Charter districts: when an entire district goes charter, do benefits follow? A study casts doubts.

When charter schools burst upon the national landscape in the early 1990s, they signaled a whole array of bold new freedoms suddenly available to publicly funded schools. Burdensome state regulations melted. A host of reporting requirements vanished. And charter schools offered small, personalized settings for students, parents and teachers.

Although many superintendents worried that the charter movement could have a negative impact on their districts by siphoning away their most able students and most committed parents, others welcomed their presence.

These superintendents believed that charter schools, along with existing public schools, could accommodate the needs of all students and conform to the wishes of most parents. And school staff who chafed under the organizational barriers typical in many districts were eager to work in these new settings.

As the charter movement progressed, it was clear that parental involvement--often mandated by states as part of charter schools legislation--was something these parents sought. In fact, these parents found a new community in charter schools where they could express their beliefs about the education of their children.

Another benefit of charter schools was their size. These typically small settings offered personalized instruction and the chance to shape strong relationships between adults and students.

While charter schools invited criticism on a number of fronts--and received it--arguably they offered enviable freedom from common state requirements.

Given all these positives, it was only a matter of time before the charter movement expanded. Why not include entire districts in the release from burdensome rules and regulations--the bane of superintendents' daily work lives?

Ideal Opportunities

This argument was persuasive. Advocates of charter districts argued that this plan could bring about the change a district wanted at a faster pace and on a grander scale. At the very least, superintendents and school staff would have an opportunity to craft new programs.

Instead of slamming up against organizational barriers and a stream of "can'ts" and "don'ts," charter districts would be free to make substantive changes and to do so with a whole new speed.

Not only would superintendents benefit from this bold new plan, so the argument went, school staff would be free to try new practices in their classrooms. Building principals could become instructional leaders, released from much of the minutiae of daily school management. And more financial decisions could be made at the building level, where principals could respond directly and quickly to what teachers believed was most critical for their students' learning needs.

Although still a new phenomenon, charter districts sounded almost ideal. Because of this, the American Association of School Administrators wanted to find out just what charter districts were all about. Did they signal the beginning of a trend that should command the attention of the nation's superintendents?

We also were curious about the sheer mechanics of the movement. How many charter districts exist and in what states? What have superintendents of charter districts learned from their experiences? Is the legislation that governs charter districts in different states sufficient for these districts to realize their goals?

Eight Districts

For our analysis, we interviewed superintendents in most of the eight charter districts operating at the time in four states: California, Florida, Georgia and New Mexico. The latter, however, has seen only one charter district, and that district, the Cartersville City Schools, reverted to "normal" status after a five-year trial (see related story, page 14).

These charter districts ranged in size from large urban to suburban to small rural. All had demographics that showed a high presence of English language learners as well as relatively high numbers of students who qualified for the federal school lunch program.

They had other variables in common. Each of these districts wanted to see homegrown programs thrive, unfettered by state demands. They also sought increased staff buy-in and community support. Charter district status, they reasoned, could help them reach these goals.

In short, charter districts sounded like something superintendents across the nation might seriously consider. But how difficult did charter district superintendents find the chartering process? Was it worth the results? What did they believe they had accomplished?

Meeting Goals

What we found was a welter of strong leadership, good intentions and a surprising organizational hurdle--in this case presented by the states themselves. We also quickly discovered that comparing charter districts in different states was a dicey proposition.

But first the good news. As we talked to superintendents in charter districts, we quickly saw they were all educational pioneers who seized a novel opportunity and made the most of it. All of them believed that chartering their districts had helped them accomplish at least some of their most critical goals. Whether it was putting in place a new reading program or freely choosing their own textbooks, these superintendents were wholehearted about the results they realized from chartering their districts. In particular, they pointed proudly to the stronger linkages they forged with parents and other community members.

These new connections, they told us, resulted both from the process of going charter--which often required an actual community vote--and community investment in the outcome.

In California, for example, the only charter districts are small and rural, rooted in tradition. In these districts, parents were committed to local control--so committed, in fact, that the presence of a school board alone did not seem sufficient to community members.

State mandates, parents believed, were a top-down approach to student learning, and they didn't like it. Overall, they saw little merit in a state approach that didn't seem to consider what local teachers and parents believed most effective with their children.

Chartering these five small districts in California brought tangible benefits, according to their superintendents. Suddenly these districts could choose their own textbooks and select their own curricula. And although whole language was endorsed by the state, if parents wanted a phonics approach, districts could accommodate and modify their curriculum accordingly.

