Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools : Above and Beyond the Standards 9781781905029, 9781781905012

Citation preview

IDENTIFYING LEADERS FOR URBAN CHARTER, AUTONOMOUS AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS: ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STANDARDS

ADVANCES IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION Series Editor: Anthony H. Normore Recent Volumes: Volume 11:

Global Perspectives on Educational Leadership Reform: The Development and Preparation of Leadership Learning and Learners of Leadership – Edited by Anthony H. Normore

Volume 12:

Leadership in Education, Corrections and Law Enforcement: A Commitment to Ethics, Equity and Excellence – Edited by Anthony H. Normore and Brian D. Fitch

Volume 13:

Discretionary Behavior and Performance in Educational Organizations: The Missing Link in Educational Leadership and Management – Edited by Ibrahim Duyar and Anthony H. Normore

Volume 14:

Global Leadership for Social Justice: Taking it from the Field to Practice – Edited by Christa Boske and Sarah Diem

Volume 15:

The Management and Leadership of Educational Marketing: Research, practice and applications – Edited by Izhar Oplatka and Jane Hemsley-Brown

Volume 16:

Transforming Learning Environments: Strategies to Shape the Next Generation – Edited by Fayneese S. Miller

Volume 17:

Successful School Leadership Preparation and Development – Edited by Anthony H. Normore

ADVANCES IN EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION VOLUME 18

IDENTIFYING LEADERS FOR URBAN CHARTER, AUTONOMOUS AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS: ABOVE AND BEYOND THE STANDARDS EDITED BY

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES Co-Founder EntreNous Youth Empowerment Services, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA

SARA A. M. SILVA Co-Founder EntreNous Youth Empowerment Services, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA

United Kingdom – North America – Japan India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Group Publishing Limited Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK First edition 2013 Copyright r 2013 Emerald Group Publishing Limited Reprints and permission service Contact: [email protected] No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center. Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties, express or implied, to their use. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: 978-1-78190-501-2 ISSN: 1479-3660 (Series)

ISOQAR certified Management System, awarded to Emerald for adherence to Environmental standard ISO 14001:2004. Certificate Number 1985 ISO 14001

CONTENTS LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

ix

DEDICATIONS

xi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

xiii

FOREWORD

xv

PREFACE: OUR RATHER CIRCUITOUS JOURNEY

xvii

INTRODUCTION: YOUTHBUILD CHARTER SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA (YCSC): BUILDING AN INNOVATIVE SCHOOL MODEL FROM THE GROUND UP Phil Matero

xxi

SECTION 1: THE FUTURE BEGINS NOW THE NEW REALITY FOR CHARTER AND AUTONOMOUS SCHOOL LEADERS Roberta Benjamin-Edwards

3

DANCING WITH DATA: PURPOSEFUL DECISIONMAKING FOR CHARTER LEADERS Nancy Beeman and Lori Perez

17

CHARTER SCHOOLS: POTENTIAL TO FULFILL THE GOALS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER AND BETTER SERVE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Anthony H. Normore and Julie Slayton

29

v

vi

CONTENTS

SECTION 2: THE WAY FORWARD TEACHER AGENCY IN CHARTER SETTINGS Rudy Cuevas, Aaron Scholl, Tizoc Brenes, Emily Bautista and Crystal Leigh Maillet

45

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: A RECIPE FOR IMPROVED STUDENT OUTCOMES Stefanie Holzman and Gaetano Scotti

61

OPERATIONS AND FINANCE: KEEPING A PULSE ON THE BACKBONE OF YOUR ORGANIZATION Cameron Curry

77

BUILDING A CULTURE OF COLLABORATION IN CHARTER AND AUTONOMOUS SCHOOL SETTINGS: ALIGNMENT BETWEEN PURPOSE, PROBLEMS, PEOPLE, AND POTENTIAL Lawrence C. Wynder II

93

SECTION 3: RIGHTS AND WRONGS EDUCATIONAL LEADERS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN URBAN CHARTER SCHOOLS Jacqueline A. Stefkovich, Kevin M. McKenna and Andrew L. Armagost INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP REGARDING LAW AND POLITICS Kevin M. McKenna, Jacqueline A. Stefkovich and Andrew L. Armagost EASING THE TENSION: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALIGNING CHARTER LAW WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Hoaihuong ‘‘Orletta’’ Nguyen

117

131

145

Contents

vii

CHARTER SCHOOLS BEST PRACTICES: AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND CONTEXT MATTER Kimberly B. Hughes and Sara A. M. Silva

171

CONCLUSION: SO, WHAT’S NEXT?

187

APPENDIX: ISLLC STANDARDS

189

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

191

AUTHOR INDEX

199

SUBJECT INDEX

207

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS Andrew L. Armagost

Educational Leadership, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Emily Bautista

YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Nancy Beeman

The Classical Academies, Escondido, CA, USA

Roberta Benjamin-Edwards

Aspire Public Charter Schools, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Tizoc Brenes

YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Rudy Cuevas

YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Cameron Curry

The Classical Academies, Escondido, CA, USA

Stefanie Holzman

Education Administration, California State University, Dominguez Hills, Carson, CA, USA

Kimberly B. Hughes

EntreNous Youth Empowerment Services, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA; YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Crystal Leigh Maillet

YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Phil Matero

YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Kevin M. McKenna

Kevin McKenna, Latsha, Davis & McKenna, Exton, PA, USA ix

x

LIST OF CONTRIBUTORS

Hoaihuong ‘‘Orletta’’ Nguyen

Charter & Autonomous School Leadership Academy (CASLA) Consultant, Carson, CA, USA; San Diego State University and San Diego Unified School District, San Diego, CA, USA

Anthony H. Normore

Educational Leadership, California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks, CA, USA

Lori Perez

The Classical Academies, Vista, CA, USA

Aaron Scholl

YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Gaetano Scotti

Port of Los Angeles Charter High School, San Pedro, CA, USA

Sara A. M. Silva

EntreNous Youth Empowerment Services, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA; YouthBuild Charter School of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Julie Slayton

Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Jacqueline A. Stefkovich

Education Policy Studies, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA

Lawrence C. Wynder II

Scale Education & Research Foundation, Ontario, CA, USA

This book is dedicated in loving memory of Howard Ransom, Jr., community activist and adult education advocate, who still inspires us on a daily basis to stay true to who we are and focused on the work we were meant to do.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Dr. Normore, our mentor, teacher, and friend whom we lovingly refer to as Tony with a ‘‘y,’’ although not in your presence. Many can claim the title of mentor, but none can compare to the guidance you have and continue to provide. Your steadfast support of our ideas, dreams, and passions, never ceases to amaze us. Without your kindness, generosity, and tutelage, we would not be where we are today. There are not enough words to express our gratitude, for without you, this book, and our work, would not be possible. Dr. Antonia Issa Lahera – What can we say about Toni with an ‘‘i’’ other than you have truly been our gift. You have positively without question uplifted us no matter the adversity that was thrown our way. You inspire us to ‘‘walk our talk’’ and believe in our abilities at times more than we believe in ourselves. You were the first to hire us as we began our consulting career for California State University, Dominguez Hills to develop curriculum for both the Urban School Leaders (USL) Grant and the Charter and Autonomous School Leadership Academy (CASLA). Your support and encouragement has been unyielding. You taught us to never back down when pushed into a corner, merely to find a way out without compromising our moral and ethical compass – all while staying true to our mission. To our esteemed group of authors who took a leap of faith and joined us on this journey, not knowing where the path would lead, but believing enough in the concept to want to be a part of it. Your time, effort, and expertise brings an authentic voice to this volume and provides leaders and aspiring leaders a peek into the true realities of charter, autonomous, and independent school leadership and the skills and aptitudes needed to make real change in the world of education. Last but definitely not least, we are grateful to our families especially our husbands, Frank Hughes and Victor Silva who continue to support the insanity and are our unwavering champions in all that we do. We are truly blessed, Kim and Sara

xiii

FOREWORD ‘‘Where was this book in October of 1992?!!!’’ That was my initial reaction after reading Kim Hughes and Sara Silva’s edited book. As the founder of California’s first charter school (and the nation’s second) and CEO and Co-founder of the nation’s first charter management organization, it’s clear to me that this text would have been invaluable as education entrepreneurs worked in the early days of charter schools AND even more important today. From the St. Paul Academy start, the number of charters in the United States has grown to 6,000 þ and opportunities for innovation abound. More than 40 states have charter legislation and the impact of charters is palpable. That’s not to say every charter school fulfills its promise to the students and parents they serve. The charter school world is full of promises and, often, soaring rhetoric that is disconnected from the reality of the school designers. Saying charter schools care about the success of all students matters little if too few of them actually succeed. They need, instead, to be judged far more on their results; what they do rather than what the charter petition says. Here’s the reality. Many charter schools underperform and more than a handful can be considered colossal failures. Naivete´, over-exuberance, poor planning, and no game plan are all major culprits in the less than desired positive impact of charter schools and these factors have as much to do with the authorizers as they do with the petitioners. That’s why the Hughes and Silva collection is so important. This book highlights the work of accomplished practitioners. They capture the key intersections of theory and practice in some of the troublesome and challenging areas of charter school design and implementation. Read about the way Aspire Public Schools develops and nurtures autonomous leadership. Learn how YouthBuild USA creates a culture of innovation in every school it supports throughout the country. Finance, operations, and special education requirements are essential systems that ‘‘make or break’’ the promises a charter school and its authorizer make. Hughes and Silva provide insights on these areas as well as effective data use and curriculum design. xv

xvi

FOREWORD

In 1992 the early charter innovators were ‘‘building the plane in flight.’’ The flight plan Hughes and Silva provide is essential for today’s charter designers and the systems that authorize. I’ve been at this work since the beginning of the charter school innovation and I thoroughly enjoyed each chapter and found the insight helpful and informative. Don Shalvey Ed.D. Deputy Director Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Co-Founder Aspire Public Schools

PREFACE: OUR RATHER CIRCUITOUS JOURNEY We did not wake up one day and decide to develop an edited book on charter and autonomous school leadership. It actually happened because we both seem to have these serendipitous moments in which random events come together. As educators working for the Division of Adult Career Education for Los Angeles Unified School District, we observed what we perceived as inequities of a monolithic, bureaucratic school district in its treatment of the education of our ‘‘at-risk’’ youth. We believed that there must be more authentic leadership providing improved educational outcomes for these students underserved by the current one size fits all system. In our minds, moving away from the classroom into the administrative arena seemed to make sense if we were to effect change in the current landscape. What better way to garner more authentic leadership than to become leaders ourselves? We decided to return to school to get our administrative credential and a masters in Educational Leadership. Little did we know this one seemingly small decision would have such amazing results. After acceptance into an educational leadership masters program, we were approached to develop a charter school for pregnant and parenting teens – a group considered on all fronts at-risk, traditionally marginalized, and underserved by the current education system. We had taught high school subjects, GED and basic reading classes for this group for the better part of three years, so we felt equipped to move forward with this project. Unfortunately, nine months into the preparation and deep in development for the school to open in less than 90 days, our founder died suddenly on August 1, 2008. We lost a wonderful mentor and friend. Howard Ransom Jr., long time community activist and adult education advocate. Much like a line from a Langston Hughes poem, ‘‘What happens to a dream deferred?’’ We’re not quite sure what happens to a dream deferred, but what we do know is that you have to keep moving forward. And so we did by diving head first into our educational leadership program hoping that we would learn and grow to become the type of leaders we envisioned we could. xvii

xviii

PREFACE

Along our journey we acquired a marvelous professor, mentor and friend Dr Tony Normore, who took us under his wing. With his guidance, we looked at leadership from an ethical and social justice point of view. As we started to do research, we were inevitably drawn to leadership as it pertained to charter, autonomous, and independent schools. A plethora of literature exists on educational leadership; however, little has been written on authentic charter school leadership or about what is needed for this type of educational environment. Through presentations, papers, and publications, we continued our journey in search of authentic charter leadership. One of the foundational components of our leadership program was the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium Standards (ISLLCs), which basically in a nutshell sets forth the knowledge, dispositions, and performance required for education administrators to be effective. We believed and still do that the ISLLCs establishes basic criteria for most leaders. The challenge for us was that clearly there were more skills that a charter leader might need to improve student outcomes that went beyond what the ISLLCs prescribed. So, we went searching for research, literature, books, etc. – anything we could find that spoke to the skills charter leaders needed beyond the ISLLCs. We didn’t find what we were looking for. When we explained our dilemma to Dr Normore, he asked us ‘‘Why not just write it?’’ Thus, the concept for this book was born – a search for the requisite skill set needed to be an effective charter leader. Being newbies at the book-writing game, we sought the expertise of scholars and practitioners alike to bring their knowledge together in one cohesive book about what is needed above and beyond the ISLLCs standards to be an effective leader. All we asked of our prospective authors was for them to bring to the table (based on their individual experiences) what they believed a charter, autonomous, or independent leader needed to be effective in an urban school that went beyond what the ISLLCs stated. What we got far exceeded our expectations. This book is reflective of educators who are passionate about what they do and have a willingness to share their knowledge. Each chapter stands alone in its beauty and integrity and expresses the authors’ understanding of authentic leadership in a charter, autonomous, or independent school. We hold each of our authors in the highest esteem for the work they brought forth to this project and are eternally grateful for their time, energy, and passion. Everyone we met along the way had a fascinating story of how they ended up where they were and why they felt compelled to follow the path they were on. One story in particular struck a chord with us. It reminded us what so

Preface

xix

many in the educational continuum forget, that it is not just about ‘‘pre through college.’’ It is also about all of those students who for whatever reason have fallen through the cracks and the amazing work of educators who fight to find a place for these would-be-lost students. So, we start our book with an introduction to an urban charter school leader that reaffirms why those of us who are drawn to this work – do what we do. Our hope is that you as a reader find a chapter or two that speaks to you in a way that moves you to start or continue on your own journey in charter, autonomous, or independent school leadership. Kimberly B. Hughes Sara A. M. Silva Editors

INTRODUCTION: YOUTHBUILD CHARTER SCHOOL OF CALIFORNIA (YCSC): BUILDING AN INNOVATIVE SCHOOL MODEL FROM THE GROUND UP Phil Matero Driving home from my 10th YCSC high school graduation in less than two week’s time, having just seen our 1000th graduate walk the stage, I reflected on the joyous cheers of families and friends celebrating a victory they never thought they would know. Basking in their happiness, I started thinking about the last five years and what it had taken to achieve this dream of mine. It began with an idea that at first seemed unlikely and ill advised. In 2007, at the height of President Bush’s No Child Left Behind testing and numbers mania, I was asked to start a new school for students who had previously dropped out of high school, had a record of under-performance, and were past compulsory school age in California. When people in the field who I knew and respected heard that I was considering this venture, they thought I was crazy. Nobody would authorize a charter like that, they told me. And even if they would, you could never get the test results you’d need to keep it viable in the current climate of ‘‘accountability’’ and data-driven requirements. ‘‘How will you get youth to come back to school at that age?’’ they asked, and, ‘‘Why would you even bother?’’ They wanted me to realize that there was a reason why nobody wanted these students in their school—they would just drag down a school’s performance index. I would be committing school suicide to open up a school that was designed specifically for them. As an experienced entrepreneur at the Los Angeles Conservation Corps (LACC), a major youth-serving nonprofit organization in Los Angeles, xxi

xxii

INTRODUCTION

I was used to hearing reactions like that to my education ideas. When I was first approached to start the new school, I was in my seventeenth year at the Conservation Corps, having worked my way up from ESL teacher, then founder and Director of their Education Program, and finally Deputy Director. Over those 17 years, I had spearheaded and supported many efforts to shake or at least challenge the status quo of the organization. These often-subversive efforts, I felt, were necessary to reach better outcomes or offer more meaningful and appropriate program services to the youth who enrolled in our programs. For example, when I started working at the LACC, the program was primarily a work program. Education happened only as an afterthought and started after the hard manual work was done, usually from 4:30 to 6:00 in the afternoon, as a finishing element to a long and tiring work day recycling bottles and cans, building trails, or planting trees. The young people were exhausted when they got to my ESL or GED classrooms, and I could see this wasn’t working for them. So I set my sights on changing that in order to bring their education goals to front and center. I offered to assist in writing the major grant that the organization received from the Department of Conservation to perform conservation work, and in so doing, was able to convince the work program staff that we should take a more deliberate approach to connecting the work these students were already doing with environmental education activities. I found an ally in the Corps’ Work Department and we designed the program to be a 50/50 model, where the corps members began spending full weeks in the classroom, getting the chance to really engage in a meaningful learning experience that also deepened their connection to the work that they were doing in the field. This program, which we called LEAP, became the introductory 8 weeks to the program, and every new corps member went through the LEAP cycle before entering into the fulltime work program. After a few years of seeing LEAP yield successful results for our corps members, I was convinced we could do even more for them by giving them a chance to earn a full high school diploma rather than a GED. By 1996, the charter school movement in California was gaining momentum, and I had been able to make some connections with a charter school that would provide the resources we needed to offer the 50/50 program to every corps member for the entire year that they were in the program. By moving beyond exclusively environmental education, we could offer an academic education program that would result in our corps members earning a high school diploma, so they would leave with more than just job skills and a solid work ethic. They could graduate and go to college upon completing the

Introduction

xxiii

program, which seemed to me like the obvious next step we should take in fulfilling our mission. But the Work Program power structure at the Corps fought back. They had gone along with the LEAP concept because it had connected to the environmental values of the organization, but cutting the work experience time in half for corps members (and reducing the size and influence of the Work Program) struck a nerve with them; as a result I was accused of being crazy, risking the integrity of the Corps by suggesting we try untested and dangerous practices without understanding all the implications involved. I began to develop a thick skin: these kinds of assertions were beginning to sound very familiar coming from segments of the old guard at the Corps who were more comfortable doing things the way they had always been done. I also dug in. I knew the difference a high school diploma could make in these young people’s lives. Why sell them short? Ultimately, the plan to move to a 50/50 model prevailed and at the Corps today every corps member spends at least 50% of their time in school, and some spend even more than that, with enormous gains in the number of youth who attend and complete college after completing the Corps program. And as an educational entrepreneur, this victory encouraged me to push hard for what I believed in, creating educational support programs that would allow us to offer a residential housing options for corps members who became homeless during their enrollment with the Corps, and to increase our connections to post-secondary institutions like the California State University system. And I learned to strategize. In order to get a green light on an idea, I’d say, ‘‘I know it’s a crazy idea, but let me just apply for some funds to see if there is interest in the idea. I’m sure we won’t get the grant.’’ But we did get the grants. It turns out that some funders do like to fund innovative ideas. So, we’d get the funding and we’d be off creating updated, more rigorous education programs, or new career transition programs, or more expansive residential programs for homeless participants. My work at the Corps taught me that if I was going to take my mission as an educational entrepreneur seriously, I had to be willing to try new things and take chances. You can’t reach a lofty goal like ‘‘provide effective developmental programs for older at-risk youth’’ without taking some chances and doing new things. The field had very little research and few models to study back then. I wasn’t going to wait for a researcher to publish a study that would establish the data to prove that a strategy got results. The need to advance the field was staring me in the face as I greeted the corps members each day. We had to do better, and I figured that we could launch

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

new programs that would give the researchers something to study. I’m happy to say that typically I was rewarded with the satisfaction of knowing that most of the ideas worked, or led to things that did. We even received awards and recognition from peers for the groundbreaking work we did in the youth development world. Twice we received a Promising and Effective Practices award from the National Youth Employment Coalition and we were awarded the Environmental Education Project of the Year from the National Environmental Education Trust Fund. More importantly, we were meeting our mission by affecting trailblazing programs that gave us more effective ways to re-engage youth and produce lasting educational outcomes. By my last year as Deputy Director at LACC, we had graduated over 500 corps members from high school and placed hundreds into universities, community colleges, and public technical schools. The Education Program achieved a status at the Corps equal to that of the Work Program, and fundraising for college scholarships had become a major focus for the Board’s efforts. After seventeen years of successful, very satisfying work at the LACC earning a nice salary, and great job security, I found myself looking at a new opportunity that felt like jumping off a cliff professionally. I would be starting over, with nothing but a good idea and a lot of heart for a mission that badly needed addressing. The dropout crisis was in full swing and getting worse each year. Half or more of inner-city youth at public schools were failing to graduate, and I felt compelled to do more than what the Corps would allow me. It would remain a locally based nonprofit organization, doing great work with youth in Los Angeles, but not moving beyond that. I wanted to do more, and in many ways I felt that that my work at the Corps was done. I had been able to establish a solid place for the education program in the organization, and I had developed a strong team of educators who were now running the school program. I believed that I could move on now and the program would be fine. But on a personal level, I couldn’t deny that it seemed ridiculous (I’ve got kids, with college tuition for the youngest, and a Los Angeles-sized mortgage); and, in considering this idea for a new school, one that would serve the lowest performing students across the State, I could create a long list of reasons why this venture was ill advised. As a starting point, I only wanted to take on this project if I could try to do something that hadn’t been done yet for the dropout population in California. There were several schools around, some charters, some alternative, that were providing a chance for dropouts to earn a high school diploma, but they were typically using some kind of independent study or computer-based curriculum. Only a few were

Introduction

xxv

implementing classroom-based programs, and those who did followed a pretty traditional approach to teaching that simply re-packaged or replicated what hadn’t worked the first time around in the students’ school experience. I felt that what we had been doing at the Conservation Corps was the best thing out there. We had caring, committed teachers who took the time to work closely with students who struggled to catch up academically. It was a beautiful thing, but I wanted to do more than that. My first challenge would be to figure out how to offer 16–24-year-old youth who had quit school and in most cases had given up on their own intellectual potential the chance to get that amazing learning experience that students were getting at a Montessori school or at a forward-thinking district in Vermont where they took young people on a learning adventure that encouraged and valued their opinions and allowed them the freedom to explore their world and their place in it. I wanted a school that Paulo Freire would be proud of. Instead of being told every day what they didn’t know, I wanted students to feel good about what they did know and to be in a school that valued their knowledge, their life experiences, and their potential. Instead of being pulled back up from their failures, I wanted them to lead the way as agents for social change in their communities. I wasn’t sure that I knew how to do it, but I wanted to create a school where education would become a driving force for positive youth transformation and community change. That seemed like a worthwhile dream, but creating a school that could actually do that seemed, quite honestly, daunting, even in my most optimistic moments. The second challenge presented would be the structure of the school. I wasn’t going to rent a facility, put a ‘‘Phil’s Charter School’’ sign on it, hire some teachers, and open the doors for students. I was being asked to start this school by YouthBuild USA, a national affiliation of independent, locally based, youth development programs. A number of affiliates in California were interested in having someone start a school that would provide a high school program for their local youth participants, and YouthBuild USA wanted me to work with them to design the model and launch the school at several locations in California. I was eager to work with YouthBuild programs, as I was personally fully aligned with the values of that organization and their model fit perfectly with the kind of school I wanted to start, but the challenge would be to create a model that could operate with a small number of students at multiple sites across the state, fit in with the local YouthBuild program, reach the ambitious goals that YouthBuild USA and I had for student learning, and, of course, meet all the requirements for a public charter school in California.

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

I ended my 17-year journey at the Corps and began the process of designing the school model, working out a viable business plan, finding an authorizer, and hiring the right staff to implement the model. That process provided me with a good year and half of challenges and headaches, but I loved the freshness of the work. It energized me to be working on a new and meaningful project, one that had the potential to create far-reaching and lasting results. As I worked on these planning and design steps, at each turn, I took a deep breath and hoped that the challenges could be resolved, never really sure if a solution or resolution could be found. And yet, with each challenge came not only an answer, but also an amazing display of support, camaraderie, and cooperation. I felt like I was on a roll of good luck with each new supporter and collaborator that I met along the way. In order to create the model, I first met with the Founder and President of YouthBuild USA, Dorothy Stoneman, to see how far we could flex the YouthBuild model to fit the needs of a public school in California. The traditional YouthBuild program model included 30–40 youth in the program, with one teacher providing a GED or diploma education program. I like small schools, but that was too small. In order to develop an effective projectbased model, I felt that I needed at least four single-subject credentialed teachers so that we could have content experts in each of the core subject areas. Though it is allowed in charter school law, I didn’t want to have one teacher handling all the subject areas, and in order to get four teachers as I wanted, we needed more students. Funding in California is determined on a per pupil basis, and in order to afford four teachers, I needed at least 80 students per site. As I explained the situation, Dorothy was gracious and understanding and gave her full support for the venture. From there I worked closely with Sangeeta Tyagi at YouthBuild USA and developed a friend and an ally in this work. At the time, Sangeeta was the Director of Education at YouthBuild USA and she provided me with a complete picture of the advances in education programming that had been taking place around the country at various YouthBuild programs. We worked with education consultants and program directors to pull together the best practices and strategies to design a school program that would fit neatly with a YouthBuild program, support the overall goals of the model, and still comply with the State of California’s guidelines for charter schools. By the end of the process, we had figured out how to create a school program that would fully support the goals that YouthBuild programs embraced for youth and community transformation, and I had found a Board President who continues to support our school’s growth and evolution in her new role as Chief program Officer of YouthBuild USA.

Introduction

xxvii

The third challenge of the school design work involved creating a plan for the curriculum and instructional model. Although I was deeply committed to the idea of a project-based model, I am not an expert in curriculum and wouldn’t have attempted to design one myself. I looked at what was available and decided that the Diploma Plus model made the most sense for our school. Diploma Plus had course design templates that included backward planning based on state standards, original designs created by teachers to provide opportunities for contextualized and localized applications, and a rubric for authentic assessment that is based on Blooms’ taxonomy. It had everything I wanted, but I didn’t want to become a Diploma Plus school. I wanted our school to be identified with YouthBuild, and to be understood as collaboration between the YouthBuild Charter School of California (YCSC) and a local YouthBuild community-based organization. Slapping a third brand on the school didn’t make sense to me, so I met with Bill Diehl, then the executive director of Diploma Plus, and, as I had discovered at YouthBuild USA, he quickly saw the vision, understood what he could do to support the cause, and offered his full support. He allowed YCSC to use the program as a model for our instructional component, provided us with amazing trainers in the model, and allowed us to find ways to make it evolve and fit the needs of the YouthBuild design. Having now completed the design and the charter school petition, I braced myself for a battle to get the petition authorized by a school district, the fourth major challenge. I wasn’t disappointed. My luck in finding supportive partners seemed to run out as I banged my head into wall after wall at district offices across California. Everyone has war stories about getting a petition approved, so I won’t go into the details, but let’s just say that I was getting pretty used to rejection over the course of the year. As my colleagues had predicted, no one seemed interested in authorizing a school that was going to enroll only students who had not been able to succeed in traditional schools, scored poorly on standardized tests, and faced multiple barriers to success. Districts and County Offices found ways to stall the process until deadlines were passed, or brought in lawyers to tell me that for legal reasons that for unable to consider the petition. Once again, I needed someone to champion this project we were trying to launch and give us an opportunity to raise the bar for education at YouthBuild programs. I got a call from that champion, Terry McAteer, as he was preparing to take over the job of Superintendent of Schools in Inyo County. Terry had heard that I was looking for an authorizer, knew what I was trying to do before I even explained it, and pledged his support for the

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

charter. His board approved the petition at their next meeting, and YCSC was set to open in the Fall 2008. The final challenge would be to find staff who could design original courses and deliver the project-based curriculum to YCSC students with significant learning gaps and many barriers, fears, and insecurities about the classroom. The teachers had to be special people. The ideal candidate would be an experienced social worker who was also an expert teacher with superior skills in content and curriculum development, and who also possessed talent in the classroom for engaging students in meaningful ways. We also needed them to work in complex, multi-layered environments that would test their patience and all of their theoretical notions about education and social change! I wrote up the job announcement, sent it out, and hoped for the best. As the resumes came in, I was happy to see there were quite a few educators out there who wanted to work in a mission-driven school willing to take chances in order to achieve meaningful goals. Educators showed up to interviews and expressed a sincere desire to commit their expertise to the cause of providing a high-quality education alternative to youth who did not fare well in the traditional system. They had a dedication to the mission and talent to match. We had our team. I sent out small cohorts of these teachers to each site to deliver our high school diploma program to YouthBuild participants. These teachers performed their jobs valiantly with passion and commitment to excellence in an education program that was still under construction. They built it as we went through that first year. By the second year of the school, I was able to hire a Director of Curriculum of Instruction and Curriculum. Dr. Rudy Cuevas came to our school as we were just getting to our feet, and he provided the inspiration and solid theoretical base that we needed to take our instruction to a new level. Rudy is deeply committed to creating social justice through education, and he backs it up with a research base and a practical knowledge that has guided our instructors and given them the agency they needed to do their best work. By the end of the third year, we were able to move away from the Diploma Plus model for curriculum development because our teachers were so involved in the development of the curriculum that they had created their own manual that replaced what Diploma Plus had provided us. The Authentic and Collaborative Education (ACE) manual has now become our model for curriculum development at YCSC. As a result of the work of Rudy and the teachers, our school has become a desirable place to teach for graduates from progressive education graduate schools. Two thirds of our teachers have Master’s degrees in education and we are developing a great

Introduction

xxix

relationship with the Teacher Education Program at UCLA’s Center X, which is deeply committed to social justice and project-based learning. My concerns about finding teachers who can implement this model are a distant memory. Our team of teachers now owns the curriculum and is taking it further than I could have imagined. As we enter the fifth year of the school, I reflect on many challenges we have faced and continue to address. We are working on how best to manage a school that operates at 15 YouthBuild programs across the state, how to create and maintain integrity in our curriculum while still allowing for teacher agency and creativity, and how to work in harmony with a partnering organization and support the goals of that organization with our work. The goals and the challenges that came with creating YCSC forced us to design a very small school model that can stand on its own. It can operate anywhere in California where a YouthBuild program exists, can start up quickly, and can partner with and support the goals of the YouthBuild program. Out of necessity, we ended up creating a school model that can be replicated with integrity. We started in the 2008–2009 school year with just three sites, then added four in the second year and now operate at 15 sites at the start of our fifth year. Our student count started with 165 students in the first year and will be 10 times that number this year. In a new book called Heart, Smarts, Guts and Luck, released by the Harvard Business Review Press, authors Anthony K. Tjan, Richard J. Harringtom, and Tsun-Yan Hsieh examine the traits of entrepreneurs and provide readers with a way to become more self-aware of these traits and their importance to entrepreneurs. They studied many entrepreneurs in a variety of fields and concluded that there are four traits that are always identifiable in successful ones. Heart is about purpose and passion for an idea or a mission. The leader who is heart-dominant has a consuming passion to take an idea and make it a reality. They write, ‘‘Tell her that her idea is crazy, poorly timed, or impossible, and she’ll shrug or counter with all the reasons it will work. What matters to her is her desire to see her vision through.’’ They state that few truly successful businesses lack this kind of heart-dominant leader because it is the heart that provides a sense of meaning and purpose in the venture. It’s what makes others want to buy in. The Smarts traits provide the rational and fact-driven force that makes the numbers work in a business venture. This person is able to set a good business plan in place and keep everyone accountable to it. The authors note that they are not referring to brain-based IQ, and that people can have different types of smarts: Book Smarts, People Smarts, Street Smarts, or

xxx

INTRODUCTION

Creative Smarts. Smarts is simply the ability to recognize patterns that will lead to successful business building. They write that ‘‘The Smarts-dominant individual may not come up with the core business idea, but she has a rare ability to seize, capture, frame and extend its essence. She connects ideas, trends and patterns earlier and faster than others and shapes them into a coherent storyline.’’ ‘‘Her job is not to smother or diffuse the founder’s vision, but to ground, extend, and expand it.’’ Guts refers to the ability to either be okay with, or even enjoy, taking risks. Guts is needed in order to launch a new venture, to endure hard times, and to be able to grow and change when that is needed. The person with guts will be able to put fears, which we all have, into perspective, and be willing to stick with a conviction in the face of uncertainty. This quality is necessary alongside the others. As the authors point out, ‘‘If the world were full of passionate and purposeful people with brilliant minds, but no Guts to act, there would be no progress.’’ Luck, the last of the four traits of successful entrepreneurs, is more than just dumb luck according to Tjan, Harringtom, and Hsieh, though they acknowledge that plain old luck can certainly be a positive factor in entrepreneurship. They contend that much of what is attributed as ‘‘luck’’ is ‘‘y more a function of the right attitude and the right relationship network.’’ ‘‘Luck-oriented individuals are that way because of their attitude of humility, intellectual curiosity, and optimism that conspire with one’s relationships to coax out of the universe positive forces and events.’’ In looking back at the launch and growth of YCSC over the past five years, through the challenges that we have faced in going forward, I can see that I needed to call upon all four of these traits within myself at specific times. I think that my passion for the young people who are out of school with few positive options has provided the heart for the school. And taking on this project with its design and operational challenges was gutsy in many ways, especially in the era of NCLB. But I also realize that I have relied on collaborators and on teammates to provide some of these traits for me when I didn’t have what was needed at the time. I have constantly had to rely on the sound advice of my business advisors to provide me with the Smarts to ensure that our business plans keeps working from month to month and year to year. Our Assistant Superintendent for Finance, Dan Munis, and our Office Manager, Monique Arroyo, keep our plan on track. I created the initial business plan, but I rely on their Smarts to manage it on a day-to-day basis. I have had my share of luck in this process, in the context that the authors describe Luck and that Luck keeps coming to us in many ways, through the

Introduction

xxxi

network of relationships that have been created by our staff and in recognition and respect for the sincere work that we do every day. People want to help us. People see the mission that we have taken on and want to support it in any way they can. The Superintendent of Schools, Terry McAteer, in Inyo County, who supported the establishment of YCSC, believed in the idea for this school and from the beginning has supported us though the many challenges we have faced. Our teachers come from graduate schools that are taking notice of the work we are doing. Rudy and his team, with their progressive approach to education and commitment to social justice, give their graduates a place to teach in the ways that the schools champion. UCLA’s Teacher Education Program at Center X has become a partner in our work and they are providing a pipeline of amazing teachers to our school sites. Most importantly, the YouthBuild program directors, our collaborators, who invite us in to provide the school program to their participants, appreciate what we do and support our efforts. They give us the respect and the space we need to realize our mission. We are lucky to find ourselves in league with these many terrific partners. Finally, in thinking about the heart that this school has, which according to Heart, Smarts, Guts and Luck, is the most important trait of an entrepreneur – well, that belongs to all of us now. The mission and vision for this school started with myself and the team that helped me found YCSC, but now it belongs to everyone who joins our team. Every teacher and staff member is encouraged to find new ways to reach the mission in creative and innovative ways that will better serve our students. Teams of staff members have organically stepped up to propose and develop improved ways to effect increased learning in the classroom and ways to bridge the learning experiences of our students by connecting learning to real-world realities. They are evolving the mission and vision of the organization as they listen to our students and apply their intellect and creativity to find solutions to challenges and improvements to processes, and I have pledged to support them as they want to take bold and gutsy steps to reach our mission. I won’t deny, that I sometimes took pleasure in standing alone in the battle for ideal, but I take greater pleasure in supporting the new risk-takers and education entrepreneurs who work with me at YCSC.

SECTION 1 THE FUTURE BEGINS NOW

THE NEW REALITY FOR CHARTER AND AUTONOMOUS SCHOOL LEADERS Roberta Benjamin-Edwards ABSTRACT The national educational landscape shows exponential growth of charter, independent, and autonomous schools. Lake and Gross (2012) states that, ‘‘According to the most recent numbers available, 5,275 charter schools now enroll about 1.8 million students-about 4 percent of all public school students creating a similarly expanded need for specialized resources to train an expected 7,000 to 23,000 new charter leaders over the next ten years (p. 10). Most educational leadership books focus on skills needed for leaders in traditional public schools; the charter and autonomous school pathway is the road less traveled; asking us to think anew about what leadership on this less-traveled road should look like. Leading a charter or autonomous school in these tough economic times is much like riding a bicycle for the very first time without training wheels, on an unknown road. Those who lead in such an environment will need more than passion and conviction for improving the educational opportunities for our nation’s disenfranchised youth. This chapter focuses on the unique realities that confront leaders of smaller autonomous

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 3–15 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018005

3

4

ROBERTA BENJAMIN-EDWARDS

schools. It is designed to give perspective and furnish aspiring, new, and veteran small-school leaders with ideas, skills, and tools to deal with the myriad challenges that confront all urban public school leaders.

y Somewhere ages and ages hence: Two roads diverged in a wood, and II took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference. Robert Frost

According to Lake and Grossman (2012), ‘‘The upward trajectory of charter schools that started in the early 1990s continues to the present. The growth rate remains fairly constant; data gathered by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (2010 and 2011) indicate that the number of charter schools grew by 7.2 percent between the 2009-10 and 2010-11 school years’’ (pp. 10–11). This growth is expected to continue and immediately begs the question of additional charter leadership. Increasing vacancies and opportunities in charter and autonomous schools necessitate the availability of additional training and resources to develop future leaders. Leaders of small schools in the school reform movement in America can benefit from the opportunity to reflect on practices that enhance leadership effectiveness in the context of the new realities that they face. This chapter will present current evidence-based educational research as a foundation for strategies that contribute to successful leadership and management in six realities: (1) challenging the process effectively; (2) learning from our mistakes; (3) practicing the efficacy of Level Five leadership; (4) assembling the right team; (5) understanding the structural frame of leadership; and (6) managing relationships, conflict, and politics as a leader. Successful leadership is more likely to develop when we apply broad attitudes and perspectives. I consider myself fortunate to be working in a highly successful charter management organization (CMO) after having spent more than 35 years in the second largest school district in the United States. My current position affords me a view of the work less encumbered by the politics and bureaucracy of an extremely large system, and makes the nature and processes of direct impact on schools more visible. I am able to be more directly involved in (1) improving student achievement utilizing data analysis and (2) placing the right people in the organization. Much has been written about leadership in the last 30 years with renowned educational leadership experts organizing the significant qualities of leadership in a variety of ways. This chapter will describe ideas about the

The New Reality for Charter and Autonomous School Leaders

5

differences between leadership in a larger district and a charter or small school, illustrating how these ideas are supported by research.

CHALLENGING THE PROCESS EFFECTIVELY In The Leadership Challenge, Kouzes and Posner (1995) posit that leadership practices reside in five domains: (1) modeling the way for others; (2) inspiring a shared vision; (3) challenging the process; (4) enabling others to act; and (5) encouraging the heart. Over the course of many years in education, I found all five of these domains present in the realm of leadership. According to Kouzes and Posner (1995), ‘‘challenging the process includes searching for opportunities, challenging the status quo, taking risks, and learning from positive and negative consequences of mistakes and successes’’ (p. 35). A vital component of vision and mission in charter and autonomous schools is searching for opportunities to be creative and innovative in building schools to improve outcomes. Because charter schools are often born out of a need to alter the existing structures, challenging the process can be much more dominant than it is in the work in a large school district. Charter school leaders challenge the status quo by writing a new document (the charter) for the school. Charter Law in California (and other states) was written to provide public education opportunities for (1) the utilization of alternative curricula that include research-based effective practices and (2) the use of different governance structures. Doing something new often places you under a microscope; with increased scrutiny and with a great deal riding on your success, positive outcomes acquire even more importance. When things are not going well, you do not have the backing of stateadopted materials (e.g., large national success of the McGraw-Hill Open Court or ‘‘Imagine It’’) and curricula to rely on. Charter school leaders must manage the consequences of taking risks with new practices while at the same time ensuring continued success for the students. Collegial support is especially helpful as you venture out of the safety zone of known and proven practices to strive for even greater student learning. In addition to the special skills required by challenging existing processes and the status quo, a successful school leader needs facility with the other skill sets described by Kouzes and Posner to effectively deal with the myriad of challenges one will face during their tenure as a school leader. Each situation calls for skills related to specific domains. For example, in curriculum and instruction, a leader must have enough risk-taking capacity

6

ROBERTA BENJAMIN-EDWARDS

and conviction to persuade others to consider innovative practices that may be unfamiliar. Schools need to be open to change if they truly want improved student outcomes. When a leader pilots new evidence-based best practices, it is valuable to share the research that supports these practices with the school community. Leaders can train stakeholders to understand what information motivated them to use the new practice. When you take a risk or want to make a change, having sufficient information and sharing it enable you to plan strategically for successful implementation. Example: When you analyze data regularly (three to four or more times per year), data analysis drives the allocation of resources. For the second quarter, after winter benchmark results, the leader may change the way personnel resources (coaches, intervention teacher) are allocated. At our sites, sharing the data and involving the staff in data analysis contributed to the school community understanding the rationale underlying the staffing decisions for third and fourth quarters. In one middle school, the principal looked at each grade level in the school, student by student. The leadership discussed each student individually who had struggled with the formative assessment and questions were devised to best arrange for individual student support. Some of the questions included: What do we do to help this student? Should we add student x to the after-school program, or does he need additional intervention? Decisions were made by the entire staff with the principal. The use of an inclusive process allowed the staff to buy into the way resources were allocated for the next period. It is always important to think ahead about how people will respond and to anticipate and prepare for questions that may arise.

LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES Coyle (2009) examines the idea of looking closely at the work and learning from mistakes. This has proved to be a powerful process in improving practice in many industries, including education. He states, ‘‘Every expert in every field is the result of around 10,000 hours of deliberate practice,’’ and ‘‘As a leader you need to work on technique, seek constant critical feedback, and focus ruthlessly on shoring up weaknesses’’ (p. 17). A mindset of deliberate practice and learning from mistakes benefits leaders as well as teachers. Leaders in small schools often times supervise and coach fewer personnel than their counterparts in larger schools allowing for more intensity.

The New Reality for Charter and Autonomous School Leaders

7

Teachers have the opportunity to receive increased attention, coaching, support, and observation. With the luxury of a smaller group to supervise, a principal is able to be more involved in the work of the teacher in every classroom with increased frequency thereby helping teachers improve their deliberate practice. An ever-growing body of literature and research presents a compelling argument that the best way to learn (to be truly excellent) is to pay attention to our mistakes. Coyle (2009) goes on to say, ‘‘This is not usual practice, but something different: ‘a highly targeted, error-focused process. Something is growing, being built’ (p. 4). He continues, ‘The best way to build a good circuit is to fire it, attend to mistakes, and then fire it again, over and over. Struggle is not an option: it’s a biological requirement’ (p. 34). The more we develop a skill circuit, the less we’re aware we’re using it. The adoption of this attitude can really be helpful. Coyle (2009) uses a quote from Michelangelo to bring home this point, ‘If people knew how hard I had to work to gain my mastery, it would not seem so wonderful.’ Education is not only a profession, but an art: leaders and teachers have to be given the time to gain mastery’’ (p. 65). We know leaders work hard and long; we have to add the understanding that the practice of skill circuits will help principals to develop greater efficiency, thereby increasing the impact of time spent. Coyle maintains that, ‘‘A culture of learning occurs where we learn from multiple kinds of data where errors are not ignored and not punished and where errors provide our sweet spot from which to learn and grow’’ (2009, p. 11). He describes the ideas of deep practice, ignition, and master coaching to improve your work. Deep practice involves trying something repeatedly and examining patterns in order to learn more about how to continue to improve. This research has been applied more frequently to the teaching aspect of education than the leadership component. As leaders we may be reluctant to afford ourselves the luxury of practice as a facet of the work we do. We think of leadership as a symbol of not making important mistakes; it may seem to be an oxymoron to suggest that a leader engage in deep practice in order to continually improve. A safe climate in which to take risks, making mistakes and learning from them is critical to increasing the effectiveness of school improvement. As the leaders of an organization, we can provide opportunities or create a culture that nourishes practice. In smaller school environments, the locus of control is tighter, and you have a closer relationship with your supervisor. Supervisors can share a leader’s desire to engage in ongoing deep practice. When supervisors in autonomous

8

ROBERTA BENJAMIN-EDWARDS

environments have fewer principals to coach, they too can benefit from Coyle’s ideas. Example: A principal was struggling with time management and efficient decision making, but she possessed numerous other strengths. As her supervisor, I needed to provide suggestions to her in a safe environment and I gave her opportunities to experiment with more effective strategies. She needed time to practice new ways of behaving. One of this principal’s difficulties was establishing and maintaining boundaries for her stakeholders during conversations and meetings. In response to our discussions, she now tries to be more precise and efficient in her discussions and with her time frames. Her patterns are deeply entrenched, so the modification of behaviors she has practiced will take time to change. No one gets lost in a smaller autonomous or charter school environment and no one can hide. Increased visibility can make a powerful difference in how leaders can be coached and developed. Though it may sometimes be uncomfortable to receive feedback, increased information about one’s practice contributes to greater thoughtfulness in decision making.

PRACTICING THE EFFICACY OF LEVEL 5 LEADERSHIP In Good to Great (2001), Collins outlines his ideas of what can make an organization not only good, but also great. One of his major themes is the concept of Level Five leadership. Collins states, ‘‘Level 5 leaders channel their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It’s not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious-but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution, not themselves’’ (p. 39). The ability to use one’s role as a mover of an organization is a necessary quality for a school leader to possess and contributes to success as a school principal. Collins describes being struck by ‘‘how good-to-great leaders did not talk about themselves.’’ During interviews with these leaders, ‘‘they’d talk about the company and the contributions of other executives as long as we would like, but would deflect discussion about their own contributions’’ (p. 27). I, too, find the ability to put the institution first helps in building an extraordinary leadership team and culture in a small school. Example: A new school principal sustained a concussion during the first week of school. He improved after a few days’ absence and returned to

The New Reality for Charter and Autonomous School Leaders

9

work. Several months later, his attendance became inconsistent and he was often absent for half the day. He had trouble delegating responsibilities to another person on his staff; and his teachers and staff were struggling. He was frustrated because he wanted to be there every day, but his physical pain prevented him from doing so. As his supervisor, I pointed out to him that despite my concern for him and my wish for him to get better; I must consider the needs of the school, students, and staff to have a full-time and consistent leader. We needed to develop a plan that would allow a subordinate to take over during his absences. When he saw that his staff was being affected, he was able to embrace the Level 5 leadership trait, saying, ‘‘I need to do what is best for the students and school community, whatever that is.’’ The principal began to delegate more tasks effectively during his absence and then, soon after, his health and attendance improved and he was able to resume his normal duties and responsibilities.

