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

School Administrator, June, 2002 by Anne Turnbaugh Lockwood

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED ARTICLE: To Charter Status and Back

BY MIKE BRYANS

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

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

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