T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E CO M P R E H E N S I V ...

[ 1 ]

[charter schools]

FROM T HE DIRECTOR:

BEYOND THE CONTROVERSIALIN CHARTER SCHOOLS

T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E C O M P R E H E N S I V E C E N T E R –R E G I O N V I

Spring 2000Volume 5, No. 1

(continued on page 19)© 1999, Comstock, Inc.

1025 W. JOHNSON ST. ■ MADISON, WI 53706-1796 ■ 608.263.4220 ■ 888.862.7763 ■ FAX: 608.263.3733 ■ E-MAIL: [email protected] ■ WEB: www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/

Like many earlier school-based edu-cational innovations, the charter

schools movement has experienced itsshare of controversy. During the fall of1999, both Education Week and theChronicle of Higher Education containednumerous articles focused on a contro-versial aspect of this movement, usuallyconcerns about the recruitment of a di-verse student population. While not de-nying that some people associated withindividual charter schools use well-known code when talking about stu-

FROM THE DIRECTOR:BEYOND THE CONTROVERSIALIN CHARTER SCHOOLS

[ walter g. secada ]

CHARTER SCHOOLS:DIFFERENT MISSIONS,COMMON ISSUES

[ anne turnbaugh lockwood ]

DR. WAYNE SANSTEAD:WHY WE DON’T HAVE CHARTERSCHOOLS IN NORTH DAKOTA

[ eva m. kubinski ]

CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS:MOTIVATORS OR BARRIERS

[ audrey cotherman ]

SHAPING POSITIVE CULTURESIN CHARTER SCHOOLS

[ kent d. peterson ]

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENTAND THE SEVEN CS OFSUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS

[ stephen kailin ]

WEB RESOURCES ONCHARTER SCHOOLS

[ mary chaffee ]dents — for example, referring to “cer-tain elements” whom they are trying toescape — it is also true that many urbancharter schools have an explicitantiracist mission or a mission to pro-vide enhanced opportunities to studentswhose educations would be otherwiseconstrained. As evident in a cursoryreading of any major newspaper, parentswho live in the nation’s inner cities areadamant in wanting quality educationsfor their children, and many of thesesame parents support charter schools as

HAR T ER SCHO O LS AR E PUBLIC

SCHOOLS THAT ARE FREED FROM SOME

STATE RULES AND REGULATIONS. THEY

ARE DESIGNED FROM THE GROUND UP

BY TEACHERS, PARENTS, AND COMMU-

NITY MEMBERS TO MEET THE NEEDS OF

THEIR PARTICULAR POPULATION OF

STUDENTS. CHARTER SCHOOLS MUST

SPECIFY THEIR PURPOSE AND MISSION.

THEY ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT AND FOR AC-

COMPLISHING THEIR MISSION.

FROM T HE DIRECTOR:

BEYOND THE CONTROVERSIALIN CHARTER SCHOOLS

C

1

2

7

9

14

16

20

[ 2 ]

CHARTER SCHOOLS: DIFFERENT MISSIONS, COMMON ISSUES

[ anne turnbaugh lockwood ]

Afew facts about charter schools re- veal their increasing visibility:

n According to one report, thirty-fourstates, the District of Columbia, andPuerto Rico had charter school lawsas of September 1998, although notall states had charter schools in op-eration (U. S. Department of Educa-tion, 1998). Other states are workingon, or have passed, legislation permit-ting charter schools — although edu-cators in a state may not yet havefounded one.

n As of the 1997-98 school year, 717charter schools enrolled more than162,000 students nationwide (U. S.Department of Education, 1999).

n California had the most charterschool students — 55,764, which rep-resented one percent of the total pub-lic school enrollment in the state.

n During the same school year, Arizona,the second highest-enrolled state,had approximately 25,128 students incharter schools — more than threepercent of the state’s public schoolenrollment (U. S. Department ofEducation, 1999).

n As of September 1998, the total num-ber of operational charter schools na-tionwide numbered 1,050 (U. S.Department of Education, 1999).

Although charter schools legislationhas been approved in the majority ofstates, policies influencing the develop-ment and success of these schools are vari-able. Policymakers need to consider thefollowing as they work on charter schoollegislation and regulations for their states:

1. Charter schools are supposed to bediverse and flexible. What is more,charter school means different things indifferent states (U. S. Department ofEducation, 1998). It also can mean dif-ferent things in the same state, depend-ing on whether the charter school isnewly created or is a conversion school(a school that existed in a different formbut converted to charter status).

2. Gathering empirical data about theeffectiveness of charter schools canbe difficult. The laws that affect char-ter schools vary from state to state,and these schools and the legislationthat influence them are complex anddiverse. For these reasons, it can bevery misleading to compare charterschools in one state with those inanother. Since accountability is a keyreason for charter schools, unevenlegislation contributes to the difficul-ties associated with assessment ofcharter schools’ effectiveness.

3. State laws that govern charter schoolsvary among themselves and have a

major impact on the development ofcharter schools. These laws determinewho is allowed to sponsor and operatea charter school, the level of fundingfor charter schools, the percentage ofstate funds they receive, employee re-quirements and restrictions, studentperformance requirements, how manycharters per state will be granted andhow long they will last (U. S. Depart-ment of Education, 1998, p. 4).

The charter schools movement ex-cites many educational stakeholders, buttheir enthusiasm often is tempered byconfusion. While there is considerableinformation available on charter schools,it is difficult to access information thatalso is firmly grounded in solid researchand experience. Clearly, policymakers andpractitioners — as well as other educa-tional stakeholders — need a reliableknowledge base on which to base theirefforts related to charter schools.

To contribute to this emerging knowl-edge base, the Comprehensive Center–Region VI initiated a tightly focusedworking conference, Charter Schools:Developing Policy & Practice, which washeld September 24-25, 1998 in Minne-apolis, Minnesota. This conference wascosponsored by the Minnesota Depart-ment of Children, Families & Learning

N OCTOBER 22, 1998, PRESIDENT CLINTON SIGNED INTO LAW THE CHARTER SCHOOL EXPANSION ACT OF 1998. THIS NEW LAW

SIGNIFIES THE RAPIDLY ESCALATING NATIONAL PREMIUM PLACED ON CHARTER SCHOOLS AND UNDERSCORES THE HOPE MANY EDUCA-

TIONAL STAKEHOLDERS HAVE INVESTED IN THIS INCREASINGLY POPULAR EDUCATION REFORM. THIS LEGISLATION, IN FACT, ENCOURAGES

CHARTER SCHOOLS TO PROLIFERATE. AS PART OF THIS LEGISLATION, STATES THAT HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF HIGH-QUALITY CHAR-

TER SCHOOLS, HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR OWN SUCCESS, WILL FIND THEIR EFFORTS REWARDED WITH FEDERAL FUNDS (U. S. DEPART-

MENT OF EDUCATION, 1998).

Printed by permission of the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory which supported the writing of thisarticle and cosponsored the conference at which the featured papers were delivered.

O

[ 3 ]

and the North Central Regional Educa-tional Laboratory (NCREL). It wasfunded in part by the U. S. Departmentof Education.

The Comprehensive Center–RegionVI commissioned papers from experts inthe charter schools movement nation-wide, carefully seeking a wide variety ofperspectives and experiences. The au-thors included researchers who havestudied charter schools extensively, char-ter school operators who representeddramatically different approaches toteaching and learning, and advocates/proponents of charter schools. Thesepapers have culminated in a monograph,Charter Schools: Common Issues, Differ-ent Missions, which has been shaped intoa practical, research-based guide for prac-titioners and policymakers.

This article focuses on selected, keyaspects of these papers that have clearimplications for both policy and practice.In particular, we discuss:

n the potential for enhanced teachingand learning in charter schools,

n management issues that can affect thesuccess and development of charterschools as well as the quality of teach-ing and learning,

n accountability in charter schools, andn key considerations for policymakers as

they construct and refine charter schoollegislation in their states.

TEACHING AND LEARNINGIN CHARTER SCHOOLS

When Irene Sumida pushed openthe doors to Fenton Avenue Elemen-tary School in Los Angeles on her firstday as Director of Instruction, chaosgreeted her. Fenton Avenue Elemen-tary, which had a long, negative repu-tation as an unsafe school with discour-agingly low student achievement,seemed an unlikely candidate forschoolwide success. Instead, its staffconfronted many out-of-school factorscommon to inner-city schools — fac-

tors frequently cited by educators ascauses of school failure.

The majority of Fenton Avenue’sstudents came from households of acutepoverty. The neighborhood surroundingthe school was riddled with crime. Anever-increasing number of students didnot speak English, and staff members werenot equipped adequately to deal with theirlanguage needs. Although parents andfamily members may have cared abouthow well their children performed inschool, this was not reflected in parentalparticipation in parent-teacher confer-ences. And although most staff memberswere well intentioned, they were grounddown by many of the daily obstacles theyfaced (Sumida, 1998).

Today, Sumida continues as Directorof Instruction at Fenton Avenue, but theschool now has charter status. Achieve-ment has improved. Teachers haveassumed active roles as school leaders, par-ticipating in school governing councilswith other educational stakeholders.Many faculty departed, finding their edu-cational beliefs and philosophies incom-patible with the new emphasis on thequality of instruction for all students.Crime — once dramatic, as when threesiblings rode their bikes to school togetherand emerged to find all three bikes stolen— has subsided. What happened?