Finally, increased budget flexibility meant that superintendents and principals had more leeway in deciding exactly how monies would be spent. This leeway meant that staff could be allocated in imaginative ways, resulting in a better match of instructional services to student needs.

Mark Ford, superintendent of the Kingsburg, Calif., Elementary School District, witnessed most of the district's conversion to charter status, which occurred in 1996 under a previous superintendent. Ford believes that the fact that 60 to 70 percent of his students perform at grade level may be a result of the district choosing its own curricula and teaching methods.

And Ford does point to increased speed when launching a new program or initiative. "You just move," he says. "You don't wait."

At the same time, he pointed out that the district could take its freedom much further than it had, something he continues to advocate.

But the Kingsburg district, like the other small rural California charter districts, did not have to negotiate with teacher or other staff unions-something their charter district peers in other states still had to do. As Ford stated with conviction, "We've never had unions and we never will."

Another California charter district superintendent, Dale Campbell, sees tangible positive outcomes that have resulted from going charter. Campbell, superintendent of the Delta View Elementary School District in Hanford, Calif., points to increased parental involvement, improved student attendance and the flexibility to hire more part-time teachers.

Campbell tempers his enthusiasm about the future of larger districts gaining charter status, predicting difficulty for larger systems because of the legislative requirements that must be satisfied in states that allow charter districts to operate. In California, votes of approval from at least 50 percent of a district's teachers are required before the state will consider an application for charter status.

In Florida, charter district status had a whole other meaning. Superintendents of charter districts didn't have to apply for individual waivers from state rules--a tedious gamble under the best of circumstances. And while district administrators firmly believed that charter status brought them significant freedom from state rules and regulations, they still had to negotiate with unions and deal with staffing issues in a more conventional sense.

But they were proud of other gains. In the Hillsborough County, Fla., School District, for example, staff constructed a five-year plan with incremental steps to increase student achievement, This type of plan could have been realized without charter status, but district administrators maintain that its development and implementation would have been far slower.

Donnie Evans, Hillsborough County's assistant superintendent for instruction, says the district was searching for ways "to think outside the box." The district also sought the freedom that individual charter schools enjoy, as well as their flexibility to enact their own instructional programs.

State Regulation

So far, so good. What possibly could be problematic with something so promising?

Our analysis found that Florida and New Mexico place caps on the number of charter districts that are allowed to operate in each state. In Florida, only six charter districts are permissible under state law. New Mexico allows only three pilot charter districts that must be representative of large, medium and small districts. What appears to be a broad new freedom from regulation is, in fact, tightly regulated.

In addition to caps on the number of districts per state, some states require cumbersome reports about district progress--seemingly antithetical to the freedom from paperwork one would expect a charter district to possess.

And the process of chartering a district could discourage any but the hardiest of superintendents. In New Mexico, for example, Superintendent Sue Cleveland was determined to charter her district, the Rio Rancho Public Schools. The process, she discovered, was arduous. Legislation had to be drafted and compromises reached.

The Rio Rancho Public Schools, a district founded seven years ago, has expanded rapidly over the last decade. Hungry for freedom from state regulations, the community joined school staff to support the notion of chartering the district.

And the process required nothing less than an all-out political campaign or what Rio Rancho's superintendent saw as a different type of referendum.

The positive part of such a campaign was the clarity all educational stakeholders needed to have to articulate their goals for student achievement and school governance. They also needed to think through a strategic plan to use the new freedoms offered by charter status. All of these requirements, superintendents told us, were a plus.

Formidable Questions

The process of applying for the charter can galvanize a community and school staff, but it also drains staff energy and considerable other resources. The hoops these superintendents must clear to achieve chatter status for their districts are daunting.

As Rio Rancho's Cleveland says, "We have a 4 1/2-year charter, but we must return to the state board in two years to report on progress."

Clearly, superintendents interested in charter district status need to evaluate carefully whether they should advocate for legislation that will allow charter districts to thrive or whether they want to seek charter status if legislation in their states permits charter districts. Either decision could be expensive in terms of resources expended for benefits gained.

If superintendents decide to advocate for legislation that would permit charter districts a broader scope with considerable autonomy, there are no good models of such legislation. Legislation that would permit charter districts to expand and thrive awaits development. Do superintendents want to invest themselves in the development of this legislation or is their valuable time best spent in other endeavors?

Or if superintendents decide chartering their districts is possible under state law, they should ask themselves what they intend to accomplish after gaining the charter and if there is a shorter route that will allow them to accomplish the same goals. Should they spend precious resources trying to gain charter district status if the freedoms are largely symbolic or not sufficiently broad?

