues. Note that these analyses are intended to illustrate the complexities associated with different types of approaches and are based on a very limited number of schools. They should not be extrapolated to all charter schools.

National statistics

One way to evaluate the performance of charter schools is to compare their performance on standardized tests with national averages. This approach has some attractive features. It can show how students in charter schools compare with very large numbers of students at the national level. The data to make these comparisons are readily available. However, such comparisons are generally misleading because the student population of any particular school is generally very different from the national average on academically important issues, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, etc.

Figure V-2 depicts high, low, and median average percentile scores in reading and mathematics across a range of grade levels of case study charter schools for which data were available. The figure shows substantial variation in performance. The school with the highest test scores was well above the national average indicated by the 50th percentile. Another school had scores well below national averages. The median scores fell between the 40th and 60th percentiles. Beyond the wide range in achievement, there are a number of possible ways to interpret the differences in these schools. For example, one might argue that the high-scoring school was the most successful because of its relatively high scores in comparison with national norms. However, it is also plausible that there were other differences between the schools that explain the results, and these differences may or may not be related to charters per se. For example, the charter school with high scores was located in a community where the other public schools also perform well compared with national norms. Further, the lower-performing charter school had low scores in comparison with the nation, but may have higher scores than other public schools that serve demographically and economically similar communities. Also, analyses at a single point in time such as this do not show whether student achievement has changed since the schools became charters (in the case of conversions). Thus, although comparisons with national norms such as these are useful, it is essential to remember that they do not account for differences in population demographics or for school performance prior to charter status.



District comparisons

An alternative to comparing charter school students with a national norm is to evaluate student performance against indicators from the sponsoring school district. This approach is attractive because the results can have greater local relevance and the students in charters and noncharters may be drawn from the same community. Access to qualified staff and other community resources are presumably more comparable at the district than at the national level. On the other hand, a significant disadvantage arises in very large districts that have large amounts of diversity within them. In such school districts, schools can depart from each other demographically as dramatically as is possible in national comparisons. Again, it would be possible to make statistical comparisons that control for differences in demographics or other characteristics between charters and their sponsoring district. Such analyses would require that data be available at the individual student level or from a relatively large number of schools. The study schedule precluded our gaining access to such data in the course of this study. Instead, we had to compare districts with schools by using aggregated data. Figure V-3 depicts the performance of three charter schools in comparison with their sponsoring district averages on standardized tests of reading and mathematics. In one case, School #2 exceeded the district average considerably (nearly 50 percentage points) at each grade level. In the case of School/ District #1, the performance of students in these schools was similar, favoring those in the charter school in all but one grade level. The opposite conclusion holds for School #3, whose scores were close to but below the district average at all of the grade levels tested. These interpretations would be reasonable as long as one can assume that the background characteristics of students at the school and those of the district overall are similar.(54) This assumption is probably tenable in districts that serve communities that are comparatively homogeneous with respect to demographics. However, many districts have significant diversity in them such that district totals may not represent any individual school very well. Thus, in the absence of student-level data where differences in socioeconomic and ethnic differences can be statistically controlled, comparisons between charter schools and their sponsoring district averages are most useful where the charter school and the district are most likely to have similar demographic characteristics.



Comparable-school comparisons

A still more precise comparison is to evaluate charter school performance in light of individual schools that serve similar populations in terms of grade levels served, socioeconomic status, ethnic group membership, and other community characteristics. At each case study site, we asked schools and school districts for nominations of schools that would resemble their charter school on those dimensions. Figure V-4 depicts standardized test scores in reading and mathematics by grade level for three case study charter schools and those of their nominated comparison schools. These results can be interpreted in a number of ways. School #5 had higher test scores than any of the comparison schools for each grade with data available, and in both reading and math. In contrast, School #4 had high test scores relative to the nation but lower test scores than its comparison school, with the exception of 5th grade. The story is different for each school. School #1 posted scores in comparison with three other schools in the district. Depending on grade level, its scores were either the first or second. By contrast, School #4 had generally high scores in comparison with national norms, but was below its comparison school at most of the grade levels. School #5, on the other hand, had higher scores than all its comparison schools in years that data were available. So, although both Schools #4 and #5 had similar performance in comparison with the national norms, they had precisely opposite relationships to their comparison schools. The major weakness of this analysis is the potential for bias in the process of nominating comparison schools. Again, individual student-level data would allow for the selection of comparison schools based on statistical criteria.



Within-school comparisons

It is reasonable to make the argument that the most appropriate metric for assessing charter schools, or any other school for that matter, is the change in its performance over time. If a school continues improving from year to year, that may be as important as--or more important than--how it compares with other schools or national norms. There are disadvantages to this approach as well, however. Comparisons over time assume that the tested population is fairly stable. This may not be the case with some schools, charter and noncharter alike. Figure V-5 depicts test score data for three case study schools from the years when data were available between 1993-94 and 1996-97. As was the case in achievement viewed from other perspectives, student performance varied considerably over time. In one case, the charter school had marked improvements in one or both subject areas for most of the grade levels for which there were data (School #6). This school actually showed more growth than other schools that exceeded the national average to start (e.g., School #1). For School #3, there were improvements in some grade-level scores over time and losses in others. This approach to comparison again produces mixed results, with some charters improving over time while others remain flat. This result emphasizes the need to look at achievement data from a number of perspectives in order to gain a complete picture. One perspective in and of itself does not tell the entire story.