INFLUENCING THE QUALITYOF TEACHING AND LEARNING

To Sumida and many of her col-leagues in charter schools nationwide, thisschoolwide improvement can be found inthe relative freedom charter schoolsenjoy — relieved of the bureaucratic bur-den that encumbers other public schools.This freedom, while variable from stateto state, allows charter schools to steertheir own course and establish their owneducational visions. And this freedom canbe heady indeed to educational entrepre-neurs who are eager to educate in waysnot easily permitted by bureaucratic

educational structures (Manno, 1998).In the case of Fenton Avenue Char-

ter School, charter school status allowedstaff to decide on and enact the follow-ing changes which ultimately improvedthe quality of teaching and learning forall students:

n The school’s instructional programbecame the primary focus as the char-ter petition was written.

n The school’s governance plan includedall educational stakeholders, with allstaff participating on school councilsof their choice.

n The quality of governance was assuredthrough the presence of an overarchinggovernance body which closely moni-tors the actions and performance ofschool governing councils (the Coun-cil of Councils). The Council of Coun-cils ensures a balance of new andinexperienced teachers, paraprofession-als, parents, year-round staff, and newor experienced council members.

n The school day was extended to in-clude enrichment activities, smallgroup tutorial opportunities, and a quietstudy hall with teacher supervision.

n Class size was reduced to 25 studentsin all grades from a previous count of33 students per class.

n A premium was placed on professionaldevelopment, ensuring that teachersremain connected to innovations ineducation beyond the walls of the char-ter school. This link to high-quality,in-depth professional developmentwards off the possibility that ideas andinstruction could become insular.

n A strong focus was placed on equityand on improving relationships amongthe African American, Hispanic, andCaucasian communities. Nurturingthese relationships among FentonAvenue’s primary student/family popu-lation paid off in terms of heightenedparent/family involvement in theirchildren’s schooling as well as morepositive relationships among racial andethnic groups.

[ 4 ]

n A strong bilingual education programcontinued to be a priority at FentonAvenue Elementary School for its Lim-ited English Proficient (LEP) studentpopulation, despite the passage of Cali-fornia Proposition 227. In addition, par-ents are able to attend ESL classesduring the evening, taught by a mem-ber of Fenton Avenue’s faculty.

n Weekly parenting classes in theschool’s Family Center are tailoredto the needs of the parents and fami-lies that comprise the Fenton Avenuecommunity.

n Parents’ vocational and social needsare addressed through an active, on-going program of counseling that en-compasses everything from vocationalpreparation, the acquisition of Englishlanguage skills, to coping with divorceand grief (Sumida, 1998).

DIFFERENT MISSIONS,COMMON ISSUES

Across the country, another charterschool has a totally different concept ofwhat it means to engage students andteachers in the learning process. AtFrancis W. Parker School in Devon, Mas-

sachusetts, faculty go through an exhaus-tive, painstaking process as they plan cur-riculum for the year ahead. Central to thisprocess is faculty’s view of themselves asongoing learners (Nehring, 1998).

Rather than seeing themselves asauthorities whose duty it is to impart acodified body of knowledge to students,faculty have a much more humble view;they see themselves as more experiencedlearners than their students but deeplyinvested in the learning process — aninvestment they model for their students.They willingly put in four weeks of un-paid time in the summer to begin theirown contemplation and questioning ofthe content that will be the focus of theacademic year ahead.

There are no grades for studentwork at Parker. Although most Parkerstudents enroll in selective colleges oruniversities — which means they mustscore well on standardized tests such asthe SAT — other measures of studentlearning are valued. Elaborate studentportfol ios and exhibitions are themarkers of student progress. Studentsare not automatically passed from onegrade to the next; rather, they mustmaster the content and thinking em-phasized at their respective grade

levels prior to advancement.Parker divides itself into two broad

disciplines: Arts and Humanities juxta-posed with Math, Science, and Technol-ogy (Nehring, 1998). A strong emphasisis placed on interdisciplinary work.Teacher teams discuss, argue, and contendwith knotty questions related to curricu-lum not only during their planning timeduring the summer, but throughout theacademic year.

Key characteristics of Parker thatare facilitated by its charter school sta-tus include:

n The work year for teachers includesfour weeks during the summer thatare unpaid; this is stipulated at the timefaculty are hired.

n The curriculum is intellectually rig-orous, much like a high-quality gradu-ate school seminar that challengesfaculty as well as students.

n Teacher work on curriculum is col-laborative and interdisciplinary,rather than fragmented, isolated, andpiecemeal.

n Classes are small in size and focuson in-depth understanding of com-plex material rather than broad cov-erage of many superficial concepts(Nehring, 1998).

As these two examples illustrate,teaching and learning in charter schoolscan encompass different missions and re-flect both the values and needs of localschool staff, parents, students, and othereducational stakeholders. In fact, charterschool advocates point to this mirroringof stakeholders’ values — along with thefreedom to enact those values — as oneof the most compelling arguments forthese public schools of choice.

But charter school operators mustgrapple with the practical in ways theymay not anticipate. They need consider-able management savvy to enact theireducational visions and ensure that theyare appropriate for their students and thefamilies they serve. If they are not pre-

[ 5 ]

pared to deal with a host of new demands,a myriad of management issues could sinktheir schools.

MANAGEMENT ISSUESAND CHARTER SCHOOLS

While the early success from FentonAvenue and Francis W. Parker is encour-aging — as are similar accounts fromother charter schools — charter schooloperators readily admit that even seem-ingly mundane management issues canswamp the most carefully conceived vi-sions of teaching and learning. As Picus(1998) points out, too frequently char-ter school applicants receive word thattheir applications for charter status havebeen approved and then are expectedto have their schools up and runningwithin a matter of weeks — with abrand-new staff, innovative educationalmission, and strong measures for ac-countability in place.

Fiscal matters, once the domain ofcentral office personnel, suddenly fall tocharter school operators who may havelimited financial experience and exper-tise. As a result, they may construct abudget inadequate for the school’s needs.Because of the lack of start-up time, theymay secure monies that are insufficientto hire experienced, certified staff. Andbecause they lack training in fundraising,they may lack the confidence necessaryto secure additional funds necessary toallow the school to function smoothly(Gruber, 1998).

Manno and his colleagues on theHudson Institute Charter Schools Studyargued that charter schools should be seenas small businesses — but they usually aremanaged by staff whose expertise lies out-side the business of running a school(Vanourek, Manno, Finn, and Bierlein,1997). If states require charter schools toopen their doors too quickly (immediatelyafter granting the charter), even the mostbrilliantly crafted educational vision canbog down with problems that can range

from transporting the school’s students toacquiring funds to buy adequate instruc-tional materials. Professional develop-ment, in particular, can be jettisoned ascharter school operators look at theirdwindling resources and try to economize— yet ongoing professional developmentis critical to the success of charter schoolsso that staff can continue to develop andrefine their skills so that the school’s edu-cational mission can be realized.

Policymakers need to be attentive tothe fiscal problems with which charterschools must contend and to how restric-tive financial policies can be detrimentalto the development of charter schools(Manno, 1998, p.12). In particular,Manno points to the following commonproblems:

n a lack of start-up funds,n reduced operating funds if the full

complement of federal, state, or localmonies cannot be secured,

n uneven cash flow, andn school finance formulas that do not

consider the unusual situation ofcharter schools (p. 12).

Picus (1998) emphasizes that char-ter schools bear a tremendous burden dueto their precarious financing. Whetherthe school is a new, start-up school or aconversion school (a school that previ-ously existed within a public school dis-trict as a noncharter school) influencesthe degree of control that the sponsor-ing agency maintains over the charterschool’s financial decisions.

If a charter school is dependent upona local school district as its charteringagency, it needs approval for its expendi-tures in advance, and it must follow thatagency’s expenditure requirements (Picus,1998). This arrangement offers some, butnot enough, freedom from bureaucraticrestrictions central to the entire argumentfor charter schools in the first place.

If, however, a charter school is fiscallyindependent of the chartering agency, itstill must maintain a balanced budget and

keep its expenditures legal — but now,without any help from the charteringagency. On the other hand, it is freed fromseeking approval for expenditures.

Where does school finance policyenter this picture? Timing is critical. Iffunding comes from the state or the dis-trict in which the charter school is housed,funds often do not arrive in time for theschool to meet its payroll or to purchasenecessary materials (Picus, 1998, p. 8).

Budgets are helpful documents forpolicymakers and charter school opera-tors, Picus emphasizes, because theyshould give both groups of educationalstakeholders a clear image of what theschool needs in order to enact its mission.Standards for fiscal reserves established bystate policymakers also are key in guidingcharter school operators toward accurateestimates of the monies needed to keepcharter schools open and thriving.

Just as charter schools must grapplewith the practical issues that suffuse allteaching and learning, they also mustcome to terms with the spotlight thathas been placed on them that demandsimproved accountability for student per-formance. In fact, accountability forcharter schools will become increasinglyprominent as charter schools proliferate.

ACCOUNTABILITY INCHARTER SCHOOLS

Advocates of charter schools arguethat these public schools of choice areheld to tighter and higher standards thanother noncharter public schools. This isone way, they believe, that charter schoolscan influence and improve noncharterpublic schools. They reason that if stu-dent achievement in noncharter publicschools falters or is unsatisfactory, theseother schools are able to continue tooperate with a “business as usual” attitude(Manno, 1998).

But charter schools must showheightened student achievement or facethe revocation of their charters after a

[ 6 ]

certain period of time (typically, three tofive years). This demand for results pro-vokes best practices and it provides anincentive for school staff to focus on out-comes. But how should student achieve-ment be measured in charter schools? Isit fair to compare charter schools tononcharter public schools — given theirmuch briefer existence?

As Nathan and Cheung (1998) pointout, charter schools must be responsiveto the same accountability measures usedby noncharter public schools, such as thestandardized tests that are used within astate. As public schools, it is unreason-able to expect charter schools not to ad-here to the same measures as noncharterpublic schools. However, Nathan andCheung also note that charter schools aremore active than noncharter publicschools in employing other, nonstandard-ized measures to assess student achieve-ment, such as portfolio assessments.

Although issues related to account-ability and assessment of student achieve-ment are complex, Nathan and Cheungrecommend some guiding principles forboth the sponsor and the charter school:

n The accountability plan should bejointly developed and monitored (byboth sponsor and charter school).

n The charter school’s mission andcurriculum should be tied to statestandards.

n The standard for improved studentachievement should be clearly statedby the charter school and consideredcarefully by the sponsor.

n The charter school’s goals should beexplicit in the charter proposal; thesegoals should be tied to assessment.

n The sponsoring agency and prospectivecharter school should agree on the toolsthat will be used to measure studentprogress prior to granting the charter.

n Baseline data should be gathered withthe help of the sponsoring agency.

n Charter schools should understand andbe prepared to comply with state char-ter laws that govern accountability.

n Charter school operators should re-view and know about the various mea-sures that are used in the state as wellas non-standardized measures thatcould complement their assessment ofstudent progress.

n Charter school operators should pre-pare a clear annual report that is avail-able to the sponsoring agency and to avariety of educational stakeholders in-cluding parents, news media, students,community groups, and legislators. Thisannual report should be available in ab-breviated form as appropriate (Nathanand Cheung, 1998, pp. 19-21).

