University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

(USC Thesis Other)

Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content HOLDING TRADITIONAL AND CHARTER SCHOOLS ACCOUNTABLE
FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT IN ONE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL DISTRICT
by
Linda Courtney Henderson
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
December 2003
Copyright 2003 Linda Courtney Henderson
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI Number: 3133281
Copyright 2003 by
Henderson, Linda Courtney
All rights reserved.
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
®
UMI
UMI Microform 3133281
Copyright 2004 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
University of Southern California
Rossier School of Education
Los Angeles, California 90089-0031
n.
This dissertation written by
Linda CouH'n&j H endersoi'
under the discretion of h £ j£ Dissertation Committee,
and approved by all members of the Committee, has
been presented to and accepted by the Faculty of the
Rossier School of Education in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
December 17, 2003
Date
Dissertation ContOuttee
Chairpe m Chairperson
( j h d h
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my husband Gary Vanerstrom. The writing
of this dissertation and the completion of the degree requirements would not have
been possible without his support.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Acknowledgements
I am grateful to the members of my dissertation committee for their
suggestions and encouragement. I also wish to extend my sincerest thanks to the
superintendent, central office administrators, and site principals o f the participating
California school district.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table of Contents
Dedication..............................................................................................................................ii
Acknowledgements..............................................................................................................iii
List of Tables............................... viii
Abstract................................................................................................................................. ix
Chapter Page
1. Overview o f the Study. ........................................................................................... 1
Introduction.........................................................................................................1
The Statement of the Problem..........................................................................2
The Purpose of the Study.......................................... 5
The Importance of the Study............................................................................6
A Summary of the Design of the Study.......................... 7
Limitations......................................................................................................... 9
Delimitations.................................................................................................... 10
Assumptions..................................................................................................... 10
Definition o f Terms......................................................................... 10
Organization of the Study...............................................................................13
2. Review o f the Literature....................... 14
A Theoretical Concept of Accountability.....................................................16
Bureaucratic Accountability.....................................................................16
Legal Accountability.................................................................................16
Market Accountability............... 18
The New Accountability Under No Child Left Behind....................... 18
Accountability in California.................................................................... 20
District Oversight for Accountability...........................................................21
District Challenges and Strategies in Performance-Based
Accountability Systems .............................. 23
California District Oversight.............................................................. 25
Accountability and Charter Schools............................................................. 27
Charter Schools Historical Overview....................... 26
Definition o f a Charter School................................................................28
Charter Schools and California L aw ............................................................ 31
Charter Authorizes and Accountability Oversight.....................................35
The Charter Approval Process and Accountability .....................36
Monitoring and Evaluating the School's Performance ................ 39
Intervention, Renewal, and Revocation ......................................45
Factors Influencing Authorizer's Styles.................................................47
iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Legal Framework................................................................................... 47
Regulatory Task Environment..............................................................52
Political Factors......................................................................................54
Internal Leadership................................................................................56
Summary and Conclusions......................................................................... 61
Implications...................................................................................................63
3. Methodology.......................................................................................................65
Methodology Framework................... 65
Sample and Population.......................... 68
Sample Selection................................................................................... 68
District....................................................................................................69
Central Office Administrators ....................................................70
Site Principals and Their Schools......................................................... 70
Instrumentation.................................... 73
Interview Protocols................................................................................73
Data Management Instruments.............................................................75
Data Collection............................................................................................. 75
Data Analysis............................................................................................... 79
Summary......................................... 80
4. Data and Findings.............................................................................................. 81
Study Question 1: District Accountability Oversight for Charter
Schools.................. 81
Data for Study Question 1..................................................................... 81
Findings for Study Question 1 ............................................................. 81
Summary of Findings For Study Question I....-................................. 101
Study Question 2: The Specific Challenges of District Accountability
Oversight for Charter Schools................................................................. 102
Data for Study Question 2.................................... 102
Findings for Study Question 2 ............................................................102
Summary of Findings for Study Question 2 ......................................108
Study Question 3: The Strategies the District Utilizes to Overcome the
Challenges of Oversight for Charter Schools.......................................... 109
Data for Study Question 3................................................................. 109
Findings for Study Question 3 ............................................................110
Summary of Findings for Study Question 3 ......................................113
Study Question 4: District Accountability Oversight for Traditional
Public Schools............................................................................................ 114
Data for Study Question 4................................................................. 114
Findings for Study Question 4 ............ 114
Summary of Findings for Study Question 4 ..................... 126
Study Question 5: The Specific Challenges of District Accountability
Oversight for Traditional Public Schools.................................................127
v
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data for Study Question 5 ......................................................................127
Findings for Study Question 5 ..............................................................127
Summary of Findings for Study Question 5 ..................................... 130
Study Question 6: The Strategies the District Utilizes to Overcome the
Challenges of Oversight for Traditional Schools......................................131
Data for Study Question 6 ......................................... 131
Findings for Study Question 6 ..............................................................132
Summary of Findings for Study Question 6 .......................................135
Study Question 7 :........................................................................................ 136
Data for Study Question 7 ......................................................................136
Findings for Study Question 7 ..............................................................136
Discussion...................................................................... 144
Seaview's Oversight Style for Charter Accountability.................... 146
The Evolution of Charter School Oversight....................................... 149
Access to Data......................................................... 151
Small Autonomous Schools and Capacity Building............................152
5. Summary, Conclusions, and Implications of the Study..................................155
Overview o f the Problem......................................................... 155
Purpose of the Study.................................................................................... 156
Methodology..................................................................................................157
Findings..........................................................................................................158
Findings for Study Question 1 ..............................................................158
Findings for Study Question 2 ..............................................................159
Findings for Study Question 3 ............................................................ 159
Findings for Study Question 4 ............................................................ 160
Findings for Study Question 5 ..............................................................160
Findings for Study Question 6 ..............................................................161
Findings for Study Question 7 ............................................................ 161
Conclusions.................................................... 162
Implications...................................... 164
District Administrators......................................................... ...... ....... 164
Policymakers........................................................................................... 164
Researchers......................................................................................... 165
Bibliography.................................................................................................................... 167
Appendices........................................................................................................................ 178
A. Interview Protocols............................................... 179
Interview Protocol Introduction.................................................................. 180
Protocol 1: District Oversight for Charter School
Accountability.......................................................................... 182
Protocol 2: District Accountability Oversight for
Traditional Schools........................................................................................185
vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
B. Data Management Forms....................................................... 187
Contact Interview Summary Form .............. 188
Document Summary Form..................... 189
C. List of Documents ..................................................................................190
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Tables
Table Page
1. Demographics and API Scores of Sample Schools.......................................... 72
2. The Relationship of Interview Protocol Sections to Study Questions...........74
3. The Relationship of Data Sources to Study Questions....................................78
4. Accountability Conceptual Fram ework.............................................................80
5. Oceanside and Di strict Baseline Performance Targets......................... 98
6. Relationship of the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data:
Standards..................................................................................... -........................137
7. The Relationship of the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data:
Assessment..................................................... 140
8. The Relationship of the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data:
Rewards and Sanctions........................................................................................143
viii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
The purpose of the study was to investigate the degree to which differences in
school governance influenced how schools are held accountable for student
performance. The study used qualitative case study methodology to answer 7
research questions: (a) How does the district provide accountability oversight for
charter schools? (b) What are the specific challenges of district accountability
oversight for charter schools? (c) What strategies does the district utilize to
overcome the challenges of accountability oversight for charter schools? (d) How
does the district provide accountability oversight for traditional public schools? (e)
What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight for traditional
public schools? (f) What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the
challenges of accountability oversight for traditional public schools? (g) To what
extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less) accountable for student
achievement than traditional schools within the same district?
The study was conducted in a large urban K-12 school district located in
California. The district was purposefully selected on the basis of (a) the presence of
traditional and charter schools, (b) the presence of performance-based accountability
systems and charter school oversight policies, and (c) at least one charter school
recently or currently involved in the renewal process. The population sample
included the superintendent, district office administrators, and selected traditional
and charter school principals.
ix
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The data indicated that the district held traditional schools to a higher level of
accountability in the areas of standards, assessment, and rewards and sanctions.
Factors that influenced the district's charter school accountability oversight included
the interpretation of charter law, authorizers' legal context, and lack of capacity in the
regulatory environment. Federal and state accountability requirements for all schools
have caused the district to start developing stronger on-going oversight for operating
charter schools and to require more rigorous objective measures for charter petition
approval and renewal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 1
Overview of the Study
In 1983, the groundbreaking publication A Nation At Risk (National
Commission on Excellence in Education, 1983), roused the nation to respond to a
perceived national crisis in education (Paris, 1998). During this time, student
achievement reform in America began to take two divergent paths. One route led to
the establishment of national goals for student achievement and the proliferation of
standards and performance-based accountability systems throughout the country. The
other reform route led to a rejection of national standards for accountability in favor
of choice, decentralization, and charter schools (Paris, 1998).
Autonomy for increased accountability has always been the underlying
theory of action for charter schools; however, research shows that very few charter
schools have closed for failure to reach agreed upon student achievement outcomes
(Center for Education Reform, 2002). The reauthorization of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, commonly known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), is
creating a bridge between the two reform movements by holding all schools,
traditional and charter, to the same rigorous accountability standards (Herdman,
Smith, & Skinner, 2002; U. S. Department of Education, 2003).
New performance-based accountability systems make the individual school
the unit responsible for student achievement. Instead of self-assessments and
occasional site visits, schools are being asked to submit performance data such as
test scores and progress toward meeting specified achievement levels. Site
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
inspections that do occur are more focused on teaching, learning and reflective
practice. States are publicly reporting individual school test results, and those schools
with low performance face a variety of consequences from assistance to
reconstitution (Fuhrman, 1999; Herdman et al., 2002). This shift from process-based
compliance to accountability for results and focusing on individual schools is
causing school districts to redefine their roles (Massell, Kirst, & Hoppe, 1997).
In California where school districts authorize charter schools, oversight for
accountability is two-dimensional. Not only must the district build capacity to carry
out state and federal accountability requirements, it must also hold charter schools
accountable within the guidelines of charter law. According to Ladd (2002), "The
single greatest challenge for the U. S. charter schools movement is accountability"
(p. 26). Charter schools operate under two types of accountability: legal and market-
driven (Adams & Kirst, 1999). Authorizers implementing the new accountability
requirements, specifically The No Child Left Behind Act, will be challenged to
maintain a balance between accountability and charter autonomy (Herdman et al.,
2002).
The Statement o f the Problem
California school districts are challenged to provide adequate oversight to
traditional and charter schools. As California continues to drift toward state control
of academic policies, districts will have less autonomy in how they hold schools
accountable (Kirst, Hayward, & Fuller, 2000). Districts that oversee traditional
schools and charter schools are responsible for developing accountability systems in
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
which all schools can be evaluated competently and consistently (Hill, Lake, &
Celio, 2002). The current standards and performance-based education reforms in
California and elsewhere are causing a shift from process and compliance to
performance (Elmore, Abelmann, & Fuhrman, 1996; Hill et al., 2002). Although
standards and performance-based accountability systems have the potential for
creating a common basis on which all schools can be judged, districts are challenged
to implement such systems. To date, little is known about the day-to-day challenges
faced by California districts and the strategies they use as they try to implement new
accountability requirements for charter and traditional public schools.
There is a need to understand a district’s oversight function for charter and
regular schools within the same environment; however, research studies have either
focused on one form of oversight or the other. Still, there is limited research either on
traditional district accountability strategies or on the work of charter school
authorizers. As schools become the focus of accountably, less emphasis is being
placed on the district's role in oversight for student achievement (Goertz, Duffy, &
Le Floch, 2001). The convergence of state mandated accountability systems with
charter school autonomy for accountability is creating more complex relationships
between district authorizers and charter schools. This occurrence is causing districts
to examine their current policies to assess the most appropriate ways of holding these
decentralized schools accountable while allowing them to remain autonomous
(Camochan, 2002). Districts and states throughout the nation are grappling with
issues of how to hold schools accountable for student achievement (Hassel, 1999;
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ladd, 2002). A deeper analysis of charter school authorizers’ oversight styles and the
patterns that are emerging is critical to understanding how accountability for results
can be applied to traditional public schools as well as charters (Herdman, 2002;
Sugarman & Kuboyama, 2001). Public agencies must recognize the diversity among
school performance levels and develop accountability systems that fairly assess
district as well as charter schools (Hill et al., 2002).
National and local studies have reported the strategies districts use and the
difficulties they encounter as they shift from a bureaucratic, compliance-based
accountability system to one that emphasizes performance (Elmore et al., 1996;
Fuhrman, 1999; Goertz, 2000; Goertz, Massed, & Chun, 1998; Guth et al., 1999;
Massed, 2000; Massed et al., 1997). However, these studies do not address the
particular issues of districts that must implement accountability systems for schools
with different governance structures.
Studies that specifically deal with the district's responsibility for student
achievement oversight in charter schools is limited. In his study of eight states and
the District of Columbia, Rolfes (1998)investigated the general impact charter
schools have had on districts, and whether the presence of these alternative forms of
schooling caused districts to experience systemic change. Other notable studies have
addressed the responsibilities of charter authorizers. The National Charter School
Accountability Study (Hid et al., 2001) researched how behaviors and attitudes of
charter authorizers influence charter school internal accountability. Vergari’s (2000)
research on the regulatory styles of authorizers in Arizona, Massachusetts and
4
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Michigan, provided information on how legal and political contexts influenced
authorizing practices. Several studies have added to the body of knowledge on the
challenges of oversight for accountability in California and across the nation
(Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003; Bulkley, 2001; California State Auditor, 2002; Hassel
& Vergari, 1999; Hill et al., 2001; Izu et ah, 1998; SRI International, 2002;
University of California, 1998; Zimmer et al., 2003). Although these studies provide
valuable information on the role of charter school authorizers and their particular
relationships with charter schools, they do not explicitly address the challenges
district authorizers face when trying to hold traditional as well as charter schools
accountable for student performance, and how these challenges influence their
practices and decisions.
The Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of this study was to ascertain the degree (if any) to which
differences in school governance influence how schools are held accountable for
student performance.
This study addressed the following questions:
1. How does the district provide accountability oversight for charter
schools?
2. What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight
for charter schools?
