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

School Administrator, June, 2002 by Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ideal Opportunities

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

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

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

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

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

Eight Districts

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

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

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

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

Meeting Goals

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

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