Search

This is the second annual report from the National Charter School Research Project (NCSRP) at the University of Washington's Center on Reinventing Public Education. Like last year's debut edition of Hopes, Fears, & Reality, the 2006 volume explores some of the most current and controversial issues facing the charter school movement. This year's essays focus on the implications of continued charter school growth for leading players in the charter school debates, including parents who choose schools, teachers unions, school districts, authorizers, and state policymakers. The authors examine issues that educators, policymakers, and parents grapple with, such as how to inform parents about school choices, how to broker conflicts between unions and school leaders, how to improve schools and attract families in the face of enrollment declines and funding losses, and how to assess the quality and performance of individual schools. The following chapters are included: (1) Doing Their Homework: How Charter School Parents Make Their Choices (Paul Teske and Robert Reichardt); (2) Life After Charters: School Districts and Charter School Growth (Christine Campbell and Deborah Warnock); (3) A One-Day Ceasefire: What Charter School and Teachers Union Leaders Say When They Meet (Lydia Rainey, Andrew J. Rotherham, and Paul T. Hill); (4) Improving State and Local Assessments of Charter School Performance (Paul T. Hill and Julian Betts); (5) Charter Authorizing: It's a Dirty Job, but Somebody's Got to Do It (Katharine Destler); (6) A Better Way: Measuring Charter School Success and Failure (Laura S. Hamilton and Brian M. Stecher); and (7) Counting Graduates: A New Challenge for Charter Schools (Mary Beth Celio). Appended are: (1) About the Authors. [This document was produced by the National Charter School Research Project Center on Reinventing Public Education Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs University of Washington.]

Over the past 15 years, charter schools and teachers unions have battled in state legislatures, the courts and the media. But with increasing frequency, the two groups are facing each other in the everyday operation of schools. This report summarizes the opinions expressed at a meeting of local state, and national leaders from both the charter school and teachers union communities convened to begin to answer questions such as: (1) Will on-the-ground experiences change charter schools or unions? and (2) Will existing conflicts only spread, or will direct experience lead to some moderation within each party? The meeting was held on May 20, 2006 at the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington, DC. The report makes the case that if relations are to improve, three things are needed. First, to help ground the discussion in facts, we need better evidence about the charter school teaching force and the impact of chartering on issues that matter to teachers. Second, more exemplars and models of effective union-charter partnerships can help show how important problems can be solved. Finally, both groups could engage in confidence-building measures to demonstrate their desire to make progress, not just give the appearance of openness. Appended are: (1) Participants; and (2) Agenda Questions.

The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) has launched a new initiative entitled "Doing School Choice Right." Funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates, Annie E. Casey, and Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundations, the initiative's goal is to help state and local leaders handle practical issues whose resolution can determine whether school choice helps or harms children, especially low-income children in big cities. The first activity was in August 2004, when CRPE and the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings co-sponsored a two-day seminar on communities and choice held in Washington, D.C. The meeting drew together parents, researchers, and community leaders to explore the practical challenges of implementing school choice programs. As a result of this discussion, the Doing School Choice Right initiative mounted four major lines of inquiry: Explore what it takes to inform parents (especially low-income parents who normally get very little information about schools) about the choices they have so they can match their child's needs with a school's offerings. Paul Teske, a political scientist at the University of Colorado, Denver, and a recognized national expert on parent information use, leads this study. Initiate case studies on how school districts can try to help traditional public schools cope with the challenges of choice and competition. Christine Campbell, Michael DeArmond, and Kacey Guin, all with CRPE, jointly lead this study. Examine issues involved in moving toward pupil-based funding, particularly technical, legal, and regulatory barriers. Marguerite Roza of CRPE, and the recognized national leader on studies of school district budgeting and spending, leads this study. Create models for how school districts can oversee public schools in multiple ways--including direct operation, chartering, contracting, and licensing private schools to admit voucher students. Work to date on this study has been led by Kate Destler and Stephen Page of the University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs. Bryan Hassel of Public Impact, one of the few scholars ever to study public oversight of schools of choice, will lead a major fieldwork effort starting in spring 2006. These projects are still underway. This paper gives an advance report on the results of these studies, each of which will produce extensive reports in the coming year. Major studies are appended. [This document was published by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Affairs at the University of Washington.]