3. What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges of
accountability oversight for charter schools?
5
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. How does the district provide accountability oversight for traditional
public schools?
5. What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight
for traditional public schools?
6. What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges of
accountability oversight for traditional public schools?
7. To what extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less)
accountable for student achievement than traditional schools within the same
district?
The Importance o f the Study
Information acquired from the study will add to the limited body of literature
on the conditions and challenges that affect the oversight for accountability decisions
school districts make for charter and traditional schools. National and state standards,
performance-based reforms, and the charter school movement, are causing districts
to create new models for overseeing schools and holding them accountable for
performance results. These practices have the potential to alter how public schools in
general are monitored and held accountable in the future. The study has relevance for
district-level directors, state and national policy makers, and researchers.
District Administrators
As school sites continue to be the unit of accountability for student
achievement, district administrators and trustees will need to acquire new roles and
build their capacity to support and oversee outcome-driven reform. This study will
6
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assist them to understand the elements that are needed to create effective, fair
accountability systems applicable to traditional and charter schools
Policymakers
Policymakers need to know of the challenges faced by districts as they
attempt to implement oversight systems for traditional and charter schools. The
results of the study will be useful in providing insights into types of external
assistance districts need to function effectively.
Researchers
How districts manage the simultaneous coexistence of bureaucratic and
market-based accountability requires further study. The study will add to the body of
research on the realities of charter school oversight and holding schools with
divergent governance structures accountable for student achievement.
A Summary o f the Design o f the Study
To answer the research questions, the study utilized a qualitative comparative
case study design to conduct three basic activities. First, the study investigated the
accountability oversight practices of one California school district with traditional
and charter schools. Second, the study explored the concerns and strategies of the
district as it provides oversight for student achievement for schools with two
different governance structures. Third, the study compared the accountability
oversight o f the district’s charter and traditional schools to determine if differences
exist between governance structures and why.
7
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The sample population was purposely selected based on the following
criteria: (a) The district must have at least one charter school that is undergoing the
renewal process or has recently had its charter renewed, (b) The district must have a
standards-based accountability process in place for traditional schools, (c) The
district must have some accountability oversight process in place for charter schools
One large urban California school district with charter and traditional schools
was selected for the study. Fictitious names were used to protect the identity of the
district and study participants. Data collection and analysis took place between
March and June of 2003.
In order to narrow the scope o f the research, the study focused on interviews
with selected district level administrators involved with accountability oversight of
traditional or charter schools: (a) the superintendent and two central office directors,
(b) the charter schools coordinator, and one field administrator. In addition, to
validate and provide additional context for the district data, interviews were
conducted with site principals from two charter middle schools, a traditional middle
school, and a small autonomous middle school. The study also collected and
examined documents associated with accountability practices such as charters,
annual reports, standards, Single Plans for Student Achievement, on-line
demographic and achievement data, and policies or performance-related documents.
Two district governance board meetings were attended to observe the district's
decision-making process for charter approval and renewal.
8
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instruments were developed to facilitate data collection and analysis. Two
interview protocols (one for charter and one for traditional school accountability)
were designed to elicit answers to the study questions. A coded contact interview
summary form was created to record interview data and to protect the identity of the
participants. A document summary form was developed to classify and analyze
written information. The interview protocols, contact interview summary form, and
document summary form are described in greater detail in Chapter 3 and are located
in Appendices A and B.
Limitations
The limitations of this study were as follows:
1. The degree to which participants willingly took part in the study.
2. The attitude participants had toward charter schools.
3. The attitude participants had toward standards-based accountability
systems.
4. The degree to which the participants were actively engaged in student
achievement oversight practices for traditional or charter schools.
5. The accuracy of the data the participants provided.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Delimitations
The study was restricted to the following delimitations that served to narrow its
focus:
1. Qualitative data from structured and unstructured interviews,
observations, and written documents were collected from March through early June
2003.
2. Data were gathered from one California school district with
traditional and charter schools.
3. The small size of the sample population may not permit the findings
of the study to be generalized to other districts.
Assumptions
For the purpose of this study, the following assumptions were be made:
1. The participants in this study would be candid and honest in their
responses.
2. The required documentation would be available and obtainable.
3. The district would have in place some systems for charter school and
traditional school accountability oversight.
Definition o f Terms
Academic Performance Index (API)
The Academic Performance Index is the foundation of the Public Schools
Accountability Act. It measures the progress and performance of California public
schools on a numeric index ranging from a low o f 200 to a high o f 1000. The state
10
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
has determined that schools should strive to meet a score of 800. Schools that score
less than 800, are assigned growth targets until the statewide target of 800 is reached.
Schools that reach their growth targets may be eligible for rewards.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
The federal No Child Left Behind Act requires each state to set the minimum
levels of improvement in student performance that school districts and schools must
achieve within time limits specified under Title I law. These minimum performance
levels constitute Adequate Yearly Progress.
Immediate Intervention/Underperforming
Schools Program (II/USP)
A component of the Public Schools Accountability Act, II/USP establishes
interventions for schools that are considered underperforming based on their
progress toward meeting API growth targets. Schools receive money to plan and
implement schoolwide improvement programs. Schools that fail to reach their
growth targets over a specified period of time, are subject to a continuum of
interventions, including state takeover.
No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)
Signed into law in January of 2002, the No Child Left Behind Act
reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB was
designed to improve the academic performance of all students: The act is based on
four principles: (a) stronger accountability for states, local education agencies, and
schools; (b) more choice for parents and students; (c) greater flexibility for the use of
federal education money; and (d) making reading improvement a priority.
11
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA)
The Public Schools Accountability Act of 1999 issues rewards for schools
that meet state determined achievement criteria and provides interventions for low
performing schools. The act requires that the California Department of Education
annually calculate and publish the Academic Performance Index, including state and
similar schools rank for, all California public schools. The PSAA also requires a
yearly 5% annual API growth target for each school and a statewide performance
target for all schools.
Similar Schools Rank
California schools are annually ranked based on their API scores. Schools are
initially ranked by their performance in relationship to all other schools in the state.
The similar schools rank compares a school's academic achievement on the API with
schools that are demographically similar.
Standardized Testing and Reporting
Program (STAR)
The Standardized Testing and Reporting program is a mandatory statewide
assessment system that includes a commercial norm-referenced test for basic skills,
and a criterion referenced test based on the California core academic content
standards. State determined indicators of achievement are used to measure student
performance.
12
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Supplemental Services
No Child Left Behind authorizes federal Title I funds to provide
supplemental education services for children in low performing schools. These
services may include tutoring, after school services, and summer school programs.
Organization o f the Study
Chapter 1 has discussed the importance of understanding how California school
districts hold schools with different governance structures accountable for student
achievement. This chapter has also summarized the design of the study. Chapter 2
presents a review of the literature relevant to the study. Chapter 3 describes the
research methodology used in this study. Chapter 4 addresses the data analysis and
findings for each question. The chapter concludes with a summary of the key
findings and how they relate to the literature. Chapter 5 includes a summary of the
study, conclusions drawn from the findings, and discusses implications for district
administrators, policymakers, and researchers.
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 2
Review of the Literature
Educational reform in America has traditionally been used for two purposes:
to remedy social crises and to solve educational problems (Tyack & Cuban, 1995).
The civil rights era in education that began in 1954 with Brown v. Board o f
Education was a significant period in the history of institutional reform designed to
solve a social crisis. Court ordered desegregation plans forced districts to
acknowledge inequities in schooling practices and implement plans to provide equal
opportunities for all students. Voluntary desegregation programs such as magnet
schools, and other open enrollment plans were instituted to provide choice and
appeal to parents of all races and socioeconomic backgrounds. The social welfare
policies of the 1960s and 1970s ensured that disenfranchised students who were
socioeconomically disadvantaged, handicapped, or limited English proficient, had
equal access to a quality education. During this period, society focused on who was
being served, access to resources, and the process of educating students, not the
fundamental outcomes o f schooling (Adams & Kirst, 1999).
During the 1980s, the outcomes of education became the focal point of
education reform. Emphasis on access, equity, and process began to shift toward
educational performance (Adams & Kirst, 1999). The National Commission of
Excellence in Education (1983) declared in its groundbreaking publication, A Nation
At Risk, that American students’ lack of academic preparation, compared to that of
students from other countries, was a threat to our nation’s prosperity and ability to
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
compete in a global economy. Among the Commission’s, recommendations were
high expectations for students, rigorous and measurable standards, and quality
teaching. This report’s findings and recommendations led to nationwide criticism of
public education, and a concerted effort to achieve academic excellence (Chubb &
Moe, 1990; Goodlad, 2002). In the years since the report was issued, reform
initiatives in this country aimed at creating more effective public schools have
proliferated (Chubb & Moe, 1990; Finn, Manno, & Vanourek, 2000; Hentschke,
1997; Levin, 1990).
Student achievement reforms that evolved after the findings of A Nation at
Risk are taking two divergent paths. One emphasizes the common good of society
through state, and increasingly, federal polices requiring content and performance
standards, ways to assess student achievement, holding schools directly accountable
for results, and sanctions for states, districts, and schools that fail to show adequate
progress toward meeting specific performance targets. The other route represents the
uniqueness of local control through decentralized decision making, autonomy for
increased accountability for outcomes, parent choice, and market-driven
accountability, as exemplified in charter schools (Fuhrman, 1999; Paris, 1998). The
first section of this chapter presents a theoretical concept of accountability. The
second section reviews the literature on the district’s role in oversight for
accountability, and the challenges districts face in holding traditional schools
accountable for student achievement. The fourth section presents an overview of 'the
emergence of choice and market accountability, specifically charter schools
15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
nationally and in California. The last section discusses the research on specific
challenges of district accountability oversight for charter schools.
A Theoretical Concept o f Accountability
Adams and Kirst (1999) have identified six different accountability models in
education: (a) bureaucratic, (b) legal, (c) professional, (d) political, (e) moral, and (f)
market. Those who establish the expectations in the system are known as
“principals,” and those who are held accountable for meeting the expectations are
referred to as “agents” (Adams & Kirst, 1999). This study focuses on three external
forms of accountability: (a) bureaucratic, (b) legal and (c) market. The roles of
principals and agents will vary depending upon the type o f educational
accountability system under consideration.
Bureaucratic Accountability
Bureaucratic organizations have a top-down structure that depends on the
relationship between superiors who act in a supervisory capacity to govern the work
of subordinate employees. In education, state departments of education and districts
perpetuate compliance with rules and regulations to ensure standardized programs.
Special education and federal compensatory compliance audits, and the approval by
the state of school improvement plans, are examples of bureaucratic accountability
(Adams & Kirst, 1999).
Legal Accountability
Both legal and bureaucratic accountability are characterized by control and
rule enforcement; however, legal accountability is enforced through contracts
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
between principals and agents. For example, the state legislature becomes the
principal that holds local educational agencies and schools accountable through legal
mandates. Standards-based performance accountability systems with rewards and
sanctions for schools, are byproducts of the national standards movement and
constitute legal accountability. The charter school concept of autonomy for increased
accountability for results is an example of legal accountability (Adams & Kirst,
1999).
The theory of action that supports standards-based performance
accountability, is the belief that these systems promote academic achievement.
Adams and Kirst (1999) maintain that “ In an ideal system, performance-based
accountability focuses educational policy, administration, and practice directly on
teaching and learning . . . by defining goals, allocating authority, managing
incentives, building capacity, measuring progress, reporting results, and enforcing
consequences, all related to student performance” (p.464).
A review of the literature indicates that comprehensive performance-based
accountability systems have common elements: (a) standards for evaluating the
quality of the school’s performance; (b) assessment data that provide information on
the school’s performance; (c) consequences in the form of rewards and sanctions for
succeeding or failing to meet the standards (Adams & Kirst, 1999; Elmore et ah,
1996; Goertz et ah, 2001; Guth et ah, 1999; Newmann & King, 1997; Wohlstetter &
Griffin, 1998); and (d) an entity that is responsible for and capable of receiving
information, evaluating the degree to which standards have been achieved, and
17
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
issuing rewards and sanctions (Newmann & King, 1997). In an effective
accountability system, the elements must work cohesively, not in isolation (Guth et
a l, 1999).
Market Accountability
Market-based educational accountability operates by customer choice
(Adams & Kirst, 1999). In education, market accountability refers to parents’ ability
to choose and support the schools their children will attend, as long as the schools
are responding to the needs of the families (Adams & Kirst, 1999; Hassel &
Herdman, 2000). For example, charter school funding, is based on the number of
students that the school serves (Hassel & Herdman, 2000). Indicators of market
accountability center on enrollment, waiting lists, and attendance records: Quality
schools are able to attract and keep students, while substandard schools that fail to
address parents’ demands and student needs will have declining enrollment and thus,
face closure (Finn, Bierlein, & Manno, 1997; Gam, 2001; Hess, 2001).
The New Accountability Under No Child Left Behind
The 21st century ushered in new federal accountability provisions for states
under the 2002 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). This revision provides greater direction as
to how state and local entities measure school performance (Herdman et al., 2002; U.
S. Department of Education, 2002).
The most salient change in the legislation is the addition of required
interventions and sanctions for states, districts, and schools that fail to make
18
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Adequate Yearly Progress as defined by state determined proficiency levels (Cowan
& Manasevit, 2002). Under NCLB, the school becomes the focus of accountability.
There are four basic ways in which NCLB provisions require states to implement
outcome-based accountability procedures for all public schools including charters.
First, states must administer achievement tests to students in Grades 3-8. Second,
states must develop criteria for determining schools’ “Adequate Yearly Progress”
toward achieving 100% proficiency in academic subjects over a 12-year time span.
Third, achievement data at the state, district, and school level, must be reported and
dissagregated by the following student subgroups: (a) economically disadvantaged,
(b) disabled, (c) limited English proficient, (d) ethnicity, (e) race, and gender. Fourth,
states, districts, and schools face consequences if they consistently fail to achieve
Adequate Yearly Progress toward performance goals. Ultimate consequences for
states include loss of federal funding. Districts will be required to provide options to
families of students in failing schools, such as the ability to transfer to a higher
performing school, and supplemental educational services. If a school fails to
improve, corrective action can range from technical assistance to reconstitution
(Cowan & Manasevit, 2002).