KEY CONSIDERATIONSFOR POLICYMAKERS

As charter schools continue to in-crease in number, policymakers need todevelop legislation that allows the free-dom so appealing to these schools ofchoice and their advocates. This freedomneeds to take into account whether therewill be caps on the number of charterschools allowable in a state and whetherthe sponsoring agency will allow enoughlatitude to the charter school so that ittruly can operate independently.

Legislators need to make accountabil-ity especially critical. Charter schoolsshould not be exempt from measures ofstudent progress to which other publicschools are held. However, since charterschools can be closed if they do not showheightened student achievement, legisla-tors need to consider a range of measures

of student progress as well as student per-formance on standardized measures. Inparticular, legislators need to ask: Docharter school students meet state-estab-lished standards (if such standards exist)?

The integrity of the charter school’smission and educational vision also needsto be emphasized in the laws that governcharter schools. As sponsoring agenciesconsider a charter school proposal, theircriteria should be clear. Does the prospec-tive charter school have a sound missionand educational vision? What is the ra-tionale for the educational vision? Whatmakes the charter school distinctive?Are there solid student recruitmentplans in place? What provisions exist forhiring and recruiting qualified staff?How will the charter school, if a con-version school, deal with recalcitrantstaff who are not “on board” with theschool’s educational vision?

Finally, legislators need to considerhow sponsoring agencies in their statescan help or confound charter schools asthey struggle with management issues —with little start-up time. Do state lawsprovide for adequate help to charterschools — or, is there a “sink or swim”mentality? At their best, state laws canguide sponsoring agencies so that charterschools will begin operation with ad-equate funds, with the full complementof monies available to them, and withassistance in hiring and recruiting themost qualified staff.

REFERENCES

Gruber, G. (1998, September). Gover-nance issues for charter schools.Paper prepared for the Comprehen-sive Center–Region VI, WisconsinCenter for Education Research,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Manno, B. V. (1998, September).Charter Schools: Origins, problems,and future prospects. Paper preparedfor the Comprehensive Center–Region VI, Wisconsin Center for

In fact, charter schooladvocates point to this

mirroring of stakeholders’values — along with the

freedom to enact those values— as one of the most

compelling arguments forthese public schools of choice.

[ 7 ]

Education Research, University ofWisconsin–Madison.

Nathan, J., & Cheung, S. (1998,September). Assessing the impact ofpublic charter schools. Paperprepared for the ComprehensiveCenter–Region VI, WisconsinCenter for Education Research,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Nehring, J. (1998, September). A focuson teaching and learning: Curricu-lum and assessment at the Francis W.Parker Charter Essential School.Paper prepared for the Comprehen-sive Center–Region VI, WisconsinCenter for Education Research,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Picus, L. O. (1998, September). Man-agement issues [in charter schools].Paper prepared for the Comprehen-sive Center–Region VI, WisconsinCenter for Education Research,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Sumida, I. (1998, September). TeachingEnglish language learners in acharter school. Paper prepared forthe Comprehensive Center–RegionVI, Wisconsin Center for EducationResearch, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

U. S. Department of Education (1998).Internet: http://www.uscharterschools.org/gen-info/gi-main.htm

U. S. Department of Education (1999).Internet: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter3rdyear/8.htm

Vanourek, G., Manno, B.V., Finn, C. E.Jr., & Bierlein, L. A. (1997, June).Charter schools as seen by those whoknow them best: Students, teachers,and parents. Charter schools inaction: A Hudson Institute Report.Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.

[ about the author ]

ANNE TURNBAUGH LOCK-WOOD is an Associate Researcherwith the Comprehensive Center–Region VI and its newsletter editor.

DR. WAYNE SANSTEAD:

WHY WE DON’T HAVE CHARTER

SCHOOLS IN NORTH DAKOTA

[ eva m. kubinski ]

ORTH DAKOTA IS A STATE IN A SPECIAL POSITION. WHILE ITS STUDENTS DO WELL

WHEN COMPARED WITH OTHER STATES ON MEASURES OF ACHIEVEMENT (NORTH DA-

KOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, 1998), NORTH DAKOTA IS FACING DE-

CLINING ENROLLMENT AND HAS A TAX BASE THAT RELIES ON AN AGRICULTURE-BASED

ECONOMY THAT HAS NOT DONE WELL THIS YEAR. RANGING FROM A HIGH OF APPROXI-

MATELY 170,000 STUDENTS IN 1968 TO THE CURRENT LEVEL OF 112,000 STUDENTS,

STATE ENROLLMENT IS EXPECTED TO DROP YET ANOTHER 10 PERCENT IN THE NEXT DE-

CADE (EDUCATION WEEK, 1999, NOVEMBER 3). ACCORDING TO THE 1999 NORTH

DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION BIENNIAL REPORT, IN 1961 THERE

WERE ONE THOUSAND SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN NORTH DAKOTA. CURRENTLY THERE ARE

ONLY 229. THIS SAME REPORT STATES THAT FEW DISTRICTS IN THE STATE HAVE STABLE

OR INCREASING ENROLLMENTS, WITH RURAL SCHOOLS SEEING THE GREATEST DECLINE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE SCHOOLS IN THE STATE WITH SIGNIFICANT NUMBERS OF AMERICAN

INDIAN STUDENTS, PRIMARILY LOCATED IN RURAL COMMUNITIES, CONTINUE TO

STRUGGLE TO RAISE THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AND GRADUATION RATES OF ALL

THEIR STUDENTS.

Dr. Wayne Sanstead has served NorthDakota for more than thirty years,

including terms as State Representative,State Senator, Lieutenant Governor, and,currently, as the most senior Chief StateSchool Officer in the United States. Partof his charge as the State School Super-intendent is to promote the continuationof educational excellence in North Da-kota schools. Dr. Sanstead has previouslyexpressed his concerns about the viabil-ity and potential success of charter schoolsin North Dakota. This interview probeshis view of charter schools in the contextof North Dakota’s educational system.

Q Dr. Sanstead, initially you had ex-pressed a hesitancy about having char-

ter schools in North Dakota. What is thebasis of your concerns?

A One of my major concerns aboutcharter schools is what I see as a poten-tial lack of oversight when they areimplemented outside of the public edu-cation system. That lack of oversight canlead to excesses that harm the educationsystem as a whole. Without accountabil-ity and some sort of overview, charterschools can pull needed resources frompublic schools, harming their ability toadequately serve their remaining students.

For example, a colleague in Arizonarecently sent me a news article about aschool district in his state that spent hugeamounts of money on the transportation

N

[ 8 ]

of students to attend a charter school. Thetransportation costs per student were sig-nificantly higher than the cost of trans-porting those same students to theirneighborhood schools. The numberquoted in the article was that charterschool transportation in Arizona cost up-wards of $30 million — an expense thatthe article calculated could have beenused to build six new schools (Mesa Tri-bune, 1999, December 28). This story isan example of how the system can betaken advantage of — to the detrimentof other students.

I also have strong concerns aboutaccountability. I think that competitionhas a healthy influence on education. Thiswas one of the original reasons for the startof the charter school movement. A welldesigned and implemented charter schoolallows the featuring and supporting of stu-dent strengths and talents. But in manystates, we are not really seeing any truecompetition or utilization of this oppor-tunity to capitalize on the chance to dosomething special. Instead, charterschools are being protected, but not in away akin to private enterprise. Whileprivate enterprise is supposed to be self-regulating, charters are not always doingso. Charter schools have also been ableto use public tax collars unlike privatebusinesses. I am concerned that we are start-ing to see charter schools that have takenadvantage of the regulatory flexibility with-out providing improved education.

Honestly, I have no problem withgood, well-planned charter schools thatare under the umbrella and control ofpublic schools and are accountable to anelected school board. These charters cangive students special opportunities andexperiences, be it in arts, in technology,with a special instructional focus, or tomeet a group of students’ special needs.

Q What are some barriers to havingcharter schools in North Dakota?

A There are several distinct barriers

to having charter schools in our state.Transportation costs and a declining en-rollment in our primarily rural schooldistricts are among the most significant.A lack of legislation allowing for charterschools is another barrier.

Transportation costs increase astravel distance increases. Many of the ru-ral school districts already bus their stu-dents long distances so they can attendtheir home school. Any rural charterschool would have to have significanttransportation costs if they were to attractenough students to be viable.

Declining enrollment is a factor thatcannot be ignored. In North Dakota, halfof the public school districts have fewerthan 200 students. Twenty districts have

Q Even with your concerns, you even-tually tried to enact legislation thatwould allow school districts to set upcharter-like schools. Why the changeof heart?

A We sponsored SB 2175 which wasa comprehensive waiver proposal. It wasa proposed expansion of an existingwaiver that allows for greater flexibility,with new accountability pieces in the ap-plication process. It came out of ourschool improvement process with the in-tent of supporting innovative educationprojects in a public school setting. Theproposal included a required commitmentby participating districts to achieve im-proved student achievement levels.

The intent of proposing this legisla-tion was somewhat of a defensive moveto forestall other versions that couldbe more detrimental to public educationin North Dakota. We also wanted tomake sure high accountability and a com-mitment to work toward achieving tochallenging standards would be required.Additionally, if it had passed, North Da-kota would have been eligible to apply forand receive federal charter school fundsto fund start-up planning at the districtlevel. However, SB 2175 failed.

I believe that part of what happenedis that there is a view among the publicthat what is needed is to strengthen lead-ership and organization of existing publicschools before we think about addingmore to the system. We were on the righttrack with the innovative educationprojects sites legislation. I am especiallypleased at this effort that aimed at bothfreeing public schools from restrictive re-quirements and rewarding them for beingaccountable.