This paper explains how the public education system resists reforms and shows how to make much higher-performing schools available to disadvantaged children. It explains why change is so difficult and why seemingly obvious solutions will not work. The paper also shows how new ideas about teaching, learning, and effective schooling can take hold, and details a portfolio management system--new set of structures and incentives that fosters innovation, adaptability, and performance. Portfolio management is a new and different vision for education reform. It dramatically changes the roles, responsibilities, and incentives of virtually everyone in the public education system. Instead of trying to refurbish an old, ineffective public education structure, it aims to raze the current system to the ground and build a new one. Certainly, the need for such dramatic change is clear. Encumbered by a system that resists meaningful reform, the nation's schools are unable to educate millions of poor and minority students. If reformers are to build such a system, however, they must be prepared to stay with the effort and avoid partial measures. Just as new structures do not get slapped up overnight, this change will take time and effort. After all, it will require nothing less than the total transformation of the nation's public education system. (Contains 25 endnotes, 3 tables, and 1 figure.)

Long before the onslaught of Hurricane Katrina or the chaos of evacuation, New Orleans' social infrastructure was failing. News coverage of the overcrowded Superdome and the city's flooded streets exposed the poverty and vulnerability of many residents, especially African Americans. As New Orleans begins to rebuild, can the city avoid the mistakes of the past, instead creating more effective social support for low-income and minority residents? Innovation and experience from other U.S. cities offer promising strategies for reducing the risks of poverty and opening up opportunities for economic security and success. This essay is from an Urban Institute collection that addresses employment, affordable housing, public schools, young children?s needs, health care, arts and culture, and vulnerable populations. All these essays assess the challenges facing New Orleans today and for years to come and recommend tested models for making the city's social infrastructure stronger and more equitable than it was before Katrina (Contains 4 notes.)

The 2004-05 school year was tumultuous for charter schools, marked by dueling studies with conflicting conclusions on whether charter schools boost student performance or hinder it. Even before this dustup occurred, a consortium of foundations decided to support a new national research center to raise the standard of research on charter schools and provide balanced perspectives on issues that had become polarized. The result was the National Charter School Research Project (NCSRP), which is the author of this report. The report is in two parts. In the first, NCSRP provides new data that inform questions such as: Is the charter school movement growing or slowing down? Do charter schools serve more or fewer disadvantaged children than regular public schools? Are charter schools innovative? The report also identifies several important questions on which state and local record keeping needs to be improved. The second part of this report takes up issues and controversies that characterized the discussion of charter schools in 2004-2005. NCSRP's goal is to provide essays that examine these controversies in a broad context and assemble evidence in a balanced and informative way. The essays are unlikely to settle any of these issues definitively, but they may establish a more constructive basis for continued discussion. Appended are: (1) About the Authors; (2) Data Sources & Methods for Chapter 1; and (3) Charter Schools & Student Achievement: List of Studies Reviewed.

This paper focuses on the administrative costs of vouchers programs. It considers the tasks that public and private agencies must undertake and estimates the administrative burdens and cash flow that local programs create. It assumes that all voucher programs, including those meant in part to reduce overcrowding, will be voluntary. The paper starts by identifying the administrative arrangements that must be made for any public voucher program and by outlining typical roles for state government, the local education agency, a special voucher program office, and individual private schools admitting voucher students. It also examines in detail some vital administrative functions that must be coordinated among these entities. The second section focuses on the person-power and financial demands that a voucher program is likely to impose on state government, the local education agency, the voucher program office, and private schools. The final section presents estimates of the probable gross and net annual dollar costs of voucher program administration as borne by state government and cooperating local school districts. All the cost estimates are approximate. (Author/WFA)

