5 johnson- national forum journals - dr. kritsonis

8/14/2019 5 Johnson- NATIONAL FORUM JOURNALS - DR. KRITSONIS

1/15

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

CAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS MATCH

CHARTER SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENTS?

Shirley Johnson

Sam Houston State University

Steve Busch

University of Houston

ABSTRACT

The focus of this discussion reflects the practical variables that differentiate four very

successful charter schools throughout Texas from most traditional public school systems.

There are seven concepts addressed that describe difference between charter and

traditional public schools. Additionally, concepts are presented that traditional public

schools can implement to improve school culture and climate while addressing student

achievement.

remendous attention and financial support has been given to

certain charter school organizations that have demonstratedsuccess in certain cities throughout the nation. These charter

school organizations are touted for their high level of student

achievement coupled with their goal of enabling students to gainacceptance and attend four year universities. These achievements are

to be acknowledged and put into perspective by asking the question:Can public schools do the same thing? Are public schools really

equipped to achieve the same results? What do charter schools dobetter than traditional public schools?

T

Our contention from the last several years of working withboth traditional public schools and charter schools affirms that public

schools certainly can learn from charter schools; however, the reverse

can also be true. In that light, the focus of this discussion reflects the practical variables that differentiate the charter districts of YES

97


2/15

98 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

College Preparatory School (YES) in Houston, Texas, Harmony Math

and Science Academies in various locations throughout Texas, IDEA

Public Schools in Donna, Texas and UPLIFT Public Schools in Dallas,Texas. In initial conversations, it becomes apparent that the Heads of

these charters are not cut from the same cloth as many public schooladministrators. The successful charter schools have traditionally been

started by entrepreneurial personalities driven by a vision ofachievement and excellence. Their vision and determination clearly

shape the purpose and function of the charters that they lead and

encourages the use of business models in their administration. As aresult of learning from charter school operations, this discussion will

highlight the practical differences that distinguish these particular

charter districts from traditional public schools.

The Development of Culture and Climate

Part of the success of YES, Harmony, IDEA, and UPLIFT

depends heavily on the carefully constructed culture that drives the

implementation design and every managerial decision. Inductionprograms for administrators and teachers begin with understanding

cultural impact and cultural alignment from central headquarters to the

classroom. YES spends considerable dollars focusing perspectiveschool leaders on the importance of developing and maintaining

culture. YES even insists that the prospective school leaders emerge

from the teacher ranks of the system or work in the system before they

are even considered for a position as a school leader. Other chartersapproach the culture issue in a very similar manner. As a consequence,

these charters open new schools with an emphasis on culture and then

design the academic program focusing on strict attention to culturalalignment. For YES, it is getting students to a four year university with

the mantra of whatever it takes.

The development of the school culture and climate is a primary

centerpiece of the effective charter schools and is supported by

research in the field that suggests that the principals most effective


3/15

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 99

impact on student learning is mediated through the culture and climate

of the school (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witziers, B., Bosker, R., &

Kruger, M., 2003). School leaders are taught the importance ofcrystallizing their personal educational beliefs and values in order to

sculpt their vision for schooling the traditionally underserved studentpopulation. Most aspects of the schools organizational design are then

tightly aligned to the vision and influenced by the intended culture. Aswith public schools that are aware of the importance of culture, some

directors are far more proficient with this impact than others.

The lesson to be learned from this philosophical position is that

unless the culture and climate are carefully embedded in the

organization, a change of leadership will impact the culture each timethere is a leadership change (Schlechty, 2002; Leithwood, Anderson,

& Wahlstrom, 2004; Jazzar & Algozzine, 2007). The charter schools

mentioned before have been functioning for 12 to 15 years. Theyrealized that unless the culture and climate is carefully managed andembedded, a new leader can create undesired changes, the situation

currently plaguing traditional public schools. New leadership behavior

can initiate a series of reactions among the charter employees thatbegins to shift the tenets of the culture and create change some

intended and worthwhile, some not. Charter schools are beginning to

experience these changes as they age but they are far more responsivethan public schools seem to be in understanding this cyclic impact.