New federal accountability under No Child Left Behind, applies to charter
and well as traditional schools. However, Section 1111 (b) (2) (K) of the Act defers
to each states' charter law to determine how oversight for charter school
accountability will be carried out without replacing or duplicating the role of
authorizers, or inhibiting approval and oversight of quality charter schools (U. S.
19
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Department of Education, 2003) Although authorizes will oversee charter school's
compliance with No Child Left Behind Legislation, states will be responsible for
monitoring the actions of charter authorizers (Smith, 2003).
Accountability in California
In California, a report commissioned by the state Legislature entitled Steering
by Results (California Department of Education, 1998) created a new vision of
school accountability: one that focuses on achievement results, rather than
bureaucratic compliance with rules and processes, and holds schools responsible for
student success. In 1999, based on the report's recommendations, the Public Schools
Accountability Act (PSAA) was implemented (EdSource, 2001). Under PSAA,
every school is ranked on the Academic Performance Index (API), and issued a
growth target for improvement. Schools that significantly meet or exceed the target
are eligible for monetary rewards, while those that do not show improvement over
time, are subject to a continuum of interventions. The API looks at schoolwide data
and data dissagregated by significant subgroups. It makes no provision for analyzing
individual student data or that of cohort groups. California’s standards-based
education system is still evolving. The state continues to refine existing elements and
implement new educational initiatives. Concurrently, like other states, California
must align its goals, performance criteria, data systems, rewards, and sanctions to
comply with the No Child Left Behind Act (EdSource, 2002).
20
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
District Oversight fo r Accountability
Starting in the mid-1980s, most states instituted standard-based reforms
characterized by challenging academic standards, policies aligned to the standards,
restructured school governance, and systems to support meeting the standards
(Massell et al., 1997). Recent federal programs such as Goals 2000 and No Child
Left Behind, have encouraged states to implement performance-based policies to
hold schools directly accountable for ensuring that students meet the standards (Finn,
2002; Fuhrman, 1999; Massell, 2000). In the new performance-based accountability
systems, the school becomes the unit of improvement rather than the traditional
focus on district policies and practices as in previous accountability models (Elmore
et al., 1996; Fuhrman, 1999; Massell, 2000).
Prior to performance-based reforms, states targeted the school district as the
unit of accountability and measured compliance through program and accreditation
audits (Goertz, 2000). Bureaucratic accountability policies were developed to control
and monitor education in local settings. These policies focused on how well the local
agencies provided the minimum level of educational inputs. Examples of inputs
include staffing ratios, and the degree of access to instructional programs.
In new performance-based accountability systems, federal and state policy
makers are beginning to discount the role of local boards and district administrators
in the accountability process (Wells, Vasuveda, Holme, & Cooper, 2002). Yet, the
work of local educational agencies is crucial to the degree to which individual
schools implement reforms (Massell et al., 1997). Massell (2000) asserts, “Districts
21
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
remain the legal and fiscal agents that oversee and guide schools . .. What districts
do influences how schools as organizations address the performance goals set by
states and whether or not they have the necessary capacity to do so” (p. 6). In a
broader sense, Newmann and Wehlage (1996) discuss the role external agencies play
in building school capacity.
Schools are nested in a complex environment of expectations, regulations,
and professional stimulation from external sources including districts, state
and federal agencies, independent reform projects, parents and other citizens.
External agencies helped schools to focus on student learning and to enhance
organizational capacity through three strategies: setting standards for learning
of high intellectual quality; providing sustained, schoolwide staff
development; and using deregulation to increase school autonomy (p. 3-4).
States and districts are having difficulty implementing new accountability
systems. Elmore (2000) asserts that education administration focuses on the
management of the structures and processes of education rather than instruction, and
the existing educational structure is unable to account for why certain students
achieve and others do not. According to Hill (2002), even in the best-designed
standards-based systems, few districts and state education systems have the capacity
to monitor performance-based accountability. First, they do not have the data or the
ability to accurately assess the performance of individual schools. Consequently,
states and districts are reluctant to act decisively toward failed schools by imposing
appropriate interventions and sanctions.
Second, the traditional top-down compliance relationship schools have with
districts is difficult to overcome. Central office administration is reluctant to allow
schools to make decisions and mistakes, and the individual stakeholders in school
22
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
communities are not accustomed to taking responsibility for their actions. States still
require schools and districts to adhere to most of the existing bureaucratic
compliance and process regulations (Fuhrman, 1999).
District Challenges and Strategies in
Performance-Based Accountability
Systems
In a 2-year study of 22 districts in eight states, Massell (2000) explored the
strategies and challenges of local education agencies, as they attempted to improve
teaching and learning through performance-based accountability systems. The study
viewed accountability practices through four lenses: (a) interpreting and using data,
(b) building teacher knowledge and skills, (c) aligning curriculum and instruction,
and (d) targeting interventions on low performing students and/or schools.
Strategies fo r interpreting and using data. The most common uses of data in
schools and districts includes (a) planning professional development, (b) identifying
achievement gaps, (c) aligning curriculum and instruction, (d) assigning and
evaluating personnel, and (e) identifying students who need differentiated
instruction. All districts in the study, used data to assist schools with site-level
improvement plans required by each state.
Challenges o f interpreting and using data. Districts needed greater support in
facilitating the use of data to influence instructional practices at the site level in order
to build teachers’ capacity to use assessment data as a way to inform instruction.
They also struggle with how to organize, correlate, and disseminate data so that it is
useful to school sites.
23
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Strategies fo r Building teacher knowledge and skills. All districts in the study
valued and provided professional development for teachers; however, the range of
offerings varied considerably. Strategies ranged from lists of workshop offerings,
time, funding, and other resources to collaborative inquiry groups. All districts were
interested in pursuing alternative professional development programs that were
ongoing, site-based, and required teacher leadership and collaboration.
Professional development challenges. Districts were challenged by their
attempts to align professional activities to common goals. They had difficulty finding
ways to base professional development decisions on district or schoolwide needs,
rather than individual teacher preferences.
Curriculum and instruction strategies. Approaches to curriculum and
instruction varied greatly among the districts. Some districts were quite prescriptive
and required schools to adhere to explicitly delineated curriculum policies. On the
other end of the continuum, schools in Kentucky have legal authority over
curriculum and instructional practices, and the districts must negotiate for any type
of centralized programs.
Curriculum and instruction challenges. Although Massell (2000) does not
explicitly list challenges to curriculum and instruction practices, the challenges
discussed under interpreting and using data directly apply to curriculum and
instruction.
Targeted intervention strategies fo r schools and/ or students. Approximately
one-third of the districts provided support to low performing schools. Districts
24
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frequently employ the common strategy of providing support for schools to engage
in improvement planning and curriculum alignment. All districts provided
interventions for students at risk of failing to meet the state or local standards.
Intervention challenges. While some districts increase the level of oversight
and feedback to schools, very few imposed sanctions. Most strategies were in the
form of support interventions. Only a few of the districts reduced a school's site-
based decision making authority or removed principals.
California District Oversight
A 1999 study of the implementation of California’s standards-based
accountability system across 200 school districts before full implementation of the
Public Schools Accountability Act, revealed that developing a comprehensive
system is a long and complex process. District administrators had difficulty keeping
up with the ever-changing array of reforms instituted by the state. Time and
resources were needed to adequately implement local systems. Districts, especially
small local education agencies, needed more support in analysis and use of data, and
assistance with the development and alignment of assessments, standards, and
curriculum. Although districts collected and analyzed student data, the most common
reason they gave was to fulfill state reporting requirements. While many districts had
set performance targets for schools, relatively few (less than 30%) had implemented
consequences for low performing schools, and approximately 85% did not have
incentives in place to reward high-performing or improving schools (Guth et al.,
1999).
25
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The continuously evolving policies and inability to monitor how individual
students are performing throughout the state, make it difficult to track students from
year-to-year, or if they transfer to other traditional or charter schools within the
system (EdSouce, 2003; Zimmer et al., 2003). In a recent poll conducted by
EdSource to determine the most useful addition to California's educational data
system, 52% of the community members, 50% of the teachers, and 47% of
administrators and school board members surveyed agreed that a way to code the
identity of individual students in order to provide longitudinal data had the greatest
potential to determine which programs and strategies are effective.
Accountability and Charter Schools
Charter Schools Historical Overview
Charter schools represent the most recent efforts to restructure public
education (Fuller, Burr, Huerta, Puryear, & Wexler, 1999; Miron & Nelson, 2002).
In the early 1990s, opponents of vouchers sought an alternative route that would
offer parental choice within the existing public school system by creating schools
that would be free from many o f the restrictions of regular public schools, promote
market-based theories of competition, and provide innovative, personalized learning
opportunities (Nathan, 1996a; Weil, 2000). Simultaneously, other nations, most
notably the United Kingdom, New Zealand, and Sweden, were experimenting with
decentralization and school choice initiatives (Fiske & Ladd, 2000; Gerwitz, Ball, &
Bowe, 1995; Miron & Nelson, 2002; Mohrman, WoMstetter, & Associates, 1994).
Consequently, the charter school concept emerged as an alternative form o f public
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
school governance and choice. England’s Grant Maintained Schools were a rich
source of information for those involved in shaping emergent charter policies in the
United States (Fuller et al., 1999; Wells, Grutzik, Camochan, Slayton, & Vasudeva,
1999; Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998).
Charter school origins are linked to several attempts to decentralize schools
and to provide parent choice (Fuller et al., 1999; Kolderie, 1990). In the late 1980s,
Albert Shanker, then president of the American Federation of Teachers, addressing a
Minneapolis school improvement conference, and later the National Press Club in
Washington, D.C., unveiled his idea of giving school boards and teachers
opportunities to create and run new schools (Hart & Burr, 1996; Weil, 2000). A year
later, Ray Budde, a New England educator, self-published a book titled Education by
Charter: Restructuring School Districts. The work described a process in which
teams of teachers at a school site would be chartered for 3 to 5 years to deliver
instruction free from the restrictions of the educational bureaucracy (Budde, 1996;
Finn et al., 2000). Shanker took this concept and expanded upon it to consider the
idea of teams of teachers setting up their own autonomous public schools within an
existing school (Shanker, 1998). He took the name “Charter Schools” from Budde’s
original concept (Budde, 1996; Manno, Finn, & Bierlein, 1998; Weil, 2000).
Minnesota passed the first charter school legislation in 1991 (Finn et al.,
2000; Murphy & Shiffman, 2002; Nathan, 1996b; Weil, 2000; Wells, 1993).
Initially, the law only authorized eight charter schools throughout the entire state and
required approval of the district’s governing board. Under the Minnesota plan,
27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
groups of teachers could request a charter to develop a philosophically or
pedagogically unique school. In addition to school districts, other entities such as
universities or government agencies, were allowed to sponsor the schools (Wells,
1993). Based on statistics from January 2003, over 2,700 charter schools are open
and operating in 36 states and the District of Columbia (Center for Education
Reform, 2003a).
Definition o f a Charter School
The three important structural elements of charter schools are choice,
deregulation, and accountability (Miron & Nelson, 2002). Those elements are
captured in the basic definition provided by Finn, Manno, and Vanourek (2000): “A
charter school is an independent public school o f choice, freed from rules but
accountable for results” (p. 14).
The charter. Davies and Hentschke (forthcoming) make the subtle distinction
between “charters” and “contracts,” which is important within the context of who
operates the school:
A charter is a formal agreement between agencies such as school districts
(typically described as charter sponsors) and nonprofit and public entities
(typically referred to as charter founders) that grant the right to charter
founders to operate a school (newly created or currently in operation). A
contract is a formal agreement between either a school district or charter
founders and organizations that agree to operate the school (typically for-
profit or private nonprofit), (p. 12)
Choice. Charter schools resemble public schools in that they are free,
nonsectarian, and open to all students (Hill et al., 2001). However, charter schools
have no attendance boundaries, and therefore, are different from public schools.
28
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Parents may choose a charter school over the neighborhood school to which their
children are assigned (Griffin & Wohlstetter, 2001).
Deregulation and autonomy. An important characteristic of charter schools
that differentiates them from public schools, is their ability to engage in site-based
decision-making, and to operate without many of the constraints of state and local
education policies (Bulkley, 2001; Fuller, 2000; Griffin & Wohlstetter, 2001; Hassel
& Herdman, 2000; Vergari, 2001). Unlike regular public schools that are bound to
the codes and regulations of the state and the district, charter schools have the ability
to make their own decisions on curriculum, organizational structures, and
educational focus (Griffin & Wohlstetter, 2001). The degree of charter school
autonomy and deregulation varies from state-to-state, depending upon the strength
and structure of its charter school legislation (Center for Educational Reform, 2000;
Millot, 1995). Charter proponents consider charter laws strong when they allow
schools greater flexibility in implementing programs and autonomy from
bureaucratic requirements, while weak laws impose greater restrictions (Center for
Education Reform, 2001).
Accountability. Charter schools function under two systems of accountability.
First, market accountability dictates that, as public schools of choice, the amount of
funding they receive depends upon the number of students they can attract and retain
(Gill, Timpane, Ross, & Brewer, 2001; Miron & Nelson, 2002). These schools are
held accountable by the charter board and families, which makes them similar to
private schools (Fuller, 2000). If parents perceive the needs of their children are not
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
being met, they will remove them from the school (Fusarelli, 2001). For traditional
public schools, funding is determined by the school board and district administration.
Charter schools are aware of their responsibilities to their stakeholders.
Research with focus groups consisting of charter school teachers and administrators,
showed that charter schools felt strongly accountable to the local community—
mainly to parents and students. The participants indicated that they felt pressured to
live up to the expectations of parents in meeting student needs (Griffin &
Wohlstetter, 2001).
Second, in exchange for greater autonomy, charter school legislation requires
that schools agree to be held to a high standard of performance by the agency
designated by law to provide oversight (Hassel, 1998; Lane, 1997). These agencies
are entrusted with the power bestowed upon them through legislation to grant
charters, oversee the school’s adherence to its charter and compliance with charter
laws, monitor student progress, and revoke or renew the charter (Hassel & Herdman,
2000). Failure to meet the goals set forth in the charter can result in its revocation
(Bulkley, 2001; Hassel, 1998).
