I had the good fortune of attending the National Charter Schools Conference in Sacramento last week with 3,600 other school reformers, including some 80 who hailed from Ohio. Attendees were a cross-section of charter school students, teachers, principals, administrators, board members, sponsors, operators, philanthropists, and policy makers from across the United States. Even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made an appearance.
The conference's bottom line? The future of the nation's charter school movement is directly connected to charter schools' ability to deliver academic performance. This focus on school quality resonates in Ohio where an ever-growing chorus of charter school operators, leaders and supporters have made clear their commitment to raising student achievement in charter schools. So, we have the commitment. What are some concrete steps that can be taken in the coming months and years to help charters reach the goal of increased student achievement? Three common themes emerged in Sacramento.
First, charters need adequate pupil funding and access to facility dollars. As was shared in a session aptly entitled "78 Cents on the Dollar: Why Charter Schools Get Less, and What We Can Do About It," charters in many states are operating with less per-pupil funding than district schools. Worse, charters receive no funding for facilities. This is true in Ohio, where charters receive about $2,500 less per pupil than their district competitors, and receive no facilities support. What to do about this? The Texas Charter Coalition (the state's charter school association) is taking an innovative approach. It's pushing for legislation that would allow the state Commissioner of Education to close fraudulent or consistently poor performing charter schools expeditiously. In return for making it easier to close such schools, the coalition is seeking per-pupil and facilities funding for strong charter schools with a history of outstanding performance. This is a classic political trade-off, and the sort of approach supporters of charter schools in Ohio should consider for the Buckeye State. State policy leaders in Ohio as elsewhere are unlikely to provide additional funds to charter schools unless there is something in it for them, and they definitely crave higher performing schools for underserved children.
Second, charter school sponsors (organizations responsible for giving birth to and providing oversight of charter schools) must be held accountable for their schools? performances. In turn, sponsors need to know when to stay out of the way, when to provide their schools with support (in the form of technical assistance), and when to intercede on behalf of children in failing or deeply troubled schools.
Our state has a "market-place" of sponsors, not just one sponsoring organization as in other parts of the country. In some states, charter schools and their operators face serious challenges because there are only one or two sponsors operating statewide, sponsoring schools reluctantly. Other states only have district sponsors, and many of these districts have been forced by state law to give birth to charter schools even though they see charters as against their own self-interests. That said, for a market-place of sponsors to work (i.e., to produce high quality charter schools) several factors need to be in place. These include holding sponsors accountable for the ultimate performance of their schools (both academically and as businesses); making the school/sponsor relationship transparent (e.g., contracts between schools and sponsors should be readily available and on-line, as should be the sponsor's report on the academic and fiscal health of their schools) and ensuring sponsors are appropriately funded for guaranteeing school performance. If sponsors are to do the painful work of closing persistently failing schools (something traditional districts never do) then they should receive proper funding for taking these tough actions.
Third, states need organized and effective charter school support organizations(associations and technical assistance providers). The 2006 National Charter Schools Conference that I attended was organized through a partnership of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools and the California Charter School Association. The California Charter Schools Association clearly serves as a powerful and well-respected charter school advocacy and support organization, and there are similar organizations in Michigan and Colorado. The benefits of such an organization to its members were made clear throughout the conference and included: 1) assistance to charter school facilities programs; 2) public relations efforts; 3) effective lobbying; 4) technical assistance; and 5) access to charter/education experts (e.g., legal expertise, staff recruitment support, etc.). There are various lessons here for Ohio's charter supporters, and the good news is that they are starting to act on them. Decent schools are beginning to rally around quality, decent sponsors are working together to ensure their schools deliver results, and charter school supporters are working to develop strong support organizations.
To learn more about the National Charter School Conference surf to: www.publiccharters.org