This paper lays out a performance-based model to better leverage the mission and power of school boards toward improving student learning. It moves beyond discussions about whether boards should be elected or appointed, instead arguing that mode of selection is less directly responsible for board success than clarity and focus about its mission and its role. The paper examines key issues and provides recommendations for school reform. The paper is organized into three parts: part 1, "Why the Existing Structure of Oversight Does Not Promote School Performance"; part 2, "What Performance-Focused Oversight of Schools Would Entail"; and part 3, "How the Missions and Activities of School Boards and District Central Offices Must Change." The paper concludes with a table, supplemented by text, on governance alternatives, and a table, also supplement by text, that compares board missions under two new governance models. The paper ends with a brief discussion of responsibility and accountability in light of recent educational legislation. (Contains 29 endnotes and 2 tables.) (WFA)

Though the public believes that urban school boards should handle problems with failing schools, urban school boards spend very little time considering ways to turn such schools around or transforming the educational experiences of at-risk students. Today's school board members are expected to be interest representatives, trustees for children, and delegates of the state. These missions are in conflict because they require boards to serve different masters and accomplish different objectives. Mission confusion is one reason why school boards often look disorganized. Legislatures exercise great control over local school boards, since boards operate on a grant of authority from the state. School board duties are defined via accretion. Past approaches to school board missions (i.e., discipline via standards, school board training, and imitating boards of private business) have failed. Options for righting the balance in favor of trusteeship include broadening the constituency to which school board members answer, limiting school boards' basic powers and duties, and eliminating school boards' exclusive authority to oversee schools in a particular geographic area. Three appendices contain data on school board duties defined by accretion under state law, school board responsibilities, and how state and mayoral takeovers have changed school board powers. (Contains 26 footnotes.) (SM)

The most important burden of charter schools is the need to demonstrate that the instruction they provide actually benefits students. They can hire their own teachers, make their own tradeoffs between spending on administration and teaching, locate anywhere in the community, and let parents know in advance what a child must do to succeed in the school. Therefore, charter schools are exempt from many rules, and instead are required to demonstrate student learning. Unlike conventional schools, however, charter schools can lose their public funding and be forced to close if they cannot demonstrate that their students are indeed learning. The question becomes whether performance can replace compliance as a mechanism of accountability to government? Does dependence on parents and teachers force charter schools to ignore their responsibilities to the public? This report studies individual charter schools and their authorizers with differing legal provisions in six states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Michigan. It asks how the schools' relationships with authorizers affect their day-to-day operations, and how they develop relationships of trust and confidence. Major findings regarding internal accountability are discussed. The appendix covers survey data and analysis methods. (DFR)

This report examines the implementation of standards-based reform in Washington and whether the reform strategy has worked. The report is based on a survey of two statewide samples of elementary schools at which students had taken the Washington Assessment of Student Learning (WASL) fourth-grade test in 1997 and 1998. The first was a sample of 30 schools at which scores had improved significantly (a rate of 50% or better). The second was a group of 10 schools that served a similar population but which had experienced little, if any, improvement. The researchers interviewed each principal and collected written materials about the school's improvement strategy. Among the key conclusions is that effective changes in teaching methods and materials should be focused and schoolwide, not random and fragmented. Schools that were improving operated as teams, not loose associations. They were marked by professional development and were active in seeking help. Improving schools used their limited resources strategically and called on parents to help. Performance pressure was found to be helpful when it fosters determination and not fear. The study shows that schools can boost student achievement with concerted effort. Specific recommendations are made for policymakers, educators, parents, and community and business leaders. (SLD)

This report is based on a survey of two statewide samples of elementary schools whose fourth-grade students took a state test in reading, writing, mathematics, and listening. The first sample was a group of 30 schools whose scores had improved significantly from 1997 to 1998. The second sample was a comparison group of 10 schools that served demographically similar students and were located in the same parts of the state as the first group but whose scores had improved only slightly or not at all. The principals of the schools, or a principal's designee, were also interviewed. Findings indicate that schools that made significant gains in test scores took a proactive approach toward improvement. Principals and teachers in these schools assessed strengths and weaknesses, set a limited number of priorities, focused on improving instruction, and took the initiative to find the help the school needed. It was also found that effective changes in teaching methods and materials were focused and schoolwide, not random and fragmented; that improving schools operate as teams; that professional development is school development; that performance pressure is positive when it leads to determination, not to fear; and that improving schools do not wait for help as they make strategic use of limited resources. (RJM)