Q What would your ideal charterschool look like?

A I would like to see charter schoolsthat promote the development of specialexpertise and talents, with highly com-

As a result of poor economictimes in this state, due to a re-cent downturn in agriculture,we can ill afford to have more

schools competing for everscarcer dollars.

fewer than two dozen students. Thesesmall student numbers in most of thestate would make it almost impossible fora charter school and a public school toexist within a given community unlessthe charter school was located in thesame community, or if there were anexceptional level of financial support fortransportation.

Additionally, if an already low-popu-lation district’s student numbers were re-duced as a result of students’ being pulledout, the result could be the need to closedown the public school. Many districts arehaving a hard time keeping their doors openwith their current enrollment. The lastthing they need to be doing is putting theirtime and effort into fighting off a charterschool. As a result of poor economic timesin this state, due to a recent downturn inagriculture, we can ill afford to have moreschools competing for ever scarcer dollars.

[ 9 ]

petent, well prepared, and knowledge-able educators. Any such school staffwould have to make a commitment thatthey and their students would aspire tothe top echelon of academic performanceand achievement. I would also like to seea charter school that meets the needs ofboth the students and the community —without taking away from the otherschools — a school that would not justcater to an elite group and ideal, but onethat would spread learning opportunitiesas widely as possible.

I believe that when charter schools areintended to increase the availability of con-sumer choice within the public educationsystem, they can, and do, serve a worthypurpose. In a sum, I support alternative typeschools that are accountable to their publicschool district boards and whose objectiveis to provide for increased individual stu-dent opportunity and achievement.

REFERENCES

Education Week. (1999, November 3).N. D. schools struggle with enroll-ment declines. Internet: http://www.edweek. org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=10nodakenroll.h19

Mesa Tribune. (1999, December 28).Charters milk $20M cash cow:Funding for transportation.

North Dakota Department of PublicInstruction. (1999). Biennial Report.Internet: http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/public _info/biennial_report/biennial.PDF

North Dakota Department of PublicInstruction. (1998). School ReportCard for North Dakota’s Future 1998.Internet: http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/dpi/finance/download/final.PDF


EVA M. KUBINSKI is a Train-ing and Research Specialist for theComprehensive Center–Region VI.

CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS:

MOTIVATORS OR BARRIERS

[ audrey cotherman ]

O TWO STATES’ LAWS GOVERNING CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE THE SAME. THEY AP-

PEAR TO BE CUSTOMIZED COMBINATIONS OF POLITICAL REALITIES AND EDUCATION IDE-

ALS. BECAUSE THESE VARIED LAWS REFLECT THE ATTITUDES AND NEEDS OF THE SPECIFIC

POPULATION A CHARTER SCHOOL WILL SERVE AND THE FISCAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE

STATE, SOME LAWS LIMIT THE NUMBER OF CHARTER SCHOOLS THAT WILL BE APPROVED,

HOW INDEPENDENT THEY WILL BE, AND HOW LONG THEY WILL BE ALLOWED TO OPER-

ATE. ON ONE HAND, THE LAW MAY GIVE THE CHARTER SCHOOL TOTAL FREEDOM FROM

STATE REGULATIONS BUT PROVIDE NO START-UP FUNDS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE

LAW MAY PROVIDE START-UP FUNDS BUT CONSTRAIN FREEDOM IN STAFFING BY RE-

QUIRING COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AND STATE CERTIFICATION OF ALL TEACHERS.

Charter schools are intended to offerhigh-standards alternative schools

within a district and to enable parents,teachers, and administrators to design adifferent school, a school free to adoptnew ways that lead to high studentachievement. Thus, ideally, the lawsshould create schools that have the free-dom to organize governance, manage-ment, curriculum, and instruction increative ways and that have control overadequate finances. Legislation in somestates does little more than permit char-ter schools (such as in Alabama orWyoming), while in others it providessupport and encouragement (such as inWisconsin and Minnesota).

By 1998, thirty-three states and theDistrict of Columbia had passed charterschool laws. These were included in areport of the U. S. Department of Educa-tion entitled A Comparison of CharterSchool Legislation (U. S. Department ofEducation, 1998). Here we will focus onissues arising in only three areas containedin that report: (1) charter school devel-opment and legal status, (2) fiscal con-

cerns, including capital funding, and (3)teaching staff and management issues,asking how laws motivate and support orerect barriers to establishing and support-ing successful charter schools.

MOTIVATORS

In their study of the impact of char-ter schools, Nathan and Cheung (1998)spell out the elements they think shouldbe included in the law. Some states ap-pear to motivate the creation and successof charter schools by including some com-binations of these elements in state law.

n More than one organization shouldbe authorized to start and operate acharter school. Only three states donot stipulate in the law who can ini-tiate a charter school application. Allothers specify that more than one ofthe following is authorized to start acharter school: public school dis-tricts, education service providers,local schools, universities, colleges,individuals, nonprofit groups, teach-

N

[ 10 ]

ers, public service organizations, or anyperson, group or organization.

n Charter schools should be publicschools. All laws either state or implythat charter schools must function aspublic schools. Illinois is the only statethat specifically prohibits charters tohome schools.

n Charter schools should be schools ofchoice. All state laws specify atten-dance by choice, or they do not addressthe issue at all.

n Charter schools should be accountablefor student achievement. All lawsstipulate that charter schools functionby virtue of performance-based con-tracts that hold them accountable forstudent achievement. If there are statestandards of achievement, studentsmust progress toward meeting thesestandards. Usually, the instruments tobe used to measure school achievementare not mentioned in the law.

n In return for this accountability, thestate should grant up-front waivers ofvirtually all rules and regulations gov-erning public schools. Although waiv-ers from regulations are frequentlymentioned in the law, rules concern-

ing student achievement — and manyrules governing personnel and fiscalmatters — are not waived and cannotbe waived. Often the regulations aregenerally agreed upon and specify whatrules can be waived, but these sectionsof the laws are not as strong as sectionson performance accountability.

n Charter schools should be discrete en-tities with their own governing boards.The laws are often ambiguous about theamount of independence a charterschool is granted and about its relation-ship to the local school board. Thegranting agency may withdraw aschool’s charter for failing to fulfill itscontract. The charter school board,therefore, may not be totally indepen-dent — even though they may haveauthority in setting the mission of theschool, hiring, budgeting, and account-ing for both student achievement andexpenditure of funds. Charter schoolsare, nevertheless, usually discrete enti-ties with some kind of governing struc-ture separate from their granting agent.

Nathan and Cheung (1998) includetwo other critical elements that should be

included in state law: Teachers shouldhave job protection and be given new ap-pointments upon termination of the char-ter school, and charter schools shouldhave control over adequate resources tostart-up and to implement their mission.Laws in these areas tend not to be moti-vators of charter schools; they will be ad-dressed in the following sections.

BARRIERS

Laws may be intended to allow, pro-vide for, and support the innovations andoperations of charter schools. In reality,however, those same laws may erect bar-riers that constrain charter schools as theytry to establish themselves and operate increative ways that will serve their particu-lar population and enhance studentachievement. Areas that are particularlytroublesome (which we will address here)are: defining the legal status of the char-ter school, funding, facilities, governance,and staffing.

Legal Status

Although laws are somewhat ambigu-ous on this issue, it appears that in tenstates charter schools organized by a dis-trict are considered part of that localschool district. In four states charterschools are considered independent pub-lic schools, and in 14 states they are orga-nized as nonprofit entities. Wisconsin lawseems to provide the most options. There,a charter school may be under the author-ity of the local school board; the localboard may contract with an outside en-tity to govern and operate the school; orschools not sponsored by a local boardmay become independent entities — asthey are in Milwaukee, for example.Michigan is unique in that charter schoolsare corporate entities subject to leadershipand general supervision of the state board.It is not clear in the law whether charterschools can sue and be sued, nor what li-ability the granting agencies bear.

[ 11 ]

Funding

One of the most often cited barriersto charter school success is inadequatefunding. Nathan and Cheung (1998)mention this. Picus (1998) identifies lackof start-up funds, lack of operatingfunds, and two other funding-relatedproblems — inadequate facilities andproblems in hiring and managing staff —as serious barriers to creating successfulcharter schools.

Only nine states authorize either spe-cific dollar amounts or grants and loansto cover charter school start-up costs. Per-haps the most generous is Minnesota lawwhich provides funding for two years ofup to $50,000 per school or $500 per pu-pil for new charter schools. A new char-ter school in Arizona may, upon applica-tion, receive up to $100,000 from a $1million grant fund. Georgia provides$5,000 in state grants to assist with thecharter school planning process, and Cali-fornia has a revolving loan fund. Seven-teen states deny start-up funds, and an-other eight do not address the issue.

Why are start-up funds needed?Even if a charter school is to have fullper-pupil state funding and categoricalfunding for special students, these mon-ies may not be received at the beginningof the school’s life. Moreover, successfulcharter schools often begin with heavyprofessional staff development programs.This cannot be done effectively withoutadequate funds. If allowed under thelaw, even seemingly inexpensive ways toprovide this — such as changing thenumber of teaching days, extending theschool year, or using noncertified person-nel to teach while others are preparingfor new ways to facilitate student learn-ing — are not without a price tag (Picus,1998). Ongoing financial needs — suchas rent, equipment, supplies, buildingmaintenance, and costs of innovativeprogramming and instruction — mayalso require start-up funds to launch thecharter school.

Once a charter school is established,operating funds become a crucial issue.Per-pupil funding, for example, is not fullyaddressed in state laws. Two states, Kan-sas and Nevada, do not specify whetherthe general funding will be comparable toother schools. Several states, includingCalifornia, negotiate funding with thelocal school board. In Colorado and fourother states, the law specifies that a statedpercentage (or percentage range) of theper-pupil allocation be provided to char-ter schools. There is evidence that, inmany cases, even when the allocation iscomparable to the district per-pupil allo-cation, overhead costs (rent, equipment,bookkeeping, for example) may be takenout before the funds are transferred to thecharter school. Furthermore, state per-pu-pil allocations do not adequately coverpersonnel salary and benefits, mainte-nance, insurance, recruitment, books,other educational materials, professionaldevelopment, and development of cur-riculum, instruction, and assessments.