ASSEMBLING THE RIGHT TEAM A second important Collins theme is ‘‘placing the right people on the bus.’’ In 2001 Collins (quotes Ken Kesey from the Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test by Tom Wolfe, p. 83), ‘‘There are going to be times when we can’t wait for somebody. Now you’re either on the bus or off the bus’’ (p. 41). This is no less true in the field of education: we must have the right people on the education bus. Children are our most important commodity; they should have the best teachers and leaders. Collins in 2001 highlights a steel company, Nucor, that created an environment where hardworking people would thrive and lazy workers would either jump off or get thrown right off the bus. Nucor rejected the old adage that people are your most important asset. ‘‘In a good-to-great transformation, people are not your most important asset. The right people are’’ (p. 51). In a large school district, there are often people who are not the right people and yet they stay seated, sometimes for years, on the bus. The very scale of the large school district allows inept personnel to fall through the cracks. A charter school has the advantage of the increased internal visibility I mentioned earlier. Many charter schools in Los Angeles try to create an environment where educators who are committed and hardworking stay and those who are not are asked to leave. This philosophy has faced many challenges and barriers; it is difficult to implement in harmony with collective bargaining. It demands that leaders learn the skills of recruiting, recognizing and hiring the right educators, as well as, the skills of managing

10

ROBERTA BENJAMIN-EDWARDS

the ongoing relationships. When someone turns out not to be the right person, how does a leader respectfully help the educator move on? Sometimes the skill deficits do not emerge during initial interviews and demonstrations and staff is hired. A few months down the line you realize the fit is poor and the hiring practices are not aligned with the organization. What do you do? Many leaders are not trained in the skill sets required to work closely in supporting and coaching their teachers and staffs. Example: A principal performed well in some ways, but became increasingly disorganized and began to rely on others to lead. Rather than sharing leadership, she abdicated it and as the school grew, problems emerged. However, she was beloved by her staff because she had built a strong school culture and nurtured everyone. It became evident she was not able to lead but it was difficult to think about firing her. Coaching her was unsuccessful because she was unable to develop more effective organizational skills that would have enabled her to lead her school. In a large system, she might have survived by being overlooked, but in a smaller setting, her weaknesses were glaring. Ultimately, she was fired and was replaced by a more effective leader and the school moved forward in the right direction.

THE STRUCTURAL FRAME OF LEADERSHIP Bolman and Deal (2008) utilize the concept of frames as graphic organizers for leadership arenas. They categorize their ideas into four frames: structural, human resource, symbolic, and political. The structural frame for a leader in a charter or autonomous school is formidable because it encompasses a greater number of responsibilities than those carried by leaders of larger schools. Leaders in small schools are solely responsible for many aspects of the structure of a site, sometimes even assisting with finding and securing facilities. Campbell et al. (2008) states, ‘‘One challenge leaders must face is finding facilities for schools’’ (p. 3). Lake (2008) states, ‘‘charter schools face an unprecedented, unique problem as a result of a lack of a central office. Sometimes a charter leader will need to help with securing and managing facilities’’ (p. 3). In 2008 Robelen found that ‘‘Leading a successful public charter school requires a combination of business skills and education expertise, in varying proportions depending on the school’s organizational design’’ (p. 5). In large school districts the district office handles all facility needs. Leaders in noncharter traditional schools occupy buildings that have already been purchased, leased, or rented and are therefore responsible only for

The New Reality for Charter and Autonomous School Leaders

11

supervision of custodial staff. A charter leader, by contrast, is responsible for hiring and supervising the custodial staff, and possibly for recruiting individuals to do maintenance work. These operational activities take time away from instruction and demand another set of skills to perform them successfully. The structural frame also includes the fiscal side of educational management. In a larger district, budget functions are handled by the central or district office and the principal may have some small accounts for supplies and discretionary items. The leader meets annually with an analyst from the district to discuss future staffing needs and any minor areas that may come up. Sites may do some minor fundraising. CMOs may need to do major fundraising that is extremely time consuming and this may be harder for individual sites, stand-alone charters, or small schools to do. The financial domain is only a minor part of the leader’s role in a large school district. In charter schools, the principal often times has autonomy over the budget and deals with management of funds on a daily basis. Because funding is directly related to average daily attendance (ADA), a charter leader may focus strongly on maintaining a very high attendance rate to enable the site to receive the maximum per pupil funding. The emphasis on ensuring consistent student daily attendance demands leaders build positive incentive programs for perfect attendance and ensure strong follow through on absences and truancies. Interestingly, although facilities, attendance, and budget comprise a great portion of the charter principal’s role, charter principals should spend the majority of their time on the instructional aspect of their work if they are strong and focused managers. The additional budgetary tasks do not detract them from a central focus of instructional leadership. The pressure might be challenging, but for many small-school leaders, the pressure provides additional focus. The small-school leader needs to be a very efficient time manager to balance the operational and instructional sides of small school management.

HOW TO MANAGE RELATIONSHIPS, CONFLICT, AND POLITICS AS A LEADER Principals of charters and autonomous schools possess flexibility to hire staff and purchase materials and equipment and these tasks require specific skills. Staff recruitment, selection, and hiring move us into another frame from Reframing Organizations by Bolman and Deal (2008) – The Human Resource Frame. In all school settings, the principal must manage the

12

ROBERTA BENJAMIN-EDWARDS

dynamic of school relationships, the heart of the human resource frame. It is the people who make the organization and provide the opportunities, the struggles, and the rewards. Blankstein (2010) states, ‘‘relationships are a crucial element of student achievement and school success. An efficacious leader must manage the relationships of both the children and the adults at the site. The leader must hire people who share the vision of the school and then assist them in the dynamics of collaboration, team building, and all aspects of working together’’ (p. 12). When a leader is responsible for all aspects of the hiring process (by the school district or charter), processing paperwork, credentials, etc., he or she may not be able to rely on a back or central office to complete those tasks. Bolman and Deal’s (2008) third frame is the symbolic frame. Two of the propositions mentioned by the authors with this frame are: ‘‘(1) What is most important is not what happens, but what it means and (2) activity and meaning are loosely coupled; events and actions have multiple interpretations as people experience life differently’’ (p. 253). The leader must be aware of these propositions, especially understanding that each person attaches individual meaning to a situation. For some principals, this would be almost like learning another language. The leader must be clear in his/her ideas with the knowledge that the communication might sound very different to the staff than was intended. The more the leader can express specific ideas with clarity and simplicity in written and oral communication, the less likely it is that communications will be interpreted in widely disparate ways. Another component of the symbolic frame is building a positive culture. A strong culture is the foundation of a resilient educational institution. Rituals and celebrations play a significant role in building trust and culture. Again, as stated by Bolman and Deal (2008), ‘‘facing uncertainty and ambiguity, people create symbols to resolve confusion, find direction, and anchor hope and faith’’ (p. 253). Good leaders and good schools create rituals and symbols to anchor their constituents. Daily rituals such as preschool college chants and more episodic ceremonies such as Student of the Month Awards help build a specific school culture and keep it strong. Example: At Aspire Charter Elementary schools in California, during the morning assembly, students chant college cheers and the specific school cheer to start the day. During these short meetings the entire school performs a general cheer about going to college and then each grade or classroom chants its specific college cheer. The chants are created by the classroom and are from the university or college for which the classroom is

The New Reality for Charter and Autonomous School Leaders

13

named; often the university chosen is the one that the teacher attended. Each day parents, teachers, administrators, and students are reminded about the ‘‘College for Certain’’ culture of aspire and this ritual provides daily direction for students and families to go to college. Finally, Bolman and Deal (2008) point to the political frame in organizations. School districts are organizations, so they too are ‘‘coalitions of assorted interest groups and individuals, they all have enduring differences in values and beliefs’’ (p. 194). Leaders of large schools in districts and leaders of small autonomous schools deal with a variety of situations both internal and external. Educational leaders frequently face issues involving financial support because stakeholders are competing for the same scarce educational resources. As Bolman and Deal (2008) state, ‘‘scarce resources and enduring differences put conflict at the center of dayto-day dynamics and make power the most important asset’’ (p. 195). Leaders need skills to deal with the conflicts that arise when people feel they are losing in a particular situation. People may exhibit aggressive behaviors when they are fighting for their side. When situations become polarized, principals must be able to use diplomacy, negotiation, and compromise. Although children are the primary clients in schools, it is often adults who require the attention of the leader, as illustrated in the example below. Effective management of such situations leads to better and smoother school governance. Example: A charter school has been housed in a neighborhood churchowned building for 5 years and the lease included specific requirements including that the school hold no dancing or holiday celebrations on the site and the charter school requested the removal of all religious icons. For 5 years, in problematic situations, negotiations were handled carefully with persons from both sides working together. This year a problem arose with the County Assessor’s office and a new person from the charter back office worked with the church council. The charter Officer was clumsy in handling a delicate situation involving the implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 48 requiring public schools to teach Gay and Lesbian and Transgender history (which goes against the religious doctrine of the Baptist Church). The school wanted to set up a meeting to discuss this issue; however, the meeting was not arranged in a timely manner. The home office sent a written statement regarding SB 48 to the church. When at last a face-to-face meeting occurred with the church council and school personnel, much negotiation was needed to steward the conversation. By then, the church had decided unilaterally to end the lease because of the

14

ROBERTA BENJAMIN-EDWARDS

brusque handling of the fiscal issue and SB 48 situations. If the in-person negotiation had occurred early in the process, the lease would still be in effect. Because the school was a community-based school and included children from the Church council, the outcome of the meeting required graceful handling. It was important the charter leader remain calm, respect the other point of view, and leave the situation as a decision that, while not favorable to the school, would not destroy existing positive relationships.

CONCLUSION This chapter provided discussion of five realities that can enhance leadership effectiveness in small and autonomous schools: challenging the process, learning from mistakes, practicing Level Five leadership, assembling the right team, structural frame of leadership, and managing conflict and politics as a leader. Current research was presented to undergird and guide the use of these frameworks for leaders. The size and structure of small and autonomous schools demand a leader be very focused and involved with the staff. Leaders in such schools will be engaged in many different kinds of tasks, and organization will be critical to their success. The principal, who will be evaluating and coaching the teaching staff, must have a high degree of instructional knowledge and a well-developed ability to assist instructors in improving practice. Teachers’ awareness of the leader’s skill will be heightened because of close proximity. A small-school leader is responsible for facets of the work such as management of budget, personnel, and facilities, so he/she will have to juggle disparate tasks. The ability to remain centered and calm in times of pressure from external and internal forces and groups is central to effective leadership. Therefore, it is imperative that leaders reflect on their practice daily and seek out mentors to assist with being a thought partner for feedback as the reflection process takes place. The colleague can also be helpful in solving problems and creating alternative solutions. Leadership can be lonely. Work/life balance will assist the efficacious leader in the ability to center on the work when the need is there. No one can only work hard and not have places and arenas to rest mind and body, so one can return to work refreshed and ready for the road ahead. In this chapter, the author has described a fresh perspective on leading small and autonomous schools in urban settings, based on integration of research on foundational aspects of leadership with the new realities faced by a growing number of charters, autonomous, and independent schools.

The New Reality for Charter and Autonomous School Leaders

15

Even as we have begun to understand our current landscape and its requirements, the landscape is shifting. As time passes and society evolves, the need to examine leadership in changing circumstances and to develop additional skill sets that respond to the circumstances will continue to be an important aspect of reflective educational leadership practice.

REFERENCES Blankstein, A. (2010). Failure is NOT an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Bolman, L., & Deal, T. (2008). Reframing organizations: Artistry, choice and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Campbell, C., Gross, B. & Lake R. (2008). The high-wire job of charter school leadership. Education Week, 28(3), S6–S8. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great. New York, NY: Harper Collins. Coyle, D. (2009). The talent code. New York, NY: Random House. Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1995). The leadership challenge. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. Lake, R., & Gross, B. (2012). Hopes, fears and reality: A balanced look at American schools Charter Schools in 2011. Washington, DC: National Charter School Resource Center. Robelen, E. W. (2008). Management networks strive to grow like-minded schools. Education Week, 28(3), S14–S16. Wolfe, T. (1999). The electric kool-aid acid test. New York, NY: Bantam.

DANCING WITH DATA: PURPOSEFUL DECISION-MAKING FOR CHARTER LEADERS Nancy Beeman and Lori Perez ABSTRACT Educational leaders promote the success of all students by responding to diverse academic, social, and emotional needs within the school community. The effective collection, analysis, and use of data to guide decisions are critical factors to maximize student progress and sustain an effective school culture. Amidst the volumes of data derived from a learning community, administrators need to be savvy in selecting data that will help inform sound decisions. Data should be aligned to standard-based instructional practices and be unbiased, relevant, meaningful, and manageable. The use of data is part of a larger inquiry process as school leaders seek to positively affect the learning progress of each student. Critical to this process is the capacity of each community member, whether teacher, parent, student, or administrator, to feel empowered and equipped to gather, analyze, understand, and apply data results to improve the instructional program for each child. Educational leaders must develop and sustain the capacity of the community to use data effectively to ensure the growth and success of the school. This process has even greater importance

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 17–28 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018006

17

18

NANCY BEEMAN AND LORI PEREZ

and significance for charter school leaders who have taken the initiative to step outside the traditional boundaries of education and who seek to implement innovative models for education.

Charters granted by a local school district, a county office of education, or the state Board of Education, give educational leaders the opportunity to separate and step away from a system designed to meet the educational needs of students bound together merely by geography. Building and sustaining a successful comprehensive approach for all students and all needs is a daunting goal that is rarely, if ever, fully achieved. Chartering legislation gives innovative educators the freedom to step outside the departmental structure of the district schools and the flexibility to create new architectures for learning (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008). These innovative structures for learning are typically designed to meet the educational needs of a student population that may be underserved by the comprehensive approach. A need is recognized, a vision is cast, and the hardwork of forging a new path is begun. Designs, decisions, plans, and actions are best if built upon relevant data gained from experience, observation, and research. Charter school leaders must possess leadership skills that often go beyond that required by traditional district or site leaders. In this chapter, the importance of using data to guide the design and sustainability of successful charter schools will be examined. Inseparable from the importance of data itself are the skills and dispositions of the school administrator. Data in the hands of an educational leader who promotes the success of all students and who responds to diverse community needs and interests can be a critical factor in maximizing student progress and in sustaining an effective school culture. Ideally, educational leaders are data-guided individuals whose goals are continually focused on individual achievement: academic, social, and emotional. The scope of this chapter is not to prescribe a plan to be implemented but to provide the tools with which to begin. Developing a culture and system of continuous improvement that places student learning at the heart of its efforts begins with the collection and examination of data (Datnow, Park, & Wohlstetter, 2007). Schools that have achieved success through effective use of data have some common features highlighted in the sections that follow.

19

Dancing with Data

DATA-GUIDED PREMISE Without analyzing and discussing data, schools are unlikely to identify and solve the problems that need attention, identify appropriate interventions to solve those problems, or know how they are progressing toward achievement of their goals. Data are the fuel of reform. Goldring and Berends (2011)

Understanding and using data about school and student performance is fundamental to improving schools. Data-guided instruction focuses on what kids know and what they are able to do. Data has always been a force in the business world. Data related to sales and marketing, demographics, and production costs are just a few examples of the numbers, that, once analyzed, drive daily business decisions and future projections. Businesses thrive or die based on effective use of data. But, while data has long been a cornerstone of business, it is only in recent years that school leaders have adopted the practice of using numbers to drive school change (reform) and turn out an improved ‘‘end-product’’ – students prepared to take their place in the world of the 21st century. Data essentially sets a course of action and keeps a school community on course to school effectiveness and student success (Jandris, 2001). Lewis, Madison-Harris, Muoneke, and Times (2010) point to research that has shown that using data in instructional decisions can lead to improved student performance (Wayman, 2005; Wayman, Cho, & Johnston, 2007; Wohlstetter, Datnow, & Park, 2008). No single assessment can tell educators all they need to know to make well-informed instructional decisions, so researchers stress the use of multiple data sources. Generally, schools collect enormous amounts of data on students’ attendance, behavior, and performance, as well as administrative data and perceptual data from surveys and focus groups. But when it comes to improving instruction and learning, it’s not the quantity of the data that counts, but how the information is used (Hamilton et al., 2009). The 21st-century educational climate is a high-stakes, high-pressure environment. Weaknesses and school failures are highly publicized and scrutinized by the media, educators, politicians, parents, and the public. Too often, district administrators have ‘‘pulled education reform models off the shelf and imposed them on schools like martial law’’ (‘‘Game Plan,’’ 2007, p. 1). School leaders who are committed to educational reform, whether it be through the existing system or through an innovative charter school, cannot afford to employ such hit-and-miss strategies. The effective use of data and research is imperative in finding or developing the best program,

20

NANCY BEEMAN AND LORI PEREZ

the most innovative school practices, and the most successful instructional strategies that will result in maximizing learning and academic progress for each child. Ensuring data is current and driving the instructional decisions for each child is critical to the success of any school system. While current school trends that look at school-wide, grade-level, or disaggregated groups of students with ‘‘wide-brush strokes’’ are an improvement over the former approach of examining data over the entire school system, it’s the more personal ‘‘drilling-down’’ approach looking at each child’s successes and challenges that has potential to create the most measurable gains. The authors have experienced over time, that utilizing a personalized approach for each learner, which provides direct instruction for the identified gaps in learning, resulted in the greatest gains in academic achievement. This is accomplished by effective teachers who keep regular, measurable data and who have been trained with the skills and attitudes necessary to recognize the messages provided in the data and to ultimately address the needs of each child.

WHAT CONSTITUTES ‘‘GOOD’’ DATA? More educational data is being gathered now than ever before. But data by itself gets you nowhere. Barrett and Greene (2011)

Successful use of data to drive decision-making is not random, but results from a strategic focus on specific issues (Barneveld, 2008). However, administrators need to be wary of data obtained without assurance of validity, reliability, and bias. Only then can the data have any chance of providing the means for effective instructional improvement, educational reform, or school development. Without those requirements, data-guided decisions will be nothing more than a shot in the dark. Beyond those requirements, ‘‘good’’ data is data that will clarify, add meaning, give insight, or provide direction in building an effective program to meet an identified need. In making data-guided decisions, school administrators and leaders must be careful not to weigh too heavily on one source of data. School leaders must go beyond achievement data because the context is missing and context provides a valuable lens for the achievement data (Sorenson, Goldsmith, Mendez, & Maxwell, 2011). A diverse array of data from multiple types of assessments, classroom observations, professional community discussions, student and family interviews or surveys, and recent research in the field should be collected and analyzed. Triangulation

21

Dancing with Data

(looking at three types of information) is a common way of examining data in schools. In the next section we will look at various forms of data useful in making informed, intentional, and impactful decisions. Examination of this ‘‘triangulation of data’’ allows school personnel to make an accurate reflection of student academic achievement. Good assessment data is always aligned to standard-based instructional practices. Only then is the data useful for instructional decision-making. Common to school systems that have successfully implemented the use of data for continuous improvement is the alignment to standards (Datnow et al., 2007). Good assessment data allows results to be meaningful and easily understood by, parents, staff, and the community. Educational leaders often serve as the interpretive link between the data and the nonprofessional community in explaining the significance of the information. Effective leaders, in turn, find value in the ideas and observations of the community they serve. Similarly, students should know what is being measured and why it is being measured. This factor is often left out of the typical equation of a teacher reviewing test results and gaining value from the data provided. Student buy-in/motivation adds critical value to the data and is a large part of the overall success for learning. Finally, good data, whether it is from assessments (quizzes, daily notes, work samples, summative exams), demographic studies, surveys, observations (by administrator, teacher, student, or parent), interviews, or research, is valid, reliable, unbiased, meaningful, and relevant to the goal of effective instruction and purposeful education.

TYPES OF DATA In the context of education, data is synonymous with information. Data can be derived from numbers, observations, or conversations. Educational data includes student achievement data (standardized tests, formative classroom assessments, portfolios, class work, running records, alternate ranking, etc.), attendance and behavioral logs, demographic information, and family/ community information. In as much as information can be found anywhere about anything these days, educational leaders must build their capacity to match data to program goals formed from student needs. Maintaining the focus on ‘‘what do kids know, and what are they able to do’’ is key to its effective use. As we have noted, data can be classified in a variety of ways. Dr. Dennis Fox (2004) identifies three types of data that can be most useful: outcome

22

NANCY BEEMAN AND LORI PEREZ

data, demographic data, and descriptive data. Data that answers the question ‘‘what did the adult(s) do to cause any effect on kids’’ is outcome data. This data distinguishes between teaching and learning. Analysis of this data leads to clear, statistical cause-and-effect conclusions. The most effective way to capture this data is collection every 4–6 weeks based on established learning outcomes (targets) that have been clearly articulated to students and parents in advance. Learners must know the targets, how they will be guided to reach the targets, and how mastery of the targets will be measured (resulting in outcome data). Demographic data or ‘‘what the learners bring to the table’’ is another effective piece of the data puzzle. For example, understanding that children in poverty actually process only two thirds (often half) of the words spoken to them is important. (This is not an ELL issue; it is an economic issue for all children). Similarly, children from families that provide a literate environment are likely to be more successful in school than children who lack this initial advantage. Demographic data matters to all stakeholders, parents, teachers, staff, and leaders. The third type of data Fox considers is descriptive data. This data is essentially derived by answering the question, ‘‘what is’’? This type of data can be organized into patterns and trends built around descriptions of current processes and perceptions. For example, the bell schedule is ‘‘what it is.’’

PROCESS FOR USING DATA FOR SCHOOL FOCUS School improvement, whether it is individualized, in one classroom, with one group of students, or campus-wide, begins with a strategic focus on a specific issue. It is important to recognize the cyclical process of school improvement. This cycle begins with recognizing and articulating the specific issue, then proceeds to effective data collection and analysis and the development of a strategy or educational program (a teaching strategy, a program for reading intervention among third graders, or a charter school). Finally, each cycle ends (and begins) with the evaluation of the strategy’s or program’s effectiveness by the continued collection and analysis of data. It is important to note that the use of data alone is never enough. Decisions guided by data analysis must be informed, as well, by the identification of available resources and recent, relevant research. There is much research and many opinions of what constitutes effective use of data, on what process of using data leads to the most successful

Dancing with Data

23

decisions. Researchers Heritage and Chen (2005) propose five steps to effective data use: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Determine what you want to know Collect or access data Analyze results Set priorities and goals Develop strategies

Schmoker (2003) adds his own emphasis to the importance of focusing on a few simple, specific goals in order to improve student achievement results. The effective use of data depends on simplicity, economy, and focus. Using data to guide decisions can have an extraordinary impact on a school. One of the greatest benefits for schools is better decision-making at all levels, whether it be in the classroom, in a parent conference, or at the site or district level. Better decisions are made because they’re based on informed reflection, indisputable information, and research. School leaders should not shy away from bringing data to their families and other stakeholders. By using varied datasets, leaders serve as cultural translators to ensure stakeholders understand the school data, do not lose sight of campus and academic needs, and see the possibilities in school reform (Sorenson et al., 2011). Another benefit in effective use of data is in the support it provides for site-leader decisions if faced with opposition, whether from the community, parents, or staff. Using data also provides the leader with a way to evaluate the success or failure of decisions believing that ‘‘failure does lead to success’’ more often than not. Finally, using data can assist in concretely demonstrating the needs of the school community, so leaders can lobby for the resources to assist in implementing site programs at the local, state, and federal levels. As administrators work with their school community of teachers and parents to seek out the information provided when data, practice, and research are examined, it is important to keep basic strategies of teaching and learning in mind. Engage the community, promote discovery, unveil knowledge gaps, and entertain unexpected and innovative ideas. The community will often identify a big red X on something that needs to be discovered in order to realize improved learning for children. This red X can end up driving the actions and decisions for many years (Heath & Heath, 2008) and, thus, result in sustained school or programmatic reform. Sometimes, the first step in using data is to overcome the belief that the process is overwhelming and too complicated. The benefits are too great to let misperceptions or perceived grandeur of the task be an impediment.

24

NANCY BEEMAN AND LORI PEREZ

Student data must be viewed as a portal to opportunities for genuine improvement. Another hurdle that often delays analysis and action is the sheer amount of data available to administrators. Start small with a single issue and expand over time. Build a process; jump in and begin the cycle: identify – collect – plan – act – measure – repeat. In utilizing the Focus on Learning process provided by WASC (Western Association of Schools and Colleges), a school community can begin to unpeel the ‘‘onion’’ of their own data to reveal a path of increased student achievement. For more information on the Focus on Learning process (a two-year cycle) contact WASC at http://www.wascsenior.org/. Finally, Sorenson et al. (2011) succinctly describe the process of effectively using data to improve school and student achievement in terms of the ISLLC (Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium) and the ELCC (Educational Leadership Constituent Council) standards for school leaders. Effective principals work in collaboration with the school community (teachers, parents, students) to collect, organize, and interpret all relevant data as a method of determining which issues impair the overall improvement of a school. This process includes examining the data as the inquiry process begins. A leader then discusses what the data reveals and how such data reveals issues that are either negatively or positively impacting the learning community. Finally, through collaborative efforts, a needs’ prioritization list is developed and the information is compiled for effective action and implementation.

BUILDING CAPACITY The case studies of schools effectively implementing data-guided decisions, conducted by Datnow et al. (2007), clearly reveal the need for leaders to build capacity (grow success) by empowering educators to use data to inform instruction at the school level. The key strategies leaders of these schools undertook to empower educators were (1) investing in professional development, (2) providing support for staff in how to use data and modeling data use and data discussions, (3) providing time for teacher collaboration, and (4) connecting educators across schools to share data and improvement strategies. It must be the goal of every educational leader to build capacity for selfanalysis, programmatic reflection, and change. Ravitch (2010) quotes Carl Cohn, former San Diego superintendent, ‘‘Any genuine school reform is dependent on empowering those at the bottom.’’ Ravitch continues, ‘‘Can

Dancing with Data

25

teachers successfully educate children to think for themselves if teachers are not treated as professionals who think for themselves?’’ (p. 67). Educational leaders must build capacity within each building. Teachers are the beginning and the end of sustainable school reform and school choice. For more than two decades, proponents of systemic education reform have outlined several strategies aimed at increasing student learning by building capacity for increased student achievement. The research of O’Day, Goertz, and Floden in Building Capacity for Education Reform (1995) suggests that these strategies themselves may be important avenues for building teacher and organization capacity to achieve goals of standardbased reform.  Articulating a reform vision. Articulating and establishing a reform vision can provide a frame for creating and evaluating all aspects of the reform. Vision is a central component of organizational capacity. The message contained in the vision is the core, the heart of purpose. Core messages help people avoid bad choices by reminding them of what’s important (Heath & Heath, 2008). In addition, the very process of establishing a common vision can itself be a capacity-building endeavor for the public and for educators. School improvement is best achieved and has the greatest chance of being sustainable if built upon consensus and the shared goal of improved student achievement.  Providing instructional guidance. Providing instructional guidance – such as state curriculum frameworks, instructional materials, professional development activities, or assessments linked to standards – can promote capacity in two central ways. It can help teachers, schools, and districts construct curriculum, design instructional strategies, promote professional development, and evaluate progress. And it may provide additional opportunities for professional learning through direct professional development activities such as analyzing performance assessments, collaboratively developing effective intervention strategies, and identifying and implementing best practices that match classroom or school-wide goals.  Restructuring governance and organizational structures. Giving teachers and schools discretion over decisions relevant to instruction can enable them to organize in ways that increase their ability to serve student needs, achieve standards, and provide personnel with opportunities for collaboration and learning. The backbone of school-community monthly meetings should be data that has been collected in the last 4–6 weeks. Teachers, administrators, students, and parents should be invited to examine trends grade-by-grade, subject-by-subject, and subgroup-by-subgroup.

26

NANCY BEEMAN AND LORI PEREZ

 Establishing evaluation and accountability mechanisms. To the extent that accountability structures are consistent with reform goals, they can focus attention on attainment of goals and provide useful information on weaknesses that need to be addressed. In addition, the very processes and mechanisms used for accountability can be designed to promote reflection and facilitate learning on the part of educational personnel. ‘‘Inspecting what you expect’’ is as true with data as it is with anything else in life. To build capacity at the site-level educators must use site/classroom/ individual assessment data to improve student achievement with simplicity, economy, and focus (Schmoker, 2003). The job of an administrator is to focus educators (teachers/para-professionals/parents) on improving student learning. This focus will be sustained if educational leaders: 1. Connect data and standards being used 2. Focus attention on THE critical questions – how do you know students are learning and how do you measure success? 3. Organize data in an effective format for ease of use 4. Distinguish between descriptive data and interpretations 5. Disaggregate data in a meaningful manner In a series of leadership institutes attended by one of the authors of this chapter, presenters from the Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center posed four questions to institute participants from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Building capacity, claimed the presenters, boils down to these four simple questions: 1. 2. 3. 4.

What do I want my students to know and be able to do? How will I know they know it and can do it? How do I account for the students’ performance? What am I going to do for the students who don’t get it? (and for those who do get it?)

When educational leaders combine the data on student outcomes (teacher observations of ability, authentic assessments, norm-criterion referenced tests, standardized tests), school process (descriptions of processes used at the site), demographics (enrollment, attendance, drop-out rate, ethnicity, gender, grade-level), and perceptions (of learning, values, beliefs, attitudes), there is a synergy of action that propels the school on a trajectory of success.

27

Dancing with Data

CONCLUSION This chapter has focused on ideas to structure and successfully use data as school reforms are sought or as school programs are developed. Effectively and efficiently implementing data-guided decisions requires purposeful planning for building capacity on the part of the school leader. Charter schools have the ability to integrate 21st-century solutions into proven strategies for effective change. By hiring motivated teachers with a passion to make a difference, highlighting the importance of data in the context of the school setting, implementing 21st-century skills not only in the classroom but also in the operations of the school, and by partnering with business to leverage the resources needed to do more with less, charter school leaders will continue to make significant impact on learning and student achievement. Using data to build on success is the business model for growing a successful enterprise; it is no less for growing a successful charter school.

REFERENCES Barneveld, C. V. (August, 2008). Using data to improve student achievement. What works? Research into practice. Research Monograph #15. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov. on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/Using_Data.pdf Barrett, K. & Greene, R. (February, 2011). Using data to guide education policymaking. Retrieved from http://www.governing.com/columns/smart-mgmt/Using-Data-GuideEducation-Policymaking.html Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. (2008). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Datnow, A., Park, V., and Wohlstetter, P. (2007). Achieving with data: How high-performing school systems use data to improve instruction for elementary students. Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA. Fox, D. (2004). Southern California Comprehensive Assistance Center through Los Angeles County Office of Education. Retrieved from http://sccac.lacoe.edu; http://www.class roomdata.org/index.cfm?page=9# Game Plan (2007). American teacher. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/ 217263645?accountid=147891. Accessed on August 17, 2012. Goldring, E., & Berends, M. (2009). Leading with data: Pathways to improve your school. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. http://books.google.com/books?id=fvp5xnM3 Rm0C&pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=%22Data+are+the+fuel+of+reform%E2%80% 9D&source=bl&ots=6we7JufFDf&sig=q_IRmvfhatpHd7vpsQyG9sHCfOg&sa=X&ei= G1YyUP-EEIGmigLyhYDoAg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Data%20 are%20the%20fuel%20of%20reform%E2%80%9D&f=false Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2009). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making. (NCEE

28

NANCY BEEMAN AND LORI PEREZ

2009–4067). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2008). Made to stick: Why some ideas survive and others die. New York, NY: Random House. Heritage, M., & Chen, E. (2005). Why data skills matter in school improvement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 707–710. Jandris, T. P. (2001). Data-based decision-making: Essentials for principals. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Elementary School Principals. Lewis, D., Madison-Harris, R., Muoneke, A., and Times, C. (2010). Using data to guide instruction and improve student learning. SEDL Letter: Linking Research and Practice, XXII, 2. Retrieved from http://www.sedl.org/pubs/sedl-letter/v22n02/using-data.html. Accessed on August 8, 2012. O’Day, J., Goertz, M. E., and Floden, R. E. (1995). Building capacity for education reform. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/pubs/CPRE/rb18. Accessed on August 8, 2012. Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York, NY: Basic Books. Schmoker, M. (2003). First things first: Demystifying data analysis. Educational Leadership, 60(5), 22–24. Retrieved from. http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/ feb03/vol60/num05/[email protected] Sorenson, R. D., Goldsmith, L. M., Mendez, Z. Y., & Maxwell, K. T. (2011). The principal’s guide to curriculum leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision-making: Using computer data systems to support teacher inquiry and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 10(3), 295–308. Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., & Johnston, M. T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona County School District. Austin, TX: The University of Texas. Wohlstetter, P., Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decisionmaking: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19(3), 239–259.

CHARTER SCHOOLS: POTENTIAL TO FULFILL THE GOALS OF PUBLIC EDUCATION IN AN EQUITABLE MANNER AND BETTER SERVE PURPOSES OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Anthony H. Normore and Julie Slayton ABSTRACT Given the fundamental role of public education in the foundational framework of equity and social justice leadership, as well as the demonstrated shortcomings of the current system of education, the primary goal of this chapter is to explore issues of social justice, leadership, and equity, in the context of charter schools. A corollary purpose is to build on the work of Wells, Slayton, and Scott (2002) who called on progressive supporters of charter schools and public schools to couch their arguments for democratic schooling in a call for social justice and equity as opposed to greater ‘‘liberty’’ for educational consumers.

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 29–42 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018007

29

30

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

Charter schools are a relatively recent addition to the education policy scene. In the early 1990s, not a single charter law existed. Twenty years later, charter school laws have been passed in 40 states and at last count, there were 4952 charter schools spread across these states (NCES, 2011, as cited in Aud Hussar et al., 2012). The legislation of increased numbers of laws grew out of individual state-level school choice policies in the mid- to late-1990s that sought to increase local or community control of schools (Wells et al., 2002) and were embraced by Federal policy in No Child Left Behind (2001) as one of the solutions to the ‘‘problem’’ of failing public schools (Hursh, 2005). The existing literature reveals mixed evidence as to whether charter schools have improved the educational experiences or academic outcomes for the public school students who attend them. In fact, a number of studies have revealed mixed performance for charter schools when compared to traditional public schools (e.g., Gleason, Clark, Tuttle, Dwoyer, & Silverberg, 2010; Zimmer, Gill, Booker, Lavertu, & Witte, 2012). Additionally, concerns have emerged in relation to the efficacy of charter schools with the promotion and expansion of the charter school movement. However, there are diverse and widely publicized charter schools which have been considered ‘‘places of high academic achievement and social inclusion that conscientiously facilitate student body diversity through policy and outreach’’ (Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley, & Wang, 2010, para. 7). A review of extant literature reveals that while concerns about racial, economic, and language separation have been underway since the inception of the charter school movement (Garcia, 2008), these concerns are largely absent from the public discourse around charter schools. Instead, access to charter and other schools of choice has been consistently positioned in the public sphere as an issue of parental control (Garcia, 2008) or individual freedom to select the education best suited to parents’ needs (Wells et al., 2002). Legislators, prominent educational funders, and charter advocates frequently cast charter schools as a way out of failing schools for parents and their children (Garcia, 2008). Thus, we build on the work of Wells et al. (2002) who called on progressive supporters of charter schools in particular, and public schools in general, to define democracy, not in terms of liberty and consumption but in terms of social justice and equity. We extend their argument to explore the purpose of public education and argue that charter school policies should seek to build communitarian ethos that ‘‘provide the social and emotional fund of experience that allows us to participate in public acts’’ (Glass & Rud, 2012, p. 98) and to equip our children with the background understanding and

31

Charter Schools

skills required to participate in the construction of public values (Feinberg, 2012). We examine the existing literature with specific focus on democratic ideals, goals of public education, access and equity, and leadership for social justice in terms of racial, economic and linguistic isolation. In our final reflections, we assert that there is a need for policy makers to revisit charter school legislation and policy with an eye towards the significant role of leadership.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Democratic Ideals and Public Education Charter schools are a part of numerous federal, state and district level efforts to provide parents with a wide range of educational choices in line with democratic ideals and public education (Wells et al., 2002). The question though is what do we mean by American democratic ideals and public education? These concepts are contested terms and their definitions influence the way that policies are created and enacted. When democracy is constructed in terms of liberty, it is framed in terms of the individual, the consumer not a community or collective (Feinberg, 2012; Hursh, 2005; Sandlin, Burdick, & Norris, 2012; Wells et al., 2002). Democracy in the service of the individual is most clearly reflected in current school choice initiatives that promote ‘‘liberty,’’ position the individual in the role of consumer, and provide the consumer access to a market (Wells et al., 2002). Democratic ideals in the service of the community may have been most evident in policies that explicitly sought to provide the right to a ‘‘truly equal education’’ (Wells et al., 2002) through integration and desegregation policies. Further, efforts have been made to make school funding equitable and equal between and across schools and districts and across the country. In addition, charter schools are public schools. Just as democratic is a contested term, so is the concept of the public. The public can be defined as an aggregation of individuals with private desires or as a ‘‘group of strangers tied together by consciousness of a common fate (Williams, 2003) and in direct or indirect communication with one another about the viability of commonly held value’’ (Feinberg, 2012, p. 14). When public is defined as an aggregate of individuals with private desires, the tax dollars can be distributed directly to members of the public to be used to benefit the individuals within the public. When public is defined as a

32

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

‘‘group of strangers tied together’’ to debate the viability of commonly held values in pursuit of publically held values, then the purpose of public education changes. Feinberg (2012) asserts that the ‘‘goal of public education’’ in this definition ‘‘is to renew a public by providing the young with the skills, dispositions, and perspectives required to engage with strangers about their shared interests and common fate and to contribute to shaping it’’ (p. 19, emphasis added). This argument is consistent with Gutmann’s assertion that the purpose of public education is to prepare citizens for democratic citizenship to ‘‘collectively decide whether to change the way that social institutions (including schools) structure their life chances (Gutmann, 1987, p. 148). Similarly, Dewey argued that public schools were places where ‘‘students learned democratic habits of cooperation and public service by living them in the classroom.’’ He argued that it was in this context that ‘‘individuals could develop to their greatest capacity and contribute most effectively to democratic civic culture’’ (Molnar, 2005, as cited in Sandlin et al., 2012, p. 150). Sandlin et al. further argue that public schools are the place where the existing status quo is challenged along with hegemonic power structures. Thus, under these constructions, public education is a tool to foster the reproduction of a public that establish public values and ‘‘engage with strangers about a common fate’’ (Feinberg, 2012, p. 20) in which leadership for social justice plays a significant role (Normore, 2008).

Social Justice The term social justice is an elusive construct, politically loaded, and subject to numerous interpretations (Shoho, Merchant, & Lugg, 2005). Its foundation is rooted in theology (Ahlstrom, 1972) and social work, and it has deep roots in educational disciplines like curriculum and pedagogy (Apple, 1996; Freire, 1998a, 1998b). Social justice has also been studied in law, philosophy, economics, political studies, sociology, psychology, anthropology, and public policy (Brooks & Miles, 2008). However, it is a relatively new term to the field of educational administration. Researchers (e.g., Furman & Gruenewald, 2004; Shields, 2003) contend that social justice has become a major concern for educational scholars and practitioners at the beginning of the 21st century and is driven by many factors (e.g., cultural transformation and demographic shift of Western society, increased achievement and economic gaps of underserved populations, and accountability pressures and high-stake testing).

33

Charter Schools

Bogotch (2002, 2005) asserts that social justice has ‘‘no fixed or predictable meanings’’ (p. 153). However, other scholars in educational leadership (e.g., Dantley & Tillman, 2006; Larson & Murtadha, 2002; Marshall & Oliva, 2006) identify common threads and shared understanding of social justice to include creating equitable schooling and education (Bredeson, 2004; Jean-Marie, 2008; Larson & Murtadha, 2002); examining issues of race, diversity, marginalization, gender, spirituality, age, ability, sexual orientation and identity (Dantley & Tillman, 2006); anti-oppressive education (Kumashiro, 2004); and conceptualizing the preparation of leaders for social justice.

Leadership for Social Justice Synthesizing the social justice discourse in educational leadership, Furman and Gruenewald (2004) offer three shared meanings of social justice embedded in various ways throughout contemporary literature: criticalhumanist perspective, focus on school achievement and economic well-being, and the narratives and values of the Western Enlightenment (see also Brooks & Miles, 2008). The increased attention given to social justice brings to fore a focus on the moral purposes of leadership in schools and how to achieve these purposes (Furman & Gruenewald, 2004). As Evans (2007) observed, the scholarship of social justice supports the notion that educational leaders have a ‘‘social and moral obligation to foster equitable school practices, processes, and outcomes for learners of different racial, socio-economic, gender, cultural, disability, and sexual orientations backgrounds’’ (p. 250). In their review of charter school research, Hubbard and Kulkarni (2009) acknowledge the dearth of data supporting charter school leadership as an innovative reform. Scholars and advocates have pushed for school choice leadership and governance as a way to provide more public choice options to parents (Rhim, Ahearn, & Lange, 2007). Charter school policy allows for the development of public schools that are independent of traditional school districts and free from many of the regulations that govern traditional district schools. One of the goals of the charter school policy is to create schooling that is more responsive to the needs of students and parents, and through competition, improve educational outcomes for all students (Gastic & Salas-Coronado, 2011). Creating smaller schools independent of large bureaucracies ideally provides parents and students opportunities for engagement they would not get in a larger system (Mintrom, 2008). The theory of charter schools is also discussed as a way to experiment with

34

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

education and produce innovative practices that then could transfer back to district schools (Manno, 2010). Next, we turn to issues of social justice that have permeated the research in the charter school arena.

Access and Equity The Civil Rights Project at University of California Los Angeles has been issuing annual reports on the spread of segregation in public schools and its impact on educational opportunity for 15+ years. The project’s reports clearly indicate that choice programs can either offer quality educational options with ‘‘racially and economically diverse schooling to children who otherwise have few opportunities, or choice programs can actually increase stratification and inequality depending on how they are designed’’ (see Frankenberg et al., 2010, p. 1). In 2008, UCLA Civil Rights Project conducted a study on charter school segregation in 40 states, the District of Columbia, and several dozen metropolitan areas with large enrollments of charter school students. Key findings from the study revealed the following: (1) While charter schools are increasing in number and size, their enrollment presently accounts for only 2.5% of all public school students – despite federal pressure to increase charter schools, (2) charter schools attract a higher percentage of black students than traditional public schools, in part because they tend to be located in urban areas, (3) Latinos are under-enrolled in charter schools in some Western states where they comprise the largest share of students, (4) patterns in the West and in a few areas in the South suggest that charters serve as havens for white flight from public schools. In the industrial Midwest, more students enroll in charter schools compared to other regions, and mid-Western charter programs display high concentrations of black students, and (5) gaps in multiple federal data sources make it difficult to answer basic, fundamental questions about the extent to which charter schools enroll and concentrate low-income students and English language learners (ELLs) (see Frankenberg et al., 2010, pp. 2–6). Decades of social science studies have shown ‘‘that integrated education is positively related to K-12 school performance, cross-racial friendships, acceptance of cultural differences, and declines in racial fears and prejudice’’ (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012, p. 208) and other short- and long-term positive academic and non-academic outcomes. Conversely, related educational harms in schools are consistently found from segregated learning environments (Mickelson & Nkomo, 2012; Wamba & Asher, 2003). In the recent

Charter Schools

35

State of the Union address, the President recognized the persistent link between segregated neighborhoods and schools, saying ‘‘In this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than their potential.’’ Charter schools hold promise of becoming more integrated than regular public schools because they are not constrained by racially isolating school district boundary lines (Frankenberg et al., 2010).

Combating Segregated Learning Environments and Economic and Linguistic Isolation Research has consistently revealed that many traditional and non-traditional schools provide segregated learning environments, regardless of whether segregation is being measured at the national, state, or district level (Carnoy, Jacobsen, Mishel, & Rothstein, 2005; Finnegan et al., 2004; Garcia, 2007; Renzulli & Evans, 2005). The reasons for this outcome are numerous and complicated, including access to transportation, self-selection into niche charter schools (e.g., schools with ethnocentric, cultural, ethnic, linguistic, or philosophical orientations) (Borman, Danzig, & Garcia, 2012), and extensive outreach to all communities (Frankenberg et al., 2010; Fuller, Elmore, & Orfield, 1996). Segregation for black students among all public schools has been increasing for nearly two decades (Carnoy et al., 2005). At the national level, 70% of black charter school students attend intensely segregated minority charter schools (which enroll 90–100% of students from underrepresented minority backgrounds), or twice as many as the share of intensely segregated black students in traditional public schools. Some charter schools enrolled populations where 99% of the students were from under-represented minority backgrounds. Forty-three percent of black charter school students attended these extremely segregated minority schools, a percentage which was, by far, the highest of any other racial group, and nearly three times as high as black students in traditional public schools (Carnoy et al., 2005). Based on the work by Frankenberg et al. (2010), ‘‘Higher percentages of charter school students of every race attend predominantly minority schools (50–100% minority students) or racially isolated minority schools (90–100% minority students) than do their samerace peers in traditional public schools’’ (p. 4). A body of research indicates that charter school leaders hold much promise for school and student success. According to Frankenberg et al. (2010) leadership in many charter schools do a better job of integrating

36

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

students than others. Several were spotlighted in a recent online Fordham Foundation article, including High Tech High (HTH) in San Diego, the Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), and the Capital City Charter in District of Columbia (Petrilli, 2009). Each of these institutions a racially diverse student body, in addition to being recognized for innovative and excellent educational opportunities. All three employ some type of lottery to manage oversubscription. These schools serve as a reminder ‘‘that current patterns of segregation in charter schools can—and should—be avoided with the help of carefully designed policies. Such policies would promote charter school enrollments that roughly reflect the demographics of the surrounding area, in addition to ensuring proper levels of within-school diversity’’ (Petrilli, 2009, pp. 4–5). Evidence indicates that charter schools are associated with heightened economic segregation, which research has often linked to weak schooling opportunity (Carnoy et al., 2005). Some states report charter schools serving disproportionate numbers of relatively affluent students who are not eligible for free or reduced priced lunches (FRL), while others report higher levels of FRL-eligible students (e.g., low-income students) in charters. Federal charter school reports documented a national trend of over-enrollment for students eligible for FRL in charter schools. By contrast, a 2005 book, Charter School Dust-Up, examining existing research on national patterns in charter school enrollment and achievement, found that charter schools enroll, on average, more economically advantaged student populations (Carnoy et al., 2005). In California, for example, 38% of charter middle school students were considered low income compared to 51% in traditional public schools (Carnoy et al., 2005). Other research also shows that black students attending charter schools are slightly more privileged than their public school counterparts, along with a 2003 NAEP Pilot Study suggesting a similar pattern of wealth advantages for charter students of all races when compared with traditional public school students (Carnoy et al., 2005; Gleason, Clark, Tuttle, Dwoyer, & Silverberg, 2010). Research differs on whether charters are schools of more or less economic privilege, and that these patterns may vary from state to state (see Finnegan et al., 2004; Hubbard & Kulkarni, 2009; Manno, 2010; Zimmer, Gill, Booker, Lavertu, & Witte, 2012; Zimmer et al., 2009). For example charter schools and other public schools are required by law to serve special education and English learner students, and there are serious questions about the extent to which they presently do so, according to a 2004 report (Finnegan et al., 2004). A number of studies show that charter schools educate significantly fewer students with disabilities than regular

37

Charter Schools

public schools (Eaton & Chirichigo, 2009; Finnegan et al., 2004; Nelson et al., 2000; Welner & Howe, 2005). And while ELLs appear to be served in similar proportions by charter and public schools at the national level (Finnegan et al., 2004), some differences exist at the local level. In Massachusetts, a state with a large ELL population and comparatively restrictive language policies (in addition to being in the midst of a debate regarding the expansion of charter schools), recent reports suggest that charter schools are under-enrolling ELLs overall and serving few – if any – recent immigrant students who are just beginning to learn the English language (META, 2009). Based on research by Jean-Marie, Normore, and Brooks (2009) the role of school leaders at least in part to advocate on behalf of traditionally marginalized and poorly served students carries a corollary contention that traditional hierarchies and power structures must be deconstructed and reconfigured, thereby creating a new social order that subverts a longstanding system that has privileged certain students while oppressing or neglecting others (Allen, 2006; Scheurich & Skrla, 2003). This means that school leaders must increase their awareness of various explicit and implicit forms of oppression, develop an intent to subvert the dominant paradigm, and finally act as a committed advocate for educational change that makes a meaningful and positive change in the education and lives of traditionally marginalized and oppressed students (Allen, 2006; Freire, 1998b; Normore, 2008).