State legislation currently does not allow the relaxed freedoms this movement needs to flourish, even at the pilot level, Unless state policymakers take note, chartering entire districts will remain a largely symbolic action--one that superintendents might be well-advised to avoid so they can invest their energies in actions that will pay greater dividends.

Yet Cleveland remains an optimist. "A charter district is different," she says. "When districts are well run, fewer charter schools may need to develop. When districts are well run, they provide services and support to their administrators and teachers so they can do their work and focus on their main task of teaching and learning."

She raises one pragmatic question: "Why give all this wonderful freedom to a charter school and not to a charter district? If we can make a difference at the school level, think what differences we can make at the district level."

RELATED ARTICLE: To Charter Status and Back

BY MIKE BRYANS 

In 1995, the Cartersville, Ga., school system was at a crossroads. Our four schools were performing better than ever before. Student test scores were some of the highest in the state; extracurricular activities received statewide recognition; new facilities provided needed space for population growth; and all schools boasted highly trained professionals.

Despite these accomplishments and accolades, both the superintendent and board of education harbored concerns. "How can we keep the momentum of success rolling forward?" they asked. To remain the leader of the pack, they knew our school system could not stand still or become complacent.

Not wanting to subscribe to the "pinata theory" of leadership--that is, to beat the schools hard enough and long enough until more good eventually falls out--my predecessor as superintendent joined with the board to do a little "horse trading." They agreed to trade bureaucracy for accountability and regulations for results.

Why not, they asked, free Cartersville's teachers and school leaders from these bounds by becoming a district with all charter schools? To support this initiative, the board of education and superintendent provided school improvement grants for schools to explore the charter option.

Energized Teams

Speaking to teams of teachers and administrators attending a system leadership retreat, Harold Barnett, who was the superintendent until June 1999, said: "I cannot ask of you anymore than you are doing now. Our system is performing at its peak. If it is possible to do better than we are doing, it must come from within the teaching ranks of the schools."

He challenged each school to think outside the "2 x 4 x 6 x 9 x 12 box;" referring to two covers of the book, four walls of the classroom, six class periods of a day and nine months in the school year for 12 grades. If that meant throwing out binding regulations, standards and laws that focused on needless procedures and perfunctory processes rather than student outcomes, then let it be so.

Energized yet somewhat skeptical, our school leadership teams, comprised of students, parents, teachers, administrators and community members, began navigating uncharted territory as we accepted the challenge to restructure and redesign how we would deliver educational services to all children, At first, our teams seemed to have more questions than answers about turning all four schools (a primary for pre-kindergarten through 2nd grade, an elementary, a middle school and a high school) into charters:

* Would the board of education and superintendent really loosen the reins?

* Are our teachers willing to put their reputations on the line?

* How do we differentiate between change for the sake of change and meaningful change?

* How do we move from "fixing the blame" to "fixing the system?"

* How should our autonomous group be governed at each site?

* What are our guiding principles and beliefs?

* What skills and knowledge do we want the students to acquire at various stages of their education?

* How do we define the expected levels of proficiency?

Apprehensive Board

After hours of self-reflecting, debate, research reviews, visits to other programs and strategic planning, a charter proposal supported by all stakeholders surfaced. A renewed sense of excitement, partnership and commitment emerged. Working as a team, stakeholders began to take responsibility. This would not be an initiative driven from the top.

Working smarter not harder, we proposed redesigning the way we packaged and delivered instruction, deployed staff, scheduled classes, grouped and assessed students, provided professional development opportunities, allocated resources and involved all stakeholders in the education of children.

Each schools' charter was designed to address the unique needs of that age population. The high school's primary focus was scheduling and attendance. The school day was restructured using the 4 x 4 block scheduling plan to provide uninterrupted in-depth instruction designed to address varied learning modalities. It also would expose students to more content--eight rather than the traditional six courses in a school year.

To improve daily attendance at the high school, a policy establishing a fixed number of acceptable absences was implemented. Students with more than five absences would not receive credit for the course.

The elementary school focused on the teaching of reading, language arts and mathematics. Extensive pre- and post-testing was conducted to determine each student's learning needs. Based on test results, students rotated through one of 76 small instructional groups. Students remained in a group until they mastered the objectives and could successfully proceed to another level.

The other two schools requested exemptions from state-mandated testing. They chose to use other assessment tools that provided note relevant information about student achievement and instructional needs.

Was our school board apprehensive? Most definitely! No other school district in Georgia had attempted to seek charter status for all schools in the district. Did board members say anything to sway our plan? If so, it was probably something on the order of "Don't give away the farm!"