In addition to this, services ordinarilyprovided by the district office with special-ized staff may not be provided for a charterschool, or they are provided for a fee. Func-tions such as bookkeeping, purchasing, andmaintenance may become the added re-sponsibility of a staff that has had muchmore experience in designing curriculumthan taking care of boilers or ledgers.

Facilities

In many states, charter school lawstipulates whether, and from whom, theschools are allowed to lease, rent, or pur-chase facilities, but the laws do not statehow this is to be accomplished. In onestate, New Jersey, a charter school is pro-hibited from purchasing facilities, yet thelaw stipulates that it must locate in a suit-able (safe) building.

Picus (1998) and others point outthat accountability for student achieve-ment assumes that building space, goodteaching, operating and start up funds are

all available. For example, facilities havea significant impact on the technologyavailable for students, and many educa-tors believe that the use of technology isvital to equalizing students’ opportunitiesand enhancing high performance. Para-doxically, laws may require but, in fact,not allow charter schools to have andmaintain adequate facilities.

Governance

None of the state laws suggest or di-rect the governance structure of a char-ter school. In most cases, it seems thatthe schools themselves design the gov-ernance structure based on the charac-teristics of effective models. Laws do,however, mention teachers and parentsas representatives to be involved in theschool’s governance. Alaska specifiesthat there must be an academic policycommittee comprising parents, teachers,and school employees. Connecticut liststeachers, administrators and parentsamong those who must be involved inschool governance. Only Delaware pro-hibits a specific group — members of thedistrict school board — from serving onthe charter school board. Only in SouthCarolina does the law state that therewill be an annual election, and at leastone teacher, along with parents and em-ployees, must be on the governing body.

In practice, charter schools includethose who have a stake in the formation

Functions such asbookkeeping, purchasing,

and maintenance maybecome the added

responsibility of a staff thathas had much more

experience in designingcurriculum than taking care

of boilers or ledgers.

[ 12 ]

and success of the schools. Parents, teach-ers, sometimes community members, ad-ministrators, and even students may serveon the governing boards, but in only sevenstates is the exact composition of the gov-erning body spelled out in the law.

Staffing

More than two-thirds of the statelaws demand the same credentials of char-ter school teachers as of teachers in otherpublic schools. The laws of Georgia,Texas, and the District of Columbia donot discuss credentials, but all three re-quire that teacher credentials be ad-dressed in school charters. In two states,Massachusetts and Arizona, the charterschool board decides what credentialsthey will require, and in Illinois otherrequirements are permitted.

Those who are qualified to teach inhigher education may teach in charterschools sponsored by a university or col-lege. Wisconsin has a special charterschool teacher license that is more flex-ible in its requirements than regularpublic school certification. Severalstates put into law that the state’s cre-dential requirement can be waived if thewaiver is asked for in the school char-ter. Some states specify the percentageof the staff who must be credentialed,and some require more faculty to be cer-tified in conversion charter schools thanin new charter schools.

In about two-thirds of the states, thelaw permits collective bargaining, but, inmany cases, the bargaining unit must beseparate from the district or state bargain-ing unit. Nine states prohibit collectivebargaining. In California, charter schoolsare exempt from all state laws pertainingto schools, including collective bargain-ing. State laws address job protection insections on certification, collective bar-gaining, leaves of absence, and participa-tion in public employee pension plans.These sections of charter school law, how-ever, are weak.

S ince teach ing is the key towhether children learn (thus, is linkedto accountability for student achieve-ment), one could argue that laws that re-quire teacher certification and collectivebargaining could be a barrier to the abil-ity of charter schools to be successful andaccomplish their mission. These two con-cerns have an impact upon the school’sflexibility in hiring and, certainly, areintegrally related to funding issues.

AMBIGUITIES

Charter school laws do not mandatecollaboration but do mention variouspeople who may be involved. Successfulcharter schools and movements such asComprehensive School Improvement andEffective Schools all cite collaboration withparents, community organizations, andhigher education and cooperation amongteachers, parents, principals and boards asnecessary to success. Charter schools, them-selves, appear to incorporate this collabo-ration and cooperation as part of the free-dom exchanged for accountability.

Though accountability for studentachievement is part of every state law,there is no mention of curriculum, pro-grams, instruction, or how schools are toeffect results. This is part of the freedomthey are given. Several states, however,have state-adopted achievement stan-dards and assessments. This may meanthat certain curriculum content, instruc-tional techniques, and assessment instru-ments are a given and that the charterschool must incorporate traditional meansof accountability.

In terms of facilities, though charterschool laws may permit leasing or purchas-ing of buildings, they do not address bond-ing or sources of funding. By this omis-sion, most of the laws imply that allcharter schools are conversion schools andare part of the district, not new schoolsindependent from the district.

These are only a few areas of ambi-guity in the laws that are, most likely,addressed through guidelines, rules, orconsensus at the district or school level.Another vague area is the legal status ofcharter schools as independent andliable entities.

CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence that stateswill continue to legislate for and supportcharter schools. Minnesota passed thefirst charter school law in 1991. The 1998U. S. Department of Education study, onwhich this article is based, included 33states and the District of Columbia. Sincethen, three more states (Oklahoma, Or-egon, and New York) and Puerto Ricohave passed charter school legislation.

The Center for Education Reformevaluated these laws. Strong laws are de-fined to be those that foster the develop-ment of numerous independent charterschools, and weak ones are those thatprovide few incentives for charter schooldevelopment. According to the Centerfor Education Reform (2000, January)rankings, 23 states have medium to stronglaws, and 12 have weak laws.

It is clear that simply passing charterschool legislation does not guarantee thatthe number of schools will grow or thatthey will be effective. Arizona has themost charter schools (348), followed byCalifornia (234) and Texas. Some stateswith more recently passed laws, however,do not seem to be developing charterschools very rapidly. Although Arkansas,New Hampshire and Wyoming passedlaws in 1995 and Virginia in 1998, thereare no charter schools for the school year

Though accountability forstudent achievement is part of

every state law, there is nomention of curriculum,

programs, instruction, or howschools are to effect results.

[ 13 ]

If charter schools are tocarry out their mission,implement innovative

curriculum and instruction,and improve student

achievement, teachers musthave time and money forcollaboration, continued

learning, and professionaldevelopment...Neither timenor money is available for

these critical pieces ofcharter school success.

1999-2000 in those states. Mississippi,Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Mexico, andNevada all have fewer than five charterschools. Of these states, only New Hamp-shire has a medium to strong law (U. S.Department of Education, 1998).

Picus (1998) claims there are severalquestions that need to be asked to deter-mine the health of charter schools: Hasthe number of charters increased in thestate? Where? Why? What kinds of waiv-ers have been requested? How high arethe standards? How are results measured?Are students performing better? Perhapsthe most important question to ask is this:Is there any indication that charterschools are becoming models for otherpublic schools?

Most charter schools have from threeto five years to demonstrate they are ac-complishing their mission and improvingstudent achievement. Anecdotal evi-dence suggests that charter schools aresuccessful, but research evidence is stillbeing collected.

Some laws seem to motivate charterschool development and success. Allcharter school laws hold the schools ac-countable for improving student achieve-ment, but they may choose how to ac-complish this. Conspicuously absentfrom the laws are stipulations concern-ing curriculum and instruction. This flex-ibility charter schools have to definetheir mission and to select programs, cur-riculum, instructional methods, and gov-ernance structures has added to theirchances for success.

Some laws seem to erect barriers tothe establishment and success of charterschools. All of these are related, in someway, to funding. In general, state laws donot provide start-up funds, or full fund-ing for operations. None provide facili-ties funding. Some laws, meant to providelatitude in staffing, also inhibit staff se-lection by simultaneously imposing certi-fication and credentialing demands.These laws also constrain staff manage-ment by failing to provide adequate fund-


AUDREY COTHERMAN is theAssistant Director of the Compre-hensive Center–Region VI.

ing for things such as salaries and rewards.A superceding requirement for collectivebargaining also hampers creative hiringand staffing efforts.

Lack of funding is related to the lackof professional development for both aca-demic and management staff, anotherobstacle to be overcome — perhaps themost insurmountable of all. If charterschools are to carry out their mission,implement innovative curriculum andinstruction, and improve student achieve-ment, teachers must have time and moneyfor collaboration, continued learning, andprofessional development. Chartersschools are free to organize their calendarin creative ways or to reallocate moneyfor this — but only within the confinesof an often already inadequate budget.Neither time nor money is available forthese critical pieces of charter school suc-cess. It is interesting to note that this is-sue extends to public schools in general.Jennings (1998) reports that educationspends only about 1% (or less) of its bud-get for continued learning and staffdevelopment.

Finally, state laws are not reliablepredictors of charter school success. Thisis partly because of other factors such asstate regulations. Interpretation of the

law, and accepted practice may come intoplay. Still, those states that do not elimi-nate barriers — especially lack of fund-ing and lack of real freedom to hire, train,and manage staff — are less likely to seethe expansion of charter schools or toestablish schools that are successful andbecome models for the reform of otherpublic schools.

REFERENCES

Center for Education Reform. (2000,January). Internet: http://www.edreform.com/pubs/chglance.html

Nathan, J. & Cheung, S. (1998,December). Assessing the impact ofcharter public schools. Paperprepared for the ComprehensiveCenter–Region VI, WisconsinCenter for Education Research,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Jennings, W. (1998, December).Professional development in charterschools. Paper prepared for theComprehensive Center–Region VI,Wisconsin Center for EducationResearch, University of Wisconsin–Madison.

Picus, L. O. (1998, December). Man-agement issues [in charter schools].Paper prepared for the Comprehen-sive Center–Region VI, WisconsinCenter for Education Research,University of Wisconsin–Madison.

U. S. Department of Education. (1998).A comparison of charter schoollegislation: Thirty-three states and theDistrict of Columbia incorporatinglegislative changes through October,1998. Internet: http://www.edreform.com/charter_schools/laws.