State charter laws generally require schools to demonstrate accountability in
three ways: (a) show progress toward meeting the student goals and outcomes set
forth in the charter (Griffm & Wohlstetter, 2001), (b) practice sound fiscal and
operational management (Griffm & Wohlstetter, 2001), and (c) adhere to the law
(Finn et al., 1997).
30
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Charter Schools and California Charter Law
The California Charter Schools Act, that passed by the legislature in 1992
and became effective in 1993, made California the second state in the nation to
institute charter school law (Weil, 2000; Wells, 1993; Wohlstetter, Griffin, & Chau,
2002). Although similar in concept, California law differed from Minnesota in some
areas. Initially, California allowed 100 schools to be established in contrast to
Minnesota’s eight. California charters must provide nondiscrimination language, and
the law prohibits district residency requirements. In California, school districts were
the primary authorizers of charter schools when the law was enacted (Smith, 2003;
Wells, 1993).
The California charter law defines charter schools as follows (California
Department of Education, 2002).
A charter school is a public school and may provide instruction in any of
Grades K-12. A charter school is usually created or organized by a group of
teachers, parents, and community leaders or a community-based organization,
and is usually sponsored by an existing local public school board or county
board of education. Specific goals and operating procedures for the charter
school are detailed in an agreement (or “charter”) between the sponsoring
board and charter organizers.
A charter school is generally exempt from most laws governing school
districts, except where specifically noted in the law. California public charter
schools are required to participate in the statewide assessment tests called the
STAR (Standardized Testing and Reporting) program. The law also requires
that a public charter school be nonsectarian in its programs, admission
policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and prohibits the
conversion of a private school to a charter school. Public charter schools may
not charge tuition and may not discriminate against any pupil on the basis of
ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability.
31
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The purpose of a charter school is clearly articulated in the California
Education Code 47601 (California Department of Education):
The purpose of a charter school is to:
1. Improve pupil learning.
2. Increase learning opportunities for all pupils, with special emphasis
on expanded learning experiences for pupils identified as academically low
achieving.
3. Encourage the use of different and innovative teaching methods.
4. Create new professional opportunities for teachers, including the
opportunity to be responsible for the learning program at the school site.
5. Provide parents and students with expanded educational opportunities
within the public school system without the constraints of traditional rules
and structure.
6. Provide schools a way to shift from a rule-based to a performance-
based system of accountability.
7. Provide competition within the public school system to stimulate
improvements in all public schools (Education Code 47601).
A major characteristic of California charter schools that separates them from
public schools in the state is their exemption, by statute, from many state and district
laws specified in the California Education Code. For example, charter schools
receive much of their categorical funding in the form of a block grant, which allows
32
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
them more flexibility than traditional schools to determine how those funds are
utilized (Wohlstetter et al., 2002). In addition, charter schools are not subject to the
building safety requirements of California Education Code 17281 commonly known
as the Field Act. Although charter schools are exempt for most provisions of the
California Education Code, they are required to comply with federal and state
constitution laws and federal laws governing public agencies (Minney, 2001).
According to Hart (1996), the charter laws were intentionally simple and
flexible to encourage innovation and a diversity of charter school models. However,
as the charter movement progressed, California developers and authorizers alike,
were aware that the focus on flexibility also made charter law extremely ambiguous
and provided virtually no guidance or support for approval or implementation
(Smith, 2003; University of California, 1998). Legislators began to introduce bills to
expand the law and clarify the ambiguities (Premack, 1996). In addition, studies
began to appear that analyzed the strengths and weaknesses of the charter school
movement and provided specific recommendations for improvement.
One of the most influential studies was The Charter Movement: Education
Reform School by School, issued by the Little Hoover Commission in March 1996.
This report gave the Governor and the Legislature a comprehensive list of findings
and recommendations designed to make the charter school movement a more viable
means of reform (Little Hoover Commission, 1996). Some of the recommendations
included direct funding for charter schools, lifting the cap on the number o f schools
that could be chartered, and clarifying the lines of authority between the state, charter
33
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
authorizers, and schools. Many of the 1998 amendments to the 1992 Charter Schools
Act were based on recommendations presented by the Commission.
Another important report contributed to the revision of the original Charter
Schools Act. In 1997, the Legislative Analysts Office commissioned SRI
International to conduct a study to evaluate the effectiveness of charter schools in
California. This study primarily focused on the impact of charter schools on teaching
and learning (SRI International, 1997). SRI made specific recommendations, which
in their opinion, had implications for the reauthorization of charter law (SRI
International, 1997). The recommendations are as follows:
1. Address how charter schools must comply with special education
regulations.
2. Resolve the contradiction between ethnic balance in charter schools
and neighborhood preference.
3. Clarify legal and fiscal liability issues by including a definitive
assignment of charter school responsibility in the Education Code.
4. Provide more technical assistance to charter schools and sponsoring
agencies on monitoring pupil learning, providing services to special populations,
charter school finance and budgeting, and (for start-up schools) covering facilities
expenses (pp. 47-48).
The 1992 charter legislation was significantly amended by Assembly Bill 544, which
was signed into law in 1998. This, and subsequent amendments, reflect the findings
34
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and recommendations resulting from studies conducted by SRI International and the
Little Hoover Commission.
The amended act authorized the creation of 250 charter schools and an
additional 100 schools each year thereafter. California now leads the nation in the
number of students attending charter schools (Zimmer et al., 2003). As of 2003, there
were 428 charter schools in California with a total student population of
approximately 154,000 students (Center for Education Reform, 2003b).
There are three types of chartering entities in California: (a) school districts,
(b) county boards of education, and the State Board of Education. School districts
comprise the largest group of chartering entities (California State Auditor, 2002).
Over 70% of the chartering entities in the state have only one charter school. Five
entities have eight or more schools; this constitutes 85 schools out of 360 and
represents 2.7% of the total chartering entities. The roles of chartering entities will be
discussed in detail under Charter Authorizer Roles and Oversight Procedures.
Charter Authorizers and Accountability Oversight
Though charter authorizers hold a significant position in the charter reform
movement as the primary agents that hold schools accountable, over the past 10
years, little attention has been focused on these entities (Bierlein Palmer & Gau,
2003; Vergari, 2001). Although there may be some variation in charter legislation
across the United States and the District of Columbia, authorizers fit into four basic
classifications: (a) state boards of education, (b) district school boards, (c)
independent boards and agencies appointed to grant charters (examples include the
35
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
DC Public Charter School Board and the Arizona State Board of Charter Schools),
(d) and other agencies such as colleges, universities and municipalities (Hassel &
Herdman, 2000; Vergari, 2001).
Charter school authorizers perform three important functions: (a) review,
approve, or deny charter applications; (b) monitor and evaluate the school’s
performance according to its charter and legislative requirements; and (c) determine
when to intervene when a school is failing; and whether to revoke or renew a charter
(Bulkley, 2001; Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Vergari, 2001). These three functions also
represent the three levels of the charter authorizer and school accountability
relationship (SRI International, 2002). The next section discusses challenges within
the three levels and some common practices and strategies authorizers have instituted
to overcome the challenges.
The Charter Approval Process and Accountability
Charter school accountability needs to begin early in the petitioning process
by establishing clear goals and expectations that are known and understood by
authorizers and charter petitioners (Bulkley, 2001; SRI International, 2002; Vergari,
2001). However, in the early years of chartering, most authorizers were suddenly
faced with unfamiliar challenges as they were presented with their first charter
petitions, before they had time or the capacity to develop clear application processes
(Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Hill et al., 2001; Smith, 2003).
Authorizers lacked the capacity to handle the technical aspects of charter
approval such as developing criteria and processes for receiving and evaluating
36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
charter petitions (Hassel & Vergari, 1999). Many chartering entities, especially
school districts, were not initially familiar with performance-based contracts or
establishing criteria forjudging the success of a school. They were equally
unfamiliar with the increased level of autonomy afforded to charter schools, and
working with individual groups outside the school system who wish to establish
schools (Hill et al., 2001).
Data gathered from authorizers during the 1998-1999 school year for the
National Charter School Accountability Study showed that 38% had formal
protocols for renewing charters and 6% were in the process of creating them (Hill et
al., 2001).
Through experience over time, authorizers have developed a variety of
strategies to overcome the challenges of the charter application and approval process
(Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003; Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Zimmer et al., 2003). Most
authorizers have some formal plans in place for charter application review such as
public hearings, application deadlines, review processes and committees (SRI
International, 2002). Authorizers have begun to develop criteria for evaluating
charter applications ranging from generalized holistic opinions of the viability of a
charter to explicit rubrics (Hassel & Vergari, 1999). For example, in California, the
Los Angeles Unified School District and San Diego have developed explicit rubrics
and approval criteria that are accessible to charter petitioners thus making their
approval criteria transparent (Smith, 2003). Entities that grant a larger volume of
37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
charters tend to have the most formal policies and structures for evaluating petitions
(SRI International, 2002; Zimmer et al., 2003).
SRI International (2002) data indicated that the most important criteria
authorizers use when evaluating charter applications include accountability
provisions, school mission and goals, curriculum, health, safety, and finances.
However, deficiencies in governance and management, and finance ranked as the top
two reasons for denying a petition, followed by instructional strategies and
curriulum. Accountability provisions ranked seventh out of fifteen reasons for
charter petition denial.
California's original charter law allowed for a fair amount of authorizer
discretion to approve or deny charter petitions. Consequently, there was not a
proliferation of charter schools in the early years (Smith, 2003). Amendments to
charter law in 1998 specified five broad criteria for denial of a charter petition
(California Department of Education, 2002). Based on a survey given to charter
authorizers, Rand (Zimmer et al., 2003) ranked the number of times each criterion
was cited in the following order of frequency: (a) unsound educational program, 26;
(b) demonstrably unlikely to succeed, 24; (c) lacked reasonably comprehensive
descriptions of the required elements, 22; (d) lacked required affirmations, 11; and
(e) inadequate number of required signatures, 3 (Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003).
Though amending charter law, along with raising the original state wide cap, did
help to increase the number of charter approvals, the first three guidelines are still
general enough to allow for each authorizer's unique interpretation (Smith, 2003).
38
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Monitoring and Evaluating the School's Performance
Charter schools need explicit accountability systems in order to operate
effectively long-term and to reassure taxpayers and those to whom they are fiscally
or operationally obligated that the school will be successful. The details of
accountability should be stated in the charter (Hassel, 1999). In the early stages of
the chartering movement, establishing clear standards presented challenges for
authorizers (Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Hill et al., 2001). A survey o f authorizers for
the National Charter Schools Accountability Study (Hill et al., 2001) revealed that
during the 1998-1999 school year only 27% of the responding chartering agencies
indicated that they had written accountability standards for charter schools and 4%
were developing them.
According to Hill (2001),
Authorizers that do attempt to measure and judge a school's academic
performance must struggle with three fundamental issues:
1. How to measure a school's contribution to student learning;
2. How to tell the difference between a school that is improving and one
that is not; and
3. Whether to require that, in order to maintain their charters, schools
must equal or exceed the levels of student achievement growth
attained by conventional public schools serving similar students, (p.
41)
The tools and strategies authorizers use for accountability oversight may
include reports supplied by the school, formal and informal site visits, responding to
39
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
parent complaints, survey data, student achievement data, attendance reports, and
informal meetings. The rigor by which authorizers apply the tools and strategies can
vary (Bulkley, 2001; Hill et al., 2001). Hill (2001) found that most authorizers resort
to typical bureaucratic ways of evaluating a school. They respond to complaints or
react when a crisis occurs. Even so, only one-third of the authorizers he surveyed,
indicated that they had conducted an investigation of a charter school. Data from SRI
International (2002) indicated that authorizers most frequently monitored schools in
the areas of student performance on statewide assessments, financial record keeping,
regulation compliance, and enrollment.
Assessing a school's progress toward meeting their academic goals is
challenging for authorizers. In many states, charter laws require schools to take part
in standardized testing though most testing programs have not been aligned with
unique charter school goals and the needs of students (Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Hill,
1997). Alternative assessments such as portfolios and student exhibitions may be
more appropriate to the charter's mission and goals, but they do not provide the
authorizers with a means of comparing charter school achievement to other schools,
districts, or states (California State Auditor, 2002; Hassel & Vergari, 1999).
The California Charter School Act, which specifies performance-based
accountability rather than bureaucratic compliance, reflects the state's focus on
outcome-based reform (SRI International, 1997; University of California, 1998).
According to Zimmer et al. (2003), standardized tests are the most common measure
of academic achievement. Other measures include a school's Academic Performance
40
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Index score, graduation rates, and site visits. Holding a school accountable for
meeting state standards and the outcomes established in the charter allows the school
to be evaluated on a range of criteria (SRI International, 1997); however, this
responsibility presents challenges for authorizers. First, although the law requires
that charter schools participate in the state assessment system, and charters must
include outcomes and measurement methods, early charters were written in broad
language that described programs, environment, and philosophy. If goals were
included in the charters as in many cases, they lacked specificity, were difficult to
measure or were nonacademic such as “the appreciation of cultural differences, the
empowerment of staff and parents, stronger community ties, or improved social
skills” (Izu et al., 1998; SRI International, 1997; University of California, 1998;
Wells et al., 2002; Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998).
Second, even when objective measurable goals are stated in the charter, the
schools may not collect or report data in a way that is useful for the school, or the
authorizer to adequately measures student progress toward meeting those goals
(California State Auditor, 2002). Not all authorizers have the capacity to collect and
analyze student achievement data and must rely on the schools for the information
they need. For example, a school may analyze aggregate test results, but not
individual student data to determine if the outcomes in the charter have been met. If
the school does not have data available that is aligned with the charter goals, the
authorizer is unable to adequately assess a school's progress. The California State
Auditors (2002) reported that of the 12 charter schools they reviewed, only two were
41
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
actually conducting assessments that were aligned with the goals established in their
charter agreements. This implies that the schools were not adequately assessing their
progress toward their charter goals.
Third, the California state assessment system has been constantly evolving.
During the early days of charter legislation from 1992 to 1997, there was no required
statewide-standardized achievement test. Districts selected their own assessments. In
some cases, charter schools were not required by their authorizers to give objective
assessments (Wells et al., 2002).