The phenomenon of cultural impact has occurred in traditional

public schools for years (Marzanno, Waters, & McNulty, 2003). Newschools initiated by the first principal hire a faculty reflective of their

beliefs and values whether this work is done consciously or not. When

leadership change occurs, subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts begin that influence the schools view of the leader and also the

working relationships within the school. Often the new leader does not

recognize these important shifts and imposes new beliefs and valueswithout considering the impact on the climate of the school. In most

cases, principals in traditional public schools simply do not have the


4/15


strategies to make important changes in dysfunctional school climates.

The negative results are evident throughout traditional school systems.

The schools impacted by dysfunctional climates, especially in

high schools, are a composite of small teachers groups created bypersonal preferences (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008) reflecting their

own beliefs and values that co-exist with the larger school community.If not noticed, these smaller cultures spin in an independent climate

that maybe affected by the larger school culture but very little by that

of the principal. The result is that described by Zaccaoro (2001) andSergiovanni (2000) when the principal loses influence because the

informal leader of each affinity group interprets the directives or

discussions by the principal even though the entire group heard the principals initial discussion. This process goes unnoticed by

administrators and is not generally afforded concern until the school

has functioned in a dysfunctional manner for a period of time and theprincipal is replaced as a result.

The challenge is to illuminate this phenomenon and conduct

the necessary research to describe the results, develop programs toenable leaders to manage the phenomenon, and then teach such in

university preparation programs for both charter and traditional public

schools. The charter schools have implemented the right thoughtprocess regarding culture and climate; start each school with clear set

of beliefs and values that positively influence both.

The Concept of Small

Well embedded in the philosophy of these charter schools isthe concept of small schools. Even though the criteria for charter

school formation in most states require a cap on the number of

students that may be maintained in each school, these charter schoolsattest to the value of small schools. What occurs as a result of this

philosophical tenet of small is: (1) that every student is known well

by a significant adult, a tenet of Ted Sizers (2004) Essential Schools;


5/15


(2) that curricula is structured according to the philosophy of the

charter rather than the central headquarters of a charter district; (3) that

extended time is included in the schedule directed toward the needs ofeach student; (4) that the budget can be directed toward the academic

program rather than extracurricular programs, i.e. football; and (5) thatstudent management is much better served in a small environment

where no child is lost in the sheer size of the organization (Pittman &Haughwout, 1987).

Unfortunately, traditional public schools have efficiently usedfunding to create large schools, particularly high schools that are more

cost effective from a facilities standpoint. The justifications that have

driven the design of high schools is no longer appropriate but wecontinue to replicate them knowing that they do not effectively serve

students, especially the traditionally underserved. Charter schools have

made the case clearly but we fail to recognize and use theircontribution to build more effective small high schools. It will take anunusual public school superintendent to publicly advocate for systemic

change that substantially changes this philosophy of educating

students in order to break this practice and stave off the rancor ofparents who believe that by attending a large traditional public high

school their son/daughter will have a better chance to receive a college

scholarship to play a sport.

The More Rigorous Curricula

Currently being instituted in most of these charter schools is

the International Baccalaureate (IB) program that offers a very

rigorous program within the core content areas. It is being used toreplace the state standard aligned scope and sequence in an effort to

provide a more rigorous program. Different from many public schools

is the intentional offering of the IB program to all students. The intentis not to provide only those students who qualify for the Gifted and

Talented program with the rigor of the IB program, but to provide all

students with this same rigor (Office of Innovation and Improvement,


6/15


2008). Charter schools realize the challenge of offering students such a

program but those who take the challenge are committed to doing

whatever it takes.

Public schools, on the other hand, often provide either IB orAdvanced Placement (AP) programs for those students who qualify

through gifted and talented matrices or succumb to the pressure ofparents wanting their students out of regular classes. Charters tend

to recognize that IB placement is driven by perception of the teachers,

students, family, and parents. Taking these parental perceptions out ofthe equation requires the public school and charter administrators to

determine how the traditionally underserved can be brought to speed

both attitudinally and academically in order to handle the rigor. Mostcharters struggling with this concept realize that using such programs

must be supported by clearly establishing the culture and climate of

the campus and nurturing the parental view of the charters belief andintention regarding the rigor of such programs as IB (U.S. Departmentof Education Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).