[ 14 ]


KENT D. PETERSON is a SeniorTraining and Research Specialist forthe Comprehensive Center–RegionVI and Professor of EducationalAdministration at the University ofWisconsin–Madison.

SHAPING POSITIVE CULTURES

IN CHARTER SCHOOLS

[ kent d. peterson ]

CHOOL CULTURE COMPRISES THE UNDERLYING SET OF NORMS AND VALUES, RITUALS AND TRADITIONS, CEREMONIES AND STORIES

THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT UP OVER TIME AS PEOPLE WORK AND LEARN TOGETHER (DEAL & PETERSON, 1994; SCHEIN, 1985). THIS STRONG

WEB OF SOCIAL EXPECTATIONS AND BELIEFS SHAPE HOW PEOPLE THINK, FEEL, AND ACT. A POSITIVE SCHOOL CULTURE FUNCTIONS TO (1)

SHARPEN THE FOCUS OF STAFF AND STUDENTS, (2) BUILD COMMITMENT AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY, (3) FOSTER MOTIVATION TO ACHIEVE

VALUED ENDS, AND (4) ENCOURAGE PRODUCTIVITY AND LEARNING.

One of the most important and powerful elements of an effective and

successful school is its positive culture.In a school with a well defined andshared focus on student learning, staffand students are more likely to worktoward the specific goals and mission ofthe school. When students, teachers,and parents — the key stakeholders inthe school’s success — have a strongsense of community and commitmentto the school, they are more likely towork collectively toward the mission ofthe school. In a strong and positiveschool culture, motivation is more po-tent and energized. Teachers and stu-dents in such schools have an intrinsicdesire to work hard, put forth effort, andpersevere. Finally, in a positive schoolculture, students and staff learn andgrow together; they become part of avigorous learning community. (Deal &Peterson, 1999; Peterson, 1999)

To build a strong and positiveschool culture, leaders must attend tonumerous critical issues. They must:

n Develop a focused vision and mis-sion. They must decide collaborativelywhat they want to achieve, whatstandards they wish to promote andwhat goals for student achievementthey will have.

n Identify core norms, values, and be-liefs that will undergird the school.This includes identifying norms of be-havior and decision making, estab-lishing values concerning educationand its purposes, and setting forthbelief statements that can be guide-posts for the school.

n Generate new rituals, traditions,and ceremonies that will bring thecommunity together, transmit theculture, and commemorate importantevents and transitions. Ceremonies atthe beginning and end of the year arekey to forging community bonds. Itis important to have award and rec-ognition events to honor people whoare making a difference.

n Foster norms of behavior that areunique to the school, norms thatforge strong positive interpersonalrelationships. Be clear about howteachers, students, and parents are to

S

be treated. Specify what mix of re-spect, caring, concern, and supportwill be a trademark of the school.

n Attend to the symbols, artifacts,history, and logos of the school.These outward manifestations of theschool’s culture and vision are key tocommunicating what the schoolstands for. Keeping early artifacts ofa new charter school can make a dif-ference in the future.

n Celebrate early successes, both largeand small. Without the visible cel-ebration of efforts and achievements,motivation can be lost.

Schools with strong positive cul-tures have a communal sense of what isimportant, act in caring and concernedways toward each other, and promote acollective commitment to helping stu-dents learn (Peterson & Deal, 1998,September).

This article is adapted from Deal, T. E. &

Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping school

culture: The school leader’s role. San

Francisco: CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

[ 15 ]

n Staff has a shared sense of

purpose and pour their

hearts into teaching.

n Staff and administrators

share norms of collegiality,

improvement, and hard

work.

n Rituals and traditions cel-

ebrate student accomplish-

ment, teacher originality,

and parental commitment.

n A shared mission for the

school bonds everyone to

core goals.

n Success, joy, and humor fill

the corridors.

n Parents, staff, and admin-

istrators possess a shared

sense of community.

(Deal & Peterson, 1999)

FEATUR ES O FA S TR O NG PO SITIVE

SCHO O L CULTUR E

CULTURE INCHARTER SCHOOLS

Policymakers have instituted char-ter schools to be free from the bureau-cratic binds of state rules. Each schoolis free to develop a unique mission —one designed to serve their specificpopulation of students and parents —and to establish norms and values com-patible with its mission. It is free to gen-erate rituals, traditions, and ceremoniesthat move students, staff, and parentstoward realizing the school’s mission. Insum, a charter school is free to articu-late its mission and to develop a strongpositive school culture to support thatmission. This is, of course, easier for acharter school that is new than for oneformed from an established school witha long-standing culture that may benegative or in direct opposition to thenewly formulated mission (Peterson &Deal, 1998).

Charter schools have a unique op-portunity to develop a strong positiveschool culture. Vision and mission arebased on the charter of the school andhelp define the focus of the school. Allare working toward the same ends. It is

extremely important for school leaders,staff, and students to help shape andmaintain a positive culture that rein-forces the vision and mission of theschool. Being free from most or all staterules, charter schools are free to orga-nize governance and instruction in in-novative ways that foster living theirvision and moving toward their specificgoals and mission. In spite of the spe-cial circumstances and opportunity acharter school has, it is never simple tobuild a strong supportive culture, evenin a new school. They must still attendto all of the issues indicated above.

REFERENCES

Deal, T. E.& Peterson, K. D. (1994).The leadership paradox: Balancinglogic and artistry in schools. SanFrancisco: CA. Jossey-BassPublishers.

Deal, T. E. & Peterson, K. D. (1999).Shaping school culture: The schoolleader’s role. San Francisco: CA.Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Peterson, K. D. & Deal, T. E. (1998,September). How leaders influencethe culture of schools. EducationalLeadership. 56(1).

Peterson, K. D. (1999). Shaping schoolculture and standards-based reform.Speech at the National StaffDevelopment Council annualconference, Dallas, TX.

Schein, E. (1985). OrganizationalCulture and Leadership. San Fran-cisco: CA. Jossey-Bass Publishers.

[ 16 ]

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE

SEVEN CS OF SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS

[ stephen kailin ]

HE COMPREHENSIVE CENTER–REGION VI PROVIDES ON-SITE TEACHER TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO

SCHOOLS ENROLLING LARGE NUMBERS OF MIGRANT, BILINGUAL, OR AMERICAN INDIAN STUDENTS. AS I HAVE WORKED

IN AND OBSERVED THESE SCHOOLS, SEVEN COMMON QUALITIES SEEM TO CHARACTERIZE SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS (KAILIN,

1999, NOVEMBER). THIS ARTICLE DEFINES THOSE QUALITIES AND PROVIDES AN EXAMPLE OF EACH.

ENTRAL ACADEMY IS A CHARTER SCHOOL IN ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN WHICH SERVES A PRIMARILY ARABIC POPULA-

TION. MR. LUAY SHALABI, ITS DYNAMIC AND HIGHLY EFFECTIVE PRINCIPAL, TOOK OVER LEADERSHIP IN CENTRAL’S SEC-

OND YEAR OF OPERATION. ONE OF SHALABI’S PRIMARY GOALS IS TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM OF

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT FOR TEACHERS TO, ULTIMATELY, IMPROVE THE ACHIEVEMENT OF THE SCHOOL’S LARGE

BILINGUAL STUDENT BODY. THIS PROGRAM IS BASED ON THE SEVEN CS OF SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS.

T

C

Cohesive

Collaborative

A cohesive school has a well-integrated

curriculum that provides a common focus

for al l s tud ents . Th e profes s ion als work

well together and are aware of each other’s

strengths. They are knowledgeable about

teaching practice and curriculum at all grade

levels, and they accept change as a positive

organizational concept.

In a collaborative school students, staff

members, parents, and community mem-

b e rs ar e p ar t of t h e e ffor t to bu ild a

culture of collaboration. All of these partici-

pants accept the notion that they can learn

from each other and that individuals must be

open to changing their own practice for the

benefit of the entire school.

Professional development at Central Academy is a teameffort. All staff members participate on several committees.Time is set aside for committees to share their thoughts,decisions, and the products of their labor in ways that ben-efit the entire school. In order to develop consistency inteachers’ instructional approaches, all staff members receivetraining in content area strategies for second language learn-ers and in the use of rubrics to teach the writing process.This provides a common language to be used by both staffand students.

As a charter school, Central Academy has been a col-laborative effort from the beginning, and Mr. Shalabi hasestablished a variety of committees which guide the school’simprovement efforts. Parents are partners in the educationalenterprise at Central. Staff members understand this, andimprovement of student achievement is seen as a coopera-tive effort.

Students are released a half day early every Friday, andteachers devote this time to collaboration and in-servicetraining. This has enhanced professional development ef-forts at Central and shows, symbolically, that the parentcommunity understands that this investment of teacher timeis valuable to their children. To promote cohesion amongstaff, team-building, and consensus-building, a portion ofthe Friday in-service time — now an integral part of Central’scollaborative effort — is devoted to social activities such ascooperative lunches and birthday celebrations.

THE SEVEN CS OF SUCCESSFUL SCHOOLS CENTRAL ACADEMY: AN EXAMPLE

[ 17 ]

Comprehensive

Continuous

Committed

Cognitive

A comprehensive school educates the whole

child. Teachers are advocates for student

achievement rather than subject matter spe-

cialists. There is a sense of “we” in the school,

and the curriculum is designed around stu-

dent n eeds an d interests. Teach ers take

school-wide responsibilities, and, rather than

taking ownership of just their own class-

rooms, view all students in the school as their

students.

A continuous school has curricula and instruc-

tional practices that are not only develop-

mentally appropriate but build from one

grade to the next. There is a common instruc-

tional language throughout the school. Expec-

tations for behavior and achievement are clear

and are consistently applied. Teachers are aware

of standards and benchmarks, not only for their

own grade, but for grades both below and above.

A committed school has stakeholders who

are all committed to the success of stu-

dents and of the school as a whole. Every-

one who is involved with the school works

together for its success. Staff, students, and

commun it y members are aware of th e

school’s mission, and they support it. A cul-

ture of success pervades the organization, and

reform efforts are due, in large part, to broad-

based support.