Conclusion

The philosophical and appropriate-comparison issues related to charter school performance remain significant and will continue to be a subject of debate. However, several important points can be made. First, a broad view of outcomes suggests that many charters are attaining many of goals they set for themselves. Further, some are clearly working toward their goals and have established processes to evaluate their progress. Others are having difficulty because of goals that are vague and/or difficult to measure. Second, the popularity of charters among parents indicates that charters provide a valuable alternative to public schools. Third, in the area of student achievement, available data do not allow for conclusions to be drawn. However, our case study examples illustrate that conclusions on student learning questions are based, in part, on the way the questions are framed. Questions related to the instrument selected as a metric, which group charters should be compared, and over what period of time all affect the conclusions one might reach. These results can contribute to both data collection and analytic discussions for the statewide testing in 1998 and beyond. In our opinion, future research should be multimethod and investigate the dimensions of student learning that are especially suited to charters. Further, it should seek to establish which types of educational programs are most effective and/or more likely to occur in charter schools.


VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In this report, we describe the characteristics of charter schools in California and discuss their operation as charter entities. A challenge for the research team throughout the study has been to understand and account for the diversity of charter schools on every dimension, including student and community demographics, classroom learning, administrative relationships, and student outcomes. Although we have been able to glean general characteristics that are common to charter schools, our fieldwork has demonstrated that each charter school is a unique educational organization.

In this concluding chapter, we summarize the key findings from the preceding chapters. We also present recommendations for the charter school law that are based on our analyses of the study data. We conclude the chapter with recommendations for further research. The following are what we see as the major lessons learned.

Summary of Findings



Recommendations

A charge of this study was to make recommendations on whether the Legislature should expand, modify, or terminate the charter school approach. Several issues emerged during the course of the study that lead us to recommend a number of modifications. The proposed modifications address ambiguities in the charter legislation that concern serving students with special needs, the ethnic diversity of students, and liability. They are highlighted in the bullets that follow.

When considering whether to expand, terminate, or modify the charter school approach, the Legislature must first address the ambiguities in the legislation mentioned above. Following that, one must ask several questions about the impacts of expansion, termination, or modification. Questions include:

What impact would expansion (i.e., raising or lifting the cap) have on the number of charter schools?

  1. What impact would expansion have on sponsoring agencies?
  2. Is the law being implemented as intended?
  3. Are there any unintended negative consequences of the law?
  4. What is the impact of the charter school approach on the public school system?

Charter schools and charter school research are clearly in the formative stages, as one would expect them to be at this point. In general, data do not exist to answer these questions, but the present study lays the groundwork necessary to address these questions fully and directly through future research.

Recommendations for further research


REFERENCES



California Department of Education. (1997a). Improvements needed in the statutes and regulations governing the financial operations of charter schools: Recommendations to the State Board of Education.

California Department of Education (1997b). Letter of transmittal from Delaine Eastin, Superintendent of Public Instruction, to Yvonne W. Larson, President, State Board of Education, Improvements needed in the statutes and regulations governing the financial operations of charter schools: Recommendations to the State Board of Education.

Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Corwin, R. G., & Flaherty, J. (1995). Freedom and innovation in California's charterschools. Los Alamitos, CA: Southwest Regional Laboratory.

Dale, A., & DeSchryver, D. (Eds.). (1997). The charter school workbook: Your roadmap to the charter school movement. Washington, DC: The Center for Education Reform.

Darling-Hammond, L. (1997, November). Doing what matters most: investing in quality teaching. Paper prepared for The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future.

David, J. L., & Shields, P. M. (1991). From effective schools to restructuring: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

ECS (Education Commission of the States) and the Center for School Change. (1995). Charter schools. What are they up to? Denver, CO.

Edmunds, R. (1975). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37, 15-24.

EdSource. (1996). Charter schools--Works in progress. Menlo Park, CA

Elmore, R. F. (1990). Restructuring schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Finn, C., Manno, B., & Bierlein, L. (1996). Charter schools in action: What have welearned?Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute, Inc.

Greene, D., & David, J. L. (1983). A research design for generalizing from multiple case studies. Evaluation and Program Planning, 7, 73-85.

Hart, G. K., & Burr, S. (1996). The story of California's charter school legislation. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 37-40.

Humphrey, D. C., Anderson, L., Marsh, J., Marder, C., & Shields, P. M. (1997, October). Eisenhower State Curriculum Frameworks Projects: Final evaluation report for the Mathematics and Science Education Program. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.

Knapp, M. S., Shields, P. M., & Turnbull, B. J. (1992). Academic challenge for the children of poverty: Summary report (Contract No. LC88054001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Policy and Planning.

Little Hoover Commission. (1996). The charter movement: Education reform school by school.Sacramento, CA.

Newmann, F. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement. Phi DeltaKappan, 72(6), 458-463.

Purkey, S., & Smith, M. S. (1983). Effective schools: A review. Elementary SchoolJournal, 83(4), 427-452.

RPP International and the University of Minnesota. (1997). A study of charter schools:First-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Shields, P. M., Marsh, J., & Adelman, N. (1997, October). The SSIs' impacts on classroom practice. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.


Continue to SRI--Evaluation of Charter School Effectiveness Appendices

Return to LAO Home Page