Traditional public schools have a great deal to learn from charters

regarding this process. The expectations of the charter schools in thisarea are clearly different from many public schools. Charters are also

aware that substantial remediation must be initiated for many students

if they are to successfully participate in the rigor of advancedprogramming such as IB and the cultures of these charters require

teachers and staff to spend the time needed to support these students.

The Extracurricular Program

Most states support strong extracurricular programs in schoolswith sports programs as the primary focal point. Arguably these

programs have been an important part of many individuals lives in a

multitude of different ways; however, when constructing the masterschedule, hiring teachers, and creating financial support for the

academic program are affected, then it is time to examine the

philosophy and use of the extracurricular program. The charters have


7/15


been forced to examine the issue of extracurricular activities due to the

funding required for the supplies, personnel, and facilities necessary to

support such expensive programs. They have included sports in theschools but they are truly an extracurricular/intramural function

operating after school on a fee for service basis in many of the charterprograms. Scheduling is not shaped by the extracurricular programs

such as athletics, band, choir, cheerleaders, etc. and studentsunderstand that academics are foremost; the extracurricular activities

are truly extra. Some of the charter programs participate in intra-

school competition in several sports but the charter programs cannotand do not invest in expensive stadiums, athletic resources or

expensive coaching staffs.

The Scheduling Process

Currently, so many traditional public school programs at thesecondary level begin scheduling with singleton courses designed to

support placement of the athletes, both girls and boys. Then the

schedule is constructed to allow for band, choir, drama and otherelective singleton courses (such as AP Physics, etc.) that are wonderful

for students but also influence the quality of placement for many core

courses. Ahead of the general program courses are considerations forgifted and AP/IB courses leaving the important core program to fill in

the remainder of the schedule. Such constraints often prohibit schedule

designs that address the needs of many students needing support

and/or remediation to become part of rigorous programs such asIB/AP.

These charter programs start shaping the schedule with theimportant core courses first. Critical activities such as student

advisement and team planning periods quickly follow to provide

continual support for each student. The entire schedule focuses oncourse arrangements that support the delivery of instruction and

tutorial programs focused on improved student achievement. Rarely

are these charter school programs focused on courses during the day


8/15


that relate to anything that does not bolster the academic program. The

only variances are usually courses or elective offerings that relate to

the culture of the particular school since each of these charter districtsprovide the school leader an opportunity to shape the focus of the

school to either the community or a particular philosophy (i.e.community service, math, science). Scheduling in these charters is

designed to support the instructional program; scheduling is not drivenby the needs of an overpowering extracurricular program that does not

broadly contribute to student achievement. There are more similarities

among elementary schedules between the charter schools and publicschool than in the secondary programs.

The Selection and Maintenance of Students

Most traditional public school employees believe that openenrollment public charter schools are able to hand select their studentsand expel them at will; however, this belief is not true and remains the

basis for supporting ignorance of the laws surrounding charter school

management. These charter schools are required to maintain a lotteryand be classified as an open enrollment charter. They receive students

from many different places in the cities they serve, but the school

leaders tend to recruit from the areas in the immediate vicinity. Forthese schools, students must follow the rules established by the charter

and parents must abide by the discipline management process of the

charter. Students who fail to abide by the discipline policy may be

removed but only after the school leader has done everything possibleto maintain the student; much like public schools. Leaver rates for all

of the charters mentioned are watched very closely by both the state

agency and by funders (Texas Education Agency, 2006). For example,certain funders are very vigilant to ask the difficult questions as to why

leaver rates accelerate at certain grade levels and then challenge the

charter to remedy that situation in order to maintain funding. Thecharters response to this challenge has created some interesting and

creative solutions.


9/15


These charters design the culture with support of the

traditionally underserved student in mind knowing that most of the

students that enter their program initially will need considerableremediation. As a charter opens, the school leaders are aware,

especially at the secondary level, that many of their students will comebecause they have not been successful in public schools and their

parents are desperate for help. To prepare for these students, the schoolleaders test each student upon entry to diagnose academic competency.