FINAL REFLECTIONS During the initial development stages of the charter school movement, Wohlstetter, Wenning, and Briggs (1995) suggested charter school leaders would benefit from building capacity for school management by first experiencing other forms of school governance, like school-based management. Further, Allen (2010) asserted that charter school policy provided an opportunity to design a school, develop a culture of community support, and experience what it means to run a school before bringing that innovation back to the district. The result may be an innovation that affects district culture by providing a model for reform that has the strength of its own identity. Innovation related to how we engage in schooling was a primary goal of the U.S. National Charter School Movement. Because they have greater autonomy than traditional public schools, and since they tend to attract pioneering educators, charter schools can try out new approaches

38

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

to education that, if proven effective, can be transplanted back into the larger public education system. By and large, research suggests that charter school enrollments differ substantially from those of traditional public schools. Studies examining the effectiveness of charter schools should be evaluated with the knowledge that charter programs are educating students who differ from traditional public school students in measurable, and perhaps immeasurable, ways. Borman, Danzig, and Garcia (2012) argue that ‘‘when policymakers follow individualistic principles and allow parents to chart the education course for their own children they shift public education from government-provided schools to government-funded and privately provided schools, abdicating the state’s responsibility to provide quality educational settings and rendering government to the more limited role of regulating education’’ (p. iv). At the same time that the Obama Administration continues to promote the growth of charter schools, and in support of recommendations made by other researchers (e.g., Frankenberg et al., 2010), we contend that it must work to achieve the integrative promise of charter schools while simultaneously fostering democratic ideals of community and fulfilling the goals of public education to reproduce the public in order to ‘‘engage with strangers about their shared interests and common fate’’ (Feinberg, 2012, p. 19) and challenge the status quo in shaping public values and public institutions. Ideally, it seems reasonable to believe that if we promote separation by race, ethnicity, language, socio-economic status – to name a few areas – then we impede our opportunity to develop (1) the opportunity and skill set for everyone to be well positioned to participate in the conversation that reproduces a public that can create public values out of an examination of and discourse over common values. Further, it may well increase our differences at the level of the individual because our failure to inhabit the same spaces impedes our ability to understand each other (and again makes that conversation about common to public values much more complicated). The Education Department may need to update its now archived guidance on civil rights regulations for charter schools, and strengthen it by including provisions known to have been successful in other programs like magnet schools, which combine school choice with diverse student bodies. States should also continue to work to ensure that diversity considerations are part of the charter approval process, and exercise oversight of existing charter schools. It stands to reason that we all must

39

Charter Schools

work to build a more inclusive sector of schools, one that magnifies and strengthens the role of choice in fostering integration and equality in American education. If educational leaders with this perspective on their practice can sufficiently increase their stock of courage, intelligence, and vision, [they] might become a social force of some magnitude and extend their scope of influence well beyond the school’s walls. Given this perspective, charter school leaders are potentially the architects and builders of a new social order wherein traditionally disadvantaged students have the same educational opportunities, and by extension social opportunities, as traditionally advantaged students.

REFERENCES Ahlstrom, S. E. (1972). A religious history of the American people. New Havens, CT: Yale University. Allen, L. A. (2006). The moral life of schools revisited: Preparing educational leaders to ‘build a new social order’ for social justice and democratic community. International Journal of Urban Educational Leadership, 1, 1–13. Allen, A. (2010). Neighborhoods and schools: Using charter school policy to foster district change. The entity from which ERIC acquires the content, including journal, organization, and conference names, or by means of online submission from the author. Journal of School Public Relations, 31(1), 6–26. Apple, M. W. (1996). Cultural politics and education. London: Open University Press. Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., y, & Zhang, J. (2012). The condition of public education 2012. (NCES 2012–045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch. Accessed on 12 August 2012. Bogotch, I. E. (2002). Leadership for socially just schooling: More substance and less style in high-risk, low-trust times. Journal of School Leadership, 12, 198–222. Bogotch, I. E. (2005, November). Social justice as an educational construct: Problems and possibilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the University Council of Educational Administration, Nashville, TN. Borman, K. M., Danzig, A. B., & Garcia, D. R. (2012). Education, democracy, and the public good. Review of Research in Education, 36, vii–xxi. Bredeson, P. V. (2004). Creating spaces for the development of democratic school leaders: A case of program redesign in the United States. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(6), 708–723. Brooks, J. S., & Miles, M. T. (2008). From scientific management to social justice y and back again? Pedagogical shifts in educational leadership. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice (pp. 99–114). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

40

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

Dantley, M. E., & Tillman, L. C. (2006). Social justice and moral transformative leadership. In C. Marshall & M. Oliva (Eds.), Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education (pp. 16–30). New York, NY: Pearson. Eaton, S. & Chirichigo, G. (2009 July 19). Charters must commit to diversity. Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/ 2009/07/19/charters_must_commit_to_diversity/. Accessed on 10 April 2012. Evans, A. E. (2007). Horton, Highlander, and leadership education: Lessons for preparing educational leaders for social justice. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 250–275. Feinberg, W. (2012). The idea of a public education. Review of Research in Education, 36, 1–22. Finnegan, K., Adelman, N., Anderson, L., Cotton, L., Donnelly, M. B., & Price, T. (2004). Evaluation of charter schools program: 2004 Final report. U.S. Department of Education. Policy and Programs Study Service. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/ data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/29/d8/04.pdf. Accessed on 28 October 2009. Frankenberg, E. (2009). Splintering school districts: Understanding the link between segregation and fragmentation. Law & Social Inquiry, 34(4), 869–909. Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2010). Choice without equity: Charter school segregation and the need for civil rights standards. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles at UCLA. Retrieved from http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu Freire, P. (1998a). Pedagogy of hope. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1998b). Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum. Fuller, B., Elmore, R. F., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (1996). Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Furman, G. C., & Gruenewald, D. A. (2004). Expanding the landscape of social justice: A critical ecological analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 47–76. Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C. C., Dwoyer, E., & Silverberg, M. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education. Garcia, D. R. (2008). Academic and racial segregation in charter schools: Do parents sort students into specialized charter schools? Education and Urban Society, 40, 590–612. Garcia, D. (2007). The impact of school choice on racial segregation in charter schools. Educational Policy, 22(6), 805–829. Gastic, B., & Salas-Coronado, D. (2011). Latinos and school choice. Journal of School Choice, 5(1), 139–142. Glass, G. V., & Rud, A. G. (2012). The struggle between individualism and communitarianism: The pressure of population, prejudice, and the purse. Review of Research in Education, 36, 95–112. Gutmann, A. (1987). Democratic education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hubbard, L., & Kulkarni, R. (2009). Charter schools: Learning from the past, planning for the future. Journal of Educational Change, 10, 173–189. Hursh, D. (2005). Neo-liberalism, markets and accountability: Transforming education and undermining democracy in the United States and England. Policy Futures in Education, 3(1), 3–15. Jean-Marie, G., Normore, A. H., & Brooks, J. (June, 2009). Leadership for social justice: Preparing 21st century school leaders for a new social order. Journal of Research on Leadership Education, 4(1). Retrieved from http://www.ucea.org/current-issues/

Charter Schools

41

Jean-Marie, G. (2008). Leadership for social justice: An agenda for 21st century schools. The Educational Forum, 72, 340–354. Kumashiro, K. K. (2004). Against common sense: Teaching and learning toward social justice. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer. Larson, C., & Murtadha, K. (2002). Leadership for social justice. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21st century (pp. 134–161). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. Marshall, C., & Oliva, M. (2006). Leadership for social justice: Making revolutions in education. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Manno, B. (2010). School choice: Today’s scope and barriers to growth. Journal of School Choice, 4(4), 510–523. Mickelson, R. A., & Nkomo, M. (2012). Integrating schooling, life course outcomes, and social cohesion in multiethnic democratic societies. Review of Research in Education, 36, 197–238. Mintrom, M. (2008). Market organizations and deliberative democracy: Choice and voice in public service delivery. Administration and Society, 35, 52–81. Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy (META) (2009). Charter schools and English language learners in Massachusetts: Policy push without the data. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/media/metacharterschoolbrief.pdf. Accessed on 28 March 2012. Nelson, B., Berman, P., Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Perry, R., Silverman, D., & Solomon, D. (2000). The state of charter schools 2000: Fourth-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Normore, A. H. (2008). Leadership for social justice: Promoting equity and excellence through inquiry and reflective practice. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers. Petrilli, M. (2009). Is separate but equal the best we can do? Education Gadfly. Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/issues/results.cfm? withall=charter+schools+diversity&search_btn.x=0&search_btn.y=0. Accessed on 29 March 2012. Renzulli, L. A., & Evans, L. (2005). School choice, charter schools, and white flight. Social Problems, 52, 398–418. Rhim, L. M., Ahearn, E., & Lange, C. (2007). Considering legal identity as a critical variable of interest in charter schools research. Journal of School Choice, 1(3), 115–122. Sandlin, J. A., Burdick, J., & Norris, T. (2012). Erosion and experience: Education for democracy in a consumer society. Review of Research in Education, 36, 139–168. Scheurich, J. J., & Skrla, L. (2003). Leadership for equity and excellence: Creating highachievement classrooms, schools, and districts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Shields, C. M. (2003). Good intentions are not enough: Transformative leadership for communities of difference. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow. Shoho, A. R., Merchant, B. M., & Lugg, C. A. (2005). Social justice: Seeking a common language. In F. W. English (Ed.), The Sage handbook of educational leadership: Advances in theory, research, and practice (pp. 47–67). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage. Wamba, C., & Asher, N. (2003). An examination of charter school equity. Education and Urban Society, 35(4), 462–476. Wells, A. S., Slayton, J., & Scott, J. (2002). Defining democracy in the neoliberal age: Charter school reform and educational consumption. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 337–361.

42

ANTHONY H. NORMORE AND JULIE SLAYTON

Welner, K. G., & Howe, K. R. (2005). Steering toward separation: The evidence and implications of special education students’ exclusion from choice schools. In J. Scott (Ed.), School choice and diversity (pp. 93–111). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Williams, M. S. (2003). Citizenship as identity, citizenship as shared fate, and the functions of multicultural education. In K. McDonough & W. Feinberg (Eds.), Citizenship and education in liberal-democratic societies: Teaching for cosmopolitan values and collective identities (pp. 208–247). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331–358. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T. R., & Witte, J. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2012). Examining charter student achievement affects across seven states. Economics of Education Review, 31, 213–224.

SECTION 2 THE WAY FORWARD

TEACHER AGENCY IN CHARTER SETTINGS Rudy Cuevas, Aaron Scholl, Tizoc Brenes, Emily Bautista and Crystal Leigh Maillet ABSTRACT School leaders often feel compelled to safeguard, manage and promote the mission and vision of the school in order to keep staff on task and on track. An alternative approach is to do just the opposite. This chapter examines school leadership at an innovative charter school that believes that the mission and vision of the school belongs to the school community, is organic and needs to evolve over time. Teachers have created the framework and design for the curriculum, have planned and implemented professional development to support the design, and essentially have re-shaped the structure and format of instruction, leading to a stronger sense of ownership and increased engagement within the school community.

INTRODUCTION Given the reality that charter legislation has made it possible for charter management organizations to create top-down corporate leadership structures,

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 45–59 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018008

45

46

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

there are still spaces, one would hope, in which the work of education is still in the hands of those who know best: teachers. The notion that teachers have intellectual access (teacher agency) to maneuver in the domain in which they operate would seem to be an obvious professional right, yet teaching is perhaps the only credentialed profession in which she/he must continually defer to bureaucratic administrators, legislators, and billionaire philanthropists about how to do their job. In a span of 2 years, the YouthBuild Charter School of California (YCSC) has undergone fundamental shifts in decision-making in order to better model the increasingly rare concept of democratic education. The following is both a theoretical and narrative account of these shifts. For clarity, the theoretical framing of the leadership transformation is provided by YCSC Principal Rudy Cuevas, while the narrative accounts are provided by those YCSC teachers that make up the Authentic & Collaborative Education Committee (ACE). ACE Members participating in this chapter are: Emily Bautista, Crystal Maillet, Tizoc Brenes, and Aaron Scholl.

RUDY CUEVAS Conceptual Framework: Teacher Agency The conceptual framework in this chapter is teacher agency. In order to be clear about what teacher agency is, we must first define and situate the concept in our time. The changes to education in America in the past two decades have been largely influenced by the dynamics of globalization (a global quest for the pursuit of profit led by multinational corporations that routinely bypass traditional notions of political boundaries and economic regulations). In this specific context, we can, therefore, define a curricular and pedagogical resistance to oppressive global market forces as teacher agency. Teacher agency includes both the right to be autonomous and the right to teach the kind of curriculum that can liberate young people from the very market forces that create economic and social inequality. If teachers do not carry out their agency against the global forces of capital that are decimating impoverished communities of color, they risk being reduced to mere robots who obediently facilitate the consolidation of globalization. In the above scenario of the expansion of globalization,

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

47

teachers are not seen as intellectuals but rather as de-intellectualized machines that lead lives of quiet desperation while carrying out the scripted curriculum approved and funded by today’s multinational corporations (Apple, 2006; Wells, 2002). A functional understanding of teacher agency would, ultimately, include the dangerous and rarely acceptable idea that teachers have the capacity to carry out social change alongside the young people they teach (Giroux, 1988). However, Deleuze and Guattari (1988) remind us that our conception of teacher agency should not be essentialized and reduced to a binary of a universal conception of teacher agency that can heroically defeat oppressive structures. Such a binary is too simplistic for Deleuze and Guattari (1988) and instead they favor the idea of a teacher agency characterized by multiplicity because of the various and constant teacher interactions with oppressive structures. As mentioned earlier, teacher agency cannot be viewed as a phenomenon to script, package, and sell. If a universal and packaged understanding of agency is suspect, it is because Deleuze and Guattari (1988) remind us that our conception of teacher agency should not be essentialized and reduced to a profit-driven binary.

The Pre-ACE and ACE Context In its first 3 years of operation, YCSC employed a slightly modified version of the ProjectCentric curriculum and instruction model. As the director of curriculum and instruction during that time, I was responsible for a unilateral approach to the curricular and pedagogical decision-making. Although I infused more layers for social justice education into ProjectCentric, these decisions were completely centralized. According to the ProjectCentric model, a student completed projects for credits because all YCSC classes were organized around authentic learning tasks (ALTs). These ALTs showcased applied skills and knowledge solutions to teacher/ student-identified problems. While certainly ProjectCentric was a good alternative to the test-prep ‘‘learning’’ in the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) era of high-stake accountability, the education model was still packaged with pre-packaged and scripted foci developed exclusively by the ProjectCentric staff. A large portion of the training manual was about how to use their templates and the ProjectCentric competencies, which did not allow for teachers/students to have the kind of self-determination so essential to progressive schooling.

48

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

The ACE Era (Authentic and Collaborative Education) In February 2011, after 3 years of using the approach mentioned above, YCSC decided to move away from this packaged approach to a more progressive approach to project-based learning that also was created in collaboration with YCSC teachers. The decision was made because enough teachers organically observed aspects of the old model that seemed counter to the progressive mission and vision of YCSC in the following ways: (1) the direction of the project-based learning was dictated by ProjectCentric in a way that indirectly excluded YCSC teacher input and (2) the competencies and guiding templates used by ProjectCentric were no longer aligned with the social justice framework that had been infused by YCSC teachers and staff. When it became clear that ProjectCentric was no longer willing to support YCSC’s departure from ProjectCentric expectations, a group of teachers came forward to lead the development of a revamped version that would access all staff input. In the end, the changes to the curriculum were made to allow for a more culturally responsive approach to instruction that would be carried out by a democratization of teacher input to those pedagogical decision-making processes. After a YCSC Committee was formed, the work to develop a teacher-owned manual and training process officially began in March 2011 and concluded with an implementation of the ACE manual in time for Fall 2011. It is important to note that as the only decision-maker regarding curriculum and instruction before the ACE era, it was always a goal of mine to open up the decision-making to include teachers. The latter made room for the ACE era of teacher ownership of curricular and pedagogical decision-making. This chapter chronicles the rise of a YCSC-specific teacher agency. Throughout a 2-year timeframe, the teachers consistently spoke of the specific historical context of YCSC that made it possible for the democratization of decision-making to take place. Moreover, an important factor in having the teachers assume decisionmaking of curriculum and instruction at YCSC was the end of the partnership with the previous curriculum partner. If YCSC had kept that partnership, the stage for the development of the increased teacher inclusion would not have occurred. While it is necessary to point out the very progressive nature of the YCSC staff and their expectations of collaborative decision-making at YCSC, the accessing of their agency was contingent upon the historical context of the change in curricular partners at YCSC.

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

49

The last point related to this special context is that YCSC was launched at the very same time in which the local school district (the second largest in the nation) began the process of laying off thousands of teachers on annual basis. To be sure there are more nuances at play in the dialectical developments at YCSC. At no point in the democratization of the curricular and pedagogical decision-making was there any resistance to the teacher push for more open and collaborative processes; in fact it was welcomed by Founder and Executive Director Phil Matero. Ultimately, this lack of YCSC administrative resistance allowed for a rather seamless move towards the democratization of curricular and pedagogical decision-making and it is yet another example of the need for more sophisticated and nuanced understandings of these developments.

CONTINGENT COLLECTIVISM AS THE ‘‘FINAL STAGE’’ OF THE DIALECTIC OF TEACHER AGENCY Rudy Cuevas Therefore, I would like to propose the term contingent collectivism to account for how it is that these teacher understandings can be used to inform further democratization in other settings. To be sure, contingent collectivism refers to a theoretical assumption that there should not be any prescriptive recommendations about how collective democratization will dialectically unfold. The notion of ‘‘contingent’’ teacher collectivism is inspired by the writings of Richard Rorty in Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity. In Rorty’s utopia, people would never attempt to settle for restrictive and prescriptive generalities such as ‘‘good,’’ ‘‘moral,’’ or ‘‘human nature.’’ Instead, they would be allowed to arrive at their own decisions on their own subjective terms (Rorty, 1989).

TEACHER EMILY BAUTISTA ‘‘When I first started working for YCSC, I was relieved that it had a projectbased model. After completing my student-teaching in two different public school districts that were driven by high-stakes testing, I felt pressured to center my course curricula and administer tests around state standards in ways that I did not always feel were meaningful. While I was initially

50

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

apprehensive about working for a charter school (because my goal was to work in a public school), when I was able to obtain placement in a charter whose social justice mission was aligned with my personal vision to help young people who have been disenfranchised and underserved understand their knowledge can be contextualized in authentic and empowering ways through a project-based learning approach, I had hope that this teaching experience would be different. However, as I began participating in professional developments and implementing the project-based model according to YCSC’s curriculum partner’s framework, I felt that while the framework allowed me more freedom to center standards-based learning around more authentic projectbased assessments, my students were still being subjected to a learning experience that prioritized amassing core content and expected them to assemble a product that can display what they were able to learn. In my opinion, this project-based experience was more meaningful for students in comparison to the rote memorization of a more test-based education. However, I still felt like I was merely a tool in an institution that dictated a content-centered curriculum that was disconnected from the school’s mission to ‘cultivate collaborative learning communities in which every student has the right to an authentic education, plays a meaningful role in creating positive social change, and becomes an active participant in working towards just conditions for all.’ While my students’ projects were based on ‘social justice’ themes, I did not feel the framework truly provided students with opportunities to ‘[play] a meaningful role in creating social change’ or ‘[become] an active participant in working towards just conditions for all.’ ‘When I was invited to join a focus group of teachers whose task was to help YCSC explore other curricular models, I found my hope again. After having an opportunity to help my teacher education program integrate a more LGBT-conscious curriculum while student-teaching, I was excited to be a part of another historical moment where teachers, not solely administrators, were invited to the table to collaboratively address a pressing need in our institution. As our group began to delve deeper into helping YCSC explore other models, our work evolved into creating a model informed by multiple educational frameworks, yet unique to serving our special populations. I believe the process of inviting teachers to the table genuinely validated our ‘funds of knowledge’ and speaks to YCSC’s commitment to attaining its vision to ‘cultivate collaborative learning communities.’ If the focus of this work is to document how the YCSC teacher experience can inform further democratization efforts, a major point is that YCSC teachers only arrived at their notion of agency by the disillusionment they

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

51

experienced. Such disillusionment can be interpreted as the necessary seed for progress. According to the literature of how teachers react to the oppressive forces that cause such disillusionment and alienation, the theoretical frameworks seem either restrictive or extreme (Apple, 1990; Bowles & Gintis, 1976). Rather than assuming that there is an obvious oppositional binary, dialectics served to better understand the negation of teacher disillusionment with an antithetical and YCSC-specific teacher agency. According to Hegel (1874), dialectics can be defined as a concept that features the necessity of struggle. As evidenced by the YCSC teachers, the dialectical struggle can be psychological and internal but still remain professional and diplomatic. In the end, there is a need for opposites to come together in necessary struggles. Hegel (1874) described this necessary paradox as a ‘‘unity of opposites.’’ The incessant continuity of struggle is what can also make perpetual education reform possible.

CHARTERS WILL NOT BE THE ‘‘LAST SCHOOLS’’ Based on the lessons learned from YCSC and based on borrowing from the Hegelian Rudy Cuevas still dialectic, if contingent collectivism were to be used to explain future developments, contingent collectivism can only come forward after both the traditional and charter schools dialectically negate each other. Therefore, we should almost welcome charters with their neoliberal and capitalist frameworks not because they are the final apex ‘‘Last Schools’’ in the dialectical unfolding of U.S. schooling but because they have successfully challenged if not forever problematized ‘‘feudalistic’’ traditional public schooling. The latter analogy is helpful to describe the anti-intellectual decision-making at traditional schools where teachers unquestionably take orders from their respective ‘‘lords and kings.’’ To complete the stages of history analogy, the stages of education can be referred to as moving traditional schools to charter schools, to schools featuring some form of contingent collectivism. In that sense, charters function as a necessary dialectical stage just capitalism was a necessary stage for Marx’s dialectical materialism (1867). Although the charter movement has brought a new kind of hegemony that requires a more sophisticated counter-hegemonic response (as in the case of YCSC teachers), it is an opening up that should be welcomed because teachers can organize with better outcomes when they can dialectically deploy their agency against a less rigid charter school environment than in the unshakable and ‘‘feudal’’ district model.

52

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

In his groundbreaking work, The End of History and The Last Man (1992), Fukuyama theorized that since The Cold War clash between capitalism and communism ended with capitalism left standing, there was to be no further expectation that the next stage of history was worldwide communism. For Fukuyama, history as described by Hegel and Marx had come to an end and capitalism was to be the last stage. Ideological posturing and reformulation was no longer necessary, except for the minor adjustments necessary for Fukuyama’s ‘‘Last Man’’ to freely pursue profit. Just as there is a danger in abiding by Fukuyama’s controversial thesis that the ‘‘Last Man’’ is capitalist man, there is a danger in believing that the charter school movement is the ‘‘Last School’’ if the notion of contingent collectivism is to given merit. Ultimately, when teachers begin to organize themselves against those charter school forces, the next dialectical education phase will come and dialectically replace charter schools. Since the charter movement is associated with enough anti-teacher and anti-collective bargaining aspects, it cannot possibly be the ‘‘Last School’’ model in a viable democracy. Thus, just as Fukuyama’s ‘‘Last Man’’ thesis was critiqued for its excessive hubris, the notion that charters are going to be the ‘‘Last School’’ should also be questioned. Rather than being opposed to the forthcoming and already brewing teacher revolts against the charter movement, charter school developers can be as proactive as YCSC and foster a teacher democratization effort rather than finding themselves victims to it. In the end, the charter movement can deal with the looming and nasty resistance efforts brewing from a charter teaching community that has fallen victim to union busting, the de-intellectualization of teaching, and other neoliberal endeavors or they can foster new directions as in the case of YCSC. Therefore, current and new charter school developers should not proclaim that charter schools are the ‘‘Last Schools’’ and ignore the potential for the future unfolding of new dialectical developments. On the contrary, they can either foster the progressive change that will come as the negation to the charter movement or be victims of that change.

TEACHER TIZOC BRENES ‘‘Progressive change toward teacher democratization at YCSC takes multiple forms. YCSC teachers have a role in developing curriculum,

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

53

leading small education teams, professional development, teacher assessment, developing alternatives to standardized testing and taking leadership roles in the school. The ACE Committee places teachers at the vanguard of curriculum development and social justice school projects. The ACE Manual, however, provides more than curriculum templates: it provides processes and procedures to run the education component at the nonprofit partner sites in 14 different locations, through site-based management structures. Many of these nonprofit consist mostly of school staff, so teachers as leaders of education often means that teachers are leaders of the nonprofit site partner. YCSC takes a collaborative approach to education, which often encourages teachers to use consensus building, collaborative governance, and community accountability to school management. The progressive and democratic management structures, then, reflect the progressive model of education with students. Once teachers were given a voice at YCSC, they took the lead in areas traditionally implemented in a top-down approach by administrators, including developing authentic assessment as an alternative to standardized testing and organizing professional development trainings throughout the school year. Nationally, school accountability means measuring teachers through high-stakes testing of students, that often do not correlate with authentic student achievement and learning. These tests have the opposite of their intended effect: rather than raising the bar for learning and achievement, they encourage rote learning. Once YCSC placed teachers as the leaders of the accountability systems at the school, they were able to meld qualitative measures with quantitative representations of those measures, which can then be compared to the Academic Performance Index (API) score of other California schools. Both accountability and professional development encourage and challenge teachers to continuously improve, place students at the center of the learning experience, and to develop higher order and critical thinking skills. The national discourse interprets ‘‘accountability’’ as a way to place blame to assign or refuse liability. At YCSC, accountability is measured through student scores on authentic performance tasks and regular teacher observations; in this case, accountability allows teacher and student give account for their learning, to have an active voice in sharing and growing from the measure by being able to reflect upon and improve upon them. In traditional schools, teachers often earn credentials to move into administrative positions within the school. There are several instances of YCSC teachers finding ways of taking administrative roles to run schools and remain as teachers. Two YCSC teachers founded a community-based

54

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

program, Field of Dreams Learning, where they serve as the executive directors of the school and as full-time teachers. In all of these cases, YCSC teachers are developing models for teachers to collectively run their own schools. There is no single model yet, but YCSC teachers are arrived at a moment of ‘critical self-consciousness,’ as Gramsci wrote. Rather than working within the existing public school or charter system, teachers as intellectuals are overcoming both systems and adapting or developing models of their own.

TEACHER CRYSTAL GLOVER ‘‘I pursued a career in education because I believe that public education can be the ‘great equalizer.’ The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that ‘‘All men are created equal.’’ but anyone who has ever attended a public school knows that this is, in fact, not the case. Many students arrive to school hungry, abused, and neglected. Tell me how these students have the same chances at success as Donald Trump? I’ve taught in a public school, as well as at another public charter school that treated student test scores much as corporations treat their quarterly financial reports. In this equation, the students would be the third world factory workers mindlessly assembling a product (answers to multiple-choice tests) from rote memorization. Tell me how such a scenario creates equality? After 7 years of higher education (5 years for my bachelors and 2 years for my teaching credential) I was hired for my first teaching position. I was very surprised to learn that I would not be creating my own lesson plans. At the particular school that I worked at there was a curriculum specialist who did all of the high school English lesson planning and she would send all of the English teachers scripted lesson plans for the month. Sure, variation was allowed on occasion, but that would often be vetoed by the principal when test scores were lagging. I found myself wondering ‘If I am not intelligent enough to teach students such things as figurative language and thesis statements, why was I hired in the first place? Since incorporating a more democratic approach to curriculum at my school, I have been able to implement my own lesson plans with my unique flair. The students are more engaged, I think, because they can sense the passion and the authenticity behind the classroom activities that I have them participate in. I work with students who have been labeled as ‘dropouts’ and are not usually considered ‘intelligent,’ but they know affected

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

55

teaching when they see it. They also know they do not directly benefit from high standardized test scores. My students do know, however, that they directly benefit from the respectful relationships that I create with them and the love and compassion that I pour into them every day. They trust that I have their best interests and their dreams at heart and that I will help them realize their dreams. So many students do not trust teachers because teachers are the ones who have failed them in the past. Standardized testing and scripted lesson plans do not foster trust in a student–teacher relationship. Authentic learning (which can never be scripted) and a relationship based on respect does foster trust in a student–teacher relationship. In short, learning requires trust and a system which streamlines and turn’s education into a factory system cannot engender trust, only rote memorization.’’

Commitment to Teachers as Change Agents YCSC teachers demonstrated that an education reform movement that is in the interest of counter-hegemonic action can be facilitated by teachers who work as agents of change. Much like community organizers, teachers who are committed to working as change agents are interested in far more than student literacy and numeracy. This inquiry of YCSC teacher understandings highlights the fact that urban education reform needs to begin with teachers and it cannot be a top-down mandate.

TEACHER TIZOC BRENES ‘‘Teachers work as agents of change by implementing a curriculum that emphasizes learning about and practicing social justice. Traditional models of teaching place teacher in the role of assimilating young people into hegemonic, capitalist, and neoliberal ideologies. Historically, schools have been a tool of colonization, whether in literacy programs in British India or Indian day schools in North America. Teachers were the purveyors of culture and assimilation, with the colonial subject placed low in the economic and social hierarchy. This history has special significance for the YCSC student demographic, which is made up mostly of low-income, young people of color. YCSC rejects this model of teacher as colonial collaboration. YCSC encourages Gramscian organic intellectuals that oppose hegemonic culture and mobilize young people to imagine a better

56

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

world. Teachers organically relate to and respond to student and communities in which they work. Edward Said defined a public intellectual as someone that actualizes ‘passionate engagement, risk, and exposure, commitment to principles, vulnerability, and being involved in worldly causes.’ He further explains that an intellectual speaks ‘truth to power.’ Both the Gramscian and the Saidian models of intellectual emphasize a commitment to truth and justice, in both words and actions. The ACE Manual provides a template organizing a school as a leadership program, where academic skills are leveraged to critically analyze and transform communities. Academic courses, such as Algebra A, United States History B, and Biology B integrate social justice themes. The Authentic Performance Tasks and Cumulative Projects give teacher the opportunity to plan projects and events that impact social and economic issues in communities. Rather than academically observing the world, the ACE model gives teachers the tools to mobilize to change it.’’

Commitment to Counter-Hegemonic Ideology and Action In counter-hegemonic fashion, YCSC teachers created ‘‘indices’’ and emancipatory projects that are a reflection of a Gramscian informal ideology. The teacher-developed efforts to create an index for social responsibility, higher order thinking, and post-secondary readiness are completely antithetical to the mandates of API. The result of this counterhegemonic action and ideology is evidence of a kind blend between the mandates of the state and a counter-hegemonic ‘‘informal education’’ ideological framework. Charter developers can learn a lot about the latter sincerity to a critical and liberatory pedagogy.

TEACHER AARON SCHOLL ‘‘When we were invited to sit down and create an alternative method to determine our school’s API, I couldn’t believe it! The API score, which is derived from a standardized test, is normally something that principals and school administrators force their teachers to prepare for and focus on all year. Here we were sitting around the table with our principal discussing theories of whether or not we believe API even a good representation of our students’ knowledge. We were treated as intellectuals, and that’s what we became.

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

57

‘‘Teachers were given the freedom and trust by the administration to create an assessment for our schools that we believed represented an authentic measurement of knowledge and skills. We met after school frequently to deliberate over educational frameworks, models, and theories that paralleled the students and communities that we served. All of the teachers are passionate about using education as a vehicle for social reform. So, in the end, the teachers decided that standardized tests were not accurately assessing the work that we were doing in the communities. Instead of just creating a new assessment, the teachers created an entirely new educational model and framework that engages previously disenfranchised students with their communities through community action projects. The premise of the model is really quite simple: students aren’t engaging in positive ways with their communities because their communities aren’t engaging in positive ways with them. By allowing students to participate in the terms of their reengagement, students essentially began to create ways for them to reengage. It’s really quite beautiful what the students come up with: health fairs, educational workshops, mentorships, participatory action research, etc. All of which were guided by teachers to teach and assess content area knowledge, higher order thinking skills, post-secondary readiness, and social responsibility. ‘‘Teachers were invited into a democratic process to create their own educational models as guided by the administration, and students were invited into a democratic process to create their own reengagement plans as guided by their teachers. This educational model was not the master plan of YCSC administrators, but the administration did create an environment which allowed the ideas of teachers-as-intellectuals to flourish.’’

CONCLUSION Rudy Cuevas Commitment to the Dialectical/Perpetual Unfolding of ‘‘Stages of Education’’ Rather than expecting charters to be the panacea ‘‘Last Schools,’’ a commitment to the notion of perpetually unfolding stages of education is more useful. The contingent nature of a teacher collective agency that can counter the charter movement can be a process that features an original thesis (just like the YCSC teacher disillusionment) being negated by an antithesis (just like the YCSC teacher agency). The latter negation will lead to a new synthesis for that particular education effort. Hegel would

58

RUDY CUEVAS ET AL.

formulate his theories in similar dialectical fashion by stating that each dialectical stage in any historical process is the synthesis of the contradictions inherent in the preceding stage (1874). Commitment to Anti-Prescriptive Change George Orwell (1946) successfully documented the danger of being prescriptive about progressive change in his classic allegory entitled Animal Farm. If the next dialectical stage that comes after the charter school movement does not account for Orwell’s allegory of prescriptive dogmatism, there is the danger of reproducing an indifferent corruption if there is not a democratic inclusion of teachers in that process. Implications for Charter School Leaders The example of the YCSC democratization effort can serve to show current and future charter school leaders that a teacher-centered approach to decision-making is the best way to facilitate the development of studentcentered learning. Top-down approaches to curricular and pedagogical decision-making serve only to model and perpetuate an anti-democratic culture. To assume that charter school leaders have an innate ability to avoid the dangers of dogmatism is to be ignorant of Orwell’s warnings. Ultimately, the lesson for other charter school leaders is clear. Other charter school leaders or ‘‘developers’’ have the choice to foster a kind of collectivism that honors, respects, and validates the fact that future of education rests not upon the reproduction of poverty via neoliberal schooling but upon the degree to which teachers are able to foster the emancipatory education our schools need. Therefore, charter school leaders that abide by contingent collectivism would be wise to foster a change effort but then step aside to in order to fully democratize whatever those efforts are. The latter approach is the key to the preservation of democracy.

REFERENCES Apple, M. (1990). Ideology and curriculum. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. (2006). Educating the right way: Markets, standards, god, and equality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Bowles, S, & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist america: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life. New York, NY: Basic Books. Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (1988). A thousand plateaus. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.

Teacher Agency in Charter Settings

59

Foucault, M. (2006). Chomsky vs. Foucault: A debate on human nature. New York, NY: The New Press. Fukuyama, F. (1992). The end of history and the last man. Los Angeles, CA: Penguin. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as intellectuals: Toward a critical pedagogy of learning. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey. Hegel, G. W. F. (1874). The logic. Encyclopedia of the philosophical sciences (2nd ed.). London: Oxford University Press. Marx, K. (1867). Capital: A Critique of political economy. New York, NY: The Modern Library. Orwell, G. (1946). Animal farm. London: Penguin Group. Rorty, R. (1989). Contingency, irony, and solidarity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sheldon, L. R. (1981). War communism to NEP: The road from serfdom. The Journal of Libertarian Studies, V(1), 93. Wells, A. S. (2002). Why public policy fails to live up to the potential of charter school reform: An introduction. Where Charter School Policy Fails: The Problems of Accountability and Equity. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION: A RECIPE FOR IMPROVED STUDENT OUTCOMES Stefanie Holzman and Gaetano Scotti ABSTRACT The term Instructional Leader is often given to the leader of the school, even if she/he doesn’t deserve it. Instructional leadership consisting of four ‘‘main ingredients’’: (1) a true understanding of and appreciation for the craft of teaching on the part of the site administrator, (2) the capacity to gauge the quality and effectiveness of instruction by individual teachers as well as teacher groups, (3) a practical, consistent, and ongoing teacher support and development system, and (4) the ability to remove teachers who prove to be ineffective from the classroom, is provided to guide the behaviors and actions of the school leader in becoming an Instructional Leader. Components of this ‘‘recipe’’ include the administrator teaching in classrooms, creation, implementation, and monitoring of a framework for instruction, as well as the teacher evaluation as an extension of the implementation of the framework. Instructional Leaders are made and the authors identify ideas from Fullan’s Motion Leader (2010) to support a manager’s change to becoming an Instructional Leader.

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 61–76 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018009

61

62

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

INTRODUCTION Nobody gives out awards for being an Instructional Leader. There are no gold medals, no certificates, and no bonuses. In fact, everyone who sits in the Principal’s1 seat automatically is labeled an Instructional Leader. However, as witnessed by school’s results, not every school really has an Instructional Leader. It is the contention of the authors that in order for a school to be REALLY successful, there has to be a focus on instruction and the school must have a leader who knows what instruction is, how to keep the focus on instruction, and what to do when instructional practices are not effective. Even though an individual may have the paperwork that indicates she/he is qualified to hold a leadership position at a school, this paperwork does not indicate to what degree this person will be proficient at the job. The assumption is everyone who holds an administrative credential has the skills, knowledge, and dispositions to ensure personnel at the school can facilitate effective instructional programs and practices, so all students can meet the rigorous standards expected today. If only this were true and if administrators only needed to manage the school as in the past, then we need not worry about student learning and outcomes. However, the expectations for today’s schools are vastly different. What students learn and to what degree of proficiency they have learned are used to judge a school’s efficacy. Therefore, manager is not the primary role of the administrator. This doesn’t mean the managerial tasks have disappeared. What it means is the administrators of today’s schools must be both Instructional Leaders as well as managers, and that the priority for their time and effort should be about what happens IN the classroom. Yet, this is not always the case. You will know when you meet an Instructional Leader just by the language she/he uses and where you find her/him. Her/his vocabulary is different than a manager’s. The Instructional Leader will often use words such as ‘‘students,’’ ‘‘teachers,’’ ‘‘learning,’’ ‘‘classroom,’’ etc. She/he will talk about ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘vision,’’ ‘‘alignment,’’ ‘‘collaboration,’’ ‘‘support,’’ and ‘‘staff development’’ rather than ‘‘facilities,’’ ‘‘behavior,’’ ‘‘meetings,’’ ‘‘them,’’ or ‘‘they.’’ You will know when a school has an Instructional Leader because she/he won’t be found in the office, rather she/he will be in classrooms. You will know when you meet an Instructional Leader by the passion in her/his voice about the work and the positive attitude about what the school is doing and can do in the future. Look for Instructional Leaders; they are the ones who will lead the way into the future of education.

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

63

VISION The difference between a site administrator who manages a school and one who embodies the role of Instructional Leader is her/his vision. An Instructional Leader has a clear and detailed vision of what an effective academic program looks like in the classroom, how curriculum is properly implemented, and where the control points are in the mechanism including budgets, personnel, support, time, and materials. In addition, the Instructional Leader is willing to prioritize everything to support instruction and applies pressure to ensure everyone understands this IS the priority at the school. Everyone at the school then needs to help develop the full implementation of the vision. The individual vision an Instructional Leader possesses is a product of her/his experience in, understanding of, commitment to, knowledge about, and passion for education. However, the leader of the school is not the one who will actually be implementing the instructional vision, that role belongs to the teachers in the classroom. Therefore, the leader must understand that one of the roles of the teachers is to develop the actual and practical implementation of the vision. This requires a great deal of trust on the part of the leader. When the administrator ‘‘hands over’’ the vision to the teachers, she/he must trust them to be able to implement it. On the other hand, the teachers must trust the administrator to provide them with the support, materials, time, and personnel they need in order to ensure they are capable of meeting the expectations of the vision. Forsyth et al. (2011) suggest if trust is built through relationships, then regulations, policies, and autocratic/top-down decisions need to be revisited as they do not promote trust, but in fact may inhibit trust among groups, especially between teachers and the administrators. They state, ‘‘Our assumption changes the fundamental purpose of education policy from control over teachers to support for conditions that enable human and social capacity to flourish’’ (p. 152).

CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION Traditionally, educators have murmured the phrase ‘‘curriculum and instruction’’ in one breath as if they are the same thing, totally inseparable. While they are closely tied together in effective schools, they are actually two very distinct entities. The intended curriculum is defined as ‘‘content specified by state, district, or school to be addressed in a particular course or

64

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

at a particular grade level’’ (Marzano, 2003, p. 23). Most public schools have much the same curriculum especially with the implemetation of the new common Core Curriculum Standards. Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009) recognize teachers no longer choose what to teach ‘‘because we have y standards that define and describe what students are to be taught’’ (p. 10). Instruction, on the other hand, is the manner in which the teachers deliver the specified content. It is the ‘‘how’’ teachers teach in order to ensure students learn. In contrast, the curriculum is ‘‘what’’ teachers teach. Much energy goes into the textbooks and other materials that will be placed in the classroom. If values are defined as ‘‘the attitudes and behaviors an organization embraces’’ (Blankstein, 2010, p. 85), then education truly values the ‘‘what’’ of teaching – the curriculum. With the Common Core Standards, education now has virtually the same ‘‘what,’’ and all schools should have the same outcomes. Yet they don’t. The most significant difference among schools is not the curriculum, nor the standards, but the delivery of the content. In contrast, much talk has been given to instruction, but very little time and energy have really been spent on implementing good instructional practices, including training teachers as to what these practices look like in the classroom and how they should be implemented. Nor has much energy gone into training evaluators as to what they should observe in a classroom when a teacher uses effective instructional practices, and what to do IF a teacher’s practices are not effective. Yet, the research demonstrates that knowledge of effective pedagogy accounts for four times the variance in teacher performance than does subject-matter knowledge (Ferguson & Womack, 1993).

A FRAMEWORK FOR INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP The recipe for effective Instructional Leadership requires four main ingredients: (1) a true understanding of and appreciation for the craft of teaching on the part of the site administrator, (2) the capacity to gauge the quality and effectiveness of instruction by individual teachers as well as teacher groups, (3) a practical, consistent, and ongoing teacher support and development system, and (4) the ability to remove teachers who prove to be ineffective in the classroom. It should be stated from the outset that this is an all or nothing type of recipe. Each of the four ingredients is of equal

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

65

importance. Remove any one of them from the recipe and the product will be less than desirable; substitution is not an option. Although each of the four ingredients is of equal value, the order in which these are listed is not random. It is deliberate in that the first ingredient is critical to the development of the second and third, but not vice versa. In order for a site administrator to truly understand and appreciate a teacher’s craft, she/he must have spent a significant amount of time as a decidedly effective classroom teacher. While it is certainly possible for a less experienced or even unproven teacher to grasp the complexities of the teaching profession at a superficial level, a much deeper and more nuanced understanding is needed in order to evaluate quality teaching, or more specifically, gradations of it, diagnose the less obvious but often critical malpractices, and respond appropriately to the specific professional development needs of individual faculty members. Therefore, spending time in the classroom is not only a vital strategy for building trust, but also for ensuring that the leader actually earns the title of ‘‘Instructional Leader.’’

IMPLEMENTING THE INSTRUCTIONAL VISION Only an Instructional Leader will spend time in classrooms to model the behaviors expected of the teachers, and which will also provide concrete examples of what the instructional vision will look like in action. This one simple strategy (if teaching can be called simple) provides the leader with an authentic, legitimate voice that says ‘‘I’ve been there and that’s why this vision is so important.’’ In order to achieve the level of buy-in needed on the part of the faculty, the site administrator must be able to communicate with teachers about their craft in a manner that is consistent with a true understanding and appreciation of it. The ‘‘knowing’’ of teaching is very different than the ‘‘doing,’’ hence being able to speak to the deeper and more nuanced issues of the classroom experience is crucial. Getting all teachers to embrace a vision and move in a single direction for the betterment of the students can only happen if they believe the site administrator has walked in their shoes and she/he was willing and capable of putting in the time and making the sacrifices required to realize the vision. The true appreciation is implicitly communicated to the faculty through the conversations that occur in staff meetings, trainings, and individual conferences. It is no different an experience than meeting a stranger at a party or some other public setting, broaching a subject that is

66

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

mutually familiar, and quickly realizing through conversation, that the other person really knows what she/he is talking about. As a result of the administrator’s risk-taking, the staff develop respect for the leader as a teacher, not just as someone with positional power. And respect is one of the key components of trust. In addition, by putting oneself ‘‘on the line’’ by teaching in the classroom and then communicating successes and failures with the teachers about her/his experiences, the administrator is modeling risk-taking, deprivitizing practices, and teambuilding. All are key components of building trust in order to develop support within and among peers. A secondary benefit is the administrator can identify some of the staff development needed to ensure effective practices become part of the teachers’ repertoire. The classroom teaching strategy is one that a manager will not use. She/he may have ‘‘book knowledge’’ about instruction, may even have the key concepts, vocabulary, and understandings, and will demand that the teachers implement effective instructional practices, but will not teach in classrooms. However, it is not until she/he faces the same challenges as the teachers, where teachers can SEE the administrator doing so, that a leader becomes an Instructional Leader. Everyone knows that the principal taught, but not all teachers trust that she/he had the same circumstances in which they currently teach – the same types of students, the same size of class, the same content with the same expectations for the implementation of instructional practices. Let’s not lose track of the fact that this first ingredient of the framework is a combination of true understanding and appreciation. Neither of the two can be established independently, and the lack of one precludes the existence of the other. Site administrators who have completed an administrative credential program, even those with just a few years of teaching under their belts will have a general understanding of the considerations involved in the craft of teaching. Neither their training nor their experience as such provides school site administrators with the desired level of understanding and appreciation of the craft of teaching required in this recipe for effective Instructional Leadership. Assigning equal value to each ingredient does not change the fact that the first ingredient must also be the first step in the process. Hollingsworth and Ybarra (2009) found ‘‘that teachers pick up various instructional practices over the years from college, staff development, conferences, and personal experience. Once teachers lock into a teaching style, they generally stick to it day after day without thinking about it’’ (p. 9). While some of these practices may be effective, a hodge-podge of personal strategies does not allow for a cohesive school-wide framework for

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

67

instruction and will unlikely meet the vision of the school. Nor does it provide a structure by which teachers can determine if they are implementing their practices effectively. Therefore as part of the vision, the school needs to (1) create their own framework for effective instructional practices or (2) adopt a structure created by someone else. Principal Gaetano Scotti and the Port of Los Angeles High School (POLAHS) staff created their own ‘‘pillars’’ of effective teaching. Each pillar is based on the needs of the students and had specific observable behaviors that could be easily identified in the classroom. .