A cognitive school spends more instruc-

tion al time on cognitive wor k than on

discipline and administrative tasks. Pro-

fessional development centers on achieve-

ment issues and on instructional practices

that enhance student achievement. There is

a concerted effort to organize the school

schedule to provide as much uninterrupted

instructional time as possible. School admin-

istrators facilitate, whenever possible, team

planning and instructional dialog among all

staff members.

Central Academy has adopted William Glasser’s Qual-ity Schools model (Glasser, 1992) to enhance the com-prehensive nature of the school. This has provided acohesive and child-centered focus for all staff develop-ment. Discussions at staff meetings frequently revolvearound how to make the school more student-centeredor how to adjust the program to better meet students’needs. Professional development, rather than focusing ona particular curriculum, has featured child-centeredteaching techniques such as cooperative learning andmultiage grouping.

Central Academy has implemented multiage teams acrossthe school. This was begun at the preschool/kindergartenlevel and is progressing up the grades. The goal is to havemultiage teams through grade eight. These teams have greatlyenhanced the continuous nature of the curriculum at Cen-tral. Part of the Friday in-service time is frequently takenup with dialog — both within and across these teams —about instruction. Such dialog promotes the use of commonlanguage and instructional practices. Multiage teams actu-ally build collaboration, cohesion, and the comprehensivenature of the school.

Due to the efforts of Mr. Shalabi and to the nature of acharter school, there is a high level of commitment betweenthe staff and parents at Central Academy. Charter schoolshave a distinct advantage in developing commitment, becauseparents choose the school for their children. In general,parents at Central hold common, or similar, cultural valueswhich are also shared by many staff members. This forms astrong bond which is often not present in other publicschools. There is a concerted effort at Central to serve thebilingual student population by providing Arabic classes forall students.

Professional development initiatives at Central reinforcethe strong commitment already present. The Comprehen-sive Center–Region VI has provided training in the Cogni-tive Academic Language Learning Approach (Chamot &O’Malley, 1994) giving teachers techniques especially suitedto teaching bilingual students.

The majority of the Friday afternoon in-service time (dis-cussed above) focuses on teaching techniques that lead toimproved student achievement. Topics have included the fol-lowing: developing integrated thematic units, CooperativeLearning strategies (Kagan, 1994) and other direct instruc-tion reading strategies as well as ways to assist bilingualstudents in the content areas. Central’s training to improvestudent achievement is enhanced by the comprehensivenature of its staff development program which concentrateson student-centered strategies rather than focusing on sub-ject matter. Since all teachers receive this training, it be-comes both cohesive and continuous. All students experiencesimilar instructional practices and use a common academiclanguage. Furthermore, exposure runs across grade levels.


[ 18 ]

As the result of a strong professional development program — lead by Principal Shalabi, endorsed byparents, and actively engaged in by staff members — Central Academy is a charter school on the rise.

It has challenges to face, but, because it has paid attention to the Seven Cs of Successful Schools, it is wellpositioned for continued improvement in student achievement. It is an excellent example of a charterschool working at fulfilling its educational mission.

The mission of Central Academy shall be to pro-vide an education of the whole child by integrat-ing the different aspects of children’s learning andlives to make them fuller and more meaningful.

The Academy shall offer an integrated theme andproject-based curriculum which draw on experi-ences at home, in the community, and whichencourages parents and other community mem-bers to participate in the school and share theirexpertise.

The Academy shall supplement a carefully plannedMichigan core curriculum with a special compo-nent of international cultures, including study oflanguage, culture and history.

CENTRAL ACADEMYMISSION STATEMENT

REFERENCES

Chamot, A. U. & O’Malley, J. M. (1994). The Cognitive AcademicLanguage Approach handbook. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyPublishing Co.

Glasser, W. (1992). The quality school: Managing students withoutcoersion. New York: Harper Collins Publishers.

Kagan, S. (1994). Cooperative learning. San Clemente, CA:Kagan Cooperative Learning.

Kailin, S. (1999, November). The seven Cs of successful schools.Presentation at Saint Paul Schoolwide Planning Conference.Saint Paul, MN.


STEPHEN KAILIN is a Senior Training and ResearchSpecialist for the Comprehensive Center–Region VI.

ALL WITHIN ACULTURE THAT IS

Contemplative

The culture of a contemplative school fosters

and supports self-reflection and change of

practice based on critical reflection. All stake-

holders view change as positive and inevitable.

If — based on what is best for the students they

serve — their school and their own practice are

not changing, they are moving backward. Staff

members willingly devote time to staff develop-

ment that actually brings about change in in-

structional and/or school practice. Contemplative

schools celebrate their culture of success.

Mr. Shalabi is known as Central Academy’s “lead contem-plator.” He is a leader who holds strongly and firmly to prac-tices that he believes are best for children — even if thesepractices are not especially convenient for staff or parents.Mr. Shalabi is the first to be self-reflective and open to con-structive criticism. He is also the first to support positivechange at Central. Mr. Shalabi will not long tolerate thosewho refuse to examine their own practices and work towardpositive change.

Central Academy’s strong mission statement, which allstakeholders in the school community support, enhances thecontemplative nature of the school. This strong widely sup-ported mission statement anchors and guides the changes thatcan, and should, occur in the school. Central is workingtoward validating their mission statement and making it partof a broader document that will truly guide all changes thatoccur at the school.


[ 19 ]

FROM THE DIRECTOR[ continued from page 1 ]

a means toward that end.Charter schools have various in-

structional missions. While charterschools espousing basic-skills educationalphilosophies tend to get the lion’s shareof media attention, one can also findcharter schools based on Dewey’s ideasor on some other progressive educationalphilosophies. Indeed, a most illuminat-ing incident occurred at a conferencesponsored by the Comprehensive Cen-ter–Region VI when the representativeof a school committed to basic-skillsinstruction showed ongoing interest inperformance-based assessments used byanother school that followed the Coali-tion of Essential Schools philosophy. Atthis same conference, a secondary schoolcommitted to innovative instruction forinner city students featured in its teach-ing of calculus (a very traditional course)as a vehicle for enhancing students’ later-life opportunities.

At this conference, listening to rep-resentatives from charter schools witha wide range of missions, I realized thatthey have more in common — includ-ing a concern for high-quality instruc-tion — than they have differenceswhich get so much media attention. Forexample, charter schools provide animportant relief valve for ongoing

pressure on public schools to adopt oneor another instructional approach. Inaddition, people who found and staffcharter schools and the parents whosend their children to those schoolsshare at least a nominal commitment toa specific educational philosophy, acommitment that has placed them atodds with their local public schools.

What is more, charter schools havetraded the support provided by anelaborate infrastructure for the relativeautonomy and accountability that arepart and parcel of their charters. Char-ter school personnel share the commonpressures of recruiting well-preparedstaff and interested students, managinga budget, and attending to the myriadadministrative details of running aschool. Finally, across the political andinstructional spectra, charter schoolpersonnel reported being misunderstoodby colleagues and parents in the publicschool system.

While not ignoring the differencesamong charter schools and the politi-cally controversial winds that swirlaround their creation, educators shouldrealize that charter schools are, poten-tially, places for the development andtesting of educational innovations.Charter schools face common problems


WALTER G. SECADA isDirector of the ComprehensiveCenter–Region VI and Professor ofCurriculum and Instruction at theUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison.

that need to be solved or managed ifthey are to fulfill that potential. As thepapers (written by our conference partici-pants) summarized in this newslettershow, pioneer charter schools have takensome important steps in this direction.Hopefully, others will learn from their ex-amples, avoid their mistakes, and build ontheir successful experiences.

The mission of the ComprehensiveCenter is to provide research-basedtechnical assistance to schools thatenroll large numbers of students who areeligible for services funded by theElementary and Secondary EducationAct (ESEA): Title I Migrant Education,Title VII Bilingual Education, andTitle IX American Indian Education.Through this newsletter, we hope toraise awareness about issues involvingcharter schools’ design and implemen-tation. People who are involved inefforts focused on the education ofESEA-eligible students may avail them-selves of our services.

Finally, I would like to acknowledgeSherian Foster’s contributions in editingthis issue of the CC–VI newsletter and tothe UW–Madison School of Education’sInstructional Media Development Cen-ter, directed by Lisa Livingston, in itsgraphic design and layout.

GUEST EDITOR: SHERIAN FOSTER

GRAPHIC DESIGN: INSTRUCTIONAL MEDIA DEVELOPMENT CENTER

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN–MADISON

PHOTOS COURTESY OF: FENTON AVENUE CHARTER SCHOOL

[Pages 4, 10, 15] 11828 GAIN STREET • LAKE VIEW TERRACE, CA 91342

PHONE: (818) 896-7482 • FAX: (818) 890-9986

[ 20 ]


MARY CHAFFEE is a Researchand Outreach Specialist for theComprehensive Center–Region VI.

WEB RESOURCES ON CHARTER SCHOOLS

[ mary chaffee ]

N DISCUSSING CHARTER SCHOOLS, KEY RESOURCES FOUND ON THE WORLD WIDE WEB HAVE BEEN LISTED UNDER THREE SECTIONS:

LINKS TO THE TWO CHARTER SCHOOLS FEATURED IN THE LEAD ARTICLE, KEY CHARTER SCHOOL WEB RESOURCES WHICH PROVIDE COMPRE-

HENSIVE INFORMATION FROM A NATION WIDE PERSPECTIVE, AND CC–VI REGION-SPECIFIC CHARTER SCHOOL WEB RESOURCES. SINCE IOWA,

NORTH DAKOTA AND SOUTH DAKOTA DO NOT YET HAVE CHARTER SCHOOLS, REGION-SPECIFIC WEB SITES WILL POINT ONLY TO WEB SITES

FOUND IN MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA AND WISCONSIN. BECAUSE THERE IS SO MUCH MATERIAL AVAILABLE, CONSIDER THESE KEY RESOURCES

TO BE A STEPPING STONE TO THE PARTICULAR AREA OF CHARTER SCHOOLS WHICH IS OF SPECIFIC INTEREST TO YOU, AS A READER. ADDI-

TIONALLY, WE INVITE YOU TO VISIT THE CC–VI WEB RESOURCE LIBRARY FOR A MORE EXTENSIVE LISTING OF WEB CONNECTIONS TO

RESOURCES ON CHARTER SCHOOLS.