At the same time, the board recognized that the main ingredient in the charter process was trust-the board had to trust the schools and the schools had to trust the board. No matter how difficult, the board had to maintain a hands-off policy, supporting the efforts of each school.

School teams maintained open communication with the superintendent and the board, often soliciting their advice on issues traditionally controlled by school boards. The board and superintendent became in-house consultants on issues pertaining to budget development, building maintenance and system operations.

In the end, each school had to defend its charter proposal at a public board meeting. Prior to voting on each chatter application, board members wanted to hear the rationale. At times, they did not agree to all aspects of the proposals while at other times our schools did not relent to the board's objections.

Perhaps the school board's biggest concern centered on the high school's plan to implement the 4 x 4 block. While not considered cutting-edge practice today, in the mid-'90s the prospect of high school students only taking four classes a semester represented a major shift in educational practice-one that might have a negative impact on students. After some give and take, each school gained its independence.

Major Strides

Becoming a charter district proved beneficial. While not all of our charter goals were reached during the five years of charter status, the overall effect was positive. A school climate inventory conducted by the State University of West Georgia found our faculty/staff morale to be the highest statewide.

Responding to new benchmarks for achievement, teachers across the system refocused instruction to meet the individual needs of each child and more consistently implemented research-based instructional strategies.

Our shared governance structure provided parents and community stakeholders a place at the table with a voice that previously was not heard. As parents took a greater responsibility in the education of their children, fewer students failed. Standardized test scores had mixed results. Some schools surpassed their goals while others did not. Student absenteeism, especially at the high school, was greatly reduced. Our system's daily attendance ranged from 94 percent to 95 percent each year.

Perhaps more importantly, our system kept the momentum of success rolling forward.

Permanent Exemptions

If having the charter status proved to be so successful, why did none of Cartersville's four schools reapply in 2001 at the end of their five-year charters? The answer is simple. Exemptions were no longer necessary because state laws and local policies had been relaxed to support the initiatives we chose to implement.

Our schools did not seek charter status simply for the sake of autonomy or to receive the $100,000 in startup money awarded by the state for new charter schools. We applied for charter status so that the school district could continue to raise standards for student achievement by tailoring educational opportunities to individual learning needs. We sought to maximize students' physical, psychological, social and academic development.

To do that in the mid-'90s meant we would need exemptions from state laws governing the purchase of instructional materials, clock hours of instruction, certification of teachers, class size and state-mandated testing. At the end of our five-year charter contract, we continued our mission without the need of being a charter school district.

Today, the 2 x 4 x 6 x 9 x 12 paradigm no longer limits our vision. We allow ourselves to imagine the best and pursue our dreams regardless of potential obstacles. Should nonproductive bureaucracy again obstruct our path, we would not hesitate to reapply for charter status.

Mike Bryans is superintendent of the Cartersville City School District, 310 Old Mill Road, Cartersville, GA 30120. E-mail: [e-mail]. Peggy Cowan, curriculum director in Cartersville, assisted in preparing this article.

A Roster of Charter Districts

This is a complete list of charter school districts in the United States, including any that have reverted to non-charter status. At present, nine states permit a district to seek charter status for each of its schools.

Alvina Elementary School District, Caruthers, Calif., 1990-present. www.uscharterschools.org/lpt/s/l 137

Cartersville City School District, Cartersville, Ga., 1996-2001, www.cartersville.k12.ga.us/

Delta View Joint Union Elementary School District, Hanford, Calif., 1999-present, www.kings.k12.ca.us/dvjusd/

Hickman Community Charter District, Hickman, Calif., 1994-present, www.hickman.k12.ca.us/

School District of Hillsborough County, Tampa, Fla., 2000-present, www.sdhc.k12.fl.us/

Kingsburg Elementary School District, Kingsburg, Calif., 1996-present, www.kingsburg-elem.k12.ca.us/

Pioneer Union School District, Hanford, Calif., 1993-present, www.kings.k12.ca.us/puesd/

Rio Rancho Public Schools, Rio Rancho, N.M.,. 2000-present, www.rrps.k12.nm.us/

Volusia County Schools, Deland, Fla., 2000-present, www.volusia.k12.fl.us/

Additional Reading

Would you like to read the complete report prepared by Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood about the state of charter school districts?

Her issues analysis, titled "Charter Districts: Much Fuss, Little Gain," can be found on the AASA website at www.aasa.org/issues_and_insights/issues_dept/index.htm.

Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood is an issues analysis director at AASA. E-mail: [e-mail].