Port of Los Angeles High School (POLAHS) Four Pillars of Effective Teaching Classroom management Clear student & class expectations On task atmosphere  Effective transitions  Respect for teacher authority  Consistent enforcement of class rules

Student interaction Effective learning environment All students engaged  All students dealt with fairly  Firm but fair individual student discipline









Planning & organization Rigorous content  Standards based  Logical sequencing  Appropriate pacing  Frequent checks for understanding  Varied and meaningful assessments 

Differentiated & Varied instruction Different learning styles addressed  Scaffolding  Specially Designed Academic Instructional in English (SDAIE) methods targeted for English language learners (ELL) students  Special education accommodations  Use of technology 

On the other hand, Principal Stefanie Holzman based her instructional practices on an adaptation of Madeline Hunter’s Mastery Learning (1982). Teachers’ lesson designs included the following components:  Creating an anticipatory set in order to activate prior knowledge  Stating the objective of the lesson in student language

68

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

 Stating the purpose as to why there is the need to know this content  Providing input as the teacher explains the content and process students are to know  Teaching, modeling, or demonstrating the product or process correctly (metacognition on the part of the teacher)  Guiding student practice to scaffold and provide feedback for the purpose of mastery including the gradual release of responsibility (Fisher & Frey, 2008)  Closing the lesson reflection by the students, so they can demonstrate they have understood the lesson  Practicing independently by those students who have demonstrated mastery of the lesson In addition to these parts of the lesson, teachers were also expected to engage students throughout the lesson using overt active participation strategies. A teachers used active participation as a strategy so that they could adjust the lesson in the middle of the learning rather than waiting until the end to find out that students had not mastered the lesson. These data from were active participation used to identify students who needed to be retaught in small groups after others also who had mastered the content were released to work independently. At first glance, the two frameworks appear to be very different; however, they have much in common. Both ensured teachers knew what was expected in the classroom, both ensured instruction rigor was present in every classroom, AND both had the same outcomes – increased student achievement in demographically challenged schools (inner-city, with students from low socioeconomic status, minorities, and English learners). Both principals taught in their respective schools and used their experiences to increase their knowledge and appreciation of what was needed for effective instruction. Because both principals took the stance as Instructional Leaders, both had a vision for what good instruction would look like in their schools; both knew about instruction as a result of their teaching experiences in the classrooms at their sites, and both made sure that every decision at the school was focused on the instruction in the classrooms. Therefore, when budget decisions needed to be made their first question was ‘‘how does this support the instructional practices in the classroom?’’ When personnel changes needed to be made they asked ‘‘how will these people support the instructional changes in the classroom?’’ When professional development was discussed the issue was always, ‘‘how it would help teachers in the classroom?’’ So the managerial part of their roles supported the instructional

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

69

program at their school – everything was about effective instruction for increased student achievement y and students did achieve!

MONITORING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL PRACTICES Having an instructional framework in place is not enough. Even providing training for teachers is not enough to ensure that what is expected is what is actually implemented. The second of the four key ingredients, the capacity to gauge the quality and effectiveness of instruction by individual teachers as well as teacher groups, is a key skill an Instructional Leader must develop. As Chris Yeager (personal communication, August 21, 2008), trainer for Thinking Maps, once stated ‘‘Staff development without follow-up is just a chance to have lunch with your friends.’’ Follow-up to professional development is the ONLY strategy that will ensure the desired behaviors become a part of the culture of the school. Follow-up can take many forms, but one of the most important strategies is for the Instructional Leader to state ‘‘I expect you to implement this new learning in your classroom.’’ Implicit in this statement and what needs to be made explicit is that the learners are not expected to be able to implement this new strategy with 100% efficacy. What the leader expects is that the teachers try out the strategy and continuously improve their implementation. This first step is important to the development of truly effective practices. In order to follow-up on this first step, the Instructional Leader must (and will) go into classes to demonstrate her/his understanding of how to implement this new strategy. The probability is she/he will not be able to implement this with 100% accuracy either. However, as a result of this experience, the leader now has demonstrated risk-taking, has learned what is hard and easy to implement, and what additional training might be necessary. In addition to trying out the strategy, the Instructional Leader must also go into everyone’s class where the new behavior is expected and explicitly look for it. Before leaving the classroom, she/he must leave a note that reinforces the positive aspects of the teacher’s attempt at the new behavior – especially that the teacher took a risk and tried the new learning. These visits provide the administrator data as to what areas the teachers might need additional support and who has developed more understanding and/or more effective implementation of the target behaviors. This teacher can then help peers, thus developing another strategy to help increase the

70

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

other teachers’ knowledge and use of what was learned in the professional development. Hence, peer support becomes an integral part of the implementation cycle. Of course, additional professional development needs to be offered. A one-time training is not enough to thoroughly understand the new strategy and all that it takes to implement it. And the cycle repeats – after the professional development, explicit expectations are given, the leader tries the new learning out, she/he also goes into classroom looking for the strategy reinforcing positive behaviors, and provides opportunities for peers to teach peers. These few steps help ensure the strategy becomes a part of the instructional culture and expectations for the school.

TEACHER EVALUATION Developing the capacity to gauge the effectiveness of individual teachers and teacher groups is far less complicated in a charter setting than it is in a traditional district setting. Typically, in a traditional public district setting classroom teachers can only be evaluated by school site administrators. The negotiated contract between the district and the union specifies the number and type of observations. By limiting these classroom visits, the Instructional Leader may not truly build a fully detailed view of a teacher’s strengths and weaknesses. It is the difference between an X-ray and an MRI. Walking into a classroom once or twice a year might help you determine whether or not something is obviously wrong, but may not be a meaningful and honest evaluation process, one that yields a more detailed, higher resolution image of a teacher’s ability and performance. In structured evaluations, teachers may take out their ‘‘dog and pony’’ lesson for the observation. These lessons may have all the components based on the school’s expectations and MAY even be considered proficient, yet if the teacher never again demonstrates these skills throughout the year, student achievement may suffer. It is the responsibility of the Instructional Leader to find means to ensure that teachers’ daily behaviors in the classrooms are congruent and proficient to the vision of to the strategies adopted by the school. An effective evaluation system must build the capacity of the teacher. The typical observation whereby the administrator observes the teacher and then tells the teacher areas which have to improve is faulty in three ways: (1) it is only based on the knowledge of the administrator about instruction, (2) the teacher generally has no idea what criteria the administrator is going to use

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

71

to determine her/his proficiency, and what constitutes proficiency, and (3) it does not promote teacher reflection and learning as someone is telling her/him the ‘‘answers.’’ The formal evaluation process in any school has two real functions: (1) as a process used as a supervision strategy to increase the skills of all proficient teachers; and (2) as the process to document and build a case for dismissal for a non-proficient teacher. In either case, in a school with a true Instructional Leader, the evaluation process is based on clear and transparent expectations for proficient lessons from the school’s explicit framework for instructional practices. As administrators cannot be in the classroom at all times, the teacher must also be able to self-monitor, selfreflect, and self-regulate her/his instructional practices. Free from both the restrictions in the union contract and the hindrances of a generic district policy, charter administrators can establish a system that empowers teachers by encouraging and supporting highly effective practices. If teachers are to help develop the actual implementation of the vision based on the framework for effective instructional practices, then they should also recognize in themselves and peers what these look like in the classroom. At POLAHS, Lead Teachers who are skilled teachers evaluate the teaching staff. Lead Teachers supplanted the role of a second administrator on campus, effectively diffusing authority over instruction to all four grade levels and further underscoring the importance placed on teaching and its paramount role in the educational process. Each Lead Teacher has one period per day to observe others. This was one example of how the use of the budget and personnel was revised to support the effective instructional practices in the classroom. Unlike Lead Teachers at many other schools, the POLA Lead Teachers directly supervise and evaluate teachers in their respective grade levels. The decision to empower Lead Teachers with the authority to evaluate is rooted in the philosophy that there is no one better to evaluate the practice of others than a master practitioner. POLA Lead Teachers are all veterans with demonstrated mastery of the California Standards for the Teaching Profession. Lead Teachers have a supervisory ratio of 10:1 and make an average of four classroom visits per teacher, some teachers receive more visits than others based on need. They spend an average of 45 minutes of follow-up time with teachers after each visit discussing their direct observation of the teaching practice, providing suggestions, guidance, and support, and working with the teachers to establish specific goals for improvement. The Leads and their grade level teams spent a minimum of 180 minutes per month together as a group for meeting or training purposes.

72

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

As a result of this practice, teachers understand what is expected of them and have a built-in support system to increase their skills. This only works where there is a clear vision for instruction, an Instructional Leader supports the vision, and trust is a fundamental basis of the culture of the school. By creating, nurturing, and supporting this system, key ingredients (3) and (4): (3) a practical, consistent, and ongoing teacher support and development system and (4) the ability to remove teachers that prove to be ineffective in the classroom, are clearly met. In addition, this practice provides teachers with time to reflect upon their own practices in order to increase their efficacy. On the other hand, Holzman’s school had to work within the confines of a binding contract. This did not stop her from looking for strategies to use the evaluation process to increase teacher efficacy. Therefore, she presented to teachers an alternative evaluation process from that stated in the contract. If teachers agreed with this new process, they had to sign a waiver of the contract for evaluation. Anyone could opt to keep the traditional methodology whereby the principal comes into the classroom two to three times per year and completes a formal observation. Holzman presented both processes to the teachers: (1) the traditional method of principal observation with a follow-up conference where the teacher received the completed evaluation form or (2) having students videotaped while the teacher taught, the videotape was handed to the teacher and she/he evaluated her/his own performance. In this alternate process, teachers knew the principal would ask them three questions: (1) what was the objective of the lesson? (2) what went well? and (3) what would you have changed if you could have? The evaluation form was completed collaboratively with the principal at the time of the postconference. One hundred percent of the teachers agreed to the alternative process. The underlying ideas behind this new type of evaluation included: (1) providing teachers with a video to assess the effect of their teaching on students, (2) ascertaining what teachers knew about the instructional framework used by the school. For example, if a teacher did not realize they failed to state the objective, the administrator knew she would need to reiterate that part of the framework to the teacher; (3) providing opportunities for teachers to practice self-reflection. As the principal couldn’t be in their classrooms every day, teachers needed to self-monitor and adjust based on their reflections about their lessons; (4) providing data trends as to what staff development was needed by the entire staff and; and (5) helping to establish the classroom observation protocols the

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

73

administrator used when she observed in the classroom. The teacher’s evaluation conferences provided a context for any informal observations by the administrator. What was discussed in the conference was what the administrator looked for in the teacher’s lesson during future classroom visits. The principal also taught demonstration lessons in the classroom on the teaching point from the conference. This helped individualize staff development needs as well as other staff development that each teacher received. Using both informal and formal means of evaluating teachers provided opportunities for the Instructional Leaders to gauge the quality and effectiveness of instruction by individual teachers, provided practical, consistent, and ongoing teacher support and development system and, provided the basis for the removal of teachers who proved to be ineffective in the classroom.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Becoming an Instructional Leader is not easy. The systems currently in place in education do not lend themselves to supporting this role. In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Much of an administrator’s day is spent outside the classroom dealing with behavior issues, going to meetings, working on personnel issues, managing budgets to name just a few. Part of the problem is the expectation of the people around the administrator comes from their own experiences of what she/he does ... and in the past the administrator WAS a manager. It is very easy to fall into that role. Becoming an Instructional Leader means that you have to have a vision and be willing to bring people along to ‘‘see’’ the vision and to help them implement the vision. It means building trust, letting go of power and control, letting people develop strategies to implement the vision maybe in a different way than you might have done. Being an Instructional Leader means you have to let go of some of the roles and responsibilities which ARE your roles and responsibilities and reprioritize your work. This means traditional roles must change which may change the roles of others at the site. Being an Instructional Leader means you have to measure everything you do by what you ‘‘see,’’ stand up for your beliefs and vision even when people don’t or can’t see what you see. And being an Instructional Leader means you have put teaching and learning first, you understand the purpose of

74

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

school and are willing to work extremely hard to not allow anything to derail you from that work. Obviously, it’s not easy and it is all about change. We offer some suggestions based on Michael Fullan’s book Motion Leadership (2010): 1. If you don’t know the answer to something, tell others you don’t know and that you’ll find out, and then find out! This is especially true when teaching in the classroom. Leaders generally do not put themselves ‘‘on the line’’ and risk appearing inadequate. But teaching in the classrooms and sharing the experience build trust between the administrator and the teachers. 2. If you make a mistake, admit it and take risks. No one is perfect. Even though an Instructional Leader has a clear vision for classrooms, teaching toward the vision is not easy. There will be many missteps along the way. It is more important to admit them and demonstrate you are willing to learn from others in order to build trust. If you want teachers to increase their efficacy, then they must recognize their mistakes, so should the leader. If you don’t take risks, why should your teachers? 3. Focus on relationships. As stated before, the Instructional Leader cannot teach in every classroom; therefore, she/he has to trust the teachers at the school to implement the vision in the classrooms. This can only be done IF the Instructional Leader knows her/his staff as people, as well as professionals. 4. Honor the implementation dip. All new strategies have implementation dips when nothing seems to go right and everyone is ready to ‘‘throw in the towel.’’ Identify this time as what it is a dip in the effective implementation of a new instructional strategy. But don’t lower your expectations for implementation. Teachers need to ‘‘plow through’’ this dip in order to effectively implement the instructional practices. This also means the Instructional Leader must recognize when the teachers are in the dip, reinforce desired behaviors, point out undesirable behaviors (usually old ones), and as Fullan says ‘‘apply pressure, provide support’’ (NSDC Conference, December 3, 1996). 5. Make people change their behaviors, and then ask them about their beliefs.Harvey (1995) suggests that people’s beliefs are determined by their experiences and based on their values. Even the most charismatic Instructional Leader cannot change these beliefs. Therefore, the Instructional Leader needs to provide opportunities for teachers to experience new behaviors in order to develop new beliefs. What will happen is that the teachers’ beliefs will change as they see increased

Curriculum and Instruction: A Recipe for Improved Student Outcomes

75

academic performance from students as a result of good instructional practices. 6. Keep communication open, transparent and explain why you want to do something. Adults need to feel that they are included in the decisions, therefore include them as often as possible. Ask for advice from them. However, it is important for teachers to understand that advice is just their suggestions which you will take into consideration, but that you need to make the final decision. If you don’t follow their advice, explain why. If you have to make a decision without their input explain why. Keeping everyone apprised of what is happening through open communication will solve many of the problems as you implement effective instructional practices. Everyone can become an Instructional Leader. No one is born with the innate knowledge of how to become one. Rather, leaders who become Instructional Leaders learn from their teachers, and are willing to take risks so that students receive the best education possible, and continue to move toward their clearly defined vision. Nothing stops them from finding ways to reach their vision. Nothing.

NOTE 1. In a charter, there are many titles for the instructional head of a school. For clarity, we will use the term principal, administrator, or leader to refer to this person.

REFERENCES Blankstein, A. M. (2010). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ferguson, P., & Womack, S. (1993). The impact of subject matter and education coursework on teaching performance. Journal of Teacher Education, 44(1), 465–498. Fisher, D, & Frey, N. (2008). Better learning through structured teaching: A framework for the gradual release of responsibility. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Forsyth, P., Adams, C., & Hoy, W. (2011). Collective trust: Why schools can’t improve without it. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Fullan, M. (2010). Motion leadership: The skinny on becoming change savvy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Harvey, T. (1995). Checklist for change: A pragmatic approach to creating and controlling change. Lancaster, Pennsylvannia: Technomic Pub. Co.

76

STEFANIE HOLZMAN AND GAETANO SCOTTI

Hollingsworth, J., & Ybarra, S. (2009). Explicit direct instruction: The power of the wellcrafted, well-taught lesson. Thousand Oaks, California: Corwin Press and DataWorks Educational Research. Hunter, M. (1982). Master learning. El Segundo, CA: Tip Publication. Marzano, R. (2003). What works in schools: Translating research into action. Alexandria, VI: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

OPERATIONS AND FINANCE: KEEPING A PULSE ON THE BACKBONE OF YOUR ORGANIZATION Cameron Curry ABSTRACT The school leader of today needs to be a passionate individual with the ability to stay focused on multiple areas to ensure the students achieve in their learning community. Leaders with a skill set that includes successfully understanding and managing the operations and finance of the program is critical in a time of increased pressure on schools to accomplish more with limited revenues and resources. Great school leaders understand and embrace the elements of Educational Leadership Policy Standards (2008) while regularly engaging in the areas of operations and finance to keep a pulse on the backbone of the organization. Understanding the ‘‘business side’’ of operating a school is key for a leader to balance academic outcomes for students, while managing the business of education within their organization.

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 77–92 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018010

77

78

CAMERON CURRY

Leaders with a willingness to grow can harness their educational backgrounds and connect key elements of business fundamentals to achieve the balancing act necessary for success that benefits students, parents, and the school community.

Leaders in charter schools are expected to do more, know more, and achieve more as they manage the day-to-day operations of their specific school, or schools. New leaders in charter schools are required to have a diverse background that moves beyond the fundamentals of education, incorporating elements of business, finance, and operations. According to the Center for American Progress 2009 report, ‘‘Stimulating Excellence: Unleashing the Power of Innovation in Education,’’ Recently, a new generation of social entrepreneurs has begun to transform public education with innovative solutions that have extraordinary potential to serve American students more effectively and efficiently. Programs like Teach For America, College Summit, New Leaders for New Schools, the Knowledge is Power Program, among others, are part of a growing movement to use new methods to deliver a higher-quality education to every student – particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. These innovators have challenged our understanding of ‘‘business as usual’’ in American public education by introducing new philosophies, methods, and expectations for the education of our nation’s students. (2009)

With this shift, school leaders of today have to be different in their approach to leading, mentoring, and creating success for school communities under their direction. Many leaders began their teaching career in traditional schools, their long-term goal often being a transition into administration after several years of teaching. What some may come to find is their district office retains control over the ‘‘business side’’ of education and these individuals are rarely exposed to the experiences needed for growth as a school site principal. In contrast, a charter school principal or director needs to have a working knowledge of school business operations and finance if he or she plans to excel as a school leader. Just as not every teacher is a great educator, not every principal is a great leader. Developing key leadership skills takes time, testing, and tenacity. Skills must be honed by personal experience and the hallmark of great school leadership needs to be developed for the benefit of students, teachers, and the community. Some colleges, like Central Michigan University (CMU), have started school leadership programs, so students are provided information and

Operations and Finance

79

leadership development opportunities through workshops, seminars, academic courses, and experiential challenges. In these programs and outreaches, CMU promotes the individual and group exploration of leadership theories and styles. If all students entering the teaching profession were given these opportunities at the collegiate level, the likelihood of success at individual school sites would increase. Having trained employees utilizing their academic experience and leadership skills doubly benefits the educational community.

LEADERSHIP CAPACITY In every industry, one can find individuals whose expected career path leads them past their area of expertise in search of greater impact by managing a team, school, or organization. In reviewing the use of the Teacher Leader Model Standards, which were released in 2011, outline how teachers can play meaningful roles in meeting 21st-century learners’ needs. There are seven elements or areas of leadership, along with functions that further define each one. These standards align with effective practices for the classroom, school community, and the educational profession. When teachers desire a career shift from the classroom into a school leadership position, individuals can become discouraged when they realize that leadership is a lot harder, and requires a broader skill set than they previously thought. Teachers having experienced leadership training in college, and then reinforced in the workplace through mentorship and preparation, helps foster individuals who value expanding their role beyond the classroom to have a future impact on the learning community. Most school districts do not have the mindset that individuals will have autonomous decision making opportunities, and do not spend the necessary time developing leaders to incorporate business, finance, and operations. Hence, as an example, these leaders may not be trained in business, and may not understand the best way to work with vendors and outside organizations on contracts for goods and services to support the school they are charged with managing. In contrast, successful charter schools are seeking leaders with an eager entrepreneurial spirit with the goal of making the most of revenues and resources to best meet the needs of the learning community where they serve. The New York-based Wallace Foundation has gathered a decade’s worth of research, and work in school leadership projects in 24 states, to create The School Principal as Leader: Guiding Schools to Better Teaching and

80

CAMERON CURRY

Learning (Wallace Foundation, 2012). This publication details five ‘‘key functions’’ that effective principals must have to be an effective and successful leader. These functions include: (1) shaping a vision of academic success for all students; (2) creating a climate hospitable to education; (3) cultivating leadership in others; (4) improving instruction and managing people; and (5) data and processes to foster-school improvement. The foundation’s report, released in January 2012, goes into further detail on these effective practices. According to their website, the report is intended to be the first in a series of documents detailing leadership practices for school personnel and how they can be supported at the district and state level. The focus of the Wallace Foundation report is on students and their academic success, which are roles that every school leader needs to keep at the forefront of their priorities. When schools couple these priorities with individuals who possess a strong business sense, this combination creates an opportunity for organizations to attract a new kind of leader for their leadership positions. These professionals are attracted to serve varying student groups and communities and are excited to be at the forefront of innovation and the public charter school movement. At a minimum, a successful leader requires passion, a keen sense of judgment, and excellent communication skills. Knowing the team, their skill set, and the community whom they serve is the springboard to making an impact as a successful school leader. Now throw in some tenacity, a strong will to overcome, and a sense of humor, and you are starting to understand that leading a school community takes a unique and innovative individual. Having an entrepreneurial spirit within the walls of a traditional public school setting seems incompatible at best. These innovative leaders want room to experiment, test, and try new methods, while developing innovative programs. These skills are the hallmark of the people they attract as employees and future school leaders.

LEADERSHIP AND PEOPLE POTENTIAL When it comes to school operations, a successful leader should have a passion, or calling, that incorporates a great love for people. According to John C. Maxwell, an internationally recognized leadership expert, speaker, coach, and author details in his bestselling book, The 5 Levels of Leadership (2011) that loving the people you lead is a fundamental aspect of leadership.

Operations and Finance

81

‘‘Loving your people makes the difference in their willingness to follow you into anything, no matter how hard the battle.’’ It is critical to know your team, their personalities, their quirks, their likes, and dislikes. A leader needs an understanding of team dynamics centered on compassion, empathy, and patience. The team will thrive and become a significant force for reform when they understand a leader’s commitment to them individually. They need to see him or her promoting the school’s mission and vision in creating a climate for each and every student to succeed. The leaders personal passion for what they do and whom they serve must be clearly seen by staff, parents, and students. Cornel Ronald West, an American scholar and public intellectual was quoted as saying; ‘‘You can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people. You can’t save the people if you don’t serve the people.’’ School employees stand on the front line daily to interact with students and parents. Leaders investing time getting to know and understand the individual roles and contributions of team members increases the likelihood that trust and confidence will result in helping strengthen the team. A manager’s firsthand knowledge of what individuals do, what they face, and what they accomplish, makes for a stronger leader. Managers gain a better understanding of school operations by working alongside or shadowing employees in key roles. In order to effectively support each employee, it is important to take the time to experience his or her job. This servant leadership approach puts the needs of the team first and allows a leader to gain a valuable perspective in the process. Regular communication, in combination with ‘‘time in the seat,’’ aids in the empathetic support that builds commitment and unity within the team and for the school site leader. How long those shadowing opportunities last vary from site to site or office to office. It stands to reason that a leader taking the time to listen, engage, and interact with these individuals allow a manager to develop compassion, insight, and firsthand knowledge of key areas within the overall operation of the school and organization. Plus, the benefit to the individual employee sharing their expertise with a leader allows for not only an exchange of information, but provides the employee with a unique connection with their leader to promote their value within the school community. Sharing what they do best, and having the leaders undivided attention, helps build trust and loyalty within the workplace. Now let it be said that having that a leader’s compassion for individuals also includes ongoing and strategic coaching to ensure an employee’s impact is positive and long lasting within the workplace for the benefit of students,

82

CAMERON CURRY

parents, and the community. Individuals need to be reminded their roles exist to enhance, promote, and support the students enrolled at the school. Employees who do not see this connection, or value how their role serves the collective needs of the school’s community should be ‘‘coached up’’ to achieve this understanding. An employee’s understanding and connection to the school’s mission and vision, and their part in it, tends to increase individual productivity. Employees feel a sense of pride and accomplishment knowing their work is a contribution in helping meet the goals and objectives of the learning community.

PROGRAMMING POTENTIAL The development of needed programs and programming at a school site is a large element within the scope of work for the school leader. It takes a lot of their focus, time, and energy to ensure that connecting student-learning outcomes to strategic programming is key in a school achieving and exceeding expected school-wide learning goals at all grade levels. Parents, teachers, and administrators need to align themselves to insure that individual student’s needs are addressed, grade level groups are engaged, and the entire community of learners is growing with relevant and meaningful content through the use of curriculum, tools, and resources. Variations in programming at a school site can include how classes are aligned from grade level to grade level, what classes are offered and what content and standards are covered within those classes. Specialty events like science fairs, spelling bees, geography bees, speech debates, math decathlons, and writing celebrations fall under the banner of school programming. When the definition is broadened to include school site safety and security, lunch breaks, recess times, and before and after school activities, a principal’s role in understanding and providing oversight require a flexible expert and not a rigid novice. In reviewing the Educational Leadership Policy Standards: ISLLC (2008) as adopted by the National Policy Board for Educational Administration (NPBEA) on December 12, 2007, it is clear that a leader’s role is wide, varied, and challenging. One of those elements detailed, ‘‘An education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources.’’ A great school leader takes the time to create, participate, and facilitate group meetings with key

Operations and Finance

83

community stakeholders comprised of students, parents, and teachers. These regular discussions relate to, and incorporate, programming to increase school-wide learning results for all students. School leaders benefit from accepting the philosophy of synergy, that ‘‘all of us are smarter than some of us.’’ Welcoming constructive feedback also facilitates the school improvement process. Great school leaders do not believe they have all the answers and welcome the inclusion of differing opinions and views into the discussion. If a leader’s desire is to create the supportive environment that is critical to making necessary changes and enhancements at the school site, then he or she must empower their team and express care, concern and a listening ear as the school leader. The larger community will appreciate how a leader values others in helping create a culture of success. Now, how does a leader maintain his or her edge in soliciting feedback and criticism when opening channels of dialog with those interested and invested partners? The leader should keep in mind that in the quest for feedback, they are also looking for information and possible solutions they may or may not be processing themselves. In the event your conversations continue to press a point you were already considering for a solution, then consider taking this as validation for your idea to move forward. It is key to give credit to those whom you solicited to lay the foundation that you are a leader who listens and acts appropriately based on the needs of the communities. Be reminded, according to the Educational Leadership Policy Standards, that ‘‘an education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner.’’ This can also be applied to the school site team as they work with the leader daily in the school community and value each of these elements in the workplace. In creating the annual instructional calendar for the program, the school leader should be strategic in selecting a few meet dates during the year to meet with key groups of constituents to discuss specific topics tied to the expected school-wide learning results. These dates should be published and made available to individuals can plan to attend. If leaders are hosting a private event for a select group, a personal invitation and telephone call from the leader is an important touch that students, parents, and the staff will appreciate. Expressing the importance of the meeting is time well spent on the part of the school leader. Annually, every parent should be given an opportunity to contribute feedback completing a short and specific parent feedback survey. Remember to be specific in what you are asking and be open to the criticism and praise

84

CAMERON CURRY

you will receive on the programming as a result. Although not every parent will participate in the survey, the leader should evaluate and strengthen the program annually with the input they have received. Do you have to incorporate all of the programming feedback? The simple answer is, ‘‘No.’’ To avoid making any changes or enhancements after asking for feedback would be a missed opportunity to lead in your school community. Parents appreciate the opportunity to share their concerns and praise. Now, take the suggestions and work with your team to create the changes that make sense for the whole community. In reading the specific parent comments collected a number of themes will arise. A leader should pick no more than three themes to tackle with the new school year and then be vocal in their written and oral comments to the community that ‘‘changes or enhancements are being made as a result of parent feedback.’’ This creates opportunities for the leader to involve the parent voice in the improvement process. Successful charter schools regularly solicit and incorporate parent feedback for specific and continuous improvement. This parent feedback can also tie directly back to the teams annual performance while providing the leader another avenue of feedback on individuals and their contributions. Leader’s interactions with the team identify who the peak performers are and who they have targeted to ‘‘coach up.’’ Having the parent feedback only strengthens this process. Parents are never shy about calling out the star performers and singling out those who need to be helped or encouraged to improve. Leadership is key in knowing what to do with feedback to strengthen the team, which ultimately impacts the student outcomes and programming. In reviewing the Educational Leadership Policy Standards, this process aligns with the education leader promoting the success of every student by facilitating the development, articulation, implementation, and stewardship of a vision of learning that is shared and supported by all stakeholders. With the school community sharing their thoughts on the school program annually, a leader may incorporate this feedback into their one-on-one conversations with team members. Share the good, the bad, and the need to change immediately. Specific parent comments are strong indicators of what a school needs and they are willing to share it so leaders should be willing to listen and act on the reasonable requests that lead to continuous and measurable improvement. It is important to remember that school leadership should not be frightened by constructive criticism. This open communication with staff and customers lead to strengthening and growth of the school site leader.

Operations and Finance

85

Now remember, leadership is key to program improvement when utilizing data, understanding surveys, and giving credit where credit is due. This ensures a leader is helping create a culture where feedback is embraced and results are directly tied to what is best for students and their learning.

OPERATIONAL SUCCESS: POLICIES AND PROCEDURES Operational success for a school leader is also tied to his or her focus, understanding, and follow-through with written policies and procedures for the school program. If a leader is fortunate enough to be starting their own school, they will have the benefit of helping craft and develop these policies and procedures from the ground up to meet the specific needs of their learning community. Far too many times in traditional school settings the written policies and procedures were written decades ago with little flexibility to meet the needs of the school community in the 21st Century. The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL) has started the ‘‘School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative’’ (IEL, 2012). ‘‘The nation is facing a serious educational leadership void. Strengthening educational leadership must become a national priority if we’re serious about making higher standards a reality for the 53 million children who depend on us.’’ The School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative’s mission: Spark and assist multi-sector efforts to develop policies and practices and create a new generation of education leaders. To achieve its mission, the School Leadership for the 21st Century Initiative will foster inter-sector relationships, bring greater coherence to these complicated issues and engage the public in addressing the leadership crisis. Much has changed in the past decade and school leaders should not back to how schools have done in the past, but rather look forward to see how new policies and procedures can be created, enhanced, or changed to ensure that what students need is achievable and sustainable at all school sites. An individual’s learning potential should not be held back by antiquated rules and systems. Today’s technology, understanding of the differences in learning styles, and overcrowding in schools has opened the door for innovation in all areas. School leaders have an obligation to read, review, and revise these policies and procedures annually as part of a site improvement plan. During the course of the school year, leaders and school employees should keep a tracking file of issues and situations that arose where these policies were not

86

CAMERON CURRY

clear enough or ambiguous. During the annual review process, a discussion on each of these items will allow the leader, working with his or her team, to craft or change a new or existing policy to meet the needs of the community for the coming year. Failure to make these enhancements will most likely have the school running into the same challenges annually as circumstances and situations tend to repeat themselves. School rules and systems should be adjusted accordingly to reasonable standards and expectations. As a general rule, there should be very few policies and procedures that are set in stone or are unchangeable. But be aware to insure that exceptions to policy and procedure be limited. It is best to wait for a formal policy change for the whole community. During the annual review process, all new and enhanced policies and procedures should be taken to the school board for review and approval. When the school’s Governing Board supports the school’s policies and procedures provides the school leader with confidence that his or her supervisors are supportive of their decisions. As a school leader it is important that their team is fully briefed on the school’s specific policies and procedures annually. As team members on the school site, it is paramount to their success, and the leaders, that everyone understands specific power and specific authority by which the policies and procedures give them and the expectations that comes with each. This process aligns with the Educational Leadership Policy Standards of the education leader promoting the success of every student by ensuring management of the organization, operation, and resources for a safe, efficient, and effective learning environment. Training in these areas should be an annual priority at the school site for all employees. When creating new documents, like the annual instructional calendar, the leader selects a time and date when the team will review the school’s written policies and procedures. In the meeting with the school leader, or designee, should ‘‘unpack the rules’’ and provide a scenario or rational for each. Also, leaders should create a conversation around improvement during this time so the team of employees is feels empowered to share, question, and strengthen these rules and systems for overall improvement of the school’s program. Much like the parent survey, where a leader gives parents credit for suggesting change, a successful school leader should the same with his or her team with the annual review of policies and procedures. If the team makes a great suggestion or comment, include it and give them credit. When the leader creates a school culture where feedback and team input is encouraged

Operations and Finance

87

and utilized, the team is more likely to contribute and maintain a strong desire to help play a part in school improvement efforts for the benefit of all those whom are served. This created a sense of ownership that adds to the strength of the team.

FACILITY OVERSIGHT AND MANAGEMENT In a charter school, many states encourage and allow schools to be located in nontraditional school sites. This being the case, a school leader will have to understand the maintenance and operation of facilities that are not maintained by district or central office personnel. Unless they have firsthand knowledge, a school leader is best served by locating a parent or community member with strong ties to real estate, city, and regional connections. Someone with a firm understanding of building and occupancy requirements will also be paramount to searching for and securing a facility for the school. School leaders should inquire with their city and state if they have a document or website detailing general information on requirements for schools to operate in specific areas of a community or in a particular established zone. Having someone with this general knowledge in the community can help a school leader define or eliminate potential sites immediately with little or no help from an outside consultant or expert. If it is a new school opening, please be mindful of the time it requires to secure the occupancy certificate for your project. Based on local, regional, or state rules, you may be in for a long wait as numerous forms, applications, and meetings to be processed to get the location you desire. Also keep in mind that large fees and political interests will also be in play as a new school site is located and discussed. Conversations with school staff, architects, planners, engineers, and other city or state employees add time to the facility approval process. Patience and tenacity as a school leader will be tested during this time. A leader’s connection to parents and students will be critical during this time as well in knowing if and when to encourage parents and students to voice their opposition to the hurdles that can come as a result of working with local, regional, and state officials. The officials, and the rules and regulations they are asked to enforce are in the business of doing things right, but unfortunately, not many of these exercise timely or prudent schedules for planning, meetings, or completing projects. A school leader should be politically savvy, or be growing in their understanding of the local climate around school innovation and reform.

88

CAMERON CURRY

This process aligns with the Educational Leadership Policy Standards that an education leader promotes the success of every student by collaborating with faculty and community members, responding to diverse community interests and needs, and mobilizing community resources. Annually, school leaders should be inviting local leaders; city council members, Mayors, school district superintendent’s, senators, assemblymen, etc. to visit the school site to meet students, parents, and teachers. These leaders want to know more about the school’s mission and population, so leaders should take the time to educate them on what a school offers and those whom are served. As a resource in the community, the school leader should make it a priority to tell their story and expect that local leaders will want to hear it. What makes the school unique? Who does the school serve? Get use to telling the story and sharing the success; it leads to opportunities for funding, donations, and bigger community support that a school needs in this economy to survive and thrive. In general, it is good to know someone before they are needed. This rule should be applied as a leader starts to encounter political pressure or roadblocks in the creation or growth of their school. As a school leader, it is better to call a friend for help verses a complete stranger. If the leader has laid the groundwork with inviting ‘‘friends’’ to their site, this would have included sending them the most recent newsletter, or inviting them to a special student performance, chances are their awareness of the leader and the school can help gain their support when it comes to locating and securing a new school site, getting approval for zoning, parking or crosswalks for students. This same rule can be applied during the phase when a leader is seeking approval for their new school. Who do they know in the community that has a connection to a local, regional, or state leader? Have this person make a call or send a letter on the behalf of the leader to give the school and program an introduction. A leader should utilize this time to share their vision, explain the educational program, and secure support for the community your school will be serving. A bold school leader should ask for written endorsements that can later be used in their public comments to local, regional, or state boards that may be involved in the charter school process in their community or state. School leaders should devote a portion of their time annually to efforts that draw community support to the school by means of hosting events and activities that bring valued local community members to their campus. A school leader’s investment in local public relations for the benefit of their

Operations and Finance

89

school has far reaching implications when you consider having the school’s name and educational program at the forefront of local conversations by those in places of influence.

THE SCHOOLS BACKBONE: A STRONG BUSINESS MODEL Charter schools, unlike traditional public school models, do not have the ability to gather and stockpile large cash reserves annually. Most charter schools utilize their state and local revenues annually to meet the pressing obligations of the school and the academic needs of students whom they serve. As an example, in the state of California, there is an inequity of funding between charter schools and their traditional public school counter parts. Traditional schools are funded at a higher level hence; public charter schools are expected to accomplish more with less. In California, the Legislative Analyst’s Office (LAO), reported in January 2012 that charter schools receive, on average, $395 per-pupil (or 7 percent) less in total general purpose funding than their school district peers, $150 of this gap is specifically identified as a result of underfunding the Categorical Block Grant compared to district funding for similar programs. This creates additional challenges when public charter school students are not funded at the same rate as their traditional public school counterparts. A school leader in this situation needs to have a firm understanding of the schools budget that covers the operational cost for the program and the team needed to support the program. The schools operational costs are best understood when reviewing them in general categories.  Revenue:  ADA  Grants  Other income – private donations, fundraising  Expenses:  Salaries  Benefits  Books and supplies  Services  Capital outlay  Other outgo  Revenue to expense

90

CAMERON CURRY

Depending on the structure of the school or organization, a leader may or may not have a specific person assigned to financial services and support for the school. In some cases, in small schools, the principal/leader/director handles these functions for the school as part of their leadership responsibilities under the oversight of the Governing Board. If this is the case, it takes more than a basic understanding of accounting to be successful in this area. For those with a specific team member assigned to this task, the school leader still needs to keep a close eye on the finances, as the school most likely will live from one state apportionment to the next. The national economy has had a chilling effect on public school funding over the past decade. What is being seen as a common sense approach to aligning curriculum and standards nationally with Common Core, the same would be incredibly helpful if the state apportionment was aligned nationally to give students equal access to public education funding. According to the National Education Association (NEA) in their December 2010 Ranking and Estimates Report, the US average per student expenditure for public elementary and secondary schools in 2009–2010 fall enrollment was $10,586 (NEA, 2010). States with the highest per student expenditures: New Jersey ($16,967), New York ($16,922), Vermont ($16,308), Rhode Island ($15,384), and Wyoming ($15,345). Arizona ($6,170), Utah ($6,859), Mississippi ($7,752), Nevada ($7,813), and Idaho ($7,875) had the lowest per student expenditures. Now, the average cost may be $10,586 per student but the fluctuation from state-to-state leaves the taxpayer wondering how the cost for educating a student can run the financial gambit with a $10,000 gap existing between states. Imagine the impact if every school was provided equal funding and every charter school, with their autonomy and mandates, were given the same access for the benefit of the public school student they serve. This could be a game changer for the entire public education movement in this country. Fortunately, there is a national conversation concerning the need to close low performing charter schools that are not producing the student results outlined in their founding charter documents. According to the Education Week news article, ‘‘California Charter Group Gets Tough on Charters,’’ published on August 17, 2012, the California Charter School’s Association is leading the way by taking an unusual public stance in lobbying for the closure of underperforming charters (Education Week, 2012). Local school districts unwilling or unable to close a low performing traditional school, in some cases, are either converting these to charter schools, as part of the parent trigger legislation in some states, or allowing

Operations and Finance

91

teachers and administrators to try new instructional methods and leadership to turn the school’s performance around. Either way, the current national economy and public school funding gap from state-to-state calls for school leaders to have a strong financial understanding so as to make key decisions at their school sites that target waste and invest in student programming leading to results. A school leader should work with his or her Governing Board to ensure spending priorities align with the leadership in place to support the school’s principal/leader/director. Having a CPA or financially savvy member of the Board is another area that can be of great help to a school leader during these times of increased financial pressure on the organization. Having highly skilled Board members can help the school leader achieve additional success by having an advocate and professional on the Board giving needed suggestions and sage advice as decisions are made to fund student programs and activities. A successful school leader should also have a working knowledge of financial resources that can help diversify the funding stream to the program and build connection to individuals, foundations, and philanthropic organizations. Beyond local support, a leader should investigate federal or grant funding. Eligibility varies with some funding based on student demographics and socioeconomic profiles, while others target a school’s specific population or the programming and the community whom they serve. Some specific organizations that can be targeted for support and information are the National Charter School Resource Center, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Office of Innovation and Improvement with the US Department of Education, and a state’s association supporting the charter school movement. All of these agencies supply information and support to school leaders, parents, and communities. A school leader needs to remember that as a public school – charter or traditional – it is not an employment agency. Employees are there for one purpose, to serve the academic interests of students. A successful school leader is able to focus on utilizing available financial resources in establishing programs, facilities, and maximizing human resource potential. These individuals will successfully incorporate feedback from all stakeholders at the school site for the combined benefit of producing exceptional academic results. That job description alone requires a solid mix of talents and abilities that far exceed the simple knowledge of any one role at a school site. Leaders chosen for this role exhibit a passion for learning, a joy for serving, and bravery for taking on the tasks that will test his or her will and tenacity to make things happen for the students, parents, and team members in their care.

92

CAMERON CURRY

REFERENCES California Legislative Analyst’s Office. (2012). Comparing funding for charter schools and their school district peers. Retrieved from http://lao.ca.gov/laoapp/PubDetails.aspx?id¼2554 Center for American Progress. (2009). Stimulating excellence: Unleashing the power of innovation in education. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/ 05/pdf/education_entrepreneurs.pdf Central Michigan University (1997). Retrieved from http://cmich.orgsync.com/org/leadership/ Educational Leadership Policy Standards. (2008) Retrieved from http://cmich.orgsync.com/ org/leadership/ Education Week. (2012, August 17). California charter group gets tough on charters. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/08/17/01closure-side.h32.html National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.public charters.org National Charter School Resource Center. (2012). Retrieved from http://www.charterschool center.org National Education Association (NEA). (2010, December). Ranking and estimates report. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/HE/NEA_Rankings_and_Estimates010711.pdf Office of Innovation and Improvement with the US Department of Education. (2012). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oii/csp/index.html Teacher Leader Model Standards. Retrieved from http://www.teacherleaderstandards.org The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL). (2012). The school leadership for the 21st century initiative. Retrieved from http://www.iel.org/programs/21st.html Wallace Foundation. (2012). The school principal as leader: Guiding schools to better teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/schoolleadership/effective-principal-leadership/Documents/The-School-Principal-as-LeaderGuiding-Schools-to-Better-Teaching-and-Learning.pdf

BUILDING A CULTURE OF COLLABORATION IN CHARTER AND AUTONOMOUS SCHOOL SETTINGS: ALIGNMENT BETWEEN PURPOSE, PROBLEMS, PEOPLE, AND POTENTIAL Lawrence C. Wynder II ABSTRACT Literature reveals that charter schools were established to improve learning, support low-achieving students, offer innovation and school choice, and create greater competition within the public school system to stimulate continued educational improvement. However, charter schools have political, organizational, and financial challenges that are unique to their settings. Unlike traditional schools that depend on district central offices, charter schools must identify their own sources to sustain organizational needs (Smith, Wohlstetter, & Hentschke, 2008a, 2008b). Conzemius and O’Neill (2001) argue building a community of collaboration among faculty is a key component of charter school success. Studies

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 93–114 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018011

93

94

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

reveal that the development of school–family–community partnerships is a key component of education reform and school improvement (Bryan, 2005; Sanders, 2003) and building partnerships is necessary for charter schools to acquire much-needed resources. The intent of this chapter is to provide urban charter school and autonomous leaders with the knowledge, skills, and tools to build collaboration among school faculty, engage a variety of community stakeholders, and build and sustain strong community partnerships in ways that lead to school improvement.

INTRODUCTION The charter school movement has gained increased support over the past several years. In the state of California charter schools grew from about 90 in 1996 to 688 in 2007–2008 and served roughly 4 per cent of the state’s students (Edwards, Barondess, Perry, & Crane, 2009). Literature reveals that charters have grown nationally and garnered significant political support. In 2010, 1.6 million students attended charter schools representing more than a 50 per cent increase over the last five years (Batdorff, Maloney, May, Dolye, & Hassel, 2010). In 2009, President Obama delivered a speech that recognized charters as a thriving reform engine and set a new precedence for policy makers to hold charters to a higher standard. President Obama stated, ‘‘We’ve got to experiment with ways to provide a better education experience for our kids, and some charters are doing outstanding jobs. So the bottom line is to try to create innovation within the public school system that can potentially be scaled up, but also to make sure that we are maintaining very high standards for any charter school that’s created’’ (President Barack Obama, 2009). Thus, innovation is the first point of focus for this chapter. Later, President Obama submitted a proposal for the 2010 federal budget that further signaled his commitment to charter schools as an important piece of the national public education reform initiative. ‘‘The proposed increased funding for the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP), supports the expansion of successful charter school models’’ (Edwards et al., 2009, p. 31). Therefore, the increase in demand for charter schools among families across the nation, coupled with the increase in political support for the implementation charters as a mechanism for public school reform, charter schools are more likely to be on the forefront as a national reform initiative. Yet, more must be learned about how charters can operate more efficiently toward this end.

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

95

Teacher collaboration is necessary for reform and collaboration is often a characteristic that is common in charter school settings. This is the second point of focus in this chapter. ‘‘Collaboration is defined as the direct interaction between at least two equal parties who voluntarily engage in shared decision-making as they work toward a common goal’’ (Gable & Manning, 1997, p. 1). According to Fullan (1998), researchers and practitioners are focused on 21st century schools with 21st century values, and thus school principals must have the capacity to continuously change their practices to address 21st century challenges. In the past traditional schools were characterized by isolated working conditions where teachers seldom saw, heard, or discussed the process of school or how others taught (Englert & Tarrant, 1995). Authors have also contended that schools can no longer rely on traditional administrative structures (Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989) or adhere to a traditional ‘‘factory model’’ of public education (Lugg & Boyd, 1993). These ideas represent a paradigm shift from the traditional school model to contemporary school practices. Teacher collaboration is believed to be a key piece of this paradigm shift that can lead to educational improvement (Englert & Tarrant, 1995). According to Brookhart and Loadman (1990), collaboration emphasizes team-decision-making and requires participants to take part in the planning and implementation process. ‘‘It includes a number of participants and requires a shift from schools’ hierarchical and authoritarian structures, so that all individuals consider themselves integral to the change process’’ (Gable & Lee Manning, 1997, p. 2). While there is considerable attention to charter schools, leadership, teacher collaboration, and culture, few authors offer insight into how these factors are connected to one another. It is based on this context that this chapter holds its purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to explore in what ways charter schools build a culture of collaboration in order to overcome organizational challenges and support their unique mission? Three essential questions served as a guide while surveying the literature: (1) What was the original purpose of the establishment of charter schools? (2) What are some key challenges to sustaining charter school operations that are unique to their settings? (3) How do leaders create a culture of collaboration among various stakeholders that support charter schools intended purpose and support with overcoming key challenges? To answer these questions, information was gathered from several bodies of literature such as School Leadership, Organizational Culture, School Reform, Organizational Learning, Accountability, and Human Capital Theory.