SCHOOLS FEATUREDIN THE LEAD ARTICLE

FENTON AVENUE CHARTER SCHOOL[Found on the California Network ofEducational Charters (CANEC.) web site.]http://www.canec.org/schools/2_30c.htm

On the California Network of Educational Charters(CANEC) web site, you can find a copy of the FentonAvenue Charter School’s Charter Document. TheFenton Avenue Charter School is located in thenortheast San Fernando Valley in the city of LakeView Terrace.

FRANCIS W. PARKER CHARTER SCHOOL[Found on the MassachusettsDepartment of Education web site.]http://www.doe.mass.edu/cs.www/cs.parker.html

A detailed profile of the Francis W. Parker Charterschool, located in Fort Devens, Massachusetts, isfound on the Massachusetts Department ofEducation web site in its Massachusetts Charterschool Initiative section.

KEY CHARTERSCHOOL WEB RESOURCES

CENTER FOR EDUCATION REFORMhttp://www.edreform.com

The Center for Education Reform (CER) is a nonprofitnational advocacy group working to improve thenation’s schools. The CER web site provides anenormous amount of information on charterschools which is updated frequently. From thehome page, scroll down to the index provided tothe CER Web site and click on “Charter Schools.”“Charter Schools” opens with a section entitled“About Charter Schools.” In sections which follow,links are provided to publications on charterschools in such areas as progress reports,legislation, books and guides, and news andanalysis as well an invitation to participate in CER’sinteractive Education Forum.

CHARTER SCHOOL RESEARCH PROJECThttp://csr.syr.edu/

The Charter School Research Project is a one of thebest resources on the World Wide Web for researchpertaining to charter schools. It offers an enormousselection of research materials to choose from. Thesite is user friendly and easy to navigate. Its guidingprinciple is interactivity. In addition to the researcharea, there is a discussion area where you may joinand participate in various on-line forums.

EDUCATION WEEKhttp://www.edweek.org/

The Education Week web site is an excellent webresource for many topics in education includingcharter schools. From the home page click on the“In Context” button. Then, click on the “Issues”

button. Finally, click on the “Charter Schools” button.This section provides easy access to EducationWeek articles on charter schools (see “From theArchives”) as well as publications found on theWorld Wide Web and links to other relatedorganizations with web sites addressing the issueof charter schools.

HOW CHARTER SCHOOLSARE DIFFERENT: LESSONS ANDIMPLICATIONS FROM A NATIONAL STUDYby Bruno V. Manno, Chester E. Finn, Jr., LouannA. Bierlein, and Gregg Vanourek, March 1998[Found on Hudson Institute’sEducational Excellence Network.]http://edexcellence.net/library/kappan.htm

In this article, the authors provide backgroundinformation on the Charter Schools in Actionproject which was a two-year study, a project of theHudson Institute’s Educational Excellence Network,supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts. The articletakes a close look at the innovative ways in whichsome actual charter schools organize and supportthemselves, and presents five lessons that charterschools offer American education. The entire articleis available on-line and can be downloaded.

A NATIONAL STUDY OFCHARTER SCHOOLS - JULY 1998[Found on the U. S. Departmentof Education web site.]http://ed.gov/pubs/charter98/appendixb.htm

The U. S. Department of Education’s web site makesavailable on-line an enormous number of articles,national studies, and papers within its Publicationsand Products section. Make your way to this sectionand then select and / or search various data bankswith your topic of interest. There is a lot availableon charter schools including the National Study ofCharter Schools - July 1998.

I

[ 21 ]

THE NEWSLETTER OF

THE COMPREHENSIVE

CENTER–REGION VI

WALTER G. SECADA[ Director ]

AUDREY M. COTHERMAN[ Assistant Director ]

[ Associate Researcher/Editor ]

The Comprehensive Center–Region VI is administered bythe Wisconsin Center for Edu-cation Research, School ofEducation, University of Wis-consin–Madison and funded bythe Office of Elementary andSecondary Education, U. S.Department of Education.

Any opinions, findings, or rec-ommendations are those of theauthors and do not necessarilyreflect the views of the U. S.Department of Education.

Readers are encouraged tophotocopy this publicationand/or download it from theCC–VI’s Web site.

TO CONTACT THE CC–VI

PHONE:888.862.7763 or 608.263.4220

FAX:608.263.3733

E-MAIL:[email protected]

WEB:http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/

ANNE TURNBAUGH LOCKWOOD

CHARTER SCHOOLS[Found on the National Conferenceof State Legislatures web site.]http://www.ncsl.org/

The National Conference of State Legislatures website provides a wealth of information on charterschools from a legislative point of view. Althoughnot yet updated with a 1999 legislative summary,the 1998 summary is excellent.

CHARTER SCHOOLS: CHALLENGINGTRADITIONS AND CHANGING ATTITUDESIssue Brief - September 1, 1998[From the National Governors’Association (NGA) web site.]http://www.nga.org/Pubs/IssueBriefs/1998/

Quoting from the summary provided for this NGAissue brief (September 1, 1998) on charter schools:“...[it] reviews the origins of the charter schoolmovement, explains why proponents believecharter schools improve public education, exploresmajor issues in charter school operation anddescribes key elements of charter school statutes.Charter school initiatives in Arizona, California,Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Minnesota,and North Carolina provide useful insights to statesthat are considering charter school legislation.”

CHARTER SCHOOLS THENORTHWEST EXPERIENCE[Found on the Northwest RegionalEducational Laboratory (NWREL) web site.]http://www.nwrel.org/charter/

The Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory’scurrent projects on charter schools include thedevelopment of charter school leadership training,collection and dissemination of charter schooltraining materials, and state and school levelevaluation services.

CHARTER SCHOOLS[Found on Pathways, NCREL web site.]http://www.ncrel.org/http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/pathwayg.htm

There is a wealth of information to be found onNCREL’s Pathway to School Improvement web siteregarding charter schools. From the home pageselect “Topics” from the side menu bar. Then, clickon “Charter Schools.” A page of “Contents”appears which covers links to: What’s New, Issues,Publications and Articles, Internet Resources, PolicyBriefs and Publications, an Online Discussion Groupand information on NCREL states which includeIowa, Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.

US CHARTER SCHOOLShttp://www.uscharterschools.org/

The US Charter Schools web site is, withoutquestion, one of the best resources on the WorldWide Web regarding charter schools. Funded by theUS Department of Education, the site is well laid outand easy to navigate. It provides well written, in-depth comprehensive information on Charterschools nationwide.

CC–VI REGION SPECIFICWEB RESOURCES

MICHIGAN ASSOCIATION OFPUBLIC SCHOOL ACADEMIES(MAPSA) “FOR OUR CHILDREN”http://www.charterschools.org/core.htm/

The MAPSA web site has useful information oncharter schools specific to the state of Michigan.

CHARTER FRIENDS NATIONAL NETWORKhttp://www.charterfriends.org/

The Char ter Fr iends National Network wasestablished in January of 1997 as a project of theCenter for Policy Studies in cooperation withHamline University in St. Paul, MN. The web site isuser friendly and has a lot of useful information.From the home page you can click to the followingsections: Directory of State Contacts, CharterFriends Toolkit, Friends Network Publications, MajorCharter Friends Initiatives, Writings on EducationPolicy, Charter Events Calendar, Friends NetworkFeedback, and Links to Other On-Line Resources.

MINNESOTA ASSOCIATIONOF CHARTER SCHOOLS (MACS)http://www.mncharterschools.org/

The MACS web site provides information on charterschools specific to Minnesota. Some of theinformation found on the site includes schoolprofiles, information regarding legislation, acalendar, and resources.

MINNESOTA’S CHARTER SCHOOLShttp://www.cfl.state.mn.us/charter/

This delightful site is a Minnesota Department ofChildren, Families, and Learning supported site. Itis nicely laid out and contains comprehensiveinformation on charter schools within the state ofMinnesota. See their links to other Minnesota webresource sites.

WISCONSIN DEPARTMENTOF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONhttp://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dlsis/edop/charter.html

On the Wisconsin Department of Public Instructionweb site, information on charter schools can befound as a program under the section entitled“Education Options.” The Charter School page offersan overview of charter schools in Wisconsin as wellas a contact person.

WISCONSIN

MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA

WALTER G. SECADA

ANNE TURNBAUGH LOCKWOOD

AUDREY M. COTHERMAN

[ 22 ]

EASTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

Phyllis Clemens Noda, Ed.D.[CC Director/Michigan Field Office]

217 New Alexander

Ypsilanti, MI 48197

734.487.0370 ■ Fax: 734.487.0366

[email protected]

http://www.CEAC-EMU.org

THE COMPREHENSIVE CENTER–REGION VI FIELD SITES

HE MISSION OF THE CENTERS, UNDER THE IMPROVING AMERICA’S SCHOOL ACT (IASA), IS TO EMPOWER SCHOOL PERSONNEL TO

IMPROVE TEACHING AND LEARNING FOR ALL CHILDREN. THE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROVIDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE CENTERS IS

DRIVEN BY THE NEEDS OF THE STATES AND LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND BY THE NEEDS OF THE CHILDREN THEY SERVE. THE COMPREHEN-

SIVE CENTER–REGION VI SERVES IOWA, MICHIGAN, MINNESOTA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA, AND WISCONSIN.

HAMLINE UNIVERSITY

Mary P. Diaz[Assistant CC Director/Minnesota Field Office]

1536 Hewitt Ave., MS A-1720

St. Paul, MN 55104-1284

651.523.2239 ■ Fax: 651.523.2489

[email protected]

http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/ccvi/

UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

Carole Anne Heart[CC Director/North Dakota Field Office]

3315 University Dr.

Bismark, ND 58504 ■ 701.258.0437

800.437.8054 ■ Fax: 701.258.0454

[email protected]

http://www.utcac.com/

[ Subcontract/Field Sites ]

T

A D D R E S S C O R R E C T I O N R E Q U E S T E D

T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E CO M P R E H E N S I V ...

Documents