Even though the students development may not be on grade level,

instruction is maintained at grade level while the student receivedremedial immersion and overwhelming emotional support during the

transition. Teachers are trained to recognize the resistance that many

remedial students exhibit and they counter with consistency andconstant parental communication. The teachers in these charter schools

work long hours while students have phone access to teachers in the

evening as well. The goal is maintain every student with whatever ittakes.

Numerous public schools across the nation who are classified

as Title I schools and serve the traditionally underserved populationshave demonstrated exemplary student performance as well. In all of

those cases, it is the culture and climate of that school that supports the

belief that all students can and will learn (Johnson & Uline, 2005). It isimportant to pursue those factors and variables that make those

schools different so that others may learn. Our suspicion and

experience pushes us to examine the leadership experience of the

principal in creating the culture and climate that encourages thesecrucial beliefs about student performance. The common aspects that

Johnson and Asera (1999) found are clearly those tenets that underpin

these charter schools (they are listed in the conclusion).

The Matter of Finances

Most charter schools function with attention to tight budgetary

decisions. They are also saddled with the difficulty of finding


10/15


buildings and/or property that will accommodate a school concept

without the same state funding percentages as public schools. Even

though provided with funding from the state agencies, every head ofhigh functioning charters finds funding from other sources to

supplement. Some of the charters that function with high profilefunding sources such as the Gates foundation and the Dell Foundation

are required to justify expenditures in direct relationship to studentachievement and the value add of each teacher. These charters must

undergo in depth questioning regarding the use of funding in

relationship to performance.

Some superintendents of public schools actively seek

additional funding to maintain performance. Most grant initiatives inpublic schools are generated by central administrators that are hired to

write grants and usually focus on particular areas such as science,

math or other popular instructional targets. Most charter heads seekfunding to provide important supporting functions such as: (a) professional development for incoming personnel, (b) continued

professional development for both teachers and administrators, (c)

software and/or programs to support instructional delivery; (d) and,facilities construction and/or property purchases. Charter schools such

as YES, Harmony and others have even been given money to support

sophisticated strategic planning from organizations that usuallyprovide services to the private business sector. These heads are in

constant search of supplemental funding to extend the growth of the

charter and the opportunities afforded their students.

In Conclusion

So we return to the question, can traditional public schools do

what successful charter schools have been able to do? The answer is

clearly yes if there is a demonstrated willingness to consider severalimportant concepts which have been repeatedly documented for

several years (Johnson, 2005). To be successful, schools must:


11/15


Deliver rigorous instruction aligned to standards.

Provide leadership that results in continuous instructional

improvement by spending substantial time in classrooms

working with teachers on instructional issues.

Design instruction to ensure every students success.

Engage parents and community.

Create a culture in which individuals feel valued.

Possess the same ambitious academic goals pursued by

excellent schools that serve affluent students.

Place strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills

integrated throughout a rich, full curriculum.

Expect that their students can and will excel.

Enable educators to feel supported by their leaders as they

work to improve instruction.

Support improvement of instruction through continuous

teacher collaboration.

Use data to focus teacher collaboration on student work.

Enable students to acquire substantial evidence of their ability

to succeed academically.

Create opportunities for learning to become fun and exciting

for students and to be celebrated often.

Becomes a place where everyone (students, teachers, parents,

community members) feels like they belong.

Rhetorically, traditional public school educators know all ofthis important information. For some of them, however, it often getslost as the application of the concepts are planned and implemented. In

defense of traditional public schools, there are several factors that

obscure the implementation of these ideas.

Familiarity Breeds Blindness


12/15


The old adage of living in the forest often precludes being able

to see the trees. In the case of education, we become comfortable with

status quo school cultures and find excuses to explain away slipping performance and failure to respond to whirling global demands.

Familiarity allows educators to maintain the usual, fail to see andunderstand what has eroded instructional effectiveness and label

variables outside of our control as the culprit for lagging studentachievement. The result creates a serious blindness to the real

problems and prohibits effective change of mental models.

Systemic Misunderstanding

The afore mentioned concepts are often viewed as isolated

components that can be added on to a system. They are not

strategically woven into existing cultural systems within schoolswhich create stand alone processes that often fail because they are notlinked with complimentary systemic components (Schlechty, 2002).