96

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

The intent of this chapter is to offer a conceptual framework and applied model that will enable independent and autonomous leaders to successfully build collaboration among all school stakeholders in ways that will satisfy community needs and lead to organizational efficiency and student achievement. The structure of this chapter follows the line of inquiry as presented in the guiding research questions. The history and context of charter schools are presented first. Next, barriers common to charter school organizations are explored. The conceptual framework is then presented. Finally, three essential functions are explored that are believed to be essential to building a culture of collaboration and are likely to lead to organizational success in charter and autonomous school settings.

History and Context of Charter School Settings Literature reveals the charter school concept emerged as a direct consequence of education reform efforts. The process of reform began in 1957 when America embarked on a mission to improve public education in order to compete internationally with the Soviet Union and the world’s most powerful nations. From the late 1950s to the late 1970s, the federal government’s involvement was limited to merely motivating states and local districts to make greater efforts toward educational improvement. However, by 1980 the federal government became associated with a highly visible education reform agenda and played a more direct role in initiating change. This change was greatly influenced by the publication of A Nation at Risk (1983), which shifted public opinion away from a focus on inequity to a focus on establishing higher standards for all students (Gardner, 1983). Ray Budde, educator and school administrator, first introduced the charter school concept in 1972 (Johnson & Medler, 2000). However, the concept did not gain national recognition until sixteen years later in 1988. His proposal was to restructure a department by giving teams of teachers within a school a ‘‘charter.’’ These teams could have 3–5 years in which they could do as they saw fit. Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, later modified the concept. Shanker advocated for allowing teams of teachers and others to submit proposals to set up their own autonomous public schools (Johnson & Medler, 2000). Later in 1991, policy analysts Ted Kolderie and Joe Nathan refined the charter school concept and proposed that people from outside the current education system be allowed to propose and operate charter schools. ‘‘They suggested that a public body other than the local school district be empowered to grant

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

97

charters – even over the objections of a local school district’’ (Johnson & Medler, 2000, p. 292). In 1994, a series of laws were passed that raised expectations for greater reform. President George Bush passed America 2000, which resulted in the development of ‘‘world class standards’’ in core subjects. Improving America’s School Act (IASA) established the expectation ‘‘high standards for all children.’’ Also in 1994, the Clinton administration successfully passed the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. Goals 2000 codified a set of national goals and authorized federal funding as an incentive to adopt improved performance standards. These policies maintained a consistent focus on standards based reform. Standards-based reform initiatives such as these called for the establishment of clear standards and high expectations for students of all backgrounds. Perhaps the most impactful legislation for federally mandated reform was the authorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001. According to Porter and Polikoff (2007), NCLB would establish accountability measures and set targets for various student subgroups. This added to the focus of standardized reform to include a focus on accountability and systemic change. NCLB also emphasized the teachers’ importance in raising student achievement through its highly qualified teacher requirement (McDonnel, 2005). NCLB created a climate where educators would not only set clear standards and establish high marks for achievement, but also hold schools accountable for improvement. As a result of the reform initiatives, charter schools gained greater recognition as an alternative way of reorganizing schools into more efficient systems (Loveless & Jasin, 1998). The charter school concept seemed to be a more feasible alternative to voucher proposals (Wohlstetter, Wenning, & Briggs, 1995) and emerged as a compromise between public school defenders and advocates for consumer choice in education (Hassel, 1998). Furthermore, charters challenged the traditional top-down notion, to bottom-up decentralized approach to school management (Loveless & Jasin, 1998). Thus, charter schools emerged as a direct consequence of education reform that called on schools to address the diverse needs of diverse students, families, and communities.

Rationales for Establishing Charter School Organizations A variety of authors offer insight into the rationale among policy makers for the establishment of charter schools. Malloy and Wohlstetter (2003) offered two main purposes for charter schools. These were (a) facilitating innovative

98

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

teaching and (b) to creating professional development opportunities for teachers. Fusarelli (2002) argued that charters were designed to provide (a) autonomy in educational programming, (b) a desire to serve a special student population, (c) realization of an educational vision, (d) a desire to provide a better teaching and learning environment, (e) instructional innovation, (f) a desire to involve parents, and (g) the autonomy to develop nontraditional relationships with the community. According to Smith, Wohlstetter, and Hentschke, (2008a, 2008b), the focus on establishing charters for teachers is consistent across the majority of states. They found that out of 37 states and the District of Columbia with charter school laws (as of January 2002), 29 laws included the intent to ‘‘facilitate innovative teaching,’’ and 24 states included statements that charter schools were designed to ‘‘create professional development opportunities for teachers.’’ Thus, charter schools were designed to engage teachers in meaningful ways and enable them to become inventive co-authors of contemporary reform efforts. Furthermore, a number of authors suggest that community involvement is also a key intent of charter schools. Also, according to Smith et al. (2008a, 2008b) community involvement is included as one intention of charter schools, as articulated by the laws in 13 states. Furthermore, they found that 15 states require evidence of community involvement or support in the charter school application and 5 states encourage community involvement on the charter school board. Thus, teacher development serves as a key rationale among charter school policies across the nation, but community is also another key rationale. Teacher collaboration and community involvement were perceived to be the conditions by which charters could initiate reform (Smith et al., 2008a, 2008b). Building a culture of collaboration is a common rationale for policy makers regarding the establishment of charter schools and is furthermore viewed as an important variable of reform. Therefore, collaboration in charter schools cannot be ignored. It serves as a central function and mechanism by which the purpose of charters are established and realized. While these ideas and concepts represent what these charter schools espouse to be in theory, research suggests that these aims are problematic. In order for aims of charters to be met, they must overcome several barriers before they achieve these essential functions. Like traditional school leaders, charters school leaders must also be aware of the challenges that are common to their unique settings (Clark & Estes, 2002), and must work to remove such barriers in order to achieve higher academic standards for all students. Once these common problems can be identified

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

99

beforehand, collaboration and community involvement can be strategically directed toward overcoming key challenges and progress toward greater learning.

Three Common Barriers in Charter School Settings A variety of authors suggest there are three common barriers in charter school settings. First, charter schools often face financial challenges. According to Loveless and Jasin (1998), ‘‘the most significant barrier to creating charter schools is money – charters are severely undercapitalized enterprises’’ (p. 23). Batdorff et al. (2010) conducted a study of per pupil funding trends across the country. Based on this study, California charter schools received $9,987 per pupil in revenue, but district school would have receive an estimated $10,995 to educate the same students – a difference of $1,008, or 9.2 per cent. This is consistent with (O’Niel & Ziebarth, 2009), which stated that charter schools receive $1,000 less per pupil on average than traditional schools. Also according to Batdorff et al. (2010), Los Angeles charter schools received $8,363 in revenue per pupil compared to $13,904 in revenue per pupil for district schools – a difference of $5,541, or 39.9 per cent. San Diego charter schools were to receive $7,658 in revenue per pupil compared to $13,312 in district schools. This is consistent with a national study that studied charter schools across America which argued that finance continues to be a primary roadblock to creating and sustaining successful charter schools (Smith et al., 2008a, 2008b). Second, charter schools face a variety of challenges that are organizational in nature. According to Sarason (1998) founders of charter schools often tend to underestimate how difficult it is to create a charter school from scratch. Hassel (1999) argued that founders, particularly teachers and parents unfamiliar with the administrative details of actually running a school, are often unprepared and ill-equipped for the demands and burdens of administration. Griffin and Wohlstetter (2001) argued that charter schools often find it difficult to develop a coherent instructional program. For example, charter schools are faced with the make versus buy dilemma and must measure scare resources against employee capacity to create from within (Griffin & Wohlstetter, 2001). Charter also undergo a process known as formalization (Freeman, Carroll, & Hannan, 1983). As organizations become more mature, they must establish roles, routines, and authority structures for coordinating work (Freeman et al., 1983). This process of differentiating tasks and establishing formal procedures is challenging when

100

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

charters lack district personnel who often assist schools with addressing organizational needs. Thirdly, charters also encounter numerous political challenges. According to Loveless and Jasin (1998), local teacher unions, public school administrators, and school districts in many areas are openly hostile toward charter schools and erect multiple obstacles to block the efforts of charter schools. Charter authorizers can hinder start-up and renewal efforts (Loveless & Jasin, 1998). Giles and Hargreaves (2006) add that changing leadership, the gradual loss and replacement of key faculty, changes in the size or composition of the student body, and shifts in policy or the district’s attention to other priorities amount to an ‘‘attrition of change’’ that leads to the school’s seemingly inevitable decline. Each of these political challenges can be heightened when parental expectations, pressures from surrounding institutions, and teachers place greater expectations on charter schools. Finally, charters must resolve external pressures placed on them to standardize their learning programs and the need to formalize operations as the organization matures. While the steps toward formalization is essential to all charter or autonomous school organizations, the process of standardization can be contrary to a charter’s mission when innovation is viewed as the dominant rationale for its establishment. One study of innovative schools point to three political forces behind their eventual decline or demise: competition between competing institutions in the surrounding system, the evolutionary process of formalization, and the regressive effects of large-scale, standardized reform strategies (Manno, Finn, Bierlein, & Vanourek, 1998). All of these challenges: financial, organizational, and political, are problematic and represent key barriers facing charter and autonomous schools. The next section presents the conceptual framework that is based on the themes and concepts that have been identified in the literature.

Conceptual Framework In the previous section the rationale for the establishment of charter school organizations were outlined and discussed. This chapter points out that the development of charter schools and a focus on collaboration emerged out of the push for educational reform. It is based on this context the conceptual framework emerges. First, keeping the original purpose of charter schools in mind as well as how charters were bonded into history as a thriving reform effort is the first step. It is extremely vital that charter

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

101

school leaders are able to conceptualize ‘‘purpose’’ the ‘‘common problems’’ and ‘‘strategically aligned solutions’’ in order to apply this framework in ways that will enable charter and autonomous school leaders to effectuate positive change. This chapter also establishes that financial, organizational, and political challenges that are common to charters can only be overcome through transformational leadership. This involves building a culture of collaboration, engaging parents and community members, and building partnerships with organizations. This framework establishes that transformational leaders must employ these key functions because they are essential to the charter school concept and are crucial components of sustaining successful charter school organizations. In the next section, the final components of this framework are expressed. Building a culture of collaboration in charter school settings begins from the point of leadership and involves two key components. The first component is dependent on the leader’s focus and involves goal attainment. The second component involves the manner in which the leader establishes processes for how goals will be achieved. The transformational leadership style offers an ideal approach for building a collaborative culture that satisfy the unique purpose of charter school organizations. The components in this section, both focus and approach, are grounded in research and are consistent strategies and practices that are likely to support education reform.

Role of Leadership A variety of authors offer insight into the role of leadership and two common themes arise from the literature. According to Bass (1990), the leader is the center of group change and activity and is responsible for focusing all members of an organization on common objectives. In a schooling context, leadership has consistently been defined as a central function in which the leader sets the direction for what teachers set out to achieve (Slayton & Mathis, 2010). Slayton and Mathis (2010) argue that the leader maintains the organization’s identity and an ongoing responsibility to ensure that there is clarity about who the organization is. Northouse (2007) asserts that leadership is a process that involves influence, occurs in a group context, and involves goal attainment. These authors define the function of leadership as one that involves focusing members, setting direction, and establishing an organization’s identity. An essential part of these functions are setting organizational goals and expectations and establishing measurable outcomes that are meaningfully connected to the school mission.

102

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

Furthermore, these essential functions offer reasoning for ‘‘what is important to focus on’’ and have been found to have a positive impact on learning and are common among successful primary and secondary schools (Williams, Kirst, & Haertel, 2005, 2010). The second function of leadership involves leading organizational processes. According to Northouse (2007), leadership is a process and involves influence. Literature reveals that leading organizations involves influencing the culture of the organization. According to Schein (1983) leaders create and manage culture. Therefore, an understanding of cultural context is a necessary competency of leadership. According to Geertz (1973), culture is defined as a historically transmitted pattern of meaning. Schein (1983) defines organizational culture as the pattern of basic assumptions held by employees regarding how problems are solved in organizations and are taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. However, Stolp and Smith (1994) assert that school culture is defined as ‘‘the historically transmitted patterns of meaning but also includes norms, values, beliefs, ceremonies, rituals, traditions, and myths understood, maybe in varying degrees, by members of the school community’’ (p. 13). Finally, organizational culture also involves the ways of thinking and acting in an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). In many ways, organizational culture is the most important ‘‘work process’’ in all organizations because it dictates how they work together to get the job done and this is directly linked to, what organizational members believe, the practical applications for solving organizational problems. For the purpose of this chapter, it is argued that charter schools must build a culture of collaboration in order to overcome organizational challenges. Charter school leaders must develop a school culture that engages a variety of stakeholders to work collectively to obtain what is important to the organization. Literature reveals the transformational leadership approach is best aligned with achieving these aims and that enable leaders to carry intended goals through collaborative efforts.

Transformational Leadership According to Bruins (1978) and Guthrie and Schuermann (2010), transformation leaders ‘‘create environments in which each individual feels empowered to fulfill his or her needs as a member of a productive learning community’’ (p. 41). Transformational leaders also (a) help staff members develop and maintain a collaborative and professional school culture;

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

103

(b) foster teacher development, (c) helping them solve problems together more effectively (Leithwood, 1992, pp. 9–10). Transformational leaders are able to move constituents into action ‘‘by learning how to do new things and, perhaps more importantly, learning how to attach positive value to the learning and the doing of new things’’ (Elmore, 2000, p. 19). Transformational leadership is the work of mobilizing and influencing others to articulate and achieve the school’s shared intentions and goals. This approach is unique in that school leaders have been noted to typically foster first-order change (Hallinger, 2003). First-order change requires organizational members to apply the same skill sets to behave differently yet they are not required to learn new skills and develop new procedures for improving practice (Hallinger, 2003). However, transformational leaders must believe in ‘‘building capacity’’ among organizational members to overcome organizational challenges. This is consistent with second-order change (Hallinger, 2003) which involves changing the normative structure. This further involves dramatically breaking with the past and challenging existing models, norms, and values. This type of change cannot be implemented by outside experts but must develop from within the organization (Walters, Marzano, & McNulty, 2004). Three key functions can be utilized by build a collaborative culture in charter school settings; empowering teachers, engaging parents as partners and stakeholders, and building community partnerships. These functions facilitate opportunities to create change from within, enable organizational members to collectively solve challenges specific to their settings, and support the purpose for charter school organizations.

Building Collaboration and Teacher Leadership One key function that transformational leaders must do in order to build a culture of collaboration is to create an environment that allows for greater influence among teachers. The literature suggest that three practices support with achieving this; these are redefining roles, empowering teachers through professional learning communities, and adopting practices that reflect a sitebased management approach. The process known as restructuring is the first requirement for building influence among teachers (Elmore, 1990). Restructuring involves a redefinition of roles and relationships in schools and a redistribution of power. The underlying assumption of restructuring as a reform strategy is that changing the roles of teachers will lead to a partnership that can enhance schooling for all children (Elmore, 1990; Johnson, 1990; Wehlage, Smith, & Lipman,

104

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

1992). It focuses on student learning and collective school responsibility for student outcomes based on a continuing process of teacher development and socialization into a wide range of responsibilities that extends beyond classroom instruction (Lieberman, 1988; Sykes, 1990). Furthermore, teachers are expected to take on responsibility for their own learning and are accountable toward these ends (Elmore, 2008). With the passage laws in favor of school choice across the United States, charters were expected to implement site level controls by enabling stakeholders to develop distinct programs with unique identities (Fowler, 2002). As teachers work together to evolve a mission for their school, they must work out curriculum decisions, devise learning activities, and frequently collaborate with administrators in the development of school policy (Raywid, 1990; Wohlstetter, 1994). This can only be achieved by redefining how teachers see themselves, conceive of their responsibilities, and their role in the organizations. While adopting new roles of decision-making, organizational members must not only be empowered but also must understand the context of their responsibility by distinguishing between conceptions of authority and influence (Bauch & Goldring, 1998). Authority deals with the ability of an organizational member to make decisions governing others. Influence is a more limited form of decision-making in which members have the capacity to shape decisions through informal or non-authoritative means. Transformational leaders then make decisions within a school’s context and distinguish between what levels of power are ideal to achieve school goals and objectives. Furthermore, Kanungo (1992) also provides various definitions of empowerment as it relates to teachers in public school settings. Kanungo (1992) proposed that empowerment be viewed as enabling, rather than delegating. Contrary to the concept of delegating, which is closely related to first-order change, ‘‘yenabling implies the creation of conditions which heightens the motivation for task accomplishment through the development of a strong sense of personal efficacy’’ (p. 418). Thus, teachers who are enabled and participate in decision-making forums are expected to feel more highly committed to those decisions, more motivated to carry them out, and more satisfied in general (Weiss, 1992). In the context of charter schools, teacher empowerment provides conditions by which school-based reform can take shape. Furthermore, empowerment creates working conditions where teachers are motivated to work collectively in ways that support school improvement. Lieberman (1988) argued that teachers must be empowered in making faculty-wide decisions supported by the principal in matters of curriculum, instructional methods, school climate, communication, and

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

105

involvement with parents, selection and assignment of teachers, staff development, teacher evaluation, and resource allocation. Charter schools settings, by design, enable leaders to empower teachers toward these ends. One strategy that empowers teachers and facilities opportunities for collaboration is the professional learning community model. According to Louis, Marks, and Kruse (1996), a professional learning community is measured by shared sense of purpose, collaborative activity, collective responsibility, collective focus on student learning, de-privatized practice, and reflective dialogue. In this context, the vision-building process is also a community-building process. When the principal and all teachers share their dreams and ideals and begin to trust one another, they forge a bond that will withstand the trials they will encounter in putting their vision into practice (Louis, Marks, & Kruse, 1996). All of these components are essential to professional learning communities and more generally empower teachers to be co-leaders in establishing chartered missions. However, this model is limited in merely to teacher involvement on an instructional level. Site-based management is another mechanism whereby teachers are enabled to have greater influence in charter school settings and have greater influence over all aspects of school operation. Bauch and Goldring (1998) defined site-based management as a process in which some formal authority to make decisions in the domains of budget, personnel, and program is delegated to and often distributed among site-level actors. Some formal structure (e.g., council, committee, board, team) often composed of principals, teachers, parents, and, at times, students and community members is created so that site participants can be involved in school-wide decisionmaking (p. 290). Practices such as these are consistent with the original intentions of public school choice and consequently charter and autonomous school organizations.

Parents Involvement, Empowerment and Participation The second function that transformational leaders must employ to build collaboration is to facilitate greater parent involvement. According to Hoover-Dempsey, Bassler, and Brissie (1992) parent involvement is critical to the success of educational programs for children. This is consistent with Gomer and Haynes (1991) that suggest, ‘‘the meaningful involvement of parents in children’s schooling can enhance educational programs’’ (p. 271). ‘‘Among the benefits suggested were improvement student achievement,

106

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

improve student behavior, lower student absenteeism, more positive student attitudes toward school, and improved homework habits’’ (p. 418). According to Bauch and Goldring (1998) parent participating and empowerment are two ways in which parents can be involved in schools and can exercise influence. Participation refers to the involvement of parents in providing input or being consulted about school affairs or their children’s progress without exercising influence. This occurs in traditional school settings where parents are less often perceived as equal partners with teachers and education professionals. Empowerment refers to the parents’ role in exercising influence within a school, typically through decisionmaking forums, and is usually accompanied by legitimated sources of power and authority (Goldring & Shapira, 1993; Malloy & Wohlstetter, 2003). This level of influence implies that all participants, and especially parents need to operate not only with authority and influence in their respective roles, but also with duties as well as responsibilities (Bauch & Goldring, 1998). In this context, transformational leaders should work to not only engage parents to be participants but empower members with direct influence on school operations and outcomes. Williams and Chavkin (1989) offer several elements common to promising parent involvement programs. These include establishing clear policies for legitimizing the importance of parent involvement, offering workshops that improve parenting skills and train parents how to work together. They argue that quality parent involvement program also include parent–teacher collaboration on program assessment, two-way communication between home and school, networking activities where parents are enabled to make connections between school and outside organizations, and evaluation systems that includes parents in evaluation activity during key stages. Williams and Chavkin (1989) offer examples of empowerment activities that enable parents to be equal stakeholders in the school community. Comer and Haynes (1991) offer three levels and three mechanisms for parent participation. According to Comer and Haynes (1991) there are three levels of participation. Level 1 is when a group of parents are selected by their peers to present them on a school planning and management team. These parents serve with teachers, professional and nonprofessional support staff representatives, and the principal. This enables parents to feel a sense of ownership and enable them to have a stake in the outcomes of school activities. Level 2 parents are involved in day-to-day classroom and school activities and join whatever parent organization exists. Level 3 is when parents attend general school activities. These parents derive a sense of pride

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

107

by seeing their children perform and offer enrichment activities for students and their families. Comer and Haynes (1991) also present three mechanisms for including parents; the governance mechanism, the mental health team, and the parent program. ‘‘The school governance mechanism is a strategy that implements a School Planning and Management Team that is representative of all the adult stakeholders in the school; parents, teachers, administrators, professional support staff, and nonprofessional support staff’’ (p. 272). This team carries out critical decision-making and assists with the implementation of all levels of school life. ‘‘The mental health team addresses the developmental and behavioral needs of students and simultaneously and systematically shares team members’ knowledge skills, and sensitivity in the areas of child development and relationships with classroom teachers and administrators’’ (p. 272). ‘‘The third mechanism, the parent program, focuses on supporting the social program of the school then on the academic program’’ (p. 272). They ‘‘support school staff with the social development of students and motivate them to achieve both socially and academically’’ (p. 272). However, transformational leaders must keep in mind that the implementation of these mechanisms should never paralyze the school principal or operate independently of the school principal’s goals, direction, and expectations. These conceptions are consistent with Comer and Haynes’ (1991) conception of site-based management where teachers and parents are valued as partners and have equal influence in decision-making along with other members of the school community.

Community Involvement and Organizational Partnerships Nettles (1991), defined community involvement as ‘‘y consisting of the actions that organizations and individuals (e.g., parents, businesses, universities, social service agencies, and the media) take to promote student development.’’ Sanders (2003) defined community involvement as connections between schools and individuals, businesses, and formal and informal organizations in the community. The concept of building partnerships is also central to the concept of community involvement and can be defined as ‘‘organizations working together to solve issues of mutual concern based on the benefits of collective actions, addressing needs and problems that are beyond the capacity of either organization to resolve alone’’ (Wohlstetter, Malloy, Hentschke, & Smith, 2004, p. 4).

108

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

Numerous proponents for education reform also emphasize the importance of community involvement and partnerships as necessary mechanisms for educational improvement. Epstein (1995) argued that schools need additional resources to successfully educate students and they are found in students’ communities. Ferguson (2003) argued that community partnerships hold the key to meeting the overarching goal of No Child Left Behind and other reform initiatives. Sanders (2003) wrote, ‘‘Proponents of community involvement and building partnerships emphasize its importance for effective school functioning, economic competitiveness, student well-being, and community health and development’’ (p. 162). These ideas are somewhat consistent with what was found by Smith et al. (2008a, 2008b) who argued that community partnerships have been found to offer a variety of organizational, financial, political, and human resource needs for charter school organizations. A few key studies also present policy trends relating to charters, community involvement, and the range of organizations that have formed partnerships with charter schools in the past. According to Wohlstetter et al. (2004) community involvement is included as one intention of charter law in 13 states. Fifteen states require evidence of community involvement or support in the charter application and five states encourage community involvement on a charter’s school board. These findings were also corroborated in a later study which argued that such policy trends represent a continuation of early reform efforts involving relationships between schools and organizations (Smith et al., 2008a, 2008b). Literature suggests that involvement in the public schools began in the early 20th century out of public dissatisfaction for inefficient schools. ‘‘The public, when dissatisfied with the state of education, has consistently demanded more effective classroom instruction and higher student achievement from schools. In response, educators, civic leaders, and policy makers have often turned outside the field of education for new governance and management models to enhance organizational capacity’’ (Wohlstetter et al., 2004). Furthermore, charters have historically formed partnerships with a range of nonprofit, for-profit, and public organizations (Smith et al., 2008a, 2008b). The rules for their involvement vary from state to state, and state charter school policies offer varied rules and restrictions. This study also found that involvement relating to for-profit and faith-based organizations was the most restrictive; however, most state policies at least permit these types of organizations to participate in charter school operations in various capacities with restrictions in mind. These findings reveal that there are

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

109

abundant opportunities for charters to form relationships with a variety of organizations to achieve their goals. A body of literature also provides different rationales for establishing partnerships as well as several practical models. Sanders (2003) found that school community partnerships could be students-centered, family-centered, school-centered, community-centered, or any combination of these. Student-centered activities include student awards and incentives, scholarships, tutoring and mentoring programs, and career-related opportunities. Family-centered activities have the entire family as a focus. School-centered activities are those that are organized to benefit the whole school, such as school beautification, donations of school equipment, materials, or things that benefit faculty such as staff development and classroom assistance. Community-centered activities have the benefits of the community in mind. This may include community revitalization projects, various types of exhibits, charitable initiatives, and activities that engage public needs and interests. Therefore, transformational leaders determine which model best applies to his or her particular charter school setting that most effectively supports the school mission. Furthermore, Sanders (2003) also offers four partnerships models – these are business partnerships, university partnerships, service learning partnerships, and school-linked service integration. According to Sanders (2003) business partnerships of all types are characterized as being beneficial for students, families, communities, and businesses themselves. This includes providing key resources for these target groups. University partnership have been found to be beneficial in that they have the potential to build organizational and collaborative capacity to key stakeholders through professional development and can aide in the evaluation of school initiatives. Examples of university partnerships include enhancing instructions, focusing on achievement, and exposing students to various career paths. Service learning partnerships provide students with opportunities to assist individuals or agencies in addressing social and environmental problems or community needs. This can include working with disabled children, planting gardens, or volunteering at hospitals (p. 169). The goals of service learning include building strong communities, creating more active citizens, and engaging students in meaningful learning experiences outside the classroom (p. 169). School-linked partnerships work to provide basic needs of children by providing more efficient services to students and families. For example, this type of partnership can be established to improve attendance, immunization rates, and student conduct (p. 171).

110

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

Wohlstetter et al. (2004) set out to examine the different types of crosssectional alliances between charter schools and other organizations and these can also serve as practical models for establishing partnerships between charters and other organizations. They found that cross-sectional alliances were formed to meet number of financial, organizational, and political were behind their formation. For example, charters often have to finance their own facilities. ‘‘For many schools, the partner organizations provided a facility or funding that was vital to the creation of the school as well as it’s survival’’ (p. 347). Wohlstetter et al. (2004) also added that there are reciprocal benefits for organizational partners that back charter schools. For example, organizations may partner with charters to access the growing market for educational services. In addition, charters gain political clout when forming alliances. This supports charter because establishing a political alliance may decrease skepticism when applying for loans and increase credibility when seeking public funds. As hostility between charters and districts school increase due to competition for enrollment and union pressure, alliance provide political support for overcome these challenges. Therefore, partnerships can be designed to have a specific target objective or focus and that contribute to the charter mission, goals, and objectives.

FINAL REFLECTION This chapter set out to explore a few key questions that offer insight into building a culture of collaboration in charter school settings. This chapter supports what the literature says about transformational leadership; not only that the practice of transformational leadership is beneficial for making progress toward systemic change and educational reform but is a necessary and fundamental approach in charter and autonomous settings where district support is non-existent. It is recommended that charter school leaders learn what transformational leadership entails, not only in theory, but its practical implications. In theory it engages all stakeholders and builds capacity. In practice it involves focus, approach, function, and implementation of key sub-models that are directly linked to organizational context. The focus is associated with goal attainment. Approach involves the manner in which the leader establishes organizational processes, which must be transformational in nature. Three functions were identified that can be utilized as strategies for overcoming organizational challenges and to

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

111

obtain organizational goals. It is argued that this involves building a culture of collaboration, empowering teachers, parent involvement, and building partnership. Leaders and the members of their team work collaboratively to select mechanism or models under each of these key functions that best suits the setting in question. Furthermore, this chapter supports, what Slayton and Mathis (2010) argue, that this type of leadership requires a set of new competencies that educational institutions must hone in order to enable leaders to influence organizations beyond first-order change. This involves being present, facilitating adult learning, and building capacity among organizational members. The concepts set forth in this chapter are consistent with academic literature. According to Conzemius and O’Neill (2001) building a community of collaboration among faculty is a key component that supports charter school success. The development of school–family– community partnerships is a key component of education reform and school improvement (Bryan, 2005; Sanders, 2003) and building partnerships is necessary for charter schools to acquire much needed resources. However, this chapter takes these concepts a step further. This chapter posits that the functions presented in the literature must be designed to overcome organizational, financial, political challenges that are unique to charter school settings. Teacher empowerment, parent involvement, and community partnerships are vital to overcoming charter school challenges and achieving organizational goals. However, the transformational leader must serve as the focal point of change and these functions must not paralyze the school leader from serving as the center of change and activity.

REFERENCES Bass, B. M. (1990). From transactional to transformational leadership: Learning to share the vision. Organizational Dynamics, 19–31. Batdorff, M., Maloney, L., May, J., Dolye, D., & Hassel, B. (2010). Charter school funding: Inequity persists. Muncie, IN: Ball State University. Bauch, P., & Goldring, E. (1998). Parent-Teacher participation in the context of school governance. Peabody Journal of Education, 73(1), 15–35. Bauwens, J., Hourcade, J., & Friend, M. (1989). Cooperative teaching: A model for general and special education integration. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 17–22. Brookhart, S. M., & Loadman, W. E. (1990). School-university collaboration: Different workplace cultures. Contemporary Education, 61, 125–128. Bryan, J. (2005). Fostering educational resilience and achievement in urban schools through school-family community partnerships. Professional School Counseling, 8(3), 219.

112

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2002). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right performance solutions. Atlanta, GA: CEP Press. Comer, J., & Haynes, M. (1991). Parent involvement in schools: An ecological approach. Elementary School Journal, 91, 271–278. Conzemius, J., & O’Neill, Jan. (2001). The power of SMART goals: Using goals to improve student learning. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. Edwards, B., Crane, E., Barondess, H., & Perry, M. (2009). Charter schools in California. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Elmore, R. F. (1990). Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute. Englert, C. S., & Tarrant, K. L. (1995, November). Creating collaborative cultures for educational change. Remedial and Special Education, 16(6), 325–336. Epstein, J. (1995). School/family/community partnerships: Caring for the children we share. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 701–712. Ferguson, S. (2003). Whatever happened to partnerships? Gaining Ground, 5, 1–2. Fowler, F. (2002). The great school choice debate. The Clearinghouse, 76(1), 4–7. Freeman, J., Carroll, G. R., & Hannan., M. T. (1983). The liability of newness: Age dependence in organizational death rates. American Sociological Review, 48, 692–710. Fullan, M. (1998). Change forces. Vilnius: Tyto Alba. Fusarelli, L. (2002). Charter schools: Implications for teachers and administrators. The Clearing House, 76(1), 20–24. Gable, R. A., & Lee Manning, M. (1997). The role of teacher collaboration in school reform. Childhood Education, 73(4). Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36(1), 45–56. Gardner, J. (Ed.). (1983). A Nation at risk (National Commission on Excellence in Education). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Geertz, C. (Ed.). (1973). The interpretation of cultures. New York, NY: Basic Books. Giles, C., & Hargreaves, A. (2006). The sustainability of innovative schools as learning organizations and professional learning communities during standardized reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(1), 124–156. Griffin, N. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2001). Building a plane while flying it: Early lessons from charter schools. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 336–365. Guthrie, J. W., & Schuermann, P. J. (2010). Successful school leadership: Planning, politics, performance, and power. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Hallinger, P. (2003). School leadership development: Global challenges and opportunities. In P. Hallinger (Ed.), Reshaping the landscape of school leadership development: A global perspective. Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Zeitlinger. Hassel, B. C. (1998). Charter schools: Politics and practice in four states. In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 249–271). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Hassel, B. C. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Building a Culture of Collaboration in School Settings

113

Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., Bassler, O. C., & Brissie, J. S. (1992). Explorations in parent-school relations. Journal of Educational Research, 85(5), 287–294. Johnson, J., & Medler, A. (2000). The conceptual and practical development of charter schools. Standford Law and Policy Review, 291, 1999–2000. Kanungo, R. N. (1992). Alienation and empowerment: Some ethical imperatives in business. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 413–422. Leithwood, K., & Poplin, M. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership. February, 49(5), 8–12. Lieberman, A. (Ed.). (1988). Building a professional culure in schools. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Louis, K. S., Marks, H. M., & Kruse, S. (1996). Teachers’ Professional Community in Restructuring Schools. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 757–798. Loveless, T., & Jasin, C. (1998). Starting from scratch: Organizational and political obstacles facing charter schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 34(1), 9–30. Lugg, C. A., & Boyd, W. L. (1993). Leadership for collaboration: Reducing risks and fostering resilience. Phi Delta Kappan, 75, 253–258. Malloy, C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers? Education and Urban Society, 35, 219–223. Manno, B. V., Finn, C. E., Bierlein, L. E., & Vanourek, G. (1998). Charter schools: Accomplishments and dilemmas. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 537–558. McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19–38. Nettles, S. (1991). Community involvement and disadvantaged students: A review. Review of Educational Research, 61(3), 379–406. Northouse, P. G. (2007). Leadership theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. O’Niel, P. T., and Ziebarth, T. (2009). Charter school law deskbook. Danvers, Mass: Matthew Bender and Company. Porter, A. C., & Polikoff, M. S. (2007, October). NCLB: State interpretations, early effects, and suggestions for reauthorization. Social Policy Report, 21(4). Raywid, M . A. (1990). Rethinking school governance. In R. Elmore (Ed.), Restructuring schools: The next generation of educational reform (pp. 152–205). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sanders, M. (2003). Community involvement in schools: From concept to practice. Education and Urban Society, 35(2), 161–180. Sarason, S. (1998). Charter schools: Another flawed educational reform? New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Schein, E. H. (1983). The role of the founder in creating organizational culture. Organizational Dynamics, 12, 13–28. Slayton, J., & Mathis, J. (2010). Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, andragogy, and instructional knowledge in developing leaders who can change the face of public K-12 education. In A. H. Normore (Ed.), The development, preparation, and socialization of leaders of learning-learners of leadership: A global perspective (pp. 23–45). Bingley, UK: Emerald Publishing. Smith, J., Wohlstetter, P., & Hentschke, G. C. (2008a). Partnerships between charter schools and other organizations (National Resource Center on Charter School Finance & Governance

114

LAWRENCE C. WYNDER

Policy Brief). Los Angeles, CA: University of Southern California, Center on Educational Governance. Smith, J., Wohlstetter, P., & Hentschke, G. (2008b). A guide for state policymakers: Partnerships between charter schools and other organizations. Washington, DC: National Resource Center for Charter School Finance and Governance. Stolp, S., & Smith, S. (1994). School culture and climate: The role of the leader. OSSC Bulletin. Eugene: Oregon School Study Council. Sykes, G. (1990). Organizational policy into practice: Reactions to the cases. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12(3), 243–247. Walters, J., Marzano, R., & McNulty, B. (2004). Leadership that sparks learning. Educational Leadership, 61(7), Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Wehlage, G., Smith, G., & Lipman, P. (1992, Spring). Restructuring urban schools: The new futures experience. American Educational Research Journal, 29(1), 51–93. Weiss, C. H. (1992). Shared decision making about what? A comparison of schools with and without teacher participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University. The National Center for Educational Leadership. Williams, D. L., & Chavkin, N. F. (1989). Essential elements of strong parent involvement programs. Educational Leadership, 47(2), 18–20. Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Williams, T., Kirst, M., Haertel, E., et al. (2010). Gaining ground in the middle grades: Why some schools do better. Mountain View, CA: EdSource. Wohlstetter, P. (1994). Education by charter. In S. A. Mohrman & P. Wohlstetter (Eds.), Schoolbased management: Organizing for high performance (pp. 139–164). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Wohlstetter, P., Malloy, C., Hentschke, G., & Smith, J. (2004). Improving service delivery in education: The role of cross-sectoral alliances. Social Science Quarterly, 85(2004), 1078–1096. Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9(4), 331–358.

SECTION 3 RIGHTS AND WRONGS

EDUCATIONAL LEADERS AND ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN URBAN CHARTER SCHOOLS Jacqueline A. Stefkovich, Kevin M. McKenna and Andrew L. Armagost ABSTRACT A charter school is a public school but without some of the constraints that bind public school leaders. On the other hand, charter schools are businesses, needing to find space, market their ‘‘product,’’ and attract teachers who share their mission. This business aspect of education combined with a specifically articulated mission and somewhat greater freedom and flexibility in educating children can, and often does, raise the ethical stakes for administrators and teachers as they endeavor to provide leadership in charter schools. These issues are best addressed through examining standards and dispositions set forth by professional bodies as well as a consideration of the ethical frames of justice, care, critique, and the profession.

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 117–129 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018012

117

118

JACQUELINE A. STEFKOVICH ET AL.

INTRODUCTION The National Education Association defines charter schools as public schools that have been ‘‘freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each charter school’s charter’’ (NEA, 2012, n.p.). This freedom from some rules and regulations, however, does not mean that charter schools have free reign. On the contrary, in many ways, charter schools are more accountable than traditional public schools due both to the myriad of laws that still bind them as well as the requirements built into their respective charters. At the same time, charter schools are in a unique position to foster creativity, innovation, and respond to students who might otherwise be lost in our educational system. School leadership has been characterized as an essentially moral enterprise (Foster, 1986). In this chapter, we discuss the highly complex nature of ethical decision making in charter schools and how this process compares with that of traditional public schools. This chapter will begin by elaborating on ethical decision making inherent in charter school leadership. We will then explain standards set forth by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), specifically Standard 5 (ethics), noting how this standard and its functions relate to school leaders in general but particularly to charter school leaders. Next is a discussion of possible clashes of ethical codes, what these are, how they arise, and why they are especially relevant to charter schools. The fourth section focuses on a multidimensional framework for approaching ethical dilemmas and how this framework may apply to charter schools. This chapter concludes with suggestions for enabling charter school leaders to make the best possible ethical decisions.

ETHICAL DECISION MAKING IN CHARTER SCHOOLS Charter schools are public schools, but they are also businesses, needing to find space, market their ‘‘product,’’ recruit students, and attract teachers who share their mission. Unlike most traditional public schools, students in charter schools are not captive audiences. They are free to leave if they are not satisfied. Thus, charter schools are required to produce a good product to stay in business. In addition, students and their parents must be attracted

Educational Leaders and Ethical Decision Making

119

to the special features offered by a particular charter school. Sometimes, those features reflect a values perspective or a moral point of view. This business aspect of education combined with a specifically articulated mission and somewhat greater freedom and flexibility in educating children can, and often does, raise the ethical stakes for administrators and teachers as they endeavor to provide leadership in charter schools.

CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ISLLC STANDARDS Like their traditional public school counterparts, charter school administrators are expected to comply with standards promulgated through the ISLLC. Developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers in collaboration with the National Policy Board on Educational Administration (NPBEA), these six standards and their accompanying knowledge bases and dispositions are aimed at strengthening school leadership preparation programs (Murphy, 2005, 2006). ISLLC Standard 5 states explicitly that: ‘‘An education leader promotes the success of every student by acting with integrity, fairness, and in an ethical manner’’ (Educational Leadership Policy Standards, 2008, p. 15).

Knowledge Under the ISLLC standards, a school leader is expected to have knowledge related to: the purpose of education, various ethical frameworks and perspectives, values in diverse school communities, professional codes of ethics, and the philosophical and historical bases of education (ISLLC Self-Assessment, 2000). While this knowledge base applies to all educational leaders, those who lead charter schools, by the very nature of their jobs, require additional knowledge related to entrepreneurial skills and business acumen as well as their ethical underpinnings, namely business ethics. These understandings may be helpful to all school leaders, but they are critical to charter school leaders. Thus, charter school leaders must acquire a knowledge base expected of all educational leaders plus additional information related to running a business. Perhaps more importantly, charter school leaders must be aware of and comply with their professional standards commission’s rules and state ethics codes. An excellent example of why this knowledge and compliance is so important is illustrated by the case, In re Thuy. Heard by the Pennsylvania

120

JACQUELINE A. STEFKOVICH ET AL.

State Ethics Commission, Thuy, the Chief Administrative Officer, Treasurer, and Headmaster of the Multi-Cultural Academy Charter School (MACS) of Philadelphia was accused of six violations of the State Ethics Act including conflict of interest (65 Pa.C.S. y 1103(a)), contracts y 1103(f), and withholding of required financial information (y 1105(b)). Ultimately, Thuy was found guilty of not disclosing his interest in real estate that was leased to the charter school; there was lack of evidence on several other counts. Nonetheless, this case demonstrates the wide range of ethical compliance necessary for charter school leaders, issues rarely if ever encountered by those leading traditional public schools. Malin and Kerchner (2007) raise a whole other issue of ethics that is related to leadership and the rights of teachers. Depending on state law, charter school teachers may not have the protections granted to public school teachers. On the other hand, as these authors note, charter school teachers are often willing to give up this security for the right to have more voice in how and what they teach and how these schools are run. Problems arise, however, when these employees find that, due to financial and other constraints, their jobs are not as flexible as they had thought. They may end up teaching courses for which they feel unqualified or find that their voices are not heard as much as they had hoped (Malin & Kerchner, 2007). In these situations, charter schools leaders are ethically, if not legally, bound to find a way to honor their charters. In addition to possessing the knowledge and dispositions (mentioned below) to confront these issues, understanding and applying the ethical frameworks discussed later in this chapter provide some guidance in resolving these types of ethical dilemmas.

Dispositions ISLLC standards also include dispositions that school administrators should possess. For example, school leaders must accept the consequences that emerge from upholding their own actions and principles. In addition, they must make their decisions based on ethical principles and use the office in a constructive and productive way to serve all students and their families (ISLLC Self-Assessment, 2000). These dispositions would seem equally applicable to those leading charter and non-charter schools alike. As public school administrators, charter school leaders follow the same Standard 5 dispositions as traditional public schools. Therefore, these educators must consider the common good and the rights of all students. They focus on values and commitment related to: the ‘‘common good,’’

Educational Leaders and Ethical Decision Making

121

principles articulated in the U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights, ‘‘the right of every student to a free, quality education,’’ ‘‘subordinating one’s own interest to the good of the school community,’’ and ‘‘development of a caring school community’’ (ISLLC Self-Assessment, 2000, p. 6).

CLASHES IN ETHICAL CODES If applying business precepts to ISLLC standards were simply an additive approach, there would undoubtedly be an additional burden on the part of the charter school leader. On the other hand, it might be argued that acquisition of this additional training and knowledge could be mitigated by the increased flexibility these leaders might have in running their schools. This argument is not made so easily when it comes to ethics. In their book, Ethical Leadership and Decision Making in Education: Applying Theoretical Perspectives to Complex Dilemmas (2011), Shapiro and Stefkovich note that there are often conflicts in ethics for those trained in dual professions. Charter school leaders are placed in a difficult position which requires them to adhere to ISLLC standards while garnering sufficient resources to keep their schools afloat. In many ways, this is an illustration of the conflict between the two professions. Codes of business conduct are generally expected to include issues such as following the law, being accountable to shareholders, and adhering to the company’s mission statement (Code of Business Conduct, 2011). The code of ethics for school administrators (AASA, 2007) as well as the ISLLC Standards (2008) put students (and student achievement) at the forefront. The fact remains, however, that if the enterprise – in this case the charter school – does not attract students and produce well-educated graduates, it is out of business. It ceases to exist regardless of how admirable its intent. Advertising and recruitment could, therefore, be seen as necessary but not sufficient components of charter school leadership. These added responsibilities constitute a fundamental difference between expectations set for charter school leaders and those for administrators in traditional public schools. The latter may worry about tax caps and how much their community can afford but there usually remains some sort of local tax base strong enough to keep the school running even if resources need to be cut as well as a captive audience of students attending the school. In charter schools, the stakes are much higher. These higher stakes also apply to ethical decision making. While charter schools must always comply

122

JACQUELINE A. STEFKOVICH ET AL.

with the letter of the law and the stipulations set forth in their charter, there are shades of gray, more nuanced decisions where charter school leaders may have to make tough decisions between providing the type of education they envision and staying in business.

CHARTER SCHOOLS AND ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS Educational leaders are expected to have knowledge of various ethical frameworks and perspectives. Including a variety of relevant theories, this discussion will focus on the multi-paradigm ethical approach described by Starratt in his seminal book, Building an Ethical School (1994), and later elaborated upon by Shapiro and Stefkovich (2011). Starratt identified three ethical paradigms, the ethics of justice, care, and critique, which are vitally important to the study of ethical leadership. Shapiro and Stefkovich built upon this concept by adding the ethic of the profession. What follows is a description of these four frameworks, some of the key theories underpinning them, and a discussion of how these they apply to charter schools. The Ethic of Justice Traditional, classically trained scholars often approach ethics from a justice perspective. Based on a liberal, democratic tradition, the ethic of justice is hierarchical focusing on laws, rules, and in the case of schools, board policies. Our U.S. legal system, including our constitution and court system, is built on concepts of justice as well as fairness. Theories that provide a basis for this approach include utilitarianism (Bentham, 1907; Mill, 1978), which among other things emphasizes the greater good for the greater number, and social contract theory (Locke, 2007; Rousseau, 2006) which, simply put, notes that individuals give up some of their liberty for the common good. Violations of ethics are often legal violations as well. Clearly, the educational leader who misappropriates school money, hires relatives over more qualified applicants, uses illegal drugs, or has a sexual relationship with a student violates ethical codes as well as the law. This approach to ethics is highly relevant when applied to the business end of ethics. Examining model codes of ethics from the business world, emphasis is placed on legally based issues such as discrimination and harassment in the

Educational Leaders and Ethical Decision Making

123

workplace, conflicts of interest, competition and fair dealing, recordkeeping, financial controls and disclosures, confidentiality, and compliance procedures. All these mandates are applicable to charter schools. Add to the list of business ethics, ISLLC standards, all of which begin with the phrase ‘‘An education leader promotes the success of all students byy’’ (Educational Leadership Policy Standards, 2008, p. 18) and one can understand the duality of moral challenges facing charter school leaders. Fairness, equality, and commitment to a democratic process are key components of a just school (Starratt, 1994) and are easily written into a charter school’s mission statement. Kenneth Strike, an educational philosopher who has published extensively about ethics and educational leadership (2006, 2010), contends that charter schools are actually more democratic than traditional public schools because they offer choice and, in essence, extend the right to liberty for children and their parents. Furthermore, Strike notes that charter schools serve a proportionately larger number of students from minority populations than other public schools and are generally based on tenets of distributive justice that support equity. Finally, Strike attributes much of the success of charter schools to their small size, but also to their emphasis on community building (Strike, 2010).