An accountability system is proposed for the education system in Washington. Reform efforts in Washington have been designed to create a school-centered system in which state standards motivate teachers, parents, and principals to search for more effective ways to help students learn. Drawing on the experience of other states, recommendations are made for a statewide accountability system that will: (1) promote school-level instructional improvement by eliminating compliance-oriented rules and regulations and transferring real-dollar resources to schools; (2) stimulate creation of a range of public and private assistance sources; (3) measure and report real, unadjusted student achievement scores; (4) empower local school districts to classify schools, reward success at the local level, work with struggling schools, and reconstitute schools that consistently fail their students; (5) re-align the responsibilities of existing state agencies; (6) create a new State Accountability Commission to review school district progress toward the state standards; and (7) allow teachers and principals to hold students accountable for diligent effort and reasonable behavior. The proposed accountability system meets the standard that all education reform efforts must meet, that of being serious enough to make real measures of student performance, assign clear responsibilities to all actors, and acknowledge the connections between educators' efforts and student achievement. (Contains two figures, two tables, and seven references.) An appendix reviews five state accountability designs. (SLD)

In March 1995 the Ohio General Assembly enacted a Pilot Project Scholarship Program intended to provide a limited number of vouchers to allow Cleveland public school students to attend alternative schools, i.e. private schools, including those operated by religious organizations, within the Cleveland city limits and public schools in surrounding suburban school districts. Vouchers were to be available for the first time in the 1996-97 school year. Voucher winners were to be chosen by lottery, with voucher winners accepted by lottery into the alternative schools with preferences given for current students and their siblings. The maximum voucher value was to be $2,500, with reductions for increasing income above the federal poverty line until eligibility ended at 200% of the poverty level. Students, once admitted, could continue receiving vouchers through grade 8, subject to continued funding by the state. Although about 4,000 families were made some kind of voucher offer, many refused. An evaluation was designed to determine why so many did not enroll, and the significance this might have for future program management and evaluation. The designed evaluation will have a study of parent choice and satisfaction, with interviews with at least 25 parents (those that enrolled children and those that did not), and a study of the initial effectiveness of the program in terms of student achievement, subject to the limitations of available data. The rationale behind and planned implementation of both evaluation components are described. (SLD)

This document addresses the difficulties of urban education, particularly relating to inner cities that contain immigrant and minority students, and argues that schools contribute to the problems of today's urban youth and that schools must do a better job of educating students. It recognizes that schools are burdened by the urban environment but contends that the public cannot wait to change schools until other problems are solved. It grants that someone must address problems, such as poor student health and family instability, but argues that educators have enough to worry about in their own backyards. Better schools will not solve all the problems of American cities, but they are definitely part of the solution. Further, the document argues that: (1) bad public schools are making their own distinct contributions to the problems of cities, (2) there is a substantial consensus among educators and parents about how schools can be made to work for disadvantaged and minority students in the big cities, (3) better inner-city schools are unlikely given today's methods of financing and governance, and (4) better schools are possible in the inner city but only if efforts are made to make a major change in what is meant by a public school. (Contains 19 references.) (GLR)

The United States is experiencing a wave of immigration unprecedented since the early 1900s. This report examines the schooling needs of immigrant students, assesses how well those needs are being met, and suggests strategies for improving schooling outcomes for immigrants. Immigrant education is examined as a political issue and as a challenge facing overburdened school systems. Data were collected from a purposive sample of 8 school districts and 55 schools. Six large urban districts that enroll the overwhelming majority of immigrant students nationally were included. A more detailed analysis was performed of the transcripts of 745 students in Los Angeles (California) schools, and 38 interviews were conducted with state-level policymakers across 6 states. Among the major conclusions is that immigrants, although they represent only a fraction of the nation's youth, are a growing population, heavily concentrated in a few areas of the country. Immigrant education is not a visible policy issue, and the needs of immigrant students are not generally recognized. The quality of schooling that immigrants receive depends on the capacity of the communities in which they live, and many have inadequate resources. Immigrant students have unmet needs that are unique to their newcomer status. Thirteen tables present study data. (Contains 55 references.) (SLD)