Such views contribute to systemic fragmentation that leave many

administrators wondering why the addition of one or two of theconcepts did not produce the results achieved in other public schools

or charters.

Not Understanding the Cyclic Nature of Schools

There is a cyclic nature to schools that must be understood,particularly at the secondary level. When new, schools begin with a

culture that can last as long as the principal is present or the founding

teachers maintain the culture. The culture within a building has morelife span than the length of a principals contract. Teachers hold tightly

to the culture because it offers comfort and security in the work

environment. As a result, when administrators change, the culture ofthe school shifts minimally. To complicate matters, there is not just

one culture in a building. It is a complex matrix of overlapping

relationships that solidify through affinities. In order to implement the


13/15


previously listed concepts, a principal must carefully diagnosis the

affinity groups within the larger culture and determine effective

strategies to create a critical mass of support in order to systemicallyimplement those ideas. Too often the cultural issues are ignored by

principals and the resiliency of the building culture and the affinitygroups survive the intended efforts to improve the school. Frustrated,

principals frequently move on and the cyclic nature of the buildingmaintains. The cycles can spin for decades creating very difficult

obstacles for principals as they attempt to improve student

performance and the campus culture.

Unwillingness to Break the Mold

Then very simply, the superintendents and school boards are

not willing to change the current philosophy of traditional schooldistricts. The urgency and the logic do not seem to be present and thedistricts maintain their current practices. Sometimes it can be a

principal who is mired in a comfortable situation and is opposed to

disrupting the building with change of any kind.

Finally

The successful charter schools are not bound by all of the same

regulations as traditional public schools; however, for practical

purposes they function in much the same way as do traditional publicschools. The charter schools that perform at acceptable and less levels

of performance cannot necessarily contribute to the body of

knowledge regarding performance because their student performanceis very similar to many urban or inner city schools and less than many

rural and suburban schools in Texas (Texas Education Agency, 2006).

It is the contributing work of the successful charters that should

be illuminated as exemplary of prudent practice. It will take conviction


14/15


and planning to steer many public schools to recognize and embrace

the strategies used by the successful charter schools.

REFERENCES

Johnson, J. (2005). Characteristics of schools that close achievement

gaps. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. OhioDepartment of Education.

http://www.ode.state.oh.us/achievement_gaps

Johnson, J., & Uline, C. (Eds.) (1999).Hope for urban education: A

study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban

elementary schools. U.S. Department of Education Office of

the Undersecretary.http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/pdfs/UrbanSchools.pdf.

Johnson, J., & Uline, C. (2005). Preparing educational leaders to close

achievement gaps.Theory into practice, 44(1), 45-52.Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004).

Executive summary: How leadership influences student

learning.The Wallace Foundation.

Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2008). Educational administration(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Corporation.

Malakian, A. (2008). Small-company failures may cause big

migraines. United States Banker, 118(7), 2-38.Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005).School leadership

that works: From research to practice. Aurora, CO:

McREAL.

Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2008, August). Movingmountains: Chartering to improve student achievement. TheEducation Innovator, VI(8).http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2008/0821.html

Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987, Winter). Influence of high

school size on dropout rate.Educational Evaluation andPolicy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343.

Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA:

Jossey-Bass.
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/achievement_gapshttp://www.ode.state.oh.us/achievement_gaps


15/15


Sizer, T. (2004).Horaces Compromise: The dilemma of the

American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice

perspective (4th ed.). Needham Heights, Maryland: Allyn and

Bacon.Texas Center for Educational Research. (2005). Texas open-

enrollment charter schools:2003-04 evaluation.Austin, TX:TCER.

Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas open-enrollment charterschools: Sixth year evaluation. Austin, TX: Author.

U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and

Improvement. (2007).K8 charter schools closing theachievement gap. Jessup, MD: Education PublicationsCenter.

http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.pdf.

Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M., (2003). Educational leadershipand student achievement: The elusive search for an association.Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-423.

Zaccaro, S. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual

and empirical analysis of success.Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.
http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.pdfhttp://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.pdfhttp://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.pdf

5 johnson- national forum journals - dr. kritsonis

Documents