California authorizers are challenged to develop criteria to hold charter
schools accountable for student achievement. A 1997 study o f the organizational
characteristics and instructional practices of California charter schools conducted by
SRI International (1997), reported that most charter schools surveyed indicated that
their sponsoring agencies did not hold them accountable for academic progress.
Though 85% of the respondents indicated that the authorizers collected student
achievement data, only 4 percent reported that specific actions or sanctions were
imposed as a result of the data. Case study findings showed that authorizers did not
regularly compare charter school test scores with those of noncharters, nor did they
annually examine charter schools’ progress toward goals. Many districts required
annual reports, but most did not ask for outcome data. Districts indicated that
accountability was not just a charter school issue, but needed to be addressed for all
schools.
42
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The California Department of Education has provided minimal guidance as to
how authorizers are to hold charter schools accountable for student achievement
(Hill et al., 2001; Wells et al., 2002). Because of the inconsistent nature of
California's state and district testing systems, and the ambiguity o f early charter
outcomes and goals, authorizers have been more inclined to evaluate charters on
their fiscal viability (SRI International, 1997; Wells, 1993). Wells (University of
California, 1998) found that although school board members were concerned about
student welfare and accountability, they also viewed fiscal oversight for all schools
as a basic responsibility, and one that was easiest to exercise.
California school boards appear to be unclear about their charter school
oversight responsibilities (Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003; University of California,
1998). Although some feel compelled to keep a close watch on charter school
operations, others believe that they have little authority to intervene in charter school
affairs (University of California, 1998). In their study of authorizing practices across
the United States, Beirlien and Gau (2003) concluded that district oversight
throughout California is inconsistent. Survey responses indicated that while some
authorizers are supportive and effective, others display hostility and provide limited
support. The study found in California, as did Hill (2002) in a national survey of
charter school authorizers, that many California districts are reluctant authorizers
who do not view their authorizing duties as their primary interest, but are wary of
relinquishing it to other agencies.
43
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
California chartering entities lack written academic oversight guidelines. A
survey conducted by the California State Auditor (2002) found that in the 2001-2002
school year, four of the largest chartering entities in the state had no written
guidelines in place, though three o f the four districts had authorized charter schools
since 1993. Not only did the districts lack guidelines, two of the four engaged in no
academic monitoring, while the others indicated they did some academic oversight.
For example, Los Angeles Unified School District conducted independent reviews
during the charter school's fourth year of operation, but used the report for renewal
decisions, not for on going monitoring. San Diego City Unified had no guidelines
and did not conduct academic reviews of its charter schools. At the time of the study,
all of the districts indicated that they had future plans to engage in academic
monitoring or that the plans were pending. (California State Auditor, 2002).
As charter authorizers acquire more experience, they begin to develop a
larger repertoire of strategies to hold schools accountable for student achievement
(Hassel & Vergari, 1999). More schools are being encouraged to set measurable
academic goals (SRI International, 2002). Some authorizers such as the Chicago
Public Schools, DC Public Charter School Board and Massachusetts, require schools
to develop accountability plans (Hassel & Vergari, 1999). Annual reports are
frequently used to monitor charter progress (SRI International, 2002).
Authorizers use absolute and value-added measures to evaluate the
effectiveness of a charter school (Hassel & Vergari, 1999). Some authorizers look at
whether or not a school has met performance targets, while others focus more on the
44
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
progress a school has made toward meeting its goals. In some cases, an authorizer
will take into account both absolute and value-added criteria. Authorizers may also
take into consideration the specific needs of the students being served (Bulkley,
2001; Hassel & Vergari, 1999). Understanding that some students entering a charter
school are below grade level drives some authorizers to look beyond aggregate data
to examine individual student gains over time.
Intervention, Renewal and Revocation
Charter schools that fail to meet the terms of their charters may encounter a
continuum of consequences ranging from interim sanctions to revocation or
nonrenewal. Interim accountability sanctions prior to the renewal process such as
probation or written notice of problems appear to be rare (SRI International, 2002).
In most cases when interventions were put in place, they have been for financial and
management issues.
Data from the Fourth Year Report of the National Study of Charter Schools
show that in a survey of 531 charter schools, 93.8% reported receiving external fiscal
oversight and 87.2% reported external oversight of student achievement (RPP
International, 2000). However, Griffin and Wohlstetter (2001) found that rigorous
examination of and consequences for low performing schools, were lacking in the
practices of the authorizers they studied. Most authorizers require the collection and
reporting of student achievement data (Bulkley, 2001; Hill et al., 2001), but, few
actually had clear consequences for poor student performance (Bulkley, 2001; SRI
International, 1997; Wells et al., 2002).
45
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Research on authorizers’ renewal requirements shows that the most common
documents requested of schools are formal reports on meeting charter goals, audits,
and indicators of financial stability and summary reports (Hill et al., 2001). Although
agencies differed on performance indicators, almost 100% o f the respondents ranked
student achievement as being a highly important factor in renewal decisions;
however, authorizers requested financial reports far more frequently than reports on
student achievement (Hill et al., 2001).
Revisions to state and district assessment practices in California create
challenges for authorizers and charter schools alike. Schools who initially received
charter status under one accountability system find that when they apply for renewal,
state and district assessments have changed to the degree that measure student
achievement growth over the length of the charter becomes impossible due to
inconsistent baseline data (Izu et al., 1998; University of California, 1998;
Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998).
As of October 2002, of 2,874 charter schools in 32 states and the District of
Columbia that had actually accepted students and functioned as a school for some
period of time, 194, or 6.7%, have closed for reasons of revocation or nonrenewal
(Center for Education Reform, 2002). The following reasons for charter school
failures were documented for 154 of the 194 schools: (a) financial failure, 58; (b)
mismanagement, 52; (c) facilities, 18; (d) student academic performance, 14; (e)
district reasons, 8; and (f) other, 4. Student academic performance accounted for 9%
46
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
of the documented failures while mismanagement and financial issues accounted for
70% of the closures nationwide.
Based on data compiled as of October 2002, California has had 14
documented charter school failures, which represented 4% of the state’s 371
functioning schools. Seven California schools were closed for financial reasons,
mismanagement caused six closures, and one school closed because of financial
challenges related to facilities. No California charter to date has been closed for poor
student achievement (Center for Education Reform, 2002).
Factors Influencing Authorizer's Styles
There is considerable variation as to how authorizers carry out their basic
responsibilities. Vergari's (2000) research on 11 state-wide authorizers in Arizona,
Massachusetts and Michigan, attempted to understand the underlying causes of
authorizers' behavior toward charter school accountability oversight. She examined
the regulatory styles through four lenses: (a) legal framework o f the agency, (b) task
environment, (c) political context, and (d) internal leadership. The following
discussion of the research on accountability oversight practices o f charter school
authorizers, with an emphasis on California, is organized according to these four
categories.
Legal Framework
Impact o f charter laws. Charter School laws across the nation vary in
defining the legal power authorizers have in areas of charter approval, monitoring,
and renewal (RPP International, 2001). These laws influence how schools and
47
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
authorizers operate by determining: (a) what entities have the authority to charter
schools; the degree of legal autonomy a school may enjoy, and (b) how much
discretion authorizers have in holding schools accountable (Hill et al., 2002). Studies
have shown that the guidelines for oversight are ambiguous, especially when it
comes to setting the explicit criteria for evaluating a school or enforcing compliance
(Hill et al., 2002; Vergari, 2000; Wells et al., 2002).
Adams and Kirst (1999) assert that two factors that can cause ambiguous
relationships between principals and agents in any accountability system, are vague
goals and multiple authorities. Although the authors were speaking of accountability
in a general context, the following statement applies to the relationship between
authorizers as principals and charter schools as agents of accountability: “ . . . .The
political and intergovernmental character of education, and the dispersion of
responsibility for learning, make it difficult to know certainly who is accountable to
whom" (p. 482).
According to Wolfe (as cited in Vergari, 2000) charter schools are not legally
dependent on their authorizers, and ultimately, the charter school's governing board
has primary oversight responsibility. The authorizer's responsibility is to report
charter violations to the school's board of directors. Other violations should be
reported to the government agency that enforces a particular law. Many of the
authorizers interviewed by Vergari (2000) agreed with Wolfe's opinion and felt that
direct intervention would compromise the authority of the charter board. However,
48
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
one authorizer interviewed stated that problems arose at the school when the
responsibilities of the charter school board and the authorizer were not well defined.
A distinguishing feature of California charter schools, is the relationship they
must maintain with their local school district in which the state has given oversight
authority (Camochan, 2002). In most other states with charter schools, universities or
state boards of education may grant charters (University of California, 1998). In spite
of recent amendments to charter law that allow charter developers to apply directly
to the county or state board of education, most California charters are granted by
school districts (Wells, 2002; Zimmer et al., 2003). As of fall 2002, California had
427 operating charter schools authorized by 201 entities. School districts were in the
majority with 396 schools authorized by 182 local boards of education. Eighteen
county offices of education authorized 26 schools, while five schools were
authorized by the California State Board of Education. These agencies are
responsible for ensuring that the schools operate in a manner consistent with their
charters and follow all applicable laws (California State Auditor, 2002). The original
Charter Act and its amendments do not provide explicit guidelines for charter
oversight; however, they imply that authorizers are responsible for approving
charters, inspecting or observing schools at any time, collecting fees for oversight
costs, and revoking charters (California State Auditor, 2002).
Some district boards blame their behavior toward charter schools on the
ambiguity of California charter law (California State Auditor, 2002; University of
California, 1998). While the law provides flexibility for authorizers to develop their
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
own polices, it also creates inconsistencies in oversight practices. For example,
California charter statutes fail to provide guidance as to how authorizers should
consider such factors as demographics, and contextual factors when making renewal
decisions (Izu et al., 1998).
Vague charter laws do not provide authorizers with a clear mandate to hold
schools accountable (Vergari, 2000). In a 2002 study of four large district charter
school authorizers, the California State Auditor reported that, although the four
districts charged the schools over $2 million in oversight fees, they were not
employing sound oversight practices to hold charter schools educationally and
fiscally accountable (California State Auditor, 2002). The study indicated that the
districts did not have systems and guidelines in place to monitor charter school
accountability for student achievement and compliance with other laws such as
teacher credentialing, participating in the state testing program, and adequate
instructional minutes. There were inconsistencies in how schools were measuring
their educational programs against the charter’s measurable outcomes, and that the
districts were not ensuring that the charter schools fulfilled the agreements in their
charters.
Each chartering agency wrote a rebuttal to the report’s conclusions. What the
documents had in common was the belief that charter law, pertaining to oversight, is
ambiguous, and thus provides districts little basis to deny approving a charter
petition or enforce the charter once it is granted. All of the districts agreed that the
50
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
state auditors misinterpreted charter statutes by holding the districts to a higher
standard of oversight than the law contains (California State Auditor, 2002).
Authorizer’ s legal structure and capacity to provide oversight. An
authorizer's ability to provide adequate accountability oversight is dependent upon
the capacity it has to support its activities (SRI International, 2002; Vergari, 2000).
Many authorizers lack the capacity to adequately oversee the performance of charter
schools (Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Hill et al., 2002; Vergari, 2000). Hill (2002) found
that a majority of authorizers "have limited staff and little experience in a role that
requires them to make judgements about school performance that are supposed to
lead to life-and-death decisions about individual schools" (p. 53).
Most authorizing entities indicate they have inadequate funds, facilities, and
human resources to adequately oversee charter schools (Bierlein Palmer & Gau,
2003; SRI International, 2002). However, there appears to be a relationship between
the legal status of the chartering entity and the amount of resources available for
oversight. Research conducted by SRI International (2002) indicated that 93% of the
state level authorizers they surveyed had a dedicated office and staff while 43% of
university authorizers and only 26% of district authorizers had such resources.
With the exception of a few large district authorizers, local district
authorizers appear to have less capacity to carry out their oversight functions
(Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003; SRI International, 2002). Most district authorizers
charter a smaller number of schools than other entities. Consequently, they are more
inclined to assign chartering work as a part-time duty to individuals who have other
51
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
responsibilities in the organization. In California, where the majority of authorizers
are local agencies, less than 25% of chartering entities have full-time staff dedicated
to charter oversight. In approximately 70% of chartering entities individuals with
full-time jobs are assigned charter oversight as an additional responsibility (Zimmer
et al., 2003).
Acquiring sufficient funding is a problem faced by many charter authorizers.
Bierlein and Gau (2003) state that only one-third o f the 24 states they surveyed,
reported that they receive adequate funding to carry out oversight functions. Some
authorizers compensate by charging fees to the charter schools, while others receive
supplemental funding from the state or allow charter oversight expenses to encroach
upon other funding sources. Charter oversight budgets were frequently imbedded in
other larger budgets. SRI International (2002) found that only 59% of the authorizers
surveyed with dedicated offices and staff had a dedicated budget for charter
authorizing functions.
Inconsistency leads to ambiguity. In her study of the regulatory styles of
authorizers in Arizona, Massachusetts and Michigan, Vergari (2000) noted that many
of the offices had a high degree of turnover. These unstable conditions cast doubt
upon the agencies' ability to perform effective oversight. Under such conditions,
charter schools may be unclear as to the expectations of their authorizers.
Regulatory Task Environment
Vergari (2000) defines some of the important factors in the regulatory task
environment as: the frequency of interaction between the regulators and the regulated
52
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
entities, the visibility of violations, and the costs of compliance and seriousness of
risks associated with violations.
Frequent interactions. Frequent site visits are an important way for
authorizers to form perceptions of a charter school (Vergari, 2000). Some authorizers
conduct annual formal site visits while others visit informally; some have frequent
contact with the school, while others make little contact and resort to written
reporting (Bulkley, 2001; Vergari, 2000). Other officials attend charter board
meetings or enlist other personnel to carry out this function. Several authorizers
indicated that they cannot possibly conduct annual site visits to all o f the schools
they oversee because they lack the resources to do so (Vergari, 2000). For example,
one authorizer in Arizona employs only two people to oversee 50 schools over a
large geographic area, so they choose to focus their efforts on approving new
charters and dealing with crises that arise rather than visiting existing schools (Hill et
al., 2002).