The Ethic of Care Carol Gilligan drew scholarly attention to an ethic of care when she challenged Lawrence Kohlberg’s (1981) research on stages of moral development. In longitudinal studies spanning at least two decades, Kohlberg developed a six-stage scale of moral development as well as a measure to determine these levels in individuals. These include two stages at the preconventional level, one in which moral decisions are made based on avoiding punishment and literal obedience to laws and a second that is basically quid pro quo. In other words, I’ll do this for you if you do this for me. The next two stages fall under the conventional level with stage three addressing mutuality and interpersonal relationships associated with care. In stage four, individuals make moral decisions based on duty and upholding the welfare and social order of society. The last level, which includes stages five and six, is post-conventional. These stages deal with principles where the basic rights of society (stage five) are upheld and where universal ethical principles, what is good for all humanity (stage six), are applied (Kohlberg, 1981).

124

JACQUELINE A. STEFKOVICH ET AL.

Kohlberg’s (1981) research indicated that women often make decisions from stage three, which involves care and relationships. Gilligan (1982) observed that the norms Kohlberg determined for his instrument were based on studies of boys only. Her research indicated that women were not stuck at stage three, as Kohlberg had discovered, but instead that Kohlberg’s scale did not accurately gauge women’s moral development. Gilligan’s groundbreaking research indicated that women in her study combined caring and responsibility as they made moral decisions. In 1984, Nel Nodding clearly established an ethic of care with her book, Caring: A Feminine Approach to Ethics and Moral Education. During the next several decades, she published scores of other books and articles on this approach (e.g., Noddings, 1992, 2002, 2003) which emphasizes relationships, mutuality, nurturance, and sympathy. In her 2007 book on school reform, Noddings eschews voucher plans and choice in favor of strengthening traditional public schools (Noddings, 2007). On the other hand, many of the concepts that Noddings articulates in describing the ethic of care (relationships, mutuality, nurturance, and sympathy) can be applied to charter schools, depending on the school leaders’ focus and inclination. It is could be said that, under current conditions, charter schools are perhaps in a better position than traditional public schools to implement an ethic of care. As Strike (2010) points out, charter schools are smaller and more communal, which makes it easier to personalize the environment. Finally, these schools may incorporate an ethic of care into their charter. Freed from some of the bureaucracy of other public schools, charter schools are in a prime position to break down much of education’s traditionally hierarchical structure by concentrating on individuals, mutuality, and relationships, three key components of the ethic of caring. While some traditional public schools have no doubt been able to make their schools more caring and base their philosophies on an ethic of care, it is much more difficult to overcome the bureaucratic structures and demands burdening these schools. Charter schools offering specifically tailored programs to meet students’ individual needs are in a unique position to respond to the ethic of care. To establish an ethic of care in charter schools, however, requires a sincere, well thought-out commitment to caring, a charter that explicitly incorporates care into its mission statement, faculty and staff dedicated to this notion, and leadership that continually supports and reinforces a caring environment in the real sense of that term. How charter school leaders can do this and still honor their business needs presents a real challenge to these

Educational Leaders and Ethical Decision Making

125

administrators and requires them to engage in inquiry about their own commitments to the charter school and its purpose.

The Ethic of Critique The ethic of critique challenges the status quo by stressing issues of equity over equality. These scholars (e.g., Apple, 2004, 2006; Bourdieu, 1977; Foucault, 1983; Freire, 1970, 1993, 1998; Giroux, 2003, 2006; Habermas,1962) recognize that not every student starts on a level playing field. The ethic of critique asks: who makes the rules and who benefits? This approach has its roots in Marxism and some of its most active proponents have specifically criticized a market-based approach to public schooling as being nondemocratic (Apple, 2006; Giroux, 2006). At the same time, the ethic of critique champions those without a voice in our society, namely students who come from poverty, underrepresented minority groups, and/or individuals who are disadvantaged and/or marginalized in numerous other ways including, among others, gender, disability, and sexual orientation. This dichotomy creates a paradox in relation to charter schools, which are market-based but also respond to disenfranchised populations. Charter schools are in a unique position to tailor their programs to the specific needs of students who might otherwise have been forgotten. Their creation of single-sex academies for females and for African-American males responds to the needs of these students as well as to research findings showing that this strategy has proven effective with some populations (Salomone, 2003). This is especially relevant to charter schools in urban areas, which many times represent a last chance for their students. As to the issue of democracy, Wilson (2010) provides a balanced view in her discussion of charter schools based on Habermas’ theory of public space. She notes charter schools have been seen as limiting public space by abandoning the notion of public schools as integrated systems ‘‘where students and parents engage across lines of interest, difference, and privilege about matters that concern them all’’ (Wilson, p. 660). The counterargument is that ‘‘charter schools might offer new spaces for expanded civic discourse and public engagement’’ (p. 660). Wilson (2010) urges that school reform movements begin to consider ways that all schools may have broader public space rather than perpetuating a fixed idea of charter schools and neighborhood schools. We contend that charter school administrators are in an excellent position to expand this notion of democracy through their leadership, continued support of

126

JACQUELINE A. STEFKOVICH ET AL.

disadvantaged students, and collaborative work with advocacy groups and leaders in traditional public schools. As to the later, Forman (2007) proposes that charter school leaders arguing for increased funding should join with traditional public schools to present a united, bi-partisan appeal for additional resources for all public schools. We would agree and heartily encourage this collaboration on all levels.

The Ethic of the Profession Shapiro and Stefkovich (2011) acknowledge the work of previous scholars and add a fourth paradigm, that of the profession. Combining all the other ethics, as well as a concern for the community – which includes the school community (Furman, 2004) – these authors describe what they conceive of as an ‘‘ethic of the profession.’’ The best interest of the student is at the center of this paradigm (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011; Stefkovich, 2006). The Best Interests (BI) model includes acknowledging that students have rights but that these rights carry with them responsibilities. This model also emphasizes respect. In other words, educational leaders, including administrators and teachers, respect students just as students respect these leaders, not because of their authority but because they are human beings deserving of respect (Stefkovich, 2006). Thus, mutuality is central to the idea of respect (Lawrence-Lightfoot, 1999). Ultimately, we must ask: ‘‘What does the profession expect of us?’’ To answer this question, educational leaders should engage in a process of introspection and inquiry which involves examining their own individual personal and professional codes of ethics as well as ethical codes developed by their professional associations. Charter school leaders are in many ways, accountable to two professions. We would assert that they are first and foremost school leaders, but that they are also leaders in a business sense and, therefore, must be accountable to that community as well.

CONCLUSIONS Charter school leaders both educate and run a business enterprise. Thus, they must be moral leaders in the same respect as those heading traditional public schools, but they must also be accountable above and beyond that of their counterparts in public schools. Similar to business ethics, ethical leadership in education involves putting the enterprise first, that is,

Educational Leaders and Ethical Decision Making

127

‘‘subordinating one’s own interest to the good of the school community’’ (ISLLC Self-Assessment, 2000, p. 6), accepting consequences that emerge from upholding one’s own actions and principles, making decisions based on ethical principles, and using ones position in a constructive and productive way to serve shareholders (students and their families) (ISLLC Self-Assessment, 2000). While there are plenty of businesses that are successful at both being ethical and keeping their enterprise afloat, the press to financially support charter schools adds to the complexity of ethical decision making in this milieu, a problem not as compelling in more traditional public school settings. At the same time, charter school leaders are in a perfect position to serve children and their parents by making decisions commensurate with the ethics of justice, care, critique, and the profession (Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011). Charter schools may respond to the ethic of justice by providing students and their parents with more freedom to make educational choices among programs designed to meet their specific needs, opportunities not always available in traditional public schools. Charter schools, which are typically smaller and less bureaucratic than their public schools counterparts, are well-placed to respond to the nurturing, nonhierarchical approach advocated by an ethic of care. An ethic of critique gives a voice to disenfranchised students who would normally be lost in the system. In this respect, charter schools are in a key position to address issues of inequity that have permeated the traditional public school system. To accomplish this goal, as well as respond to what the profession expects of us as educators, means that charter school administrators must rise to a higher moral ideal that does not enfranchise some while disenfranchising others. This is best accomplished through mutual respect and concerted efforts between charter school leaders and their counterparts in traditional school districts.

REFERENCES Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the ‘‘right’’ way: Markets, standards, God, and inequality (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. American Association of School Administrators, Code of Ethics. (2007). Retrieved from http:// www.aasa.org/content.aspx?id=1390. Accessed on May 16, 2012. Bentham, J. (1907). An introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.

128

JACQUELINE A. STEFKOVICH ET AL.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). Cultural reproduction and social reproduction. In J. Karabel & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and ideology in education (pp. 487–511). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Code of Business Conduct. (2011). Home Tools Samples. Retrieved from http://www. knowledgeleader.comWHomeWToolsWSamples. Accessed on December 16, 2012. Educational Leadership Policy Standards. (2008). p. 15. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the oppressed (M.B. Ramos, Trans.). New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1993). In D. Macedo (Ed.), Pedagogy of the city. New York, NY: Continuum. Freire, P. (1998). In P. Clarke (Ed.), Pedagogy of freedom: Ethics, democracy, and civic courage. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Forman, J. (2007). Do charter schools threaten public education? Emerging evidence from fifteen years of a quasi-market for schooling. The University of Illinois Law Review, 2007(3), 839–880. Foster, W. (1986). Paradigms and promises: New approaches to educational administration. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. Foucault, M. (1983). On the genealogy of ethics: An overview of work in progress. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel Foucault: Beyond structuralism and hermeneutics (2nd ed., pp. 229–252). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Furman, G. C. (2004). The ethic of community. Journal of Educational Administration, 42(2), 215–235. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Giroux, H. A. (2003). The abandoned generation: Democracy beyond the culture of fear. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Giroux, H. A. (2006). America on the edge: Henry Giroux on politics, education and culture. New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan. Habermas, J. (1962). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society (Trans., T. Burger, 1989). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). (2000). Self-assessment. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral development: Moral stages and the idea of justice (Vol. 1). San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row. Lawrence-Lightfoot, S. (1999). Respect: An exploration. Reading, MA: Perseus Books. Locke, J. (2007). Some thoughts concerning education. Sioux Falls, SD: NuVision Publications. Malin, M. H., & Kerchner, C. T. (2007). Charter schools and collective bargaining: Compatible marriage or illegitimate relationship? Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 30(2), 885–937. Mill, J. S. (1978). On liberty. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett. Murphy, J. (2005). Unpacking the foundations of ISLLC standards and addressing concerns in the academic community. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), 154–191. Murphy, J. (2006). Preparing school leaders: Defining a new research and action agenda. Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield. National Education Association (NEA). (2012). Charter schools. Retrieved from http:// www.nea.org/home/16332.htm. Accessed on June 29. Noddings, N. (1992). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Educational Leaders and Ethical Decision Making

129

Noddings, N. (2002). Educating moral people: A caring alternative to character education. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Noddings, N. (2003). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education (2nd ed.). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Noddings, N. (2007). When school reform goes wrong. New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Pennsylvania State Ethics Act, 65 Pa.C.S., yy1103(a), 1103(f), and 1105(b). Rousseau, J. J. (2006). The social contract. New York, NY: Penguin Books. Salomone, R. C. (2003). Same, different, equal: Rethinking single-sex schooling. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Starratt, R. J. (1994). Building an ethical school: A practical response to the moral crisis in schools. London: Falmer Press. Stefkovich, J. A. (2006). Best interests of the student: Applying ethical constructs to legal cases. New York, NY: Routledge. Strike, K. A. (2006). Ethical leadership in schools: Creating community in an environment of accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Strike, K. A. (2010). Charter schools, choice, and distributive justice: What evidence do we need? Theory and Research in Education, 8(1), 63–78. Wilson, T. S. (2010). Civic fragmentation or voluntary association: Habermas, Fraser, and charter school segregation. Educational Theory, 60(6), 643–664.

INSTRUCTIONAL LEADERSHIP REGARDING LAW AND POLITICS Kevin M. McKenna, Jacqueline A. Stefkovich and Andrew L. Armagost ABSTRACT This chapter focuses on the importance of having a working knowledge of school law. Such knowledge is critical for all schools officials, but is especially important for leaders of charter schools. If school leaders always strive for legal compliance, it can help insure the survival of the school, as well as their own tenure. Legal compliance, however, is often a moving target. Not only must charter school leaders be aware of state and federal law pertaining to charter schools, they must also be aware of the laws regulating public schools as well as policies in school districts with which they may be affiliated. A charter school site administrator must know the law or have access to legal counsel to address specific areas of the law including special education, school code, public bidding, student discipline, labor and employment practices, public meeting requirements, and their respective state’s charter school law. Understanding the law is a monumental task which carries with it important safeguards not only for the future of charter schools but also for the future of our educational system which is served so well by these leaders.

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 131–143 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018013

131

132

KEVIN M. MCKENNA ET AL.

INTRODUCTION To be successful, urban charter school leaders must navigate political winds, both internally and externally, which can shift in an instant. This can be a very difficult situation since the board members of a charter school can be the leaders’ strongest supporters, but can also be their biggest critics. At the same time, they are also charter school employers. One way leaders can protect the charter school, and themselves, is by complying with the law. If they always strive for legal compliance, it can help insure the longevity of the school, as well as their own tenure. Legal compliance, however, is often a moving target. For example, laws like No Child Left Behind or multiheaded, beast-like construction projects, can cause serious setbacks for a charter school and discourage even the most seasoned administrator. In short, a charter school site administrator must know the law or have access to legal counsel to address specific areas such as special education, school code, public bidding, student discipline, labor and employment practices, public meeting requirements, and their state’s charter school law just to name a few. This knowledge and access to the law goes far in contributing to the success of both the charter school and its leader. This chapter will provide a foundation for charter school administrators to begin developing legal literacy by reviewing selected federal and state laws as well as relevant court opinions. We will include both federal and state law in order to illustrate the various differences among states. In sum, the goal of this chapter is to provide a broad overview of charter school law so that leaders in these schools may be able to be prepared for, and possibly prevent, litigation. The discussion begins with a rationale for the importance of legal literacy in charter schools and then proceeds to address major areas of charter school litigation using illustrative court opinions.

LEGAL LITERACY Charter schools are public schools; therefore, charter school leaders should adhere to the standards articulated by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC). Standard 6 states that: A school administrator is an educational leader who promotes the success of all students by understanding, responding to, and influencing the larger political, social, economic, legal, and cultural context [emphasis added] (Educational Leadership Policy Standards, 2008, p. 15).

Instructional Leadership Regarding Law and Politics

133

In addition, legal literacy is imperative for successful charter school administration since negligent and inadequate literacy have both economic and educational costs (Schimmel & Militello, 2009). These costs result from litigation expenses and compensable damages as well as instructional effects on the students, community, and school faculty. Many of these problems can be circumvented through an understanding of school law. Bull and McCarthy (1995) contend that educators often develop an inappropriate perception of the law. In their article on law and ethics for educational leaders, these scholars purport that educational leaders wrongly perceive the law as prescriptive. As such, administrators view the law as a force dictating right from wrong. While school leaders may believe the law exists merely to dictate personnel and organizational behavior, an appropriate view accepts the law as a ‘‘framework for expressing public values and decisions’’ thus developing skills in ‘preventive law’ (Bull & McCarthy, 1995, p. 615). This prevention approach is especially important to charter schools, where a costly law suit could signal the end of the enterprise. There are several specific areas of school law that charter school administrators must understand in order to build effective preventive law skills. Topics such as special education, school code, public bidding, student discipline, labor and employment practices, public meeting requirements, and state charter school law are among the most prevalent areas of litigation. Both case law and state legislation influence the status of charter school law within a state. Since state legislation and court rulings vary from one another, adequate legal literacy requires a greater emphasis on understanding school law in the context of a specific state. Green and Mead (2004) add to this mix issues related to charter schools and special education, school employment, and race and gender discrimination. In addition, some commentators identify accountability as an especially important issue in regard to charter schools (Green & Mead, 2004; Hill, Lake, & Celio, 2002). Along with traditional public schools, charter schools are held accountable to various state and federal standards. For example, charter schools are required to complete No Child Left Behind reports and are assessed on student performance. Furthermore, each state, having its own statutory system of charter schools, has created a varying array of regulatory standards and accountability issues (Green & Mead, 2004). It is also important that administrators understand their state’s definition of a charter school. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in 2002 defined a charter school as ‘‘an independent, nonprofit, public school established and operated under a charter from the local board of school directors and in which students are enrolled or attend’’ (West Chester

134

KEVIN M. MCKENNA ET AL.

Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 2002, p. 2, citing 24 P.S. y 17-1703-A). The court reiterated this definition in Mosaica Academy Charter School v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (2002). Here, the court determined that a school district must provide for the transportation of charter school students residing within the district. Most importantly, the court determined that charter schools are public entities and are held accountable to the same extent as traditional public schools. Therefore, administrators must be aware of their charter school’s public status in order to avoid organization and functional conflicts regarding legal issues. In Foreman v. Chester-Upland School District (2008), the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court held that a school’s charter is not a contract but rather a grant of power to provide public education. 941 A.2d 108 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania January 18, 2008). The court stated that: The relationship between a school district and a charter school is not contractual, but regulatory.yWhile y 17-1720-A does provide that the written charter shall be legally binding on both the local board of school directors of a school district and the charter school’s board of trustees, it does not make a charter a contract. It is more like the issuance of a regulatory permit where the state or local government must honor the terms of the permit unless breached by the party receiving the permit. Nowhere in the entire Charter School Law is the term contract used to describe the relationship between the charter school and the school board, nor are the terms offer and acceptance used. Rather, the Charter School Law uses the regulatory terms application and grant to describe the process of granting a charter school application. (pp. 16–17)

Foreman demonstrates the importance of legal literacy and the extent that charter school administrators should have knowledge of legal issues or at least have access to appropriate and knowledgeable counsel. This court’s determination of a charter as a regulatory permit rather than a contract may cause issues with other areas of law, such as employment relations and special education. In sum, legal literacy is important to all school leaders but is perhaps even more important to charter school administrators. With limited available space, this chapter can only begin to touch the surface of legal issues facing charter school leaders. The authors encourage readers to enhance their legal literacy through actively engaging in discussion with their school’s legal counsel as well as reading updates on the law through research and information sites (Green & Mead, 2004; Heubert, 1997). The remainder of this chapter will discuss litigation related to those areas of charter school law that seem to attract the most concern. These include state laws, employment relations, special education, and constitutional issues.

Instructional Leadership Regarding Law and Politics

135

STATE LAWS It is critically important that charter school leaders know state laws pertaining to their own schools, but it is equally important that these leaders are familiar with the state school code in general and how these two align. Similarly, charter school leaders should be knowledgeable about state charter school policies as well as the policies of the school district where the charter school is located. Mistakes in this area could result in monetary setbacks as well as in time and resource allocation. The following cases are only a few which demonstrate the complexity of this relationship. As mentioned previously, the Foreman Court (2008) found that a charter is a regulatory permit rather than a contract; nevertheless, a charter is a legally binding agreement between a local school board and the charter school. Foreman provides an excellent example illustrating that charter school administrators should possess an appropriate knowledge of state charter school law. First, the court determined that a charter is a legally binding agreement on both the school district and charter school and therefore conditions provided in the granted charter must be complied with completely. Second, school administrators should be aware of the court’s definition of a charter and the specific details within the school’s charter. Third, Foreman demonstrates that a strong relationship with legal counsel at regular intervals is important to adequately comply with state laws. In another case, Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School (2011), a Pennsylvania student residing in the Slippery Rock School District (SRSD) attended the Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School (PA Cyber), despite being a year younger than was allowed for enrollment at the school district. SRSD’s minimal age requirement for kindergarten enrollment was established at 5 years of age. However, the student enrolled in the PA Cyber kindergarten program at the age of four. Because of her age, the school district appealed the transfer of district subsidies given to the charter school for the student’s education, claiming that the student was too young and therefore not its obligation. The Pennsylvania Secretary of Education (Secretary) notified the district that funds had been deducted from the district’s state subsidy and were made payable to PA Cyber. Upon responding to the notification, the district claimed that the deduction was not appropriate and that it violated the law because the student did not qualify under the Pennsylvania Public School Code of 1949, 24 P.S. yy 1-101-27-2702. In granting a hearing between the two schools, PA Cyber claimed that the school district had no standing, the district’s claim had no basis in law, and the student’s enrollment complied

136

KEVIN M. MCKENNA ET AL.

with the Pennsylvania Charter School Law 24 P.S. yy 17-1701-A-17-1751-A (1997) Charter School Law (CSL). Upon completing the hearing, the officer certified the case to the Secretary for disposition, who ruled in favor of the charter school. The district appealed to the Commonwealth Court and, after the court affirmed the Secretary’s decision, filed for petition to the state supreme court. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court determined that the Pennsylvania Charter School Law (17-1725-A) lacks explicit guidance on this matter. In its review, the court found that the CSL did not address the issue of whether school districts are financially responsible when the admissions policy of the cyber charter school differs from that of the school district. Instead, the court reasoned that an answer to the admissions policy discrepancy must be found in Chapter 11 regulations of the Pennsylvania Administrative Code (Pa. Code, 2004). Upon reading this state code, the court justices held that, while the child is entitled to enrollment in the traditional public schools or in a charter school when the child meets the district’s requirements, reimbursement for a student’s education prior to meeting the district’s minimal requirements was not required or obligated. The court stated: Where kindergarten is available, the applicable regulations dictate that entitlement to a public education begins when the child meets the minimum entrance age to the district’s kindergarten program. It is then, and only then, that the district’s funding obligation arises. (p. 667)

In this decision, the court makes several important points. First, where charter school policies are not aligned with those of a school district, the district is not obligated to fund or provide means for a student obtaining services in violation of the district’s policy. Second, where legislative intent or textual circumstances are not provided, the court reasoning may return back to the state’s Administrative Code, often resulting in a more favorable opinion toward the school district. Finally, it is important to note that charter school administrators should be knowledgeable of any discrepancies in policy between the district and the school. As this case shows, when there are misalignments between the policies of the district and the charter school and no clear textual basis exists otherwise, a district may not be required to transfer state subsidies for expenses or costs incurred in relation to that discrepancy.

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS Green and Mead (2004) state that some of the most common issues charter schools face regarding employment are related to unionization, hiring

Instructional Leadership Regarding Law and Politics

137

procedures, tenure, and state certification. These scholars address several issues related to charter school law, which include: whether the charter school is the employer or the place of employment; whether the charter school requires employment contracts; if teachers can be assigned to a charter school; if state law requires teachers to be certified; whether the state permits collective bargaining; and the extent to which charter school teachers can acquire benefits found in traditional public schools. In a New Jersey case, Williams v. East Orange Community Charter School (2010), a substitute teacher, Williams, was notified in September 2004 that her ‘‘long-term substitute teacher’’ contract would not be renewed and filed a complaint of race discrimination to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After receiving a right-to-sue letter in March 2007, Williams filed suit in July claiming that the charter school had violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 1994 48 U.S.C. y 2101 et seq. and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, 48 U.S.C. (1981). She also filed a tort liability claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted summary judgment for the defendant, dismissing all three of her claims. First, the court agreed that Williams’ Title VII claims were time barred as a result of her filing suit beyond the 90-day period upon receiving the rightto-sue letter. Williams had filed in July, four months after receiving her letter. Williams’ ADA arguments were also dismissed since such claims require exhausting all alternative administrative remedies, including filing with the EEOC, which she did not. Therefore, the court held that claims against ADA violations were not reviewable. For these reasons, the court granted summary judgment to the charter school. As this case illustrates, employment issues exist within a complex web of procedural and substantive formalities. Understanding the required timelines and procedures of state and federal employment policies and legislation is imperative for avoiding situations that exhaust administrative time and resources.

SPECIAL EDUCATION The relationship between charter schools and special education is rooted in the basic principle established by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This principle of equal protection asserts that the states are required to provide equal educational opportunities to all children, despite race, gender, or disability (Green & Mead, 2004). The Education for All

138

KEVIN M. MCKENNA ET AL.

Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. y 1415 enacted in 1975, and later known as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2005), 20 U.S.C. y 1400 et seq. provides the basis for today’s special education laws. According to Green and Mead (2004), ‘‘Section 504 and IDEA, together with Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, form a foundation that dictates special education responsibility in charter schools’’ (p. 145). Also, of importance is the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District (1982). This case involved Amy Rowley, an 8-year-old deaf student whose parents objected to her individualized education program (IEP) because it did not include a sign language interpreter. The United States District Court found that Rowley was being denied a free appropriate education in that she could not fully participate in class without the interpreter. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision. The United States Supreme Court reversed, maintaining that Amy was receiving an adequate education. In rendering its decision, the Court reasoned that: A court’s inquiry in suits brought under the Education of the Handicapped Act (act)yis twofold. First, has the state complied with the procedures set forth in the act? And second, is the individualized educational program developed through the act’s procedures reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits? If these requirements are met, the state has complied with the obligations imposed by the United States Congress, and the courts can require no more. (Rowley, pp. 207–208)

Charter school administrators experience significant struggles with special education. Like their counterparts in traditional public schools, administrators must ensure that students with disabilities are appropriately educated in accordance with IDEA. Garda (2012) notes that special education has become the most difficult hurdle for charter schools to overcome, stating, ‘‘[t]he harm to disabled students is obvious: they are denied equal educational choices and opportunities in violation of their civil rights’’ (p. 659). Because IDEA and Section 504, which are the central governing statutes regulating special education, were enacted prior to the charter school movement, these civil rights legislation were designed for the centralized bureaucratic system of education previously existent rather than the independent and accountable nature of schools after the movement (Garda, pp. 669–670). Therefore, successful administration of charter schools in dealing with special education must acknowledge the inherent consequences that such initial design entails. Charter schools may be established as a separate Local

Instructional Leadership Regarding Law and Politics

139

Education Agency (LEA) or as a member of an already existing LEA (i.e., school district). Charter schools that are separate LEAs experience a more significant level of accountability and responsibility for the proper implementation of IDEA and Section 504 programs in their school. Several cases regarding special education and charter schools have reached the U.S. Circuit Courts in the past decade. Claims against charter schools alleging violations against procedures and requirements enforced by IDEA are often brought before the courts. Green and Mead (2004) provide several suggestions that prepare charter school administrators and enable them to provide proper special education. First, administrators should have a thorough understanding of IDEA and its requirements, including those which apply to both public and charter schools. Second, an administrator should evaluate his or her school and conclude whether the school shall be an LEA based on state law. Next, the position as a charter school leader must ‘‘consider whether any contract provisions are needed to make explicit the various responsibilities of the school and its authorizer’’ (Green & Mead, p. 157). Fourth, policies and procedures in compliance with IDEA shall be established. Furthermore, administrators should provide information to parents of their rights under IDEA. Finally, charter school administrators should know how proper faculty and staff are hired and what training and employment rules they need to know (Green & Mead, 2004). According to Barkmeier (2012), charter schools across the nation have not adequately provided special education to disabled students. ‘‘[T]here is evidence nationally that charter schools provide only limited access for students with disabilities, for myriad reasons’’ (p. 284). Barkmeier suggests two reasons for the charter school issue. First, because students with disabilities tend to require higher costs, charter schools turn away from these students for those that will keep expenses low. Furthermore, Barkmeier suggests that because of the variety of disabilities students may have, charter schools usually do not have the appropriate personnel to adequately educate students with disabilities (Barkmeier, 2012). These criticisms mirror violations of state and federal law. However there is no empirical data to support the claim that charter schools are different than public schools in handling special education students. Thus, we see Barkmeier’s comments not so much an indictment of charter schools but as further evidence of the fact that charter schools, like their traditional public school counterparts, are under immense pressure to be compliant with the law even when financial resources are scarce.

140

KEVIN M. MCKENNA ET AL.

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES Racial and gender discrimination is an important point of discussion when reviewing charter school law (Siegel-Hawley & Frankenberg, 2011). Like traditional public schools, charter schools are subject to the equal protection limitations established by the courts through the strict and intermediate scrutiny tests. Some states have enacted racial balancing provisions that influence the composition of school students in relation to the community’s population. Furthermore, many charter schools have established admissions policies which may have an effect on preferential decisions based on discriminatory factors. Groshoff (2010) suggests that gender discrimination is a common issue of sex-segregated charter schools. Although Title IX prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex by federally funded schools, charter schools have operated with admission policies which admit only male or female students without much opposition. In cases which involve the constitutionality of a governmental action, the courts have adopted a three-level review. The most stringent analysis is strict scrutiny, which the courts utilize when reviewing race and religion-related cases. Intermediate scrutiny, requires a government action to have a substantial relationship to an important interest. The Supreme Court has used this level of analysis regarding gender discrimination (United States v. Virginia Military Institute, 1996). The simplest evaluation of the constitutionality of government action is rational basis, which is the most common used review, usually concerning all other matters than race, religion, and gender. Under rational basis, government action must only have a rational relationship between government action and interest. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision, American Civil Liberties Union v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (2011), illustrates yet another Constitutional issue which charter school administrators must be aware, that of establishment of religion. Here, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), sought claims against a charter school for violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In Minnesota, under state statute, Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy is a charter school which aims to provide education to students of Middle Eastern, African, and Asian culture. Because of its stated purpose, the charter school has received students primarily of the Islamic religion. The ACLU claimed that this purpose, as a state chartered school, violates the Constitution in promoting and establishing the Islam religion.

Instructional Leadership Regarding Law and Politics

141

An applicable test for evaluating whether a state’s action violates the U.S. Constitution’s Establishment Clause is the Lemon test, articulated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971). The Tarek court noted that: ‘‘In order to satisfy the Lemon test, a challenged governmental action must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) not have the primary principal effect of advancing religion, and (3) not foster an excessive entanglement with religion’’ (Tarek, p. 38). First, in other words, a state action must have a secular purpose. A secular purpose evaluation examines the intent of the legislation or policy at issue and determines whether the action was intentionally aimed to support religion. The second prong requires that the legislation or policy not have a primary principal effect in advancing religion. Finally, the Lemon test requires that state action must not foster an excessive entanglement with religion. After using the Lemon test, the Circuit Court found that the charter school did violate the Establishment Clause, stating: [T]he Court determines that a reasonable juror could conclude that [the Defendant’s] practices establish a pervasively sectarian atmosphere for the purpose of promoting Islam. In particular, a reasonable juror could conclude that [the charter school] was founded specifically to create a religious school and that elements of its operation have the primary principal effect of advancing the religion of Islam. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s Establishment Clause claims. (American Civil Liberties Union v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, p. 38)

The Lemon test is an important legal test that all school administrators, but especially charter school leaders, should understand. Because charter schools are established through state statute and contractual agreements with local education authorities, commonly with school districts, school leaders must understand that charter schools are liable for violations of the U.S. Constitution. In Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling (2011), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals responded to First and Fourteenth Amendment claims. However, while the court does discuss the constitutional issues in its decision, the court held that the charter school, deemed a governmental entity of the state, could not bring suit against the state since a government entity is ‘‘incapable of bringing an action against the state’’ (p. 4). Despite this procedural determination by the court, this case illustrates the court’s views on First and Fourteenth Amendment issues. This decision states that the curriculum of a school funded, chartered, or operated by the state is considered free speech of the state rather than that of teachers, parents, or students. Whereas personal speech is spoken through

142

KEVIN M. MCKENNA ET AL.

verbal communication by the teachers and students, the government’s speech is represented through the bulletin boards, textbooks, and other curricular resources in the classroom. Unlike personal speech, however, government speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and therefore, does not provide Nampa Classical Academy any First Amendment protections against state action. According to the court, Nampa Classical Academy was considered a government subdivision. Thus, the school’s Fourteenth Amendment claims of an infringement upon the Equal Protection Clause were dismissed, as the constitutional right does not apply disparate treatment against its own government subdivisions.

CONCLUSIONS This chapter has focused on the importance of having a working knowledge of school law. This knowledge is critical for all school officials but is especially important for leaders of charter schools. Clearly, the financial stakes are higher for charter schools because law suits could cause considerable disruption if not financial ruin for the enterprise. Recognizing these possible repercussions, we have advocated for a preventive process that involves not only knowledge of school law but also a strong relationship with an attorney specializing in charter school law. Moreover, this relationship is essential in light of the complexities of charter school law, which are well beyond that of legal issues normally expected of school administrators. Not only must charter school leaders be aware of state and federal law pertaining to charter schools, they must also be aware of the laws regulating public schools as well as policies in school districts with which they may be affiliated. Understanding the law and its implications for charter schools is a monumental task but one that carries with it important safeguards not only for the future of charter schools but for the future of our educational system which is served so well by these leaders.

REFERENCES American Civil Liberties Union v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, 10-2326 (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, July 7, 2012). Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (1994). 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.

Instructional Leadership Regarding Law and Politics

143

Barkmeier, A. (2012). Special education compliance and charter schools: A study of national, state, and local policy in Denver Public Schools. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law & Policy, 19(2), 283–308. Bull, B. L., & McCarthy, M. M. (1995). Reflections on the knowledge base in law and ethics for educational leaders. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(4), 613–631. Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VII, 42 U.S.C. (1981). Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1975). 20 U.S.C. y 1415. Educational Leadership Policy Standards. (2008). p. 15. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Foreman v. Chester-Upland School District, 941 A.2d 108 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, January 18, 2008). Garda, R. A. (2012). Cultural clash: Special education in charter schools. North Carolina Law Review, 90(2), 655–718. Green, P. C., & Mead, J. F. (2004). Charter schools and the law: Establishing new legal relationships. Norwood, MA: Christopher-Gordon Publishers. Groshoff, D. (2010). Unchartered territory: Market competitions, constitutional collision with entrepreneurial sex-segregated charter schools. Brigham Young University Education and Law Journal, 2010, 307–357. Heubert, J. P. (1997). The more we get together: Improving collaboration between educators and their lawyers. Harvard Educational Review, 67(3), 531–583. Hill, P. T., Lake, R. J., & Celio, M. B. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2005). 20 U.S.C. yy 1400 et seq. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Mosaica Academy Charter School v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 572 Pa. 191 (2002). Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling, 10-35542 (United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, August 15, 2011). Pennsylvania Public School Code, 24 P.S. yy 1-101-27-2702 (1949). Pennsylvania Charter School Law, 24 P.S. yy 17-1701-A–17-1751-A (1997). Pennsylvania Administrative Code, PA, Chapter 11, 22 Pa. Code y 11.11 (2004). Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, 458 U.S. 176, 207-208 (1982). Schimmel, D., & Militello, M. (2009). The dangers of not knowing: Why your teachers should be legally literate. Leadership Insider, 2009, 2–8. Siegel-Hawley, G., & Frankenberg, E. (2011). Does law influence charter school diversity? An analysis of federal and state legislation. Michigan Journal of Race and Law, 16(2), 321–367. Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, 31 A.3d 657 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, November 23, 2011). U.S. Constitution, Amend. I. United States v. Virginia Military Institute, 518 U.S. 515 (1996). West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 812 A.2d 1172 (2002), 1172, citing 24 P.S. y 17-1703-A. Williams v. East Orange Community Charter School, 10-1985 (United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, October 8, 2010).

EASING THE TENSION: CONSIDERATIONS FOR ALIGNING CHARTER LAW WITH FEDERAL REGULATIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS Hoaihuong ‘‘Orletta’’ Nguyen ABSTRACT Special education issues and considerations often perplex and confuse many educational institutions, regardless if they are traditional or autonomous organizations such as charters. However, research indicates these issues tend to be more complicated with charters because the realm of special education is highly regulated and in many cases, in direct conflict with charter core tenets of autonomy, innovation, curriculum, and accountability. Since the emergence of charter schools in 1991, researchers have investigated the relationship between charter law and the highly regulated domain of special education. The literature has evolved as charters have become more prevalent and established. But one thing remains the same, charter law and federal regulations are often in conflict with one another and cause great tension for autonomous leaders who strive to improve educational practices and learning for all the students Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 145–169 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018014

145

146

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

they serve. Thus, this chapter focuses on important leadership considerations when building, improving, and maintaining an effective charter organization with regards to working with students with special needs. Essentially, the tension between autonomous leadership and federal regulations can be eased by planning for students with special needs. The key to successful planning and implementation is through alignment that goes beyond the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standard.

INTRODUCTION Over the last two decades, charter schools have emerged to provide more educational variety to parents and students. The charter school movement has become synonymous with increased autonomy, innovation, and flexibility in educational programming for students in which they serve. Charters are sweeping the nation and promise improvements to the state of education as we know it. However, educators have lain in wait to determine the efficacy and impact of the charter school model on the educational field. Researchers in the field have investigated various aspects of the charter movement including responsibilities (Allen & Mintrom, 2010), autonomy (Hassel, 1999), governance (Koppich, Holmes, & Plecki, 1998), organizational structures (Rhim, Lange, & Ahearn, 2005), impact on student outcomes (Drame, 2010), and equity (Fierros & Blomberg, 2005). Existing literature has yet to reach a consensus regarding the efficacy of charter schools upon educational practice. Given the variability of state guidelines for licensure of a charter and the inherent premise that charters have the autonomy to provide unique schooling experiences, emergence of a widely accepted opinion of charter school efficacy is elusive (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003). But, the prominence of charters opening and establishing themselves across the nation indicates educators are hopeful that charters are and will encourage educational reform across the nation (Buckley & Schneider, 2007). The one constant among the charter literature, specifically in regards to meeting the needs of students with special needs, is the continued conflict and tension between charter laws and federal regulations governing special education (Drame & Frattura, 2011; Rhim, Ahearn, & Lange, 2007; Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001). Thankfully, over 20 years of missteps have provided enough research to begin to craft best practice approaches for charter leaders to start unraveling

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

147

the special education and relieving some of the tension between two potentially conflicting paradigms. This chapter can be broken up into two sections: (1) an overview of the research and existing literature in regards to charter schools and special education, and (2) essential considerations for charter leaders to align with federal regulations. The focus of this chapter is on salient research and considerations as they relate to charter schools. The overview of research will allow us to reflect on what has been tried, what has failed, and what has worked. An understanding of charter history with special education allows us to engage in educational improvement. The second portion, essential considerations, provides us with pertinent information and issues as a platform to strategic planning and improvement. These considerations are aligned with the fundamental concepts provided by the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction to Review of Literature For students with special needs, parents seek out charter schools and report increased satisfaction of the effects of charters on their children’s academics and attitudes toward school (Lange & Lehr, 2000). When looking at how charters attempt to address students with special needs, the variability causes wide-sweeping statements to become even more difficult to articulate. There are charters that are exclusive to the clientele of special needs students, while others intentionally or unintentionally ‘‘cream’’ their applicant pool through their mission statements, curriculum demands, educational service delivery, and/or simply by counseling parents away from applying (Lacireno-Paquet, Holyoke, Moser, & Henig, 2002). Although the jury is still out on the full impact of the charter movement, particularly with regards to students with special needs, the literature has clearly indicated that there are potential barriers for students with disabilities entering charters:  implementation of equitable practices and access to a free and appropriate public education that are legally compliant with nondiscriminatory practices (Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001);

148

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

 understanding the full breadth of responsibilities (Rhim et al., 2007);  and ability to provide appropriate special education services (Drame & Frattura, 2011). These are large and overwhelming issues that are confusing and problematic to traditional school leaders, much less autonomous school leaders. However, with careful planning and consideration of special education issues when developing or revisiting the charter mission, charter leaders can address these issues thoughtfully and effectively. The first step is gaining an understanding of the existing issues that charter leaders are facing when attempting to reconcile charter autonomy with the highly regulated world of special education. Equity, Access, and Compliance Charter schools are essentially public schools that are authorized by host districts and states to operate without the rigidity of school bureaucracy that traditional schools encounter. As a public educational institution that receives federal and state funding, charter schools must follow federal and state mandates. This includes such regulations set forth by No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, and other nondiscriminatory laws. At times, charter laws and federal regulations can conflict where charters may intentionally or unintentionally implement practices that limit student access and equity. In a review of several state-level documents across the nation, Ahearn, Lange, Rhim, and Mclaughlin (2001) found that state descriptions of charter requirements were not uniformed. As such, this left charter leaders unsure of how to navigate between their charter law and state laws. This confusion bred serious issues of exclusion and discrimination through questionable tactics regarding the students with disabilities. For instance, Lacireno-Paquet et al. (2002) conducted an in-depth analysis of student demographics in the Washington, DC area by comparing the percentage of students with disabilities, English language learners, and ethnic backgrounds across traditional schools, nonprofit charters, and for-profit charters. Disturbingly, the researchers found through data aggregation, charter schools that operated for-profit had significantly lower percentages of students with disabilities, English language learners, and African American students. The implications of this finding spoke to a concept of creaming the student population to the exclusion of students with less desirable characteristics (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002).

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

149

Additional research on topics of equity and access indicated that charters may have intentionally or unintentionally excluded students with special needs. For intentional exclusion, charters engaged in the practice of ‘‘counseling’’ parents away from applying to the charter (Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001). Although this practice is arguably used in traditional schools, counseling parents away is strictly forbidden by law as discrimination. In these cases where parents are counseled, charter staff may offer to enroll the student if the parents agree to waive their rights to an Individualized Education Program (IEP). IEPs are individualized education programs that focus on a child’s learning plan. It is a legally binding document that explicitly states how schools will provide accommodations and modifications that are unique to the child with special needs. As a legal document, should schools fail to follow the IEP, schools may open themselves up to issues of liability (Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001; Swanson, 2005). For unintentional exclusion, charters may craft their mission statements and choice of curriculum in a way that is undesirable for students with disabilities (Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001; Rhim et al., 2007). For instance, many charters adopt an inclusionary model of instruction where students, regardless of the presence of a disability, receive educational support within a general education setting. Inclusion has its own merits and there is plenty of literature to support the practice (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008). However, by offering only one mode of educational service, charters may unintentionally deter families of students with more severe disabilities from applying (Swanson, 2005). Another unintentional exclusionary tactic is if the charter mission is targeted toward students who are not likely to be students with disabilities. For instance, if the mission is focused on high performance on accountability measures, the target student demographic is high achievers; the mission inadvertently excludes lower performing students such as students with disabilities because they have inherent disabilities that adversely impact their educational performance (Swanson, 2005). Another way to look at unintentional exclusion is through fiscal conflicts. Although charters have greater autonomy than traditional public schools, charters must be much more innovative and creative when allocating their resources (Lake & Gross, 2012). In studies done on charters that were classified as market or ‘‘for-profit’’ charters, researchers and educational leaders found that children with disabilities, particularly those students with more severe disabilities, were excluded from the charter due to transportation (Dykgraaf & Lewis, 1998) and lack of resources (Lange & Lehr, 2000).

150

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

Although cutting costs is nothing new to education and trimming occurs in district and charter schools, it becomes more sensitive and complicated with charters because they operate under immense pressure to meet accountability aims in a fiscally responsible way in order to renew and keep the charter in operation. Responsible Parties Much of the literature on charters and special education issues take time to address the concept of responsibility (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; Lake & Gross, 2012; Lange, 1997; Rhim & McLaughlin, 2001). The consensus is that fiscal and legal responsibility is dependent on the charters’ status as a Local Educational Agency (LEA). Under IDEA, LEAs are the responsible parties for provision of special education services. This means that LEAs are fiscally and legally responsible for implementing the child’s IEP. Some charters are their own LEA; while others are part of the host district, and thus the host district is the LEA. Depending on the state in which your charter resides, the state legislature will define whether or not your charter or the host district is the LEA. Some states, like California, provide charters with the option of becoming their own LEA or using the host district (Rhim et al., 2007). The LEA status is very important because IDEA specifically calls out the LEA as the responsible party to provide funding and services. Provision of services Another trend from charter and special education literature has been the identification of charters that were ill-equipped to provide quality services to students with disabilities in order for them to make academic gains. The research on student academic outcomes in charter schools is emerging; thus, there is very little information to make sweeping statements regarding achievement or lack thereof in charters. Also there are a myriad of reasons for why student underperform, but when it comes to a charter, under achievement threatens the existence of the charter itself because of the threat of closure. Therefore, the research reviewed in this section is designed not to pass judgment on charters, but rather to illustrate possible implications and question whether or not charter schools are in a position to provide appropriate levels of services. In an exploratory study, Drame (2010) investigated the actual academic growth of students with disabilities in a charter school in comparison to

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

151

those of their nondisabled peers. Using a simple growth model, Drame found the students were not statistically different in their growth in reading; but, identified special education students were significantly lower in their math performance than their general education peers. In addition, Drame cited various other studies that supported her findings where student performance in charter schools was typically lower than that of students in traditional schools. These findings allow us to question how charter staff is addressing special education needs. In a subsequent study, Drame and Frattura (2011) addressed Drame’s (2010) previous findings by asking how charter staff was dealing with students with special needs. The authors conducted a case study of one charter and their management of special education issues. The findings echoed previous literature on the topic in regards to identifying confusion about special education and how to best provide special education services. Drame and Frattura identified three areas that confirmed the trends in charter literature: (1) Special education and general education staff did not share the same philosophy regarding effective service delivery. (2) General education staff felt that they lacked training for on how to accommodate and modify instruction and curriculum for students with special needs. (3) There were no structures in place to encourage collaboration, communication, and support between the special education and general education teams.

Conclusion to review of literature The literature paints a bleak picture of charter schools and their navigation of the special education realm. Rightly so, as special education issues are convoluted and complicated. But, as charter schools serve as a beacon of hope for education, these issues can be tackled if charter leaders are armed with a deep understanding of their responsibility. Allen and Mintrom (2010) discuss the definition of responsibility; they describe responsibility as autonomous agents who face the possibility of doing something right or wrong, and who must have fundamental understanding and access to information that would help them make decisions (p. 441). This definition speaks volumes about people in general, but for charter leaders, it places a great emphasis on autonomy and having the facts to make the right

152

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

decision. Autonomous leaders must gain the knowledge to make responsible decision with the proper information to weigh those decisions in the best interest of the children in which they serve.

ESSENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS Creating a Vision for All Learners (ISLLC Standard 1) Although charters have more flexibility and autonomy in development of their charter organization and vision, remember that charters are public institutions. As a public institution, charters must ultimately abide by federal regulations. Thus, when developing or revising the charter vision, leaders must be cognizant and informed on the guiding tenets of special education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act The IDEA is a powerful and important federal law. According to a 2008 US Department of Education study, IDEA directly impacts more than 6.8 million children with disabilities who attend public schools every year (NICHY, 2010). On average, for charter schools, research has indicated that the enrollment of students in special education is slightly lower, if not comparable to that of national averages in traditional public schools (Lacireno-Paquet et al., 2002). Thus, there will always be a percentage of students with special needs enrolled or seeking to enroll in your school. IDEA ensures that students with disabilities have access to an equitable share of economic opportunity and independence to prepare them for leading fulfilling lives. A key tenet of IDEA is to provide children with disabilities access to a free appropriate public education (FAPE). IDEA provides that special education and related services are designed and implemented to meet their unique needs and prepare them for their futures as adults. Essentially, IDEA does three major things: (1) ensures that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; (2) assists educational agencies, and state and federal agencies in providing for the education of all children with disabilities; and (3) provides guidelines for educational agencies to assess and monitor the effectiveness of service delivery.

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

153

The actual law is very difficult to digest in its entirety as it is riddled with plenty of legalese. But, the spirit behind the law is quite simple. IDEA protects children with disabilities and their parents from acts of discrimination based on their disability. These protections extend, permeate, and are required for consideration in the identification, planning, and implementation of supports afforded to these children. Free Appropriate Public Education One of the guiding principles to IDEA is the concept of an FAPE. FAPE refers to a general concept that in public education, students with disabilities will provided with all the necessary services and supports to allow them to access curriculum that are afforded to their nondisabled counterparts. Specifically, FAPE means special education and related services that are (1) Free. Services are provided at public expense and under public supervision. (2) Appropriate. Appropriate means whatever’s suitable, fitting, or right for a specific child, given that child’s specific needs and strengths, established goals, and the supports and services that will be provided to help the child in reaching those goals. Appropriate is determined by the unique needs of the child and what would be considered necessary for the child to access curriculum. (3) Public. Children with disabilities have the right to attend public school just as other children do, regardless of the nature or severity of their disabilities. The public school system must serve children with disabilities. (4) Education. IDEA is an education act. It guarantees that FAPE is available to children with disabilities. In the context of IDEA, ‘‘education’’ means ‘‘special education and related services (NICHY, 2010). The education plan for children with disabilities is guided by the child’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP, which is developed by school staff, parents, and the child (when appropriate), allows the child to access an appropriate education and delineates the plan on how the school staff and parents will gain that access. Charter Leaders’ Roles Charter leaders must incorporate IDEA and its central concept of FAPE into their own charter mission. Careful consideration of the IDEA tenets and the spirit of IDEA as a protection against discriminatory practices are

154

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

imperative during the charter’s planning stages (Swanson, 2005). Leaders must consider the following to increase alignment with IDEA: (1) The students that will be attracted and served under the charter’s vision and mission. (2) The degree of alignment between IDEA and charter vision and mission. (3) Flexibility of the vision and mission to meet diverse learning needs. Roles and Responsibility for Special Education Services (ISLLC Standard 3) Remember that as educators, we are all responsible for the students that we serve, regardless of a disability. When it comes to roles and responsibilities as defined by IDEA, charter leaders must identify the charters legal status. Local Education Agency Under IDEA, LEAs take responsibility for the fiscal and educational services provided to students with special needs. There are three ways that charters can be classified: as part of an LEA to the host district, as their own, independent LEA, or the charter may be provided a choice between being part of the host district’s LEA or venturing out on their own as an independent LEA. Understanding LEA status is imperative in defining the charter’s approach to special education. In circumstances where the charter is part of the host district’s LEA, the host district is likely to already have a vision for provision of services, staff, service delivery models, transportation routes established, procedures established, and funding allocations set. This can lead to conflicts if the charter organization doesn’t align with the host district. As a charter, part of the aim was to remove the bureaucracy, but it is unavoidable if the charter is part of the host district’s LEA. On the other hand, if the charter is their own LEA, it has greater control over service provision and allocation of funding. However, charters may need to develop, fund, and implement entire special education service delivery models with little resources and support. A special consideration to be mindful of is the fiscal responsibilities and allocation of funding. As part of the host district’s LEA, host districts will set the guidelines of fees for services and allocating the monies they receive from the state and federal government under IDEA. As an independent LEA, special education funding is very complicated. It requires careful understanding of IDEA, how to access funds, and how funds are allocated

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

155

under specific IDEA guidelines. As such, many charters hire consultants to address funding issues. In charters who are embarking in their first or second year in operation, there are many issues on top of special education issues that may be more pressing in order to ensure that the charter is operational. In these cases, and in states that allow the charter an option, it may behoove the charter to begin the LEA status as part of the host district. This will minimize the need to reinvent the wheel and will provide for immediate services to students with disabilities. As the charter becomes more established, charter leaders may opt to separate from the district and become their own LEA. Some of the tension between charters and federal regulations begins with determining LEA responsibility. But, the tension can reach very frustrating moments when the LEA, such as the host district, doesn’t appear to be taking much responsibility for special education services. Or, the tension can be exacerbated when the host district views the charter as oppositional (Allen & Mintrom, 2010). Poor relationships with host districts are always recipes for disaster, regardless of special education issues. Thus, when charters encounter resistance from their host district LEAs, they must first consider how to build trusting and supportive relationships. When that fails, the charter may want to consider becoming their own LEA to increase their control and decision-making power upon how special education services should be delivered and supported at their school. Charter Leaders’ Roles The first step for any charter leader is to determine the legal status of your charter. Depending on the status, plan accordingly. Part of the host district’s LEA: (1) Determine if the host district’s vision/mission is aligned with the charter. (2) Learn the LEA’s procedures in the identification of students with special needs, service delivery, transportation, and handling disputes. (3) Learn about the staff that the host district will provide including number, services the staff provides, contractual issues, and the individuals themselves. (4) Determine the cost of being part of the host district’s LEA. (5) Build relationships with your host district. If you are your own independent LEA you will want to consider systems issues in the development and planning of a functional special education service model. Much of the nuts and bolts of how to do this are presented later in this chapter.

156

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

(1) Learn the pertinent aspects of IDEA and develop procedures/systems to address identification, assessment, compliance, service delivery, and due process. (2) Identify essential personnel needed to implement a special education program. (3) Learn models of special education services from traditional and other charter schools. Understanding the Special Needs Community (ISLLC Standard 4) The special needs community is a vastly diverse community that encompasses students, parents, educators, the private sector, and special interest groups. For students with disabilities, there are 13 federal handicapping conditions that each has its own unique characteristics and impacts on the students’ educations. Parents are diverse in their experience with parenting children with special needs and also have a wide array of knowledge on the interworking of special education and their rights as parents. Give the breadth and diversity of the community, understanding the special needs community is another crucial step in implementing a solid special education program. Understanding Disabilities There are 13 federal handicapping conditions described in IDEA. Each has its own unique statement of the type of student who would meet the criteria for special education services. Charter leaders do not need to understand each of the conditions thoroughly. But, leaders must understand that each disability varies in severity and impact upon the child’s academic, cognitive, behavioral, adaptive, and motor functioning. In general, the level of severity can be categorized into two categories: (1) Mild to Moderate and (2) Moderate to Severe The terms mild, moderate, and severe describe the degree of impact on the child’s learning and education. Research indicates charters typically enroll students with mild to moderate disabilities because students with moderate to severe disabilities tend to be excluded due to parental choice as well intentional or unintentional exclusionary practices (Fiore, Warren, & Cashman, 1999). Children with mild to moderate disabilities are typically those that qualify for services under speech and language impairment, specific learning

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

157

disability, other health impairments, and high functioning autism. These children require less support in comparison to their more severely disabled peers. For many, an inclusion model of service delivery, minimal hours of small group instruction, or a combination of both are appropriate to meet their learning needs. Parent Rights and Advocacy Parents are an integral part of the special education community. IDEA has specific provisions for their involvement. Public schools are required to keep parents involved in the decision-making process for their children, be informed and understand special education protections and legal requirements, and have avenues to address disputes that arise. The key to IDEA and parents is that IDEA allows opportunities for parents to be advocates for their children. In order to do so, schools must provide several things: (1) A document of the parents of their rights under IDEA, known as procedural safeguards. (2) Required participation of the parent as a mandatory member of the IEP team. (3) Translation services if English is not the parent’s primary language. (4) Adherence to strict timelines in responding to a parent’s requests, assessment, and notice of disciplinary action. (5) Avenues for parents to resolve disputes, known as due process. Resolving Disputes Even the best-laid plans go awry and parents will inevitably have concerns or disputes over the IEP’s provision of services, accommodations, goals, and the manner in which services are provided. In these instances, charter leaders must be aware of the due process system to continually encourage equity and access for all students. The law is very complicated, and if you should encounter a dispute and have questions, it is in your best interest to consult with your legal team that is associated with your LEA. There are several components to resolving disputes. Given the complicated nature of the process and the law, I will only provide you with a general overview of all of the procedures and manners in which you can begin to resolve a dispute:  Procedural Safeguards: All parents must be given a copy of their procedural safeguards on an annual basis. Procedural Safeguards help parents better understand their rights under IDEA, including their options for resolving disagreements.

158

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

 State Complaints: Parents may write and sign complaints alleging that a public agency has violated a requirement of IDEA. When a state complaint is filed, the LEA obligations include ensuring that State complaints are resolved within 60 days. As part of the resolution processing, LEAs must carry out an independent on-site investigation should it be necessary, give the complainant the opportunity to submit additional information about the complaint, and be given an opportunity to respond to the State complaint.  Mediation: A process conducted by a qualified and impartial mediator to resolve a disagreement between a parent and a public agency regarding any matter arising under Part B of IDEA, including matters arising prior to the filing of a due process complaint.  Due Process Complaints and Due Process Hearings: Due process complaints are complaints filed by a parent or a public agency to initiate an impartial due process hearing on any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of a child with a disability, or the provision of FAPE to the child. In a due process hearing, the complaint is addressed by a hearing officer and a judgment is made.  Resolution Process: This is an opportunity for the parents and the LEA to attempt to resolve the issues in a parent’s due process complaint prior to the initiation of a due process hearing. Charter Leaders’ Roles Understanding the special needs community is crucial to building an appropriate special education program. Having access and being aware of the community will minimize potential problems. Consider the following: (1) Charters’ preparedness in serving students from mild to severe levels of disability. (2) Understanding of how disabilities impact learning. (3) Training and resources to learn more about working with students with disabilities. (4) Systems that encourage parent involvement in decision making and resolving disputes. Developing and Supporting a Culture that All Children Can Learn (ISLLC Standard 2) In order to support a diverse special education community, charter schools must be prepared to offer a wide array of special education services that can

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

159

be tailored to meet student needs. This is known as a service delivery model. Service delivery is how schools structure and implement special education services. Service delivery requires all educators working at the school site to be involved, including leadership, special education staff, and general education staff. Creating a Continuum of Services Services can be delivered in two different settings, inclusive or in a separate setting. Inclusive settings are the least restrictive of environments. The term ‘‘inclusive’’ is very telling of the environment and the intent of the setting. Children with disabilities are ‘‘included’’ in activities with their general education counterparts. Other ways that educators describe an inclusive setting is to refer to the setting as ‘‘inside’’ or ‘‘within’’ the general education classroom. In other cases, in order to access FAPE, children are provided special education services in a separate classroom. For these students, their unique needs can only be met in a more intense manner within a separate class setting. These students’ needs require more significant support that cannot be provided within the inclusive setting. The intense support can target academics, behavior, adaptive skills, social skills, or all of the above. Other ways that educators describe separate settings is to refer to them as ‘‘outside’’ or ‘‘separate from’’ the general education setting. Inclusive Practices. In an inclusive setting, special education services are delivered through the co-teach model. Special education service providers work collaboratively with the general education teacher. There are four ways to co-teach. In a model co-teaching classroom, co-teachers move in and out of the four methods of co-teaching (Villa et al., 2008). (1) Support Teaching – Support teaching is when one co-teacher takes the lead instructional role and the other rotates among the students to provide support. The co-teacher taking on the supportive role steps in to provide individual tutorial assistance as necessary. (2) Parallel Teaching – Parallel teaching is when two or more people work with different groups of students in different sections of the classroom. The co-teachers teach simultaneously to different groups of students. (3) Complementary Teaching – Complementary teaching is when teaching team members do something to enhance the instruction provided as they share responsibility for all the students. (4) Team Teaching – Team teaching is when two or more people do what the traditional teacher has always done: plan, teach, assess, and assume responsibility for all of the students in the classroom. Each team

160

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

member contributes to the lesson and alternate leading, supporting, and complementing one another’s instruction. There are many benefits to co-teaching. The greatest benefit is the ability of co-teachers to increase the interactions between children with disabilities and children without disabilities. Co-teaching also encourages flexibility in teaching strategies, learning environments, and ability to accommodate and modify grade level curriculum for diverse learners. At the high school level, co-teaching in an inclusive setting allows students to be on a diploma bound track. Separate Classroom Practices. In a separate classroom, the class size is considerably smaller in comparison to general education classrooms. Class size can range from 6 to 18 students. In every separate classroom, there are at least two educators. There is a credentialed teacher, the special education teacher. There is also a noncertificated staff member, the special education assistant. The curriculum in a separate classroom is required to be standards based, but in accordance with FAPE and the child’s IEP, the curriculum can be modified, accommodated, and adapted to a level that is appropriate to the individual child’s needs. Often, the modifications to the curriculum revolve around specific reading materials, manner, and pacing in which instruction is delivered, level of support to complete academic tasks, and assessment or how children demonstrate their learning of the material. Special Education Staffing To create an effective IEP, parents, teachers, other school staff, and often the child, must come together at a meeting to look closely at the child’s unique needs. These individuals combine their knowledge, experience, and commitment to design an educational program that must help the child to be involved in, and progress in, the general education curriculum. According to IDEA, there are four individuals that are needed at every IEP meeting: parents, administrators, special education teacher, and general education staff. Additional members that attend and assist in the development of IEPs are related service providers. Related services means transportation and such developmental, corrective, and other supportive services as are required to assist a child with a disability to benefit from special education, and includes but is not limited to: speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services, psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, counseling services, including rehabilitation counseling, medical services for diagnostic or evaluation purposes, school health

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

161

services and school nurse services, social work services in schools, and parent counseling and training. Some or all of these individuals may be integral to the provision of a continuum of services. For the purpose of this portion of the chapter, I will focus on special education teachers and select related service providers. Special Education Teacher. The special education teacher’s role is to contribute knowledge on how to modify the general education curriculum to help the child learn. This means that special education teachers provide expertise in adapting curriculum for children to access FAPE. These adaptations may include, but are not limited to instructional materials, mode of instruction, or manner in which services are delivered. Special education teachers also contribute knowledge on knowing what supplementary aids and services that the child may need to be successful in the regular classroom and elsewhere. Another way to think about special education teachers is as ‘‘case-managers.’’ As a case manager, they are essentially responsible for coordinating services and supports to meet the child’s IEP goals. This may involve consultation and collaboration with the IEP team, coordinating services, providing direct services, monitoring progress, and revising the IEP. Speech and Language Pathologist. It is likely that you will have a higher incidence of students with mild to moderate disabilities. In many cases, students with speech and language impairments can be mild to moderate and be a larger representation in your school population. Having a speech and language pathologist (SLP) on staff will assist you in developing and implementing your service delivery models and the students’ IEPs. SLPs provide invaluable services to students with communication disorders which include understanding, expressing, and using language in a socially appropriate manner. SLPs are most common at the preschool and elementary levels of school where they target early interventions. They typically provide direct services in both the inclusive and separate class setting. As the children progress to secondary levels, SLPs may provide services at a consultative level. School Psychologist. IDEA states that if a child is being evaluated for a suspected disability, the IEP team requires there be an individual who can interpret instructional implications of evaluation results. Children with disabilities are initially evaluated for services, and then subsequently evaluated for services every three years. A school psychologist is your resident expert on assessment procedures, tools, and interpretation of

162

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

assessment results. Assessment is the primary job duty of a school psychologist. But, school psychologists are also trained in a multitude of areas beyond assessment. They have preservice training in school-based mental health intervention services, either by providing direct services or coordinating services for children, academic interventions, behavior intervention, and special education law. School psychologists are required at all levels of education to identify students with disabilities and be a constant resource to continually assess and support educational programs. Special Education Paraeducator. Paraeducators (also known as paraprofessionals and instructional assistant) are individuals who provide direct services to students under the supervision of a credentialed professional. They are invaluable resources when properly trained and supervised. Paraeducators are also known to educators as paraprofessionals, instructional assistants, and teachers’ aides. This population of educators is drawn from your classified staff as paraeducators do not have a teaching credential. Their formal training is typically limited to high school diplomas or basic skills equivalency tests. They are also trained in first aid and CPR. But, don’t discount them as research has illustrated that they are wonderful human resources. Paraeducators provide direct instructional and behavioral services to students. Under the supervision of a credentialed teacher, paraeducators mirror the job duties of the classroom teacher as they can teach in small group instruction, provide individualized instruction, and modify and accommodate to various learning styles and needs (Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2006). Paraeducators can also assist in behavior modifications and documentation of behaviors (Meuller, Sterling-Turner, & Moore, 2005). In addition, many paraeducators are community members; they have intimate knowledge of the surrounding community and culture (Chopra, SandovalLucero, Aragon, Bernal, Berg De Balderas, & Carroll, 2004). Charter Leaders’ Role The final mandatory member of the IEP team as dictated by IDEA is the administrator. Administrators are typically those that hold administrative credentials such as principals and vice-principals. However, administrators can designate individuals to be ‘‘administrative designees.’’ These are individuals that do not necessarily hold administrative credentials but will act as the administrator for the IEP. The administrator is responsible for and qualified to: (1) provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with disabilities;

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

163

(2) be knowledgeable about general education curriculum and availability of resources of the school site; (3) contribute to IEP meetings with their global or ‘‘big picture’’ view of the school and the school system; and (4) facilitate communication and collaboration when a dispute arises.

Providing Equity and Access (ISLLC Standard 5) The vehicle that drives the entire process for students with disabilities is the Individualized Education Program (IEP). It is not only a legally binding document but a process of collaboration among team members. The IEP is the document that delineates how a child accesses FAPE and essentially how the child is treated equitably. Individualized Education Program An IEP is an individualized education program that focuses on a child’s learning plan to access FAPE in the least restrictive environment given services, accommodations, and modifications unique to the child. There are several components to the IEP and they are as follows: (1) Present Levels: Present levels are descriptions of the child’s skills in academic, behavioral, functional, adaptive, health, communication, and gross/fine motor skills. This includes a statement about how the child’s disability impacts their progress in the general education curriculum. Present levels are data driven. The information comes from evaluation data, observations, parent/teacher reports, and schoolwork. Present levels identify the child’s areas of need to assist in development of annual goals. (2) Annual Goals: These are goals that address the child’s areas of need. (3) Measuring and Reporting Progress: Annual goals need to be measurable. The IEP must denote the measurement tools used and when the progress will be communicated to other IEP team members, namely the parents. (4) Services: These are statements regarding the special education services being provided to the child. These include related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the child. (5) Extent of Nonparticipation: Remember that IDEA is an important law that prohibits the discrimination of individuals based on their disabilities. IDEA specifically calls for inclusion of students in the least restrictive environment to the maximum extent possible given their

164

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

needs. Consequently, a portion of the IEP must describe the extent in which the child does not participate with nondisabled children. (6) Accommodations and Modifications: IEP teams must state to what extent the student will be assessed and identify the appropriate accommodations and modifications. (7) Transition Planning: IDEA pays special attention to students and their transition to adulthood. As a child approaches 16, a transition plan must be included in the IEP. The IEP is not only a document with specific IDEA mandated components, but it is also a process. Development and implementation of the IEP is only as good as the service delivery model you have and the people you have on the team. The strength of your team and your service delivery dictates how well you provide services to students with special needs. Nondiscriminatory Discipline Practices Children who have disabilities are expected to adhere to classroom, school, and district rules and regulations. They are not exempt from following the rules that help keep our learning environments safe and conducive to learning. However, there are some protections that IDEA affords children with disabilities when it comes to discipline. These protections are a way to ensure that educators are not denying FAPE and consequently providing equitable treatment to students with disabilities. A denial of FAPE occurs when we discipline a child and the behaviors being disciplined have a causal relationship to the child’s disability. In other words, we are disciplining a child for behaviors that are a direct result of the child’s disability. Another way that we deny FAPE is when the IEP team fails to implement the IEP. This failure may be large contributing factor to why the child is misbehaving. Provision of School Wide Positive Supports. In order to maintain a safe and effective learning environment, schools will likely have a school discipline policy and your teachers will have classroom discipline policies. Generally, children with disabilities are not exempt from these policies. At the school level, charter leaders would likely develop and implement positive behavior supports for all your students, regardless of the presence of a disability. Positive behavior supports include teaching students about the culture of the school, how to conduct themselves, and providing avenues for regular positive reinforcement. Many schools adopt things like character education, school wide incentive programs, and involving students in activities that

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

165

encourage appropriate behaviors. Creating a positive culture where students take responsibility for their own learning and actions benefits all students. Within the positive behavior supports are discipline procedures when children fail to meet the school’s expectations. Typically, these procedures offer a spectrum of options depending on the child’s infraction. If a child is defiant and sent out of the classroom, the first level of discipline may be to counsel them. As the infraction becomes more severe, the discipline procedure becomes more intense. The child may be place in an in school suspension, parents may be involved, suspensions may occur, or legal action must be taken. When it comes to students with disabilities, the consequences for their actions can be sorted into two major categories: suspension offenses and zero tolerance offenses. Suspension Offenses. Suspension offenses are infractions that require suspension. This can range from repeated defiance to the occasional fight. The offense results in either an in school suspension or a suspension where the child is removed from school. In the eyes of IDEA, when a child is removed from his or her normal educational program, it is considered an Interim Alternative Educational Setting (IAES). IDEA states that a child with a disability cannot be suspended for more than 10 consecutive school days or more than 10 school days within the same school year without determining whether or not the child’s misconduct is a result of the child’s disability or a result of the school’s failure to implement the IEP. Zero Tolerance Offenses. Zero tolerance offenses are offenses that automatically result in a recommendation for expulsion. Typically, these offenses are very severe in comparison to infractions that require suspension. The offenses threaten the safety of staff and students. Some examples of zero tolerance offenses involve bringing a weapon to school with the intent to harm, possession and sale of narcotics, and inflicting bodily harm on others. When a child exhibits a zero tolerance offense, most schools suspend the child to the maximum extent pending the results of the recommendation for expulsion. Manifestation Determination. If a child suspected of having a disability and/or has a disability is being disciplined for 10 days of cumulative suspensions or for a zero tolerance offense, a manifestation determination meeting must be held. This includes children who qualify for 504 plans, are in the process of special education assessment, and children who have existing IEPs. The underlying purpose of the manifestation determination is

166

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

to determine whether or not the discipline procedures are denying the child FAPE. Any type of removal from the child’s typical educational program for an extended period of time indicates that there is a possible denial of FAPE. Thus, IDEA sets forth guidelines to direct schools on how to determine if they are denying the child FAPE. In a manifestation determination, the IEP team convenes to discuss the student’s misconduct. This includes the four mandatory members: parents, special education teacher, general education teacher, and administrator. The school psychologist is also a standard member in manifestation determination meetings because they are the resident expert on the impact of the child’s disability on their behaviors and socio emotional well-being. The manifestation determination must be held within 10 school days of the infraction. For suspensions, the timeline starts on the first day of their last suspension. For zero tolerance offenses, the timeline begins on the first day that they were disciplined for the zero tolerance offense. At a manifestation determination meeting, two questions need to be answered: (1) Was the conduct in question caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to the student’s disability? (2) Was the conduct in question the direct result of the district’s failure to implement the student’s current, existing IEP? The answers to these questions will dictate how the IEP team and school will proceed with the discipline process. Answering ‘‘no’’ to both questions indicates that there was no denial of FAPE. There were no factors related to the child’s disability and the implementation of the IEP that contributed to or had a direct, substantial relationship to the behavior. The school may move forward with the discipline procedures that would be applied to a child without a disability. The child is treated in the same manner as any other child who engages in the misconduct. Answering ‘‘yes’’ to either question indicates that there was a denial of FAPE. There were factors related to the child’s disability and/or the implementation of the IEP that contributed to or had a direct, substantial relationship to the behavior. The school may move not forward with the discipline procedures that would be applied to a child without a disability. A yes to either question indicates that: (1) The child’s behavior is impacted by the disability in such a way that he or she cannot be held solely responsible for the behavior.

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

167

(2) The child requires more support to learn how to control and manage behaviors that are related to the disability. (3) The IEP was ineffective in its implementation and consequently it must be revised to meet the needs of the child. Therefore, the IEP team must revise the IEP and implement next steps to support the child to prevent or reduce further behavior incidents that result from the child’s disability. Charter Leaders’ Role The research has clearly indicated that the children with disabilities have limited access and equity when it comes to receiving services in charter schools. As a charter leader, the nuts and bolts of ensuring that the child receives appropriate access and is treated in a nondiscriminatory manner is through an effective system of designing and implementing the child’s IEP. The IEP is the key that unlocks all other components of IDEA. Therefore, charter leaders must consider: (1) Their data gathering and measurement tools that will assess a child’s present levels and monitor their progress in all aspects of their education (i.e., academic and behavior). (2) The IEP team’s understanding of the IEP documents and process. (3) Their school wide discipline procedures. (4) The ability of the IEP team to collaborate and work together to develop and implement the IEP.

CONCLUSION Charter schools are sweeping the nation. Combined with the state of education, education’s fiscal gloom, and an increasing call for education reform, parents are searching for new alternatives for their children. Charter schools are the new hope, and for students with special needs, charters may be the only hope. Unfortunately, charter leaders have made many missteps in the past in regards to students with disabilities. One of the causes lay with the ambiguous expectations that cause conflict with charter law and adherence to federal regulations (Ahearn et al., 2001). Another reason may be the lack of knowledge charter leaders have had in venturing into the world of special education. While another explanation may be a general concept of being ill-equipped to handle the needs of children with disabilities given limited resources and preparation. Regardless of the reasons, these

168

HOAIHUONG ‘‘ORLETTA’’ NGUYEN

missteps have called to question charter schools’ ability to provide equity and access, understand their full responsibility in educating students with special needs, and skill in providing appropriate special education services. Thankfully, reflecting on mistakes allows us to rectify those errors. With careful planning and consideration of special education issues, charter leaders can build organization that meets the needs of all the learners in their classrooms.

REFERENCES Ahearn, E., Lange, C., Rhim, L., & Mclaughlin, M. (2001). Project SEARCH: Special education as requirements in charter schools. Final report of research study: Cross state analysis of findings and summaries of state case studies. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Allen, A., & Mintrom, M. (2010). Responsibility and school governance. Educational Policy, 24(3), 439–464. Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2007). Charter schools: Hope or hype? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17(3), 1–32. Exceptional Children, 34(2), 60–64. Chopra, R., Sandoval-Lucero, E., Aragon, L., Bernal, C., Berg De Balderas, H., & Carroll, D. (2004). The paraprofessional role of connector. Remedial and Special Education, 5(4), 219–231. Drame, E. (2010). Measuring academic growth in students with disabilities in charter schools. Education and Urban Society, 42(4), 379–393. Drame, E., & Frattura, E. (2011). A charter school’s journey toward serving all learners: A case study. Urban Education, 46(1), 55–75. Dykgraaf, C. L., & Lewis, S. K. (1998). For-profit charter schools: What the public needs to know. Educational Leadership, 56(2), 51–53. Fierros, E., & Blomberg, N. (2005). Restrictiveness and race in special education placements in for-profit and non-profit charter schools in California. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(1), 1–16. Fiore, T., Warren, S., & Cashman, E. (1999). Charter schools and students with disabilities; Review of existing data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement. Hassel, B. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution. Koppich, J., Holmes, P., & Plecki, M. (1998). New rules, new roles? The professional work lives of charter school teachers. A preliminary study. Annapolis Junction, MD: NEA Professional Library. Lacireno-Paquet, N., Holyoke, T., Moser, M., & Henig, J. (2002). Creaming versus cropping: Charter school enrollment practices in response to market incentives. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 145–158.

Charter Law and Federal Regulations for Students with Special Needs

169

Lake, R. & Gross, B. (2012 ). Hopes, fears, and reality: A balanced look at American charters in 2011. National Charter School Resource Center; Center of Reinventing Public Education. Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/pub_ crpe_HFR11_Jan12.pdf#page=49 Lange, C. (1997). Charter schools and special education: A handbook. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Lange, C., & Lehr, C. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: Parent perceptions of the reasons for transfer and satisfaction with services. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3), 141–151. Meuller, M., Sterling-Turner, H., & Moore, J. (2005). Towards developing a classroom-based functional analysis condition to assess escape-to-attention as a variable maintaining problem behavior. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 425–431. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. (2010). Disability and Education law. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/laws Rhim, L., & Mclaughlin, M. (2001). Special education in American charter schools: State level policy, practices, and tensions. Cambridge Journal of Education, 31(3), 374–383. Rhim, L. Lange, C., & Ahearn, E. (2005). Considering special education as a critical policy force driving the ‘‘structuration’’ of charter school authorizer policy and practice. Paper presented at AERA, April 11–15, Montreal, Quebec. Rhim, L., Ahearn, E., & Lange, C. (2007). Charter school statutes and special education: Policy answers or policy ambiguity. The Journal of Special Education, 41(1), 50–63. Swanson, E. (2005). Special education services in charter schools. The Educational Forum, 69(1), 34–43. Vadasy, P, Sanders, E., & Peyton, J. (2006). Paraeducator-supplemented instruction in structural analysis with text reading practice for second and third graders at risk for reading problems. Remedial and Special Education, 27(6), 365–378. Villa, R., Thousand, J., & Nevin, A. (2008). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

CHARTER SCHOOLS BEST PRACTICES: AUTHENTIC LEADERSHIP AND CONTEXT MATTER Kimberly B. Hughes and Sara A. M. Silva ABSTRACT The Purpose of this chapter is to survey innovations and best practices in charter schools from a theoretical and empirical perspective. The goal is to identify essential elements needed to close the acheivement gap, and identify effective practices that enable all students to reach their fullest academic potential. The scope of this chapter focuses on the practices of charter schools form a national and local level, and incorporates anecdotal evidence collected from charter school personnel, authorizing districts, charter management organizations as well as an extant review of the literature. Furthermore, this study seeks to understand and identify those practices that are effective in improving student performance and why within any given set of variables these variables will not yield the same results. Ultimately, there are countless factors that determine school success, which are integral to what constitutes best practice. Findings revealed that although there is much evidence to support best practices in

Identifying Leaders for Urban Charter, Autonomous and Independent Schools: Above and Beyond the Standards Advances in Educational Administration, Volume 18, 171–186 Copyright r 2013 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited All rights of reproduction in any form reserved ISSN: 1479-3660/doi:10.1108/S1479-3660(2013)0000018015

171

172

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

charter schools, in the end it is not about what is best; it is about what works effectively at each individual school.

Charter schools are proliferating the educational scene in unprecedented numbers. Recent statistics by the Center for Education Reform (CER) suggests that by the end of the 2010–2011 school year, charter schools will serve more than 1.7 million students in better than 5,400 schools in the United States (CER, 2009). With this prodigious growth, it is only to be expected that research into the efficacy of these schools is necessary in order to determine what practices make this category of public school successful. It is equally useful to know what the term best practice denotes. According to the State Education Resource Center (SERC) (n.d.), best practice is all about what works. More specifically, SERC has determined that at the very least high performance includes: a clear common focus, expectation for high standards, strong supportive leadership, personalized relevant learning experiences, parent/community involvement, explicit curriculum and instruction that is monitored, assessed, and accountable with meaningful professional development (SERC, n.d.). California through its Charter School Act determined that charter schools should: (1) improve learning opportunities for all pupils with special emphasis on expanded learning experiences for those who are identified as academically low achieving, (2) encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods, (3) create new professional opportunities for teachers including the opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school-site (Charter School Act, 1992, para. 1). The charter movement emphasizes autonomy, creativity, and freedom to develop a school culture that leads to the improved performance of its students in comparison to traditional neighborhood schools (CRPE, 2011). Various components are seen as essential for a charter school to be effective in its practice. These include school governance, curriculum and instruction, teacher performance, professional development, school culture, and an ethical imperative to provide opportunities for learning for all students (Cornell-Feist, 2007).

SCHOOL GOVERNANCE Purpose of Board [The] ability for a charter school to carry out its mission depends heavily upon the strength of its governing board (Martinelli, 2000). A governance

Charter Schools Best Practices

173

board is an essential element for charter schools (Hill & Lake, 2006). Unlike district-run public schools, charter schools are not subject to detailed direction from the district office. Charter schools need designated public authorities to authorize their existence and all but a handful of states require charter schools be governed by nonprofit boards (Hill & Lake, 2006). Although some boards have played constructive roles in the lives of their schools, many have become sources of instability and disruption (Hill & Lake, 2006). According to Hollins (2004), ‘‘A board functions most appropriately when it understands the difference between governance and administration and clarifies these differing roles applied to its own unique school design early in the school’s existence’’ (p. 3). The relationship between the board and school leaders must be respectful. However, if the school fails, the board ultimately is responsible (Hollins, 2004). Stages of Board Development Each charter school is required to have a board to oversee the school from beginning to end. The board moves through various stages, as does the school from founding to governing to sustaining with varying responsibilities at different stages. The role of the board varies over time and the acknowledgment of the stages can allow for the recruitment of members with a specific needed skill set (New York City Center for Charter School Excellence, 2006). Having a qualified board is essential because about 12% of school closures are due to money and/or governance challenges, and not because of educational issues (Carpenter, 2008). The founding board should be small and homogeneous with the primary task of preparing and submitting the charter proposal and development of an accountability plan. The governing board is tasked with fulfilling the accountability plan and sharing the workload of opening the school with the school leader. The sustaining board tasks broaden to include fundraising and attracting new members to sustain school (New York City Center for Charter School Excellence, 2006).

Board Composition and Areas of Member Expertise A diverse board not only builds the school’s credibility within the community, but also offers community members channels for communicating with the school and vice versa (Cornell-Feist, 2007). All board members should have a passion and a commitment to the charter school’s mission

174

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

(Cornell-Feist, 2007; DeKuyper, 2003; Martinelli, 2000). It is essential to have a diverse board to help with oversight of the various responsibilities of a charter school board. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) recommends governing board members have expertise in legal and financial affairs, real estate, fundraising, strategic planning, academic oversight, marketing, human resources, and public relations (Cornell-Feist, 2007; New York City Center for Charter School Excellence, 2006). According to Scott Thomas,1 Principal of AB Charter High School (ABCHS) located in a southern California community, having a dedicated financial manager who also serves as a board member and highly trained back office staff, allows him the freedom to run the school as opposed to focusing on the day-to-day operations of the business. Parents, teachers, and students should also have a voice and their involvement is essential to running an effective board and school (Cornell-Feist, 2007). A highly functioning and productive board is essential to the development and operation of an effective charter school. Problems with the board can cause unnecessary tension within the school, reducing the impact on achievement. According to Barth, ‘‘the relationship among the adults in the schoolhouse has more impact on the quality and character of the schoolhouse – and on the accomplishments of youngsters – than any other factor’’ (cited in Blankstein, 2004, p. 58).

AUTONOMY IN CHARTER SCHOOLS Autonomy is cited repeatedly in research on the establishment and development of the charter school movement (Hughes, 2010; Imig, Ndoye, & Parkerd, n.d.; NAPCS, 2008). Autonomy allows charter school operators the freedom to implement policies and procedures they believe will best serve the needs of their unique population of students. According to research conducted by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS), key areas of autonomy were identified by highly performing charter schools as instrumental to their students achieving academic excellence (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). Five high-performing charter schools were identified to participate in the research conducted by NAPCS to determine what key elements they cited as critical to the success of the school and their students. Leaders at each school were asked to rank their top three autonomies that make a difference in their school. The five participating schools were the Denver School of Science and Technology (DSST), Amistad Academy, Oakland

Charter Schools Best Practices

175

Charter Academy (OCA), KIPP Delta College Preparatory School, and Sophie B. Wright Institute of Academic Excellence (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010).

Freedom to Build Culture Every school, whether it is public, private, charter, or autonomous, has a written mission statement and vision. Oftentimes stakeholders are not familiar with these documents. Further, the ideas [may be] broad, sweeping, and difficult to measure. According to Eaker, ‘‘the traditional school often functions as a collection of independent contractors united by a common parking lot’’ (cited in Schmoker, 2006, p. 23). Unfortunately, some schools do not embody the ideal set forth in their mission and vision and staff are isolated and void of collegial support to improve their craft. The ability to define, implement, and hold staff accountable for the mission and vision of the school affords charter schools the ability to hold stakeholders accountable for embodying the mission. All actions must be in support of the ideals of the school. Charter schools are subject to state restrictions on expelling, suspending, and disciplining students; however, they have flexibility with the support of the governing board to outline disciplinary codes that contribute to a positive culture within their schools. Director Lopez of OCA believes that their strict discipline code and heightened structure provides students with the tools they need to succeed (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). OCA utilized both negative and positive reinforcement that allows the students to understand consequences for their actions (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010).

Free to Develop a Highly Performing Team [In] the NAPCS study [five schools] identified the freedom to develop a highly effective team [was] crucial to having autonomy that had a direct and measurable effect on student achievement (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). Leaders specified their district human resource systems inhibited effective hiring practices including seniority, late job postings, and timelines and deadlines for posting open positions (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). The school leaders cited freedom in hiring, development of teacher evaluation processes, customized professional development, teacher mentoring, and the

176

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

ability to dismiss ineffective teachers as essential to the development of highperforming teams (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). Evidence gathered by the authors at school sites visited in support of this chapter confirmed the information obtained by the NAPCS study. School leaders at ABCHS,1 AEC Academy,1 and IHS1 all indicated that a considerable amount of their time as instructional leaders is focused on hiring, supervising, improving, and removing teachers. ABCHS developed a lead teacher for each grade level who is responsible for direct supervision of the teachers. They are provided additional conference periods to observe, mentor, and guide the professional development of the teachers. AEC has professional development plans for teachers who focus on the areas of improvement and development. IHS focuses on team teaching and staff is involved in the mentoring process of less experienced staff. Involving teachers and students in the accountability process raised the stakes for everyone. The NAPCS study indicated that by including teachers and students in staff accountability, reports of inconsistent teacher outcomes were more likely to be reported (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). Teacher dismissal is still an exception at the schools studied; however, school leaders were not opposed to ‘‘freeing up teachers futures’’ (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010, p. 4). What is apparent is that ‘‘isolation [is] the enemy of improvement’’ (Schmoker, 2006, p. 23). By opening the door of the classroom and actually observing teachers teach, everyone benefits, especially students. Inexperienced teachers learn from master teachers, students learn that even teachers need to learn and improve, and teachers depend on the support and knowledge of their colleagues.

Curriculum Development and Freedom According to the authorizing agencies, charter schools are not required to adhere to district-mandated curriculum. The only standard the charter school is required to meet is how students perform on state testing and measures of Academic Performance Index (API) and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). From a curriculum point of view, teachers are free to develop curriculum and teaching methodology to meet the needs of their students. Charter schools deemed highly successful were those schools that used school-wide and individual student assessment data to inform curriculum (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). Four of the five schools profiled in the NAPCS study mentioned freedom in curricular decisions as one of their top three freedoms they enjoy as a charter school (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). In traditional public schools,

Charter Schools Best Practices

177

change initiatives are often top-down decisions and teachers feel imposed upon by the reform effort of the month. Charter and autonomous schools have the academic freedom to design curriculum structure as they see fit. If an instructional strategy is working, they have the ability to continue the strategy. If a few weeks into a new strategy the staff feels the process is not effective, they can turn on a dime and try something different. In concurrence with the research gathered by NAPCS, the school leaders from ABCHS,1 AEC Academy,1 Our Hope Charter School (OHCS),1 and IHS,1 all identified the flexibility to shift curriculum and instructional strategies rapidly, as key to effective instruction and improved student outcomes. Not only are charter schools able to design and implement unique curriculum, schools are able to adjust the scheduling and instructional minutes as needed (Ableidinger & Hassel, 2010). Some schools extend the school year, the school day, develop comprehensive after-school tutoring and enrichment programs, offer weekend programs, freshmen academies, etc. Academic freedom allows for innovative, timely responses to student needs. Ultimately, the more responsive an environment can be, the more likely needs are to be met, resulting in improved student performance.

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Innovative and best practices in charter schools are almost always driven by the collective vision of all in the school environment. In order to achieve academic success for all students, we know that as DuFour posits, ‘‘the [best] place for professional development is in the workplace not the workshop’’ (2004, para. 1). The very essence of our work to improve student learning outcomes derives from our ability as professionals to build the capacities for shared knowledge and goals. Traditionally in many schools, teachers were willing to work in partnership as long as the limelight did not involve them or their classrooms. Teachers worked in isolation without the ability to understand that collectively they were stronger together than individually. Conversely, teachers in some of the higher performing charters who develop professional learning communities (PLCs) are schools that are reliant on a systematic course of action to achieve common goals leading to high academic achievement for all. At the heart of this should be, ‘‘educators committed to working collaboratively in ongoing processes of collective inquiry and action research to achieve better results for the students they serve. Professional learning communities operate under the assumption that the key to improved learning for students is continuous job-embedded learning for

178

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

educators.’’ (Dufour, DuFour, Eaker, & Many, 2006, p. 3). When teachers support each other in PLCs, many charter schools find that collaboration not isolation leads to success. Executive Director and founder of AEC Academy1 believes that by using the lens of constant improvement, teachers develop a strong bond with clear and strict expectations for the group. While it is exhausting to work on continuous improvement, it has without doubt led to their ability to not only improve the culture of the school, but also noticeably increase student achievement. AEC gives their teachers the opportunity to design their schedules for daily collaboration time in addition to their regular scheduled prep time. As part of the hiring process, AEC Academy requires all teachers to participate in four weeks of summer professional development as well as additional 29 days during the regular school year. This is accomplished through longer workdays each week. The AEC Director states that unlike her previous work in a traditional public school, her charter school has the ability to give constant attention to refining curriculum and instruction to meet the student’s needs. If for example math data shows that a particular student is doing poorly, steps to solve the problem whether through immediately changing the instruction, providing an intervention, or professional development, can with the input of the collaborative team be focused on specifically overcoming the challenge. ‘‘Our professional development is driven by our school goals and we are fortunate to have a group of dedicated teachers be able to do what is required to have high academic standards for all students,’’ states the director of AEC Academy.

INTERVENTIONS As educators, we know the challenges our students face sometimes seem insurmountable. Even when all the required tools are in place, students do not always learn what we have taught them. Collaboratively we must share the responsibility for student learning. DuFour, Eaker, and DuFour (2005) state that as a PLC, we need to understand these four essential elements in order to drive our work: – – – –

What is that we want all students to learn? How will we know if each student has learned it? How will we respond when some students do not learn it? How can we extend or enrich learning for those that have not learned it?

Charter Schools Best Practices

179

The last two questions shape the framework for best practices in intervention for charter schools. We know from Buffum, Mattos, and Weber (2009) that because behavior and academic achievement are intertwined – rather than focus on remediation, we need to focus on successful intervention strategies with all of our students if critical transformational learning is to take place. From a practical point of view, everyone in the school culture must have a grounded understanding of what is needed to succeed. The National Center on Response to Intervention (2009) believes that the integration of assessment and intervention within a multilevel prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavior problems is vital. Consequently, schools need to recognize those students early on who have a high probability for failing. ‘‘Response to Intervention’s (RTI) underlying premise is that schools should not wait until students fall far enough behind to qualify for special education to provide them with the help they need. Instead, schools should provide targeted and systematic interventions to all students as soon as they demonstrate the need’’ (Buffum, Mattos, & Weber, 2010, p. 10). Intervention strategies look different from school to school; however, we know that those charter schools that face the challenge head on are those schools that often succeed in providing effective, long lasting practices that work. As a relatively new charter, ABCHS1 realized that students were struggling despite what they perceived were their best efforts. Rather than continue on the same course, they chose to abandon their current program by completely revamping their academic program. Understanding that ‘‘great vision without great people is irrelevant’’ (Collins, 2001, p. 42), ABCHS put in place two full-time counselors, two testing coordinators – one for English language learners (ELL) and one for the rest of the students. They hired a full-time psychologist and a specialized intervention teacher along with three special education teachers. While having enough staff is useful, it is not enough. ABCHS went even further and put in place tutoring every afternoon, staff development every Monday, and mandatory summer remediation in math and English for all incoming freshmen to get them up to speed for the fall. What has this best practice intervention strategy accomplished at ABCHS? According to Principal Thomas, on the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE), 93% pass the English test and 91% pass the math test on the first try compared to less than the 40% state average. Schools, especially charter schools, must address this critical issue of what is necessary when we fail and our students do not learn. We must evaluate our best efforts in the

180

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

context of student outcomes, monitor carefully student progress, seek out evidence-based interventions, and adjust or readjust our intervention stratagies based on the receptiveness of our students. In the final analysis, RTI is about making a clearer connection between our decisions and learners’ outcomes (NCRI, 2009). By collaborating regularly with all stakeholders in a methodical and well-timed manner, establishing a plan to use data for instruction and continuously identify student learning achievement gaps, we can begin the task of understanding those best practices to support intervention models for all students. Ultimately, at the end of the day, changing poor outcomes for struggling students is what matters.

PARTNERSHIPS The ability to survive in these tough economic times means that schools, especially charter schools, will need to find the means to provide as much if not more in the way of services and resources to facilitate student learning. Depending on the school district, where a charter is located, can greatly influence the ability to meet the needs of all students. When fiscal options are limited, charter schools must become strategic in their thinking. One way to meet these needs is to develop partnerships internally within the district and externally in their communities. In addition, while school districts are required by law to provide certain services such as facilities, special education, etc., many charter school operators find that the resources are just not there. According to Collins (2001), ‘‘Confronting the brutal facts’’ and ‘‘making the right decisions’’ may seem like a daunting task – a Sisyphean endeavor if you will, but it must be done nonetheless (p. 88). Collins further asserts that ‘‘getting the right people on the bus in the right seats and the wrong people off – then you can figure out how to [go someplace great]’’ (p. 42). So, who are these right people?

Internal Research by University of Southern California (USC) School of Education noted the importance of recognizing that all charter school partnerships are not alike and are characterized by three important questions (USC Rossier School of Education, 2005).

Charter Schools Best Practices

181

– What is the nature of resources exchanged in the partnership? – What is the form of the partnership? – What is the depth of involvement in the partnership? According to the USC Rossier School of Education (2005), an established partner can offer a range of resources—additional finances, unique curriculum, access to facilities—needed for a school’s survival. Some charter school leaders acknowledged that, were it not for the funds provided by a partner, the school simply would not exist (USC Rossier School of Education, 2005). School districts may provide in-kind donations that include: used furniture, access to facilities for classrooms, meeting space as well as such dire resources as human capital. The need for special education services is great and often charter schools do not have the funds for extra help on staff. Many charters benefit greatly from the largess of the authorizing district. And while every district is not so forthcoming, Jim Smith of New Town Unified School District (NTUSD) believes that although it might be difficult, it is the right thing to do to provide such services. He understands from a political point of view that the y role is to improve y learning for all students (Harris & Lowery, 2004) whether in a traditional or charter school.

External Finding partnerships in the community sometimes takes more than bit of ingenuity to pull off. There has to be strong lines of communication and a win-win benefit for all. Principal Juan Gutierrez of One Hope Charter High School understands this concept implicitly. Recognizing that many of the students at his all-girls school located in Los Angeles were dealing with high stressors in their everyday lives, which in turn were manifesting in higher than normal incidents of inappropriate behaviors of anger, belligerency, and depression, Mr Gutierrez turned to the David Lynch Foundation (DLF). The DLF mission is to help students alleviate stress through Transcendental Meditation, so that they can prepare for learning (David Lynch Foundation, n.d.). Through this partnership, One Hope1 students and staff are able to learn how to ‘‘quiet’’ their minds to prepare for the day. Each day, the entire school spends time meditating. Principal Gutierrez1 knows that ‘‘building meaningful and productive [partnerships] is more complex than creating a new system and structure’’ (Blankstein, 2004, p.59). This win-win

182

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

model created meets both DLF’s mission and One Hopes’ efforts to provide a pathway to help transform learning.

ASSESSMENT With the introduction of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), standardized testing has become the norm in the current educational reform efforts. However, testing alone should not be the only measurement to document student learning and show student achievement. According to the Center for Instructional Innovation and Assessment (CIIA), most lists of important ‘‘best practices’’ [in assessing student learning] include the following: (CIIA, 2010). – – – – – – – – – –

Engage students in active learning experiences Set high, meaningful expectations Provide, receive, and use regular, timely, and specific feedback Become aware of values, beliefs, and preconceptions; unlearn if necessary Recognize and stretch student styles and developmental levels Seek and present real-world applications Understand and value criteria and methods for student assessment Create opportunities for student-faculty interactions Create opportunities for student-student interactions Promote student involvement through engaged time and quality effort

Student-centered learning, therefore, becomes central in providing meaningful curriculum and instruction. IHS1 in Southern California is the epitome of integrated learning through the use of principles of personalization, adult world connection, and common intellectual mission that responds to the needs of students. This dovetails nicely with Chenoweth’s (2007) belief that throughout the school, ‘‘the emphasis [should be] on instruction — instruction by teachers of students and by administrators of teachers’’ (p. 51). Therefore, it is imperative that learning be about the efficacy of the intended assessment in which students actively [participate] in the process of their own learning.

ETHICAL PRACTICE As school districts witness the expansion of charter and autonomous schools, critics have propagandized the problems some schools have

Charter Schools Best Practices

183

encountered (Charter School Scandals, 2011). As resources become increasingly limited, all schools, including charters, face the challenge of how to balance the responsibilities of ethical leadership with the pressure to improve academic outcomes for all students. According to John Dewey (1902) ethics is the science that deals with conduct insofar as this is considered to be right or wrong, good or bad (cited in Shapiro & Stefkovich, 2011, p. 10). Furthermore, they underscore the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standard: ‘‘Leaders promote the success of all by acting with integrity, fairness and in an ethical manner’’ (p. 20). Since the time of Horace Mann, the goal of public education has been to teach moral and ethical behavior to diverse students (Horton, 2002). Leaders set the tone of their schoolhouse, and when the leaders act in a morally and ethically responsible manner, students can be expected to develop a strong moral and ethical compass of their own (Starratt, 2004). According to No Child Left Behind (2001) traditional public and charter schools alike are required to meet annual measurable outcome (AMO) benchmarks as demonstrated through state standardized testing. With more intense accountability and responsibility all school leaders including those who lead traditional and nontraditional schools embrace uncompromising moral and ethical practice that will improve outcomes for all students. According to the California Charter School Association (CCSA, 2011) the responsibility of a charter school leader is solely focused on improving the achievement of students. It is a school leader’s responsibility to provide accountability for high student achievement, to live up to the standards set out for effective leadership, and to strengthen and sustain the charter school movement (CCSA, 2011). Through the development of strong visions, missions, and standards for ethical behavior, charter schools, through innovation and autonomy, provide positive learning environments for all students who walk through their doors (CCSA, 2011). With autonomy comes great responsibility. Guidelines set forth by accrediting organizations like the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) require ‘‘observable evidence to determine the degree of effectiveness’’ supported by strict codes for ethical behavior (2011, para. 1). While the development of a code of ethics can prove useful ‘‘values cannot be set, people must be predisposed to them’’ (Blankstein, 2004, p. 86). Careful review of charter petitions by authorizing districts has resulted in the reduction of the ethical dilemmas within the charter movement. Judicious hiring practices, strong moral school leadership, and effective board oversight all contribute to a charter school fulfilling its mission, improved student achievement.

184

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED Dynamics of what works well in charter and autonomous schools vary greatly from school to school. It was not until we went out and visited a variety of charter schools that we were able to delve more deeply into those characteristics each felt were effective best practices in their environment. Put into context what worked well for one school did not necessarily hold true for another school underscoring the point that best practice in one environment may not necessarily be the best practice in another. In the end, context is all that really matters. It is the confluence of many different pieces, which makes up this puzzle of charter school best practices. We found what worked emphatically in one environment (e.g., uniforms) was negated in another environment. Fundamentally, at the heart of what is truly innovative within a charter school environment are those practices that work for that school in the aid of improving student performance. Unfortunately, there is no handbook that can tell if a particular best practice will work for a school – there is only evidence to show what works well at some schools. Each charter school must determine the critical components that will affect change with their student population. A clearly defined mission, vision, goals, and culture will lead charter school operators through the myriad of research on charter school best practices to find what works for their students.

NOTE 1. All charter school and administrator names have been changed.

REFERENCES Ableidinger, J. & Hassel, B. C. (2010). Free to lead: Autonomy in highly successful charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.publiccharters.org/files/publications/Issue_Autonomy_ V4.pdf Barth, R. S. (2001). Learning by heart. In A. M. Blankstein (Ed.), Failure is not an option. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Blankstein, A. (2004). Failure is not an option: Six principles that guide student achievement in high-performing schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2009). Pyramid response to intervention. RTI, professional learning communities, and how to respond when kids don’t learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.

Charter Schools Best Practices

185

Buffum, A., Mattos, M. & Weber, C. (2010). The why behind RTI. Educational Leadership, 68(2), 10–16. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/ current-issue.aspx California Charter School Association (2011). Retrieved from http://www.calcharters.org/ Carpenter, B. L. (2008). Understanding how charter school boards impact school dissolution: An explanatory mixed methods study. Retrieved from http://brianlcarpenter.com/ www.BrianLCarpenter.com/images/My-Dissertation.pdf Center for Education Reform. (2009). All about charter schools. Retrieved from http:// www.edreform.com/Issues/Charter_Connection/?All_About_Charter_Schools Center for Instructional Innovation and Assessment. (2010). Retrieved from http://pandora. cii.wwu.edu/cii/ Center on Reinventing Public Education. (2011). Inside charter schools: Unlocking doors to student success. Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/download/csr_files/brief_ ics_Unlock_Feb11.pdf Carpenter, B. L. (2008). Understanding how charter school boards impact school dissolution: An explanatory mixed methods study. Retrieved http://brianlcarpenter.com/ www.BrainLCarpenter.com/images/My-Dissertation.pdf Charter School Act of (1992). Retrieved from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov./cgi-bin/displaycode? sections¼edc&group¼47001-48000&file¼47600-47604.5 Charter School Scandals (2011). Retrieved from http://charterschoolscandals.blogspot.com/ Chenoweth, K. (2007). It’s being done. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Collins, J. (2001). Good to great: Why some companies make the leapyand others don’t. New York, NY: Harper Business. Cornell-Feist, M. (2007). Good to govern: Evaluating the capacity of charter school founding boards. NACSA Authorizer Issue Brief, 15. Retrieved from http://www.qualitycharters. org/files/public/IssueBriefNo9.pdf David Lynch Foundation. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.davidlynchfoundation.org/ DeKuyper, M. H. (2003). Trustee handbook: A guide to effective governance for independent school boards (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Association of Independent Schools. DuFour, R. (2004). Leading edge: The best staff development is in the workplace, not in a workshop. Journal of Staff Development, 25(2), para. 1. Retrieved from http://www. learningforward.org/news/jsd/dufour252.cfm DuFour, R., DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & Many, T. (2006). Learning by doing: A handbook for professional learning communities at work. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press. DuFour, R., Eaker, R., & DuFour, R. (2005). On common ground: The power of professional learning communities. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. Eaker, R. (2002). Cultural shifts: Transforming schools into professional learning communities. In M. Schmoker (Ed.), Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvements in teaching and learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Harris, S., & Lowery, S. (2004). Standards-based leadership. A case study book for the assistant principalship. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education. Hill, P. T. & Lake, R. J. (2006). Charter school governance. National Center on School Choice. Retrieved from http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/conference/papers/Hill-Lake_ 2006-DRAFT.pdf Hollins, S. D. (2004). Charter schools board governance: A resource guide for developing board governance philosophy and governance policies. Retrieved from http://www.doe.k12.

186

KIMBERLY B. HUGHES AND SARA A. M. SILVA

ga.us/_documents/pea_charter/New%20Charter%20Training/Resources/Governance% 20Handbook%20Smart%20Start%20Guide.pdf Horton, T. B. (2002). Horace Mann. Encyclopedia of education. Retrieved from http:// www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Horace_Mann.aspx Hughes, K. B. (2010). The reality of charter and autonomous schools: A critical review of the literature. Paper presented at Student Reserach Day 2011, California State University, Dominguez Hills. Hughes, K. B., Silva, S. A. M. (2011). Charter schools best practices: Authentic leadership and context matter. Paper presented at the 16th Annual International UCEA Conference on Values and Leadership, Laurel Point Inn, Victoria, British Columbia, September 25–27. Imig, S., Ndoye, A. &Parker, M. (n.d.). Teacher empowerment, school leadership, and student performance in North Carolina’s charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.ehhs.cmich. edu/Btcsrj/Imig.pdf Martinelli, F. (2000). Creating an effective charter school governing board guidebook. Retrieved from http://www.uscharterschools.org/governance/governance_summary.pdf New York City Center for Charter School Excellence. (2006). NYC charter school governance guide. Retrieved from http://www.nycchartercenter.org/governance_guidebook.pdf No Child Left Behind. (2002). Retrieved http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml Palmer, P. J. (2007). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Shapiro, J. P., & Stefkovich, J. A. (2011). Ethical leadership and decision making in education: Applying theoretical perspectives to complex dilemmas. New York, NY: Routledge. Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. State Education Resource Center. (n.d.). Best practices. Retrieved from http://ctserc.org/s/ index.php?option=com_content&view=section&id=8&Itemid=28&2fa6f942252db2ec 6c621fe255459617=2370b5fbc53776f75272061cb2b35b8c The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2008). Charter school executives: Towards a new generation of leadership. Retrieved from http://www.publiccharters.org/newleaders report The National Center on Response to Intervention. (2009). Response to intervention: Research and best practice. Retrieved from http://www.nysrti.org/docs/D_Mellard_ppt_OCT_ 14_09.pdf USC Rossier School of Education. (2005). Charter school partnershipsy8 key lessons for success. Retrieved from http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/focus/charter-schools/ publications/books-chapters/Charter%20School%20Partnerships%208%20Key%20 Lessons%20for%20Success.pdf Western Association of Schools and Colleges. (2011). Criteria concepts. Retrieved from http:// www.acswasc.org/pdf_cde/VC_CDE_11_RefCard6.pdf. Accessed on on May 6, 2011. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., Farrell, C., & O’Neill, P. (n.d.). Maximizing effectiveness: Focusing the microscope on charter school governing boards. Policy Brief. National Resource Center on Charter School Finance and Governance. Retrieved from http://www.charter resource.org/files/MaximizingEffectiveness-FocusingtheMicroscope.pdf

CONCLUSION: SO, WHAT’S NEXT? When we set out to work on this book a year ago, our mindset was very different than where we are today because of the interactions we have had with truly innovative and authentic leaders. We have grown and changed in ways we never thought possible. As we have moved forward to run a charter school in a consultancy capacity, we still do not have the answers. What has happened is now we have more questions. How can charter leaders continue to grow, thrive, and be supported in the good work they do? Who out there can help? Certainly, folks like Dr. Issa-Lahera at the Charter and Autonomous School Leadership Academy at California State University, Dominguez Hills. What we do know emphatically is that there are authentic leaders out there doing extraordinary work. Our hope is that this book informs, shapes and inspires those who choose to work in charter, autonomous, and independent schools – urban or not. After all, it is about improving the learning outcomes for our young people and providing an opportunity for growth and development in traditionally marginalized communities. If we could wish for the perfect next steps, we would hope to see the ISLLC standards expanded to include the skills, dispositions, and performances that charter, independent, and autonomous school leaders need.

187

APPENDIX: ISLLC STANDARDS The Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards were developed by the Council of Cheif State Scholl Officers (CCSSO) and member states. Copies may be downloaded from the Council’s website at www.ccsso.org. Council of Cheif State School Officers. (2008). Intersate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) standards for school leaders. Washington, DC: Author.

189

190

APPENDIX

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Andrew L. Armagost is a doctoral student in educational leadership at the Pennsylvania State University. He holds a baccalaureate degree in education and policy. His interests in future research include education law, school finance, and teacher employment and certification. Emily Bautista is a social studies instructor at the Coalition for Responsible Community Development (CRCD) Academy and a member of the YouthBuild Charter School of California (YCSC) Authentic and Collaborative Education (ACE) Council located in Los Angeles. Emily received her Baccalaureate degree in psychology and Master’s degree in education from UCLA. Emily was involved with several youth development programs that aimed to serve and advocate for various access and retention needs of historically underrepresented student populations. Emily is currently involved in a mentorship project based in Chinatown, community-centered education groups, and a teacher-led effort to effectively organize teachercollaboration processes for an academically rigorous inquiry-based and culturally relevant project-based curriculum that works for all YouthBuild students. Nancy Beeman has served for over 30 years in both private and public educational settings. After earning a degree in mathematics from the University of California, she continued her education by earning her Master’s and doctorate degrees in education with an emphasis in organizational leadership. From classroom teacher and site leadership roles, Dr. Beeman currently oversees the curriculum and instruction for The Classical Academies in north San Diego County. She leads site-level teams in the development of curriculum and effective instructional strategies to deliver a personalized and relevant academic program. Roberta Benjamin-Edwards worked as a teacher and administrator for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) for 37 years from 1968 until 2005. LAUSD is the second largest school district in the United States. During her tenure, she worked in numerous K-12 reform projects in education including working with LEARN, Annenberg projects, and the 191

192

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Los Angeles Learning Center Projects at Foshay and Elizabeth Learning Centers. Prior to retiring, she was the Director of the Charter Schools Division for Los Angeles. For the last five years, she has been the area superintendent for the Aspire Public Charter Schools in Los Angeles. Aspire is a high-performing statewide Charter Management Organization with 34 schools statewide; 11 of those schools are in Los Angeles. Aspire is the highest performing district in California that has 10 or more schools that serve at least 50% lowincome students. Benjamin-Edwards also is an associate professor of graduate education at both California State Dominguez Hills and Loyola Marymount Universities. Tizoc Brenes was born in Los Angeles in 1980. Soon after, his family moved to Tecate, Mexico, as economic exiles of the Reagonomics war on the working class. Tizoc graduated with a B.A. from Columbia University, where he studied math, science, and critical theory. Tizoc has worked and volunteered in different organizations in East Los Angeles, including InnerCity Struggle, Familias Unidas, Bienvenidos, and various political campaigns. In 2008, Tizoc founded the United Students Math Academy, which teaches math and leadership skills to middle school students in Boyle Heights. In 2011, Tizoc and his co-partner, Sayaka Ponce, founded a nonprofit youth leadership program, Field of Dreams Learning, in the city of Norwalk. Rudy Cuevas is entering his 4th year as principal of the YouthBuild Charter School of CA (YCSC). Rudy has directed the development of YCSC’s progressive instructional approach and facilitated a teacher/studentcentered approach to instruction that weaves authentic, thematic, and interdisciplinary approaches into one model. The goal of learning at YCSC is to allow students the opportunity to contextualize all content areas and to develop projects that boldly counter economic, political, and cultural injustice. Cameron Curry has an extensive background in business development prior to helping found The Classical Academy K-8 charter school in 1999. In 2003 he co-founded the K-8 charter school Coastal Academy, and in 2006, the Classical Academy High School. His entrepreneurial spirit and experience

About the Authors

193

has been a great benefit to the operation of these high-quality independent study public charter schools. Under his leadership, the schools have received the first Exemplary Recognition Awards from the California Department of Education and California Consortium for Independent Study for high-quality charter school programming. In additional to, Coastal Academy was named a California Distinguished School in 2010. In 2011, he established their first Personalized Learning Center to augment and expand K-12 grade options for The Classical Academies. Cameron is also a strong advocate for school choice and he provides ongoing support to charter school developers with questions, resources, and information on independent study operations and programming. In 2011, Cameron received the Hart Vision Award from the California Charter School’s Association as their Charter School Leader of the Year. Stefanie Holzman, Ed.D, has been in education over 30 years in a variety of positions and levels. She is currently an adjunct professor at California State University, Dominguez Hills, where she teaches in the Education Administration Department. While she’s had many jobs in the public schools including Director of Curriculum, Standards, and Instruction for the Orange County schools, classroom teacher, Special Education teacher, RSP and Title I teacher, and Program Specialist for Middle Schools, K-8 and Elementary schools, her favorite job was as the principal of Roosevelt Elementary School in Long Beach, California, a California Distinguished School, California Title I Academic Achievement Award Winning School, and a Fordham National School Change Award Winner. Historically, Roosevelt was a low-performing, urban school (over 1000 students, 100% free lunch, 65% English Learners, and 99% minority). In order to turn around this award-winning school, Stefanie led professional development on effective instructional practices, facilitated changes in the evaluation procedure, encouraged peer collaboration, focused on effective strategy implementation, and maintained an analyze/plan/do/analyze data analysis process. Stefanie is also a consultant for Thinking Maps, Inc. where she specializes in training administrators to use Thinking Maps in their work as well as how administrators can support teachers in the implementation of these eight visual representations of thinking in the classroom. Along with two of her

194

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

former teachers, she has published a book entitled Thinking Maps: Comprehension strategies for constructing meaning. Stefanie received her doctorate from the University of Laverne in 2000. Her dissertation explored the correlation between the print-rich classroom and outcomes on reading tests. (And yes, there is a correlation!) Kimberly B. Hughes is a co-founder of EntreNous Youth Empowerment Services, Inc and consultant for YouthBuild Charter School of California. Formerly a teacher, department chair, and academic coordinator of Adult Secondary Education at Harbor Community Adult School, a division of Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) from 2000 to 2012, Hughes currently serves as a consultant working with nonprofit organizations, universities, and local school districts in the areas of curriculum development and implementation. Prior to becoming an educator, Hughes worked in the private and public sectors as a financial advisor, gerontologist, and librarian. She has published in the Journal of Educational Administration and coauthored a chapter in Educational-based incarceration and recidivism: The ultimate social justice crime-fighting tool. Hughes has presented at conferences locally, nationally, and internationally. Her areas of research include financial gerontology, charter school best practices, technology, incarcerated-based education, transformational leadership, and social/ restorative justice processes. Crystal Leigh Maillet is currently an English teacher at Field of Dreams Learning. Crystal received her Bachelor of Arts in literature and Italian from California State University, Long Beach, in 2002. She later returned to CSULB to receive her single subject teaching credential and is currently in the CSULB Educational Leadership Master’s program. Phil Matero is the Founder and CEO of YouthBuild Charter School of California, which he launched with support from YouthBuild USA in 2008. He leads a staff of 93 staff members who provide a high-quality, projectbased education program to students at 15 YouthBuild programs. For the past 20 years, Phil has dedicated his efforts to creating effective education options for youth who were not well served by the traditional school systems. Phil was Deputy Director at the LA Conservation Corps for many years prior to YouthBuild and has worked on several international projects addressing youth development issues in developing countries. Phil has a BA in Corparative Literature and an MA in English from California State University, Northridge.

About the Authors

195

Kevin M. McKenna, Esq., is a shareholder with the law firm of Latsha, Davis & McKenna, P.C. He graduated from Villanova University with a Bachelor of Arts and a Juris Doctorate. He is one of Pennsylvania’s leading attorneys in charter school and education law, representing numerous schools throughout the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Under his guidance, clients have had continuing success in cases before the Pennsylvania Charter School Appeal Board, the Courts of Common Pleas, the Commonwealth Court, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. McKenna has also advised charter schools in cases of first impression before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and is general counsel for the Pennsylvania Coalition of Charter Schools. He regularly speaks at educational forums and conferences. McKenna also practices environmental Superfund and toxic tort litigation, sports law, workers’ compensation defense, premises liability defense, and insurance defense. Hoaihuong ‘‘Orletta’’ Nguyen has been an educator since the late 1990s. She was an English teacher at the secondary level for students ranging from a variety of backgrounds and skill levels; her students were drawn from special education, English Language Development, and Gifted and Talented Education. Currently, Nguyen teaches graduate students within the California State University system, specifically education administrators and school psychology trainees. She is also a practicing school psychologist in San Diego, California. Nguyen is also an educational consultant; she provides best practice professional development on special education topics, effective instruction, and classroom management to district and charter schools. Nguyen earned a Bachelor of Arts in English literature from the University of California, Los Angeles. She holds a Masters of Educational Psychology, a Single Subject Professional Clear teaching credential, California Language and Development Certificate, and a Pupil Personnel Services credential in School Psychology from the California State University, Long Beach. Nguyen received her Doctorate of Education degree in Teaching and Learning at the University of California, San Diego. She is a member of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), National Association of School Psychologists (NASP), California Association of School Psychologists (CASP), and continues her professional development through professional readings, workshops, and national conventions. Nguyen’s research interests revolve around special education topics and effective instruction for diverse learners.

196

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

Anthony H. Normore (Tony) is a professor and Department Chair of Educational Leadership in the Graduate School of Education at California Lutheran University located in southern California. He has 20 years as a former public school teacher, school-site and district office administrator. Dr. Normore’s research focuses on leadership development, preparation, and socialization of aspiring and practicing leaders in the context of ethics and social justice. His most recent books include Discretionary behavior and performance in educational organizations: The missing link in educational leadership and management (2012, Emerald Publishing Group, and co-edited with Ibrahim Duyar); Leadership in education, corrections, and law enforcement: A commitment to ethics, equity, and excellence (2011, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, co-edited with Brian D. Fitch). He is the author of 100+ pieces of scholarly research (e.g., peer-reviewed articles, book chapters, monographs, book reviews, etc.) and has presented 150+ papers at national and international professional conferences. His research has appeared in Journal of School Leadership, Journal of Educational Administration, Values and Ethics in Educational Administration, Leadership and Organizational Development Journal, Canadian Journal of Education Administration and Policy, International Journal of Urban Educational Leadership, Educational Policy, and Journal of Research on Leadership Education. Lori Perez received her B.A. in liberal studies from San Diego State University before obtaining a Master’s in educational administration from Azusa Pacific University. She holds both California multiple subject and administrative credentials. She has been in the field of education for 32 years as a teacher, director of curriculum and assessment, assistant superintendent, and principal. She has worked with K-12 students, staff, and families throughout her career emphasizing the need for personalized learning matched to student learning styles while focusing on staff training to ignite personal passion from within. Aaron Scholl initially began teaching mathematics with the YouthBuild Charter School of CA four years ago. He is currently the site coordinator at Coalition for Responsible Community Development Academy on Los Angeles Trade Tech College. Aaron received his Bachelor of Science in mathematics from the University of California at Santa Cruz in 2007. He received his single subject teaching credential from California State University, Los Angeles, in 2009, and he is currently in the Mathematics Masters program at CSULA.

About the Authors

197

Gaetano Scotti is the Principal at Port of Los Angeles High School in San Pedro, California. During his tenure as instructional leader, student achievement has increased dramatically. The innovative Lead Teacher program in place at his school has resulted in POLAHS being named a California Distinguished School and him being awarded Educator of the Year in the South Bay area. Mr. Scotti serves as a board member for the Charter and Autonomous School Leadership Academy at California State University Dominquez Hills and has been otherwise active in the charter school movement in California for nearly a decade. He holds a Master’s degree in education from Pepperdine University and an administrative credential from National University. Sara A. M. Silva is a co-founder of EntreNous Youth Empowerment Services, Inc. and a consultant for YouthBuild Charter School of California. Silva was a teacher at Harbor Community Adult School, part of the adult division of Los Angeles Unified School District from 2003 to 2012. She works with at promise youth ages 16–24, and serves as the co-site coordinator of the high school diploma program in Compton, California. Prior to becoming a teacher, she was a psychiatric social worker specializing in psychosocial mental health rehabilitation. Her areas of research include incarcerated-based education, charter school best practices, psychosocial rehabilitation and the special educational needs of pregnant and parenting teens. Silva has conducted in-service workshops, presented at local, state, and international conferences, and has published in Journal of Educational Administration and was an author on a chapter in Educational-based incarceration and recidivism: The ultimate social justice crime-fighting tool. Julie Slayton is an associate professor of clinical education at the University of Southern California. Prior to joining the faculty at USC, Dr. Slayton worked for the Los Angeles Unified School District for 10 years where she served in a wide variety of roles. She directed the district’s research and policy analysis division, working directly with principals and coaches to improve their approach to professional development and teacher practice. Dr. Slayton’s research has focused on the relationship between districtprovided professional development for teachers, coaches, and administrators and changes in the quality of teacher content and pedagogical knowledge and practice. She is the co-author of Building the leaders we need: The role of presence, andragogy, and instructional knowledge in developing leaders who can change the face of public K-12 education (Emerald Publishing, 2010) and An interdisciplinary doctoral program in educational leadership

198

ABOUT THE AUTHORS

(Ed.D): Addressing the needs of diverse learners in urban settings (Palgrave MacMillan, 2010). She holds a J.D. from Pepperdine University School of Law and a Ph.D. in Education Policy from the U.C.L.A. Graduate School of Education and Information Studies. Jacqueline A. Stefkovich is a professor of ethics and education law at The Pennsylvania State University, where she has served as associate dean and as head of the Department of Education Policy Studies. She holds a doctoral degree in administration, planning, and social policy from Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education and a J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania. She has published five books, three of which concentrate specifically on ethical leadership. Her book Ethical leadership and decision making in education, co-authored with Joan Shapiro, is now in its third edition. Stefkovich is currently working on the second edition of her latest book, Best interests of the student. Lawrence C. Wynder II, has worked in all areas of education from teacher, assistant principal, principal, and adjunct faculty member at the elementary, middle, high school, and college levels. He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in social science from the University of La Verne, a Master of Arts degree in education from Claremont Graduate University, and a Doctor of Education degree from the University of Southern California in K-12 Educational Leadership. Currently, he serves as the chief executive officer of the Scale Education and Research Foundation, a research institution and think tank, which is involved in a number of different education initiatives. Since the fall of 2010, the Scale Education and Research Foundation has developed the Scale Leadership Academy Charter School Model to provide school choice for students in grades 6 through 8. Currently, the Scale Education and Research Foundation is developing an informal learning environment and platform to engage students from diverse backgrounds in STEM learning experiences. Lawrence Wynder’s mission is to establish quality programs, both formal and informal, with the hope of making broad contributions to K-12 education reform.

AUTHOR INDEX Bernal, C., 162 Bierlein, L. E., 100 Bifulco, R., 36 Blankstein, A., 12, 64, 174, 181, 183 Blomberg, N., 146 Bogotch, I. E., 33 Bolman, L., 10–13 Booker, K., 30, 36 Borman, K. M., 35, 38 Bourdieu, P., 125 Bowles, S., 51 Boyd, W. L., 95 Bredeson, P. V., 33 Briggs, K. L., 37, 97 Brissie, J. S., 105 Brookhart, S. M., 95 Brooks, J. S., 32–33, 37 Bryan, J., 111 Buckley, J., 146 Buffum, A., 179 Bulkley, K., 146, 150 Bull, B. L., 133 Burdick, J., 31–32

Ableidinger, J., 174–177 Adams, C., 63 Adelman, N., 35–37 Ahearn, E., 33, 146, 148–150, 167 Ahlstrom, S. E., 32 Allen, A., 37, 146, 151, 155 Allen, L. A., 37 American Association of School Administrators, Code of Ethics, 121 American Civil Liberties Union v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, 140 Americans with Disabilities Act, 137–138 Anderson, L., 35–37 Apple, M. W., 32, 47, 51, 125 Aragon, L., 162 Asher, N., 34 Aud, S., 30 Barkmeier, A., 139 Barneveld, C. V., 20 Barondess, H., 94 Barrett, K., 20 Barth, R. S., 174 Bass, B. M., 101 Bassler, O. C., 105 Batdorff, M., 94, 99 Bauch, P., 104–106 Bauwens, J., 95 Bentham, J., 122 Berends, M., 19 Berg De Balderas, H., 162 Berman, P., 37

California Charter School Association, 183 California Legislative Analyst’s Office, 89 Campbell, C., 10 Carnoy, M., 35–36 Carpenter, B. L., 173 Carroll, D., 162 Carroll, G. R., 99 Cashman, E., 156 199

200

Celio, M. B., 133 Center for American Progress, 78 Center for Education Reform, 172 Center for Instructional Innovation and Assessment, 182 Center on Reinventing Public Education, 172 Central Michigan University, 78 Charter School Scandals, 183 Chavkin, N. F., 106 Chen, E., 23 Chenoweth, K., 182 Chirichigo, G., 37 Cho, V., 19 Chopra, R., 162 Christensen, C. M., 18 Civil Rights Act of 1964, 137 Clark, M., 30, 36 Clark, R. E., 98 Code of Business Conduct, 121 Collins, J., 8–9, 179–180 Comer, J., 105–107 Conzemius, J., 111 Cornell-Feist, M., 172–174 Cotton, L., 35–37 Coyle, D., 6–7 Crane, E., 94 Dantley, M. E., 33 Danzig, A. B., 35, 38 Datnow, A., 18, 19, 21, 24 David Lynch Foundation, 181 Deal, T., 10–13 DeKuyper, M. H., 174 Deleuze, G., 47 Dolye, D., 94, 99 Donnelly, M. B., 35–37 Drame, E., 146, 150–151 DuFour, R., 177–178

AUTHOR INDEX

Dwoyer, E., 30, 36 Dykgraaf, C. L., 149 Eaker, R., 178 Eaton, S., 37 Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 138 Education Week, 90 Educational Leadership Policy Standards, 77, 82–84, 86, 88, 119, 123, 132 Edwards, B., 94 Elmore, R. F., 35, 103 Englert, C. S., 95 Epstein, J., 108 Ericson, J., 37 Estes, F., 98 Evans, A. E., 33 Evans, L., 35 Feinberg, W., 31–32, 38 Ferguson, P., 64 Ferguson, S., 108 Fierros, E., 146 Finn, C. E., 100 Finnegan, K., 35–37 Fiore, T., 156 Fisher, D., 68 Fisler, J., 146, 150 Folden, R. E., 25 Foreman v. Chester-Upland School District, 134 Forman, J., 126 Forsyth, P., 63 Foster, W., 118 Foucault, M., 125 Fowler, F., 104 Fox, D., 21 Frankenberg, E., 30, 34–35, 38, 140

201

Author Index

Frattura, E., 146, 151 Freeman, J., 99 Freire, P., 32, 37, 125 Frey, N., 68 Friend, M., 95 Fukuyama, F., 52 Fullan, M., 95 Fuller, B., 35 Furman, G. C., 32–33, 126 Fusarelli, L., 98 Gable, R. A., 95 Gallimore, R., 102 Game Plan, 19 Garcia, D. R., 30, 35, 38 Garda, R. A., 138 Gardner, J., 96 Gastic, B., 33 Geertz, C., 102 Giles, C., 100 Gill, B., 30, 36 Gilligan, C., 124 Gintis, H., 51 Giroux, H. A., 47, 125 Glass, G. V., 30 Gleason, P., 30, 36 Goertz, M. E., 25 Goldenberg, C., 102 Goldring, E., 19, 104–106 Goldsmith, L. M., 20, 23–24 Green, P. C., 133–134, 136–139 Greene, R., 20 Griffin, N. C., 99 Groshoff, D., 140 Gross, B., 10, 149–150 Gruenewald, D. A., 32–33 Guattari, F., 47 Guthrie, J. W., 102 Gutmann, A., 32

Habermas, J., 125 Haertel, E., 102 Hallinger, P., 103 Halverson, R., 19 Hamilton, L., 19 Hannan, M. T., 99 Hargreaves, A., 100 Harris, S., 181 Harvey, T., 74 Hassel, B. C., 94, 97, 99, 146, 174–177 Haynes, M., 105–107 Heath, C., 23, 25 Heath, D., 23, 25 Hegel, G. W. F., 51, 58 Henig, J., 147–148, 152 Hentschke, G. C., 93, 98–99, 107–108, 110 Heritage, M., 23 Heubert, J. P., 134 Hill, P. T., 133, 173 Hollingsworth, J., 64, 66 Hollins, S. D., 173 Holmes, P., 146 Holyoke, T., 147–148, 152 Hoover-Dempsey, K. V., 105 Horn, M. B., 18 Horton, T. B., 183 Hourcade, J., 95 Howe, K. R., 37 Hoy, W., 63 Hubbard, L., 33, 36 Hughes, K. B., 174 Hunter, M., 67 Hursh, D., 30–31 Hussar, W., 30 Imig, S., 174 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 138

202

Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC), 119–121, 127 Jackson, S., 19 Jacobsen, R., 35–36 Jandris, T. P., 19 Jasin, C., 97, 100 Jean-Marie, G., 33, 37 Johnson, C. W., 18 Johnson, F., 30 Johnson, J., 96–97 Johnston, M. T., 19 Kamprath, N., 37 Kanungo, R. N., 104 Kena, G., 30 Kerchner, C. T., 120 Kirst, M., 102 Kohlberg, L., 123–124 Koppich, J., 146 Kouzes, J., 5 Kruse, S., 105 Kulkarni, R., 33, 36 Kumashiro, K. K., 33 Lacireno-Paquet, N., 147–148, 152 Ladd, H., 36 Lake, R., 3–4, 10, 133, 149–150, 173 Lange, C., 33, 146, 147–150, 167 Larson, C., 33 Lavertu, S., 30, 36 Lawrence-Lightfoot, S., 126 Le, C. Q., 35, 38 Lee, C., 35 Lehr, C., 147, 149 Leithwood, K., 103 Lemon v. Kurtzman, 141 Lewis, D., 19 Lewis, S. K., 149

AUTHOR INDEX

Lieberman, A., 104 Lipman, P., 104 Loadman, W. E., 95 Locke, J., 122 Louis, K. S., 105 Loveless, T., 97, 100 Lowery, S., 181 Lugg, C. A., 32, 95 Madison-Harris, R., 19 Malin, M. H., 120 Malloy, C., 97, 106–108, 110 Maloney, L., 94, 99 Mandinach, E., 19 Manning, E., 30 Manning, M. L., 95 Manno, B. V., 34, 36, 100 Many, T., 178 Marks, H. M., 105 Marshall, C., 33 Martinelli, F., 172, 174 Marx, K., 51 Marzano, R., 64, 103 Mathis, J., 101, 111 Mattos, M., 179 Maxwell, K. T., 20, 23–24 May, J., 94, 99 McCarthy, M. M., 133 Mclaughlin, M., 146–150, 167 McNulty, B., 103 Mead, J. F., 133–134, 136–139 Medler, A., 96–97 Mendez, Z. Y., 20, 23–24 Merchant, B. M., 32 Meuller, M., 162 Mickelson, R. A., 34 Miles, M. T., 32–33 Militello, M., 133 Mill, J. S., 122 Mintrom, M., 33, 146, 151, 155

203

Author Index

Mishel, L., 35–36 Moore, J., 162 Mosaica Academy Charter School v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 134 Moser, M., 147–148, 152 Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy (META), 37 Muoneke, A., 19 Murphy, J., 119 Murtadha, K., 33 Nampa Classical Academy v. Goesling, 141 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 91, 174 National Charter School Resource Center, 91 National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 152–153 National Education Association (NEA), 90, 118 Ndoye, A., 174 Nelson, B., 37 Nettles, S., 107 Nevin, A., 149, 159 New York City Center for Charter School Excellence, 173–174 Nkomo, M., 34 No Child Left Behind, 183 Noddings, N., 124 Normore, A. H., 32, 37 Norris, T., 31–32 Northouse, P. G., 101–102 O’Day, J., 25 Office of Innovation and Improvement with the US Department of Education, 91

Oliva, M., 33 O’Niel, P. T., 99 O’Neill, J., 93, 111 Orfield, G., 35 Orwell, G., 58 Park, V., 18–19, 21, 24 Parker, M., 174 Pennsylvania Administrative Code, 136 Pennsylvania Charter School Law, 136 Pennsylvania Public School Code, 135 Pennsylvania State Ethics Act, 120 Perry, M., 94 Perry, R., 37 Petrilli, M., 36 Peyton, J., 162 Plecki, M., 146 Polikoff, M. S., 97 Porter, A. C., 97 Posner, B., 5 Price, T., 35–37 Ravitch, D., 24 Raywid, M . A., 104 Renzulli, L. A., 35 Rhim, L. M., 33, 146–150, 167 Rorty, R., 49 Ross, S., 36 Roth, E., 30 Rothstein, R., 35–36 Rousseau, J. J., 122 Rowley v. Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson Central School District, 138 Rud, A. G., 30

204

Salas-Coronado, D., 33 Salomone, R. C., 125 Sanders, E., 162 Sanders, M., 107–109, 111 Sandlin, J. A., 31–32 Sandoval-Lucero, E., 162 Sarason, S., 99 Sass, T. R., 36 Schein, E. H., 102 Scheurich, J. J., 37 Schimmel, D., 133 Schmoker, M., 23, 26 Schneider, M., 146 Schuermann, P. J., 102 Scott, J., 30–31 Shapiro, J. P., 121–122, 126–127, 183 Shields, C. M., 32 Shoho, A. R., 32 Siegel-Hawley, G., 30, 34–35, 38, 140 Silverberg, M., 30, 36 Silverman, D., 37 Skrla, L., 37 Slayton, J., 30–31, 101, 111 Slippery Rock Area School District v. Pennsylvania Cyber Charter School, 135 Smith, G., 103 Smith, J., 93, 98–99, 107–108, 110 Smith, S., 102 Solomon, D., 37 Sorenson, R. D., 20, 23–24 Starratt, R. J., 122–123, 183 State Education Resource Center, 172 Stefkovich, J. A., 122, 126–127, 183 Sterling-Turner, H., 162 Stolp, S., 102

AUTHOR INDEX

Strike, K. A., 123–124 Supovitz, J., 19 Swanson, E., 149, 154 Sykes, G., 104 Tarrant, K. L., 95 Teacher Leader Model Standards, 79 The Institute for Educational Leadership (IEL), 85 The National Center on Response to Intervention, 179–180 Thousand, J., 149, 159 Tillman, L. C., 33 Times, C., 19 Tuttle, C. C., 30, 36 United States v. Virginia Military Institute, 140 U.S. Constitution, 141 USC Rossier School of Education, 180–181 Vadasy, P., 162 Vanourek, G., 100 Villa, R., 149, 159 Wallace Foundation, 80 Walters, J., 103 Wamba, C., 34 Wang, J., 30, 34–35, 38 Warren, S., 156 Wayman, J. C., 19 Weber, C., 179 Wehlage, G., 104 Weiss, C. H., 104 Wells, A. S., 30–31, 47 Welner, K. G., 37 Wenning, R., 37, 97

205

Author Index

West Chester Area School District v. Collegium Charter School, 134 Western Association of Schools and Colleges, 183 Williams, D. L., 106 Williams, M. S., 31 Williams, T., 102 Williams v. East Orange Community Charter School, 137 Wilson, T. S., 125

Witte, J., 30, 36 Wohlstetter, P., 18, 19, 21, 24, 37, 93, 97–99, 104, 106–108, 110 Wolfe, T., 9 Womack, S., 64 Ybarra, S., 64, 66 Zhang, J., 30 Ziebarth, T., 99 Zimmer, R., 30, 36

SUBJECT INDEX Access, 23, 30–31, 34–35, 46, 48, 90, 110, 131–132, 134, 139, 147–149, 151–154, 157–159, 161, 163, 167–168, 181 Alternative evaluation, 72 Assessment, 6, 19, 21, 26, 53, 57, 106, 119–121, 127, 156–157, 160–162, 165, 176, 179, 182 Autonomous schools, 3–5, 11, 13–14, 100, 177, 182, 184 Autonomy, 11, 37, 90, 98, 145–146, 148–149, 151–152, 172, 174–175, 183 Autonomy in charter schools, 174 Board composition and areas of member expertise, 173 Building capacity, 24–27, 37, 103, 111 Business, 10, 19, 27, 77–80, 87, 89, 109, 117–119, 121–124, 126, 174 Charter management organization, 4, 45, 171 Charter schools, 3–5, 9–11, 18, 27, 29–31, 33–38, 51–52, 78–79, 84, 89–91, 93–100, 102, 104–105, 108, 110–111, 117–125, 127, 131–134, 136–142, 145–148, 150–152, 156, 158, 167–168, 171–181, 183–184 Clashes in ethical codes, 121 Classroom expectations, 62, 70, 97, 165 207

Collaboration, 12, 24–25, 48, 55, 62, 93–103, 105–107, 109–111, 119, 126, 151, 161, 163, 178 Collaborative, 24, 46, 48–50, 53, 101–103, 105, 109, 126, 178 Collectivism, 49, 51–52, 58 College for Certain, 13 Common Core Standards, 64 Communication, 12, 31, 69, 75, 80–81, 84, 104, 106, 142, 151, 161, 163, 181 Community involvement, 98–99, 107–108, 172 Counter-hegemonic, 51, 55–56 Curriculum, 5, 25, 32, 45–48, 50, 52–55, 61, 63–65, 67, 69, 71, 73, 82, 90, 104, 141, 145, 147, 149, 151, 153, 160–161, 163, 172, 176–178, 181–182 Curriculum development and freedom, 176 Data-driven instruction, xxi Deliberate practice, 6–7 Democracy, 30–31, 52, 58, 125 Democratic ideals, 31, 38 Demographic data, 22 Descriptive data, 22, 26 Dispositions, 18, 32, 62, 117, 119–120 Due process or dispute resolution, 157–158 Economic isolation, 31, 35 Educational opportunity, 34

208

SUBJECT INDEX

Empowerment, 104–106, 111 Equity, 29–31, 34, 123, 125, 146, 148–149, 157, 163, 167–168 Essentialism, 47, 152 Ethic of care, 123–124, 127 Ethic of critique, 125, 127 Ethic of justice, 122, 127 Ethical decision making, 117–119, 121, 123, 125, 127 Ethical frameworks, 119–120, 122 Ethical practice, 182–183 Ethics, 118–124, 126–127, 133, 183 Evaluation as judgment, 72 Evaluation as supervision, 71 Explicit expectations, 70

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 2004, 138–139, 148, 150, 152–158, 160–167 Instruction, 5, 11, 19–21, 24–25, 45, 47–48, 61–73, 80, 104, 108, 149, 151, 157, 159–162, 172, 177–178, 180, 182 Instructional leader, 11, 61–66, 68–75, 131, 133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 176 Intellectual, 46, 51, 56, 81, 182 Intended curriculum, 63 Interventions, 19, 161–162, 178–180 ISLLC Standard, 5, 119, 163

Finance, 77–79, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 99, 110 First-order change, 103–104, 111 Follow-up to professional development, 69 Frame of leadership, 4, 10, 14 Human resource frame, 11–12 Political frame, 13 Structural frame, 4, 10–11, 14 Symbolic frame, 12 Framework for instructional leadership, 64 Free appropriate public education (FAPE), 152–153, 158–161, 163–164, 166

Lead teachers as evaluators, 71 Leader as teacher, 53 Leadership, 3–11, 14–15, 18, 24, 26, 29, 31–33, 35, 45–46, 53, 56, 61–62, 64, 66, 74, 77–86, 88, 90–91, 95, 100–103, 110–111, 117–126, 131–133, 135, 137, 139, 141, 146, 159, 171–172, 183 Learning environments, 34–35, 160, 164, 183 Least restrictive environment (LRE), 163 Level Five leadership, 4, 8, 14 Linguistic isolation, 31, 35 Local Educational Agency (LEA), 139, 150, 154–155, 157–158

Implementation of the vision, 63, 71 Inclusion, 30, 48, 58, 83, 149, 157, 163 Individualized education program (IEP), 138, 149–150, 153, 157, 160–167

Madeline hunter, 67 Manifestation determination, 165–166 Measurable data, 20 Modeling, 5, 24, 66, 68

Subject Index

Monitoring instructional practices, 69–70 Morals, 33, 49, 118–119, 123–124, 126–127, 183 Neoliberalism, 51–52, 55, 58 Operations, 27, 77–81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 95, 100, 106, 108, 174 Organic, 45, 55 Outcome data, 22 Partnerships, 94, 101, 103, 107–111, 180–181 Pedagogy, 32, 56, 64 Pillars of effective teaching, 67 Port of Los Angeles High School, 67 Prioritizing, 24, 50, 63 Professional development, 24–25, 45, 50, 53, 65, 68–70, 98, 109, 172, 175–178 Progressive, 29–30, 47–48, 52–53, 58 Public education, 5, 29–32, 38, 54, 78, 90, 94–96, 134, 136, 147–148, 152–153, 183 Purpose of board, 172 Reliable, 21 Restructuring, 25, 103 Risk-taking, 5, 66, 69 School culture, 10, 12, 17–18, 86, 102, 172, 179

209

School governance, 13, 37, 107, 172 Second-order change, 103 Segregation, 34–36 Senate Bill 48 in California, 13 Site-based management, 53, 105, 107 Social justice, 29–34, 47–48, 50, 53, 55–56 Special education, 36, 67, 131–134, 137–139, 145–148, 150–163, 165–168, 179–181 Special education service delivery, 154 Stages of board development, 173 Standards-based, 50, 97 Teacher agency, 45–49, 51, 53, 55, 57 Teacher evaluation, 61, 70, 105, 175 Teacher-centered, 58 Team work, 111 Transformational leadership, 101–103, 110 Triangulation, 20–21 Trust, 12, 55, 57, 63, 65–66, 72–74, 81, 105 Valid, 21 Videotape as evaluation, 72 Vision, 5, 12, 18, 25, 39, 45, 48, 50, 62–63, 65, 67–68, 70–75, 80–82, 84, 88, 98, 105, 152, 154–155, 175, 177, 179, 184