Visibility o f violations. If an authorizer lacks the capacity to conduct frequent
site visits, it may depend on the eyes and ears of members of the school community
to provide information about what goes on in a school. Many authorizers rely on
market accountability as an oversight tool. In interviews with charter school
authorizers, Vergari (Vergari, 2000) noted that several officials indicated that they
depend upon phone calls from parents for information about issues at the charter
school (Vergari, 2000). Research by Hill et al. (2001) yielded similar results. Parent
complaints were the most frequently given reason for investigating a school.
53
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Financial irregularities and failure to meet the terms of the charter were also
common. Only a few of the respondents indicated that they had investigated a school
for poor student achievement, declining enrollment, or grievances from teacher
unions.
Most investigations by authorizers did not result in significant changes at the
school (Hill et al., 2001). School districts were the most vulnerable when responding
to a school's problems. They lacked protocols such as warnings or probation policies
for intermediate intervention short of revocation. Only 40% of district authorizers
were likely to have a warning/probation system in place compared to approximately
70% of state authorizers and 60% of college authorizers.
Cost o f compliance. According to Vergari (2000) authorizers weigh the cost
of compliance before taking action to close a charter school. For example, the
authorizers interviewed would not consider closing a school for failure to keep up
with compliance reporting, except as a last resort. Research shows that when
authorizers revoke charters, they do so mostly for poor fiscal and administrative
operations, or for ethical reasons (Center for Educational Reform, 2000; Finn et al.,
1997; Griffin & Wohlstetter, 2001).
Political Factors
The political environment in which authorizers and charter schools operate,
often determines the amount of authority regulatory agencies exercise in making
decisions that affect charter schools. Authorizers tend to shape their policies and
operate in ways that avoid criticism from various interest groups and political entities
54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(Vergari, 2000). In addition, many authorizers who are advocates o f charter schools,
have a political interest in the success of those schools (Bulkley, 2001).
Charter authorizers are in frequent contact with such stakeholders as parents,
teachers, and students who are committed to the success of a school. Authorizers
must weigh the cost of closing an unsuccessful school with the reaction they would
face from those groups who perceive the school as meeting their needs (Bulkley,
2001). According to Hess (2001), the challenge of regulatory accountability is a
political rather than educational issue that hinges on two key points: "The intense
interest and relative concentration of a charter school community and the dispersed
interests and loose association that characterizes all other interested parties" (p. 145).
If a school faces closure, stakeholders with a common interest in maintaining the
school will advocate for what they believe in. The larger disinterested community
will not take a stand to close a school that some other families value, unless it is
convinced that the school has committed a serious violation such as committing an
act that is blatantly harmful to students or engaging in fiscal irregularities (Hess,
2001).
Local district authorizers tend to be more susceptible to political pressure
(Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003; Wells et al., 2002). Districts are pressured to make
decisions that serve the interests of many groups, not only the charter school
community, but other school districts, the business community, civil rights groups,
charter school advocates and politicians (Wells et a l, 2002).
55
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In interviews with school board members, Wells (University of California,
1998) found that in one school district, pressure from the school community and
charter advocates caused the board to renew several charters, even though test scores
indicated that the schools showed little improvement. Conversely, another district
board with greater community support was able to deny renewal to a school whose
performance was perceived not to be achieving the academic goals of the charter.
Ultimately, the determining factor in the board's decision was not student
achievement, but pressure from parents who wanted the school to revert back to its
traditional district status.
Internal Leadership
An agencies philosophies and experiences help determine their policies
toward regulation of charter schools. Agencies that have had experience with
education and issues faced by schools such as budget and administration, are at an
advantage when it comes to understanding the needs of charter schools (Vergari,
2000). Some authorizers are proactive in their support of charter schools and provide
an array of services (Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003; SRI International, 2002; Vergari,
2000). The most common support services offered by authorizers include technical
assistance and professional development in the areas of accountability, curriculum,
instruction, assessment, and special education (SRI International, 2002).
Authorizers differ in their philosophies toward providing services to charter
schools or being proactive supporters of the charter movement. While some
authorizers view support as a part of their job, others feel no responsibility to provide
56
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
additional assistance to schools (Bierlein Palmer & Gau, 2003). For example,
research by Bierlein Palmer and Gau (2003) indicated that local California school
district authorizers provided minimal technical assistance. Schools must depend on
the State Department of Education or resource centers for support.
The philosophical approach an authorizer takes toward charter school
oversight can be influenced by such factors as politics, charter laws, the legal status
of the entity (local school board, university, state agency, etc.), and the history of the
chartering entity. Hill et al. (2002) characterizes authorizers’ approaches to charter
school oversight by attitudes and actions. Authorizers' attitudes about their roles can
be classified as reluctant, ambivalent, or enthusiastic. Actions that characterize
authorizers1 behavior include cursory oversight, compliance-oriented oversight, and
performance-based oversight. From this list of attributes, the researchers have
created four categories of authorizers: (a) overeager approvers and inattentive
overseers, (b) reluctant authorizers and suspicious auditors, (c) ambivalent approvers
and indifferent managers, and (d) professional authorizers and competent stewards.
Overeager approvers, inattentive overseers. Agencies in this category have
approved large numbers of charter schools while providing minimal oversight.
Arizona is used as an example of this type of authorizer: one who has authorized a
number of diverse schools, but depends upon competition and market factors to hold
schools accountable.
Reluctant authorizers, suspicious auditors. These authorizers approve
charters reluctantly while enforcing strict compliance-based oversight. Entities who
57
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
frequently fall into this category are local school districts that authorize schools
because of legal or political forces. Local school boards may tolerate a small number
of charters, but as the schools gain critical mass, these authorizers' attitudes can
change as they begin to view charters as a threat to their control and fiscal viability.
Ambivalent providers, indifferent managers. Authorizers in this category,
view chartering as a small part of their overall duties. Once charters are approved,
these entities provide minimal oversight or they tend to treat the schools in familiar
ways, failing to recognize the unique attributes of charter schools such as autonomy,
and financial control. Again, most local school boards fit this description along with
several state departments o f education.
Professional approvers, competent overseers. Authorizers in this group,
many times, are entities that were founded to support charter schools. The
researchers list the Massachusetts Board of Education, the Chicago school district,
and the University of Michigan as examples. These entities have committed
resources to the development and support of quality schools that have a high
probability of being successful.
Charter authorizers who took part in the National Accountability Survey (Hill
et al., 2001), from which the researchers collected data to formulate the
classifications described above, were just beginning to understand the importance of
their oversight responsibilities. The study began in 1997, early in the charter
movement, when most authorizers had only 5 years of experience, had sponsored
few schools, and had closed none. According to the authors (Hill et al., 2001),
58
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When asked what changes they would make given their experience, most
authorizers emphasized clarifying expectations and increasing monitoring of
charter school operations and outcomes. In one way or another, most agency
heads echoed one who wrote in our survey that the agency would give
"stronger emphasis on performance objectives, performance criteria,
benchmarks and measurement". Such desire for better-structured
measurement and oversight is surely evidence that at least some authorizers
are coming, however slowly, to understand their responsibilities for assessing
the performance of the charter and non-charter schools they oversee (59).
Two years since the National Accountability Study (Hill et al., 2001),
Bierlein-Palmer and Gau (2003) published their research on the influence of state
policies on charter schools and authorizers. The study also discussed the collective
oversight and accountability practices of charter school authorizers. Data were
gathered from 900 participants in 23 states and the District of Columbia. The
findings were reported across the states and also by individual states. States were
graded A through F on criteria that covered policy environment and authorizer
practices. Several of the findings support earlier research efforts, and show that
charter school authorizing practices are slowly evolving over time.
The researchers found that most authorizers are doing relatively well despite
unsupportive state policy environments. For example, several of the authorizers had
closed schools for a variety of reasons compared to no closures reported in earlier
studies. However, the findings support the data that show most revocations are for
fiscal or operational problems. Authorizers across the states score B or higher in
many subgroups of the following criteria: (a) approval process, (b) performance
contracts, (c) oversight, (d) renewal and revocation, and (e) transparency of the
application process. These data support research indicating that authorizers desire a
59
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
more structured method of evaluating a school's effectiveness, and through
experience, they are beginning to work together to understand their responsibilities
for accountability oversight (Hassel & Vergari, 1999; Hill et al., 2002; Vergari,
2001, 2002).
Under some elements of the criteria, the states did not get such high marks.
Under oversight, the states' authorizers averaged a grade of D in their ability to
protect schools from paperwork and bureaucratic compliance activities. They also
scored poorly when it came to publishing regular reports on the achievement of
individual charter schools and making periodic unannounced visits. External and
internal accountability evaluation of authorizers also received poor grades. Funding
for authorizers is inadequate and external agencies such as state auditors do a poor
job of monitoring authorizers.
Technical assistance for Charter School authorizing is increasing. The
National Association of Charter School Authorizers has received funding from the
U.S. Department of Education for the Building Excellence in Charter School
Authorizing project (National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2002)
designed to build capacity among charter authorizers of all types to "develop a
coherent, consistent approach to authorization" (p. 1). The project will consist of
critical charter authorizing design issues and questions for authorizers to consider
when developing their policies, examples of practice from authorizers across the
nation, and questions related to transparency issues.
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The Charter Schools Development Center based in Sacramento, California
provides workshops and technical support for charter schools as well as authorizers.
In December 2002, the organization began an accountability project that brought
together some of the largest charter granting entities in the state, authorizers who
have developed effective oversight practices, policymakers, as well as California
State University, and the University of California for the purpose of developing a
common accountability system for authorizers and charter schools. The project's
goals are to facilitate internal charter school accountability, provide authorizers an
external review system for monitoring schools and holding themselves accountable
for their oversight practices, and provide a school review program that is unique to
charter schools and meets the accreditation requirements of the University of
California and California State University (Obbard & Gardner, 2003).
Summary and Conclusions
Since the Mid-1980s, accountability for student achievement has taken two
distinct paths: (a) performance-based accountability and (b) market-driven
accountability. Performance-based accountability has three basic elements: (a) state
and or district determined standards of achievement, (b) data and methods to assess
performance toward meeting the standards, and (c) rewards and sanctions related to
student performance. Market accountability is based on parents’ ability to choose the
schools in which their children attend, support those schools, and withdraw that
support by leaving the school if their needs are not met. In a market accountability
system, the schools’ survival depends upon the ability to attract and maintain
61
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
students. Charter schools exemplify the market accountability concept in the public
school system.
During the last decade, California like the rest of the nation, has embraced the
concepts of performance-based accountability and choice. The state’s performance-
based accountability system continues to evolve as policymakers and educators try to
incorporate state policies with federal legislation to hold all schools accountable for
student achievement results.
The state has also encouraged the development of charter schools, and
continues to refine charter school laws. Charter schools represent the convergence of
performance-based and market accountability. States and districts, as well as parents,
hold charter schools accountable for meeting standards and the particular outcomes
of their charters. Not only is student achievement an important outcome, successful
charter schools must also demonstrate that they can maintain satisfied customers.
Although the unit of accountability has gradually shifted to the individual
school site, districts still play a critical role in the accountability process. Districts in
California and other states are developing strategies to overcome the difficulties of
implementing effective performance-based accountability systems.
Those districts that have oversight responsibility for charter schools have the
added challenge of developing fair and consistent ways of evaluating student
performance while balancing autonomy and accountability. Legal design, task
environment, political context, and internal leadership can influence charter
authorizer's regulatory practices. Charter authorizers across the country struggle with
62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
holding schools accountable and few charter schools have failed for academic
reasons. As they gain experience over time, chartering entities are beginning to work
together to develop effective strategies to hold schools accountable for student
achievement.
Implications
When performance based and market-driven accountability systems intersect,
they have the potential for enhancing education in two important ways. According to
Finn (2002), while standards and performance-based accountability systems are best
at identifying failing schools, market accountability systems can offer viable
alternatives to the students in those schools. Second, standards-based accountability
creates a “transparent” market in which parents are provided with achievement data
needed to make informed choices among public or private schools, and charter
authorizers have sufficient data to know which schools to renew.
California school districts that oversee traditional and charter schools stand at
the crossroads of the two accountability systems. They are responsible for holding all
schools, traditional and charter, accountable for meeting state standards of
achievement. In addition, these same districts must ensure that charter schools meet
the outcomes that reflect each school’s particular vision, and must acknowledge the
market forces to which the school is held accountable. Districts in California are
challenged to execute their duties toward a diverse group of schools fairly and
accurately, when state and federal accountability systems are still evolving from
bureaucratic compliance to standards-based performance. Now, as traditional as well
63
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
as charter schools become the unit of improvement, California districts will play
important role in building schools’ capacity to ensure that all students achieve.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 3
Methodology
This chapter describes the research methodology used in the study. The first
section provides an overview to the selected methodology and why the approach is
appropriate for this study. The second section outlines the rationale and process used
for selecting the sample population for the study. The third section presents a
description of the instruments used in the study, the process in which they were
developed, and their relationship to the research questions. The fourth section
explains the data collection process. The concluding section describes the data
analysis approach and activities.
Methodology Framework
The purpose of the study was to ascertain the degree (if any) to which differences
in school governance influence how schools are held accountable for student
performance in one California school district. The methodology of the study was
designed to answer the following questions:
1. How does the district provide accountability oversight for charter
schools?
2. What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight
for charter schools?
3. What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges of
accountability oversight for charter schools?
65
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. How does the district provide accountability oversight for traditional
public schools?
5. What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight
for traditional public schools?
6. What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges of
accountability oversight for traditional public schools?
7. To what extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less)
accountable for student achievement than traditional schools within the same
district?
A qualitative comparative case study research design was used because it was
appropriate for the purpose of the study. Although the unit of analysis was one
California school district with traditional and charter schools within that same
district, there are two categories of subunits: (a) the district's accountability practices
toward traditional schools, and (b) its accountability oversight function for charter
schools. It was necessary to conduct a comparative analysis between the two
subunits to determine the extent to which each governance structure was held
accountable. Yin (1994) refers to studies that contain multiple subunits as “imbedded
case study design”. For example, individuals responsible for charter oversight may
not be responsible for traditional school oversight, and policies developed for each
type of school may be different. By including a wide sampling of individuals and
related data, the study has greater depth (Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin, 1994).
66
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A case study approach has several features that are appropriate to this study.
First, the context in which the participants interact is important to the study. Case
study research is appropriate when environmental conditions and the context in
which individuals function and interact are relevant to understanding the
phenomenon of the study (Isaac & Michael, 1995; Miles & Huberman, 1994; Yin,
1994).
Second, the study was investigating the conditions that influenced a particular
district’s actions, and the strategies it used to hold schools accountable for student
achievement. Case studies are useful in revealing how a specific group solves day-to-
day problems (Merriam, 2001). Because a single case study concentrates on one
group, “this specificity of focus makes it an especially good design for practical
problems— for questions, situations, or puzzling occurrences arising from everyday
practice" (p. 29).
The third relevant feature o f case study research is its descriptive nature that
leads to the development of theories. Rich prose descriptions are capable of
including a variety of complex variables, and how they interact over a specific time
frame (Merriam, 2001). According to Yin (1994), the most important application of
case study research “is to explain the causal links in real-life interventions that are
too complex for the survey or experimental strategies” (p. 15). This study utilized
data from a wide variety of sources within the environment such as quotations from
interviews, participants’ opinions and perceptions, and document analysis.
67
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Fourth, the outcomes of the study were dependent upon conditions within a
specific context. How participants respond is contingent upon their roles and the
circumstances in which they perform their duties. A case study research approach is
appropriate when the phenomenon being studied has no definitive outcomes (Yin,
1994).
Sample and Population
Sample Selection
One large urban California school district with traditional and charter schools
was selected as the unit of analysis for the study. The district had to meet the
following selection criteria: (a) contain traditional and charter schools, (b) have at
least one charter school that had recently renewed its charter, or was scheduled to
renew during the 2002-2003 school year, (c) and have in place a standards-based
accountability system and charter school accountability policies.
Purposeful sampling (Merriam, 2001), a method by which the researcher
chooses a sample from which the most relevant data can be gathered, was used in
order to provide rich information that was applicable to the study questions. The
California Department of Education (CDE) Charter School Division website data
base was used to locate the names of charter authorizing districts and statistics on
each charter school, such as the date of authorization, population, and program focus.
By locating the date of authorization, one could determine the charter renewal date.
A list was made of each district with charter schools that had recently been renewed
or were scheduled to be renewed during the 2002-2003 school year. Two districts
68
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that met the selection criteria for charter renewal were initially considered.
Additional information on the districts and their schools was then gathered from each
district's website. For example, one district had published its annual goals and
expectations for schools on the web page along with each school's School
Accountability Report Card (SARC).
One of the two districts was eliminated because of its small size. The other, a
large urban district with two charter schools going through renewal, seemed to meet
all of the criteria and was finally selected for the study.
The participant sample included five district administrators who were
responsible for providing accountability oversight to charter or traditional schools,
and four school site principals. The district level participants included the
superintendent, two central office directors from the student achievement
department, the charter schools coordinator, and one field administrator. The four
school site principals represented two charter schools, one traditional school, and one
small autonomous school. Fictitious names were used for the district and the
participants to guarantee their anonymity. Unique job titles or names of programs
that could be easily linked to the district were changed.
District
Seaview is a large urban unified district (kindergarten through 12th grade) in
California. The district has over 50,000 students and is ethnically and
socioeconomically diverse. The student population is 43% African American, 32%
Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 6% Caucasian. The stability rate of students, starting in the
69
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
lowest grade and graduating at the highest grade, is 37%. English language learners
comprise 37% of the student population. Seaview chartered its first school in 1993
and currently has 15 operating independent charter schools.
Central Office Administrators
The superintendent had held his position for 3 years. His prior assignment
was as superintendent of a smaller northern California unified school district. The
directors from the student achievement department represented secondary and
elementary education. The charter schools coordinator was completing her first year
as a full-time employee. The field administrator supervised several middle school
principals.
Site Principals and Their Schools
All of the principals who participated in the study were from middle schools.
One charter school principal was completing his second year at Oceanside, a small
school with a predominately Hispanic student population. Oceanside, the oldest
charter in the district, was undergoing its second renewal. This principal was selected
for in-depth interviews because the school's history had the potential to offer a rich
source of information. Coincidentally, both charter school renewals were deliberated
at the same time. Though not a part of the in depth interviews, the second charter
school principal was interviewed briefly by telephone mainly to corroborate
information acquired from the charter schools coordinator and the Oceanside
principal. She represented Freedom Charter, a small, predominately African
American school, which currently had only 8th grade students.
70
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The traditional school principal had held his position for 4 years at
Wildwood, a large, predominately African American middle school. He had been the
vice principal prior to his appointment as principal of Wildwood. This particular
principal was selected because his school fell within the same Similar Schools Rank
based on the Academic Performance Index as the charter school.
The third principal represented Challenge Academy, a small, autonomous
middle school. This administrator had held his position for 2 years. The district's
small autonomous schools have some attributes of charter, as well as traditional
schools. Based on the superintendent's vision of reform, the district had developed
several small autonomous secondary schools for the purpose of providing
alternatives to charter schools, involving families, and raising the achievement of
low performing students whose needs had not been met by large traditional schools.
Though not as autonomous as charters, these nine schools have some flexibility in
selecting curriculum, professional development, and how they allocate certain funds.
The superintendent personally evaluated the principals of these schools. Information
from the principal of Challenge Academy was not used in the comparison of the
district's traditional and charter school accountability practices. Interview data was
used primarily to support information received from the superintendent.
Three of the schools, Oceanside Charter, Wildwood Middle school, and
Challenge Academy fell within the same Similar Schools Rank based on the
Academic Performance Index. Table 1 shows the demographics and API scores for
each of the schools. Data used to compile the table were gathered from the district's
71
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
public data portal and from DataQuest, the California Department o f Education's
data porta!.
Table 1
Demographics and API Scores o f Sample Schools
Demographics
And API Scores Schools
Oceanside
Charter
Wildwood
Middle School
Challenge
Academy
Grade Span 6-8 6-8 6-8
Enrollment 165 1131 157
Etfanicit?
African American 0.0% 46.5% 18.5%
Hispanic 78.5% 48.0% 62.4%
Asian 0.0% 3.1% 10.2%
White 0.0% 0.4% 3.2%
Filipino 0.0% 0.1% 3.8%
Native American 0.0% 0.0% 1.9%
Other 21.5% 1.8% 0.0%
English Learners 46% 38% 48%
Free/Reduced Lunch 100% 76% 87%
2002 API 503 477 525
State/ Similar Schools Rank 1/4 1/2 1/6
72
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Instrumentation
Interview Protocols
Interview protocols with structured and semistructured questions were
designed to provide data to answer the study questions presented in chapter 1.
Interview Protocol 1: District Oversight for Charter School Accountability was used
with individuals responsible for charter school accountability oversight. Interview
Protocol 2: District Accountability System was used with those participants
responsible for traditional school accountability oversight. Both protocols were used
to interview any participant who happened to be associated with traditional and
charter school accountability. The protocols are located in Appendix A.
The interview protocols were developed after reviewing surveys and
interview questions from current research studies on accountability oversight
practices for charter or traditional public schools (Guth et al., 1999; Hassel &
Batdorff, 2002; Hill et al., 2001). The protocols were designed as interview guides to
elicit rich information and meaningful data. The responses of the participants guided
the order in which the questions were asked, and questions were adjusted to fit the
roles of the participants or their familiarity with the topics or issues. Some of the
questions have supplementary probes that were used only when a more detailed
response was needed. Other probes were spontaneously generated by the specific
responses of the participants. Both protocols were divided into three sections that
corresponded to the topic of each study question. Table 2 shows the relationship
between the protocol sections and the study questions.
73
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 2
The Relationship o f Interview Protocol Sections to StudJ y Questions
Interview Protocol Sections Study Questions Addressed in Study Questions Addressed in
Interview Protocol 1 Interview Protocol 2
Section 1: Asks structured, How does the district provide How does the district provide
semi-structured, and open- accountability oversight for accountability oversight for
ended questions to discover charter schools? traditional public schools?
background information,
describe key elements of the
system, and application.
Section 2: Asks open-ended What are the specific What are the specific
questions designed to elicit challenges of district challenges of district
information on challenges to accountability oversight for accountability oversight for
the implementation of the charter schools? traditional public schools?
accountability system and
strategies to overcome the What strategies does the What strategies does the
challenges. district utilize to overcome the district utilize to overcome the
challenges of accountability challenges of accountability
oversight for charter schools? oversight for traditional public
schools
Section 3: Asks open-ended To what extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less)
questions for comparison of accountable for student achievement than traditional schools
traditional and charter within the same district?
accountability systems,
challenges of implementing
both.
74
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Data Management Instruments
A variety of tools were used to collect and keep track of data in an efficient
manner, and to provide on-going analysis. First, a portable tape recorder was used to
supplement note taking during face-to-face interviews. Later, the interviews were
transcribed using a laptop computer. Second, a contact summary sheet (Miles &
Huberman, 1994) was used systematically throughout the study to reflect upon the
salient data gathered from each participant or observation. The contact summary
consisted of a single sheet containing questions designed to summarize information
about each contact (see appendix B). The third tool was a document summary form
(Miles & Huberman, 1994) designed to record the significance of each document,
provide a summary of the contents, and record the context in which the document is
associated (see Appendix C).
Data Collection
Several rounds of data collection took place between March and June 2003.
Before any interviews were held, initial contact was made with the superintendent's
office in February 2003 to learn the procedure for securing permission for the study.
A description of the study including background information in summary form, the
rationale for selecting the district, the issues under investigation, and the study’s
significance to the district, the larger education community, and policymakers was
sent to the deputy superintendent. Permission to proceed with the study was granted
by telephone 2 weeks later.
75
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interviews with the superintendent, charter schools coordinator, one central
office official, Oceanside's principal, and Wildwood's principal took place in each
participant's work place to allow access to documents. These interviews were tape
recorded and later transcribed. Another brief interview was held with Oceanside's
principal in Sacramento at an Accountability Project meeting conducted by the
Charter Schools Development Center to clarify statements he made in the initial
interview. Interviews with four of the participants, the secondary school director, the
field administrator, the small autonomous school administrator, and the principal of
Freedom Charter were conducted by telephone due to the constraints of their
schedules. The reading of a standard protocol introduction that described the purpose
of the study and how the interview would be conducted preceded each interview.
The average length of each interview was 50 minutes.
The first participant interviewed, after permission was granted to conduct the
study, was the charter schools coordinator. The interview took place in her office so
that she could provide me with documentation to support her statements. She also
supplied contact information for the principals of Oceanside and Freedom Charter
Schools and referred the researcher to the department of the two central office
directors interviewed at a later date.
The elementary level central office director from the student achievement
department was interviewed in April at her office. She provided most of the district
documentary evidence for the study and verified that the school sites chosen for the
study were appropriate. The interview with the secondary director was held by
76
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
telephone at a later date. This interview was held to support the data received from
the principal of the traditional school and to ask clarifying questions about
accountability practices for secondary schools. This director also provided contact
information for the field administrator who supervised the principal of the traditional
school interviewed in the study. The interview with the field administrator was held
by telephone in June primarily for the purpose of supporting evidence acquired
through documents and earlier interviews with the superintendent and traditional
school principal.
Due to the demands of his schedule, the interview with the superintendent
took place in his office in May. This interview was also tape recorded and later
transcribed. During the course of this interview, the superintendent suggested that the
researcher interview the principal of one of the small autonomous schools since he
personally monitored the progress of these schools. The original design of the study
called for interviews with one charter and one traditional school principal. However,
based on the superintendent's recommendation, a telephone interview was held in
June with the principal of the small autonomous school. Although the presence of the
small autonomous schools provided important data on Seaview's strategies to
overcome the challenges of accountability oversight, the district's accountability
relationship with the charter and traditional schools remained the primary focus of
the case study.
Two observations were made during the course of the study. The first
observation was of an April 2003 board of education subcommittee meeting in which
77
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
a charter school petition hearing took place. The second observation was o f a May
2003 governing board subcommittee meeting at which the board deliberated
Oceanside and Freedom's charter renewals.
Throughout the study, written evidence was gathered to support data
collected from interviews and observations. This documentary evidence was
collected from school sites, the district office, the district's web site, and from the
California Department o f Education data portals. A comprehensive list of documents
is contained in Appendix C. Table 3 shows the relationship of the study questions to
the data sources. The study question topics are listed in the first column. The data
sources head the remaining columns. An X indicates a data source for a study
question.
Table 3
The Relationship o f Data Sources to Study Questions
Study Question Topic Interviews Observation Document
S AD FA CC TP CP AP Analysis
Traditional School
Accountability X X X _ _ X _ X
_ x
Traditional School
Accountability X X X _ X __ X
— —
Challenges
Traditional School
Accountability Strategies X X X _ _ _ X
_ x _ x
78
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 3 (continued)
The Relationship o f Data Sources to Study Questions
Study Question Topic
S AD
Interviews
FA CC TP CP AP
Observation Document
Analysis
Charter School
Oversight X X _ X _ _ X _ _ X X
Charter School
Oversight Challenges X
— _ X _
X _ X X
Charter School
Oversight Strategies X
—
_ X _ X _ X X
The Extent of
Traditional and Charter
School Accountability
X
—
_ x _ — —
X X
S = Superintendent TP = Traditional School Principal
AD = Achievement Director CP = Charter School Principal
FA = Field Administrator AP = Autonomous School Principal
CC = Charter Schools Coordinator
Data Analysis
The purpose of the study was to ascertain the degree (if any) to which
differences in school governance influence how schools are held accountable for
student performance in one California school district. To answer this question, once
the data were gathered, the findings were analyzed through the filter of a simple
conceptual framework listing the commonly agreed upon performance-based
79
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
accountability systems criteria: (a) standards, (b) assessment, and (c) rewards and
sanctions. Evidence from interviews, documents, and observations was recorded in
the appropriate categories on the framework. A comparison was made o f the
accountability approaches for charter and traditional schools to show what
differences or similarities existed among them. Table 4 shows the conceptual
framework for performance-based accountability. The completed comparison table
can be found in chapter 4.
Table 4
Accountability Conceptual Framework
Standards Assessment Rewards and Sanctions
Standards used Assessment measures Rewards
Goals and outcomes Use of data Interventions
Curriculum and capacity On going monitoring and Sanctions
building capacity building
Summary
This chapter discussed the research methodology used in the study and why a
qualitative case study approach was appropriate. It contained a description o f the
sample population and section process, instrumentation, data collection, and data
analysis procedures. The relationship of the research questions to the interview
protocols and data sources was illustrated. The next chapter will present the findings
by research question and discuss their relevance to the literature, and implications.
80
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 4
Data and Findings
Study Question 1: District Accountability Oversight fo r
Charter Schools
Data fo r Study Question 1
Study Question 1 asked, "How does the district provide accountability
Oversight for Charter Schools?" The question focused on the district's process for
holding charter schools accountable for student achievement. Data were collected
from interviews, observations, and documents. Interviews were held with the
superintendent, the charter schools coordinator, and two charter school principals.
One board meeting was attended to observe district protocol and public comments at
a charter petition hearing. A second board meeting was attended to observe the
board's deliberations on the two charter petition renewals. District and school site
charter documents were collected and analyzed.
Findings fo r Study Question 1
This section presents the findings for study question 1. The first part provides
background information and the organization o f the district's charter school
department. The next four parts present data on how the district holds charter schools
accountable for student achievement during the approval, oversight, revocation, and
renewal processes. Part six presents data gathered from interviews with the two
charter school principals. Parts seven and eight present data on the districts public
hearing and deliberation process for the two charter school renewals.
81
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Department organization. Most information on the district's charter school
policies and practices was generated from the charter schools coordinator who was
completing her first year as a full-time employee. The charter schools office consists
of one full-time coordinator and a part-time administrative assistant. District
employees from other departments assist with the screening of new and renewal
charter petitions. When a charter is submitted, a team o f employees review elements
of the charter related to their areas of expertise, while individuals with broad
experience in school development look at the overall document. One person from the
legal department, among other assignments, has explicit responsibility for charter
related legal issues. The district relies on the charter schools coordinator to interpret
the minutia of charter law, and to explain how it differs in general from the
California Education Code, and to monitor the 15 authorized charter schools.
The petition review process and accountability. Like many other school
district authorizers, Seaview's charter school policies and practices have evolved
over time. Seaview issued its first charter in 1993 making it one of the pioneering
authorizing districts in California. According to the charter schools coordinator,
The early charter documents read like ‘very pleasant narratives’ without
specifics. Almost every charter talked about the wonderful things the
developers wanted to accomplish, but they were not explicit about how and
what those schools would do to lead to the success of their accomplishments.
This district, like many others across the state, did not require early charters
to establish measurable objective performance goals for student achievement. The
current charter petition review process now requires petitioners submitting new and
renewing charters to write the documents as "performance contracts.” Many of the
82
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16 required charter elements such as employee qualifications are explicitly defined
under charter law, thus making it easier for the screening committee to measure
compliance and to see if they are being met in practice; however, academic
performance has not been specifically defined. Because of the challenges of holding
previous charter schools accountable for ambiguous student goals and outcomes, the
district reviewers are beginning ask petitioners to show a more coherent link between
the first three charter elements: (a) description of the educational program, (b)
measurable student outcomes, and (c) methods to assess pupil progress toward
outcomes. This new process is designed to make it easier for the district to determine
if the school is meeting the terms of the charter and student outcomes.
In the past, the district spent considerable time providing technical support to
applicants during the development process before submitting the petition to the
school board. According to the coordinator, the district now seems to be moving
away from being an "internal consultant" to charter schools developers. "As the
monitoring role becomes a bigger obligation, I sense the district is moving toward
that part of the responsibility rather than providing a lot of time to counsel and coach
new applicants or even renewing charter schools", she stated. Currently, potential
applicants are provided with a packet that includes the following documents: (a)
District Guidelines and Requirements o f Charter School Petitions, (b) Charter
Petition Screening Rubric adapted from a template developed by the Charter Schools
Development Center, (c) The Charter Schools Act of 1992 with the most recent
amendments, (d) California Department of Education Charter Schools Office contact
83
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
information, and (e) Guide to the Brown Act created by the Charter Schools
Development Center.
Charter petitions that successfully pass the screening committee are
submitted to a standing 7 member subcommittee of the Board of Education called the
Instruction Committee. This committee reviews and makes recommendations to the
Board on issues that influence curriculum and instruction-related programs. The
committee holds a public hearing to determine the degree o f support the proposed
school has from the community. The petitioners have approximately 15 minutes to
describe their petition and advocate for the charter school. At a future meeting, the
committee deliberates the viability of the petition, relying heavily on the staff report
provided by the charter schools coordinator. The committee's recommendation is
presented to the full school board for approval.
Ongoing oversight fo r accountability. Once a charter has been authorized,
oversight provided by the district has traditionally been limited to fiscal and
operational viability and legal compliance. Because these areas generally require a
standard of "pass or fail,” and have been sufficiently well-defined in charter law,
they are the easiest for the district to measure. According to the charter school’s
coordinator, the district has relied on the school community to hold the charter
school accountable for academic performance, leaving that oversight function to the
charter board and parents. There have been no required annual reports, or site visits
to monitor the teaching and learning. Though no site-supplied data has been
regularly collected, the charter schools office does analyze annual achievement data
84
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
from the California Student Testing and Reporting (STAR) system. Most recently,
however, some of the newer charters have committed to reporting every year on a list
of items such as student achievement, attendance, and suspension/expulsion data.
This will be the first year the district collects these documents.
The coordinator seemed sensitive to the charter schools' desire to be
autonomous while needing to fulfill district, state, and federal compliance
requirements. There is some concern about certain schools meeting "pass fail"
requirements, such as credentialing or background checks and staying on top of
deadlines for submitting required compliance information. There are no district
personnel to tell the charters to do certain requirements the way traditional schools
have. The coordinator commented,
Charters have chosen to be their own district so we don't provide that support
for them. They would probably be highly resentful if we tried. And yet, we
find out after-the-fact when they miss deadlines, and that concerns us. We're
asking a lot of people who start a charter school to manage resources, the
changes constantly happening in the law, administrative requirements, and
oh, by the way, deliver quality education.
There are two charter schools that have relationships with organizations
similar to education management companies. The coordinator believes that they may
perform better in the fiscal and operational compliance sense because those agencies
take the administrative burden away. A few other schools have contracted for back-
office support for some of the administrative tasks, especially fiscal management.
Revocation and accountability. The current charter schools coordinator could
recall two instances when charters were revoked. Neither revocation was based on
poor student achievement. In one instance, the charter failed because of difficulties
85
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
with governance. Although many sectors from the school community tried to help
the school stabilize, the internal problems were too great to overcome, thus causing
some families to leave. Some parents who remained tried to make a difference, while
others did not have the skills or time to affect positive change.
The most recent revocation was caused by the school's inability to attract a
large enough student population to implement its program. Although many people
admired the school's ambitious goals, the market did not materialize. "It was a sad
day when the charter was revoked . . . and there were no hard feelings. We would
welcome them back, but we needed to get the few students attending back to a
learning environment," stated the charter schools coordinator.
Renewal and accountability. Two charter schools happened to be going
through the renewal process during the study. For these schools, the process is
similar to that of approving new charters: (a) petition submittal, (b) review of the
petition by staff members, (c) public hearing, and (d) deliberation and decision
making by the Instruction Committee and full school board. To plan for the renewal
process, the coordinator met separately with the principals and key staff members of
both schools early in the year to convey the district's expectations for renewal.
Because of the evolution in charter law over the passed 5 years, both schools had to
revise their charters to address new elements and requirements. The district provided
the schools with a reviewing rubric that indicated the criteria by which the renewal
petition would be evaluated.
86
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Although the district rubric gives some guidance to schools, the coordinator
admits that it is not as helpful as she would prefer it to be. The department was
currently restructuring, and part of that process was the revision of the rubric and
renewal materials for schools. In addition to the rubric, the schools were encouraged
to view the charter as a "performance contract" with explicit goals for student
achievement. The coordinator stated,
In some of the early years, people viewed charter language as a high goal in
the tradition of ‘man’s reach should exceed his grasp.’ What we are trying to
consistently convey is that might have been OK 7 to 10 years ago, but now,
this is a performance contract. We will expect it to be rigorous: Challenge
yourself, but don't set the bar so high that even you can't expect to achieve it.
Two factors seem to be catalysts for the district's new accountability focus.
First, the accountability requirements of No Child Left Behind and the state's focus
on schoolwide achievement, are causing the district to send the message to
prospective and renewing charter schools, that they should not expect the school
board to be more lenient about accountability than it is with traditional schools.
Second, the district is beginning to feel the economic strain of the loss of revenue
from charter schools and the facilities requirements under Proposition 39. This
legislation requires districts to provide facilities for a charter school if 80 or more
students attending the school reside in the school district. According to the
coordinator, politically, districts are beginning to feel the fiscal pressure from
independent charter schools.
Seven to 10 years ago, one or two charters were an experiment, a fly speck of
a bother With Proposition 39, districts are more aware of the pressure
placed on them by charter schools. It is reasonable for charters to be met with
greater resistance and a tougher standard for approval or renewal.
87
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
When a charter is renewed, the staff and the board look at academic progress,
parent support, fiscal and organizational viability, and faithfulness to the terms of the
charter. The superintendent consistently reinforces with the staff and the board that
academic growth is the most important indicator of a school's success. For the two
charter schools going through the renewal process, he gave the board and the staff
the directive to look at current data that demonstrate academic growth for students.
Although the charter schools department pays more attention to a charter school’ s
similar schools comparison ranking than the statewide ranking, it wants to focus on
how the school demonstrates that its students have closed learning gaps. If students
were behind to start with, have they caught up with their grade peers? Have they
surpassed their peers? How do they compare to other students in the district with the
same characteristics? If they were not behind, have they stayed even or accelerated,
especially compared to similar students in the district? According to the coordinator,
We are hoping that successful charters in the district are at least as effective,
or preferably more effective with the populations they have attracted than
similar students elsewhere in the district. We want to take careful note to see
what you did that we can be mimicking in the district. Perhaps it can't be
mimicked, but replicated with similar populations, or interest areas.
Market accountability also plays a role in renewal in Seaview. Have complaints from
parents been successfully resolved? Are there measures of parent satisfaction by the
amount of participation and renewed attendance over time? According to the
coordinator, public display of support is encouraged, but answers to these questions
are more persuasive than a one-time large turn out at the public hearing.
88
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The staff looks at the school's fiscal condition as part of the renewal process.
The presence of a cash reserve, consistently balanced budget and successful audits
are indicators of fiscal viability that are taken into consideration when a charter is
renewing.
A school's adherence to charter law and faithfulness to the charter are
important. Did the school do what it said it would do? Did it meet the student
outcomes and standards it set for itself? This is anticipated to be the hardest area for
the school to show evidence because the schools have been evolving and
commitments made five years ago were, for the most part, "soft and fuzzy.” The
coordinator believes that schools and the district may have to extrapolate from
general paragraphs how the charter rhetoric was translated into tangible outcomes
even though there may not be numeric scores that align with the original goals.
A perspective from the charter schools. Two charter school principals whose
schools were undergoing renewal at the same time were interviewed for the study.
They commented on their relationship with the district and the renewal process.
According to Mr. Lopez, site principal for Oceanside, a renewing charter school, his
relationship with the district is unique. As the first charter to be granted by the
district, the authorizing process has been a 10-year learning experience for his school
and the district. Ms. Green, founder, and principal of Freedom, another charter
experiencing its first renewal, agreed that the district is still in the process of working
out its accountability system and that standards and expectations have been limited,
and are still evolving.
89
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Both principals confirmed that they received little ongoing oversight other
than for compliance issues, and they received no site visits for accountability
purposes. They indicated that they relied on their charter boards to hold them
accountable for student achievement. The CDE data portal provides schoolwide and
subgroup data for the STAR system, but charter schools must keep track of
individual student data and site-specific assessment results.
As Mr. Lopez reflected on the schools original 10-year-old charter and first
renewal document drafted 5 years ago, he stated that the changes were basically
cosmetic or nonexistent. For the 2002-2003 renewal, since no current staff members
were in the school when the first two charters were drafted and the school had
different needs, he decided to rebuild the charter by creating a process for goal
setting that included staff, student and community meetings, and surveys. This time,
at least half of the staff was directly involved in rewriting the charter and the whole
staff was indirectly involved in some way.
Although the principal felt that the renewal process helped the school write a
stronger charter, he indicated that he and the staff had moments of frustration along
the way. He described the extra hours required of key staff members to do research,
survey stakeholders, and meet with the charter board to keep them informed of the
school's progress. Early in the school year, the principal felt that the charter revisions
were on track, and that he had created an inclusive process. He then discovered that
the charter needed to address the 16 required elements and include measurable goals
and outcomes. He had assumed that the 16 elements were only required for new
90
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
charters. A few times the school felt it had completed the charter and found it had to
go back and address new requirements. He commented that if he had to go through
another renewal, it would be easier because he has had the experience and now
knows what the expectations are. He indicated that he was not clear on the
expectations when the school started the renewal process.
Mr. Lopez said he met with the charter schools coordinator in October to
discuss the renewal process. At that time, he found out about the 15 charter elements
that later became 16 elements. The school was asked to address the elements and
establish measurable objective goals and outcomes. Mr. Lopez stated that he had
"numerous" conversations with the charter schools coordinator and turned in a
couple of drafts before the final. He indicated that this was a "long, tedious and at
times frustrating process" for the school. After the principal found out about the 16
elements, he clearly understood that if the charter was to be approved, the 16
elements needed to be addressed. He stated,
The challenge was to fulfill the requirements and still remain true and honest
about what the students, parents, and teachers saw as needs and priorities for
the school and align that with what the district told us we needed.
Mr. Lopez appreciated that the district did not dictate specific charter outcomes, but
offered suggestions as to how the school could express what it wanted and how it
would be achieved in a manner that would be acceptable to the staff. Although the
district gave constructive feedback, he was never told exactly what to do.
The district added an additional accountability requirement for the renewing
schools. According to Mr. Lopez, the school also found out in December or January
91
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
that it was required to submit a 5-year report on best practices, what worked or did
not work, and successes. The school was told that in the future, the successful
practices would be considered for the traditional public schools. This came as a
surprise, since the school had not been asked to turn in accountability reports in the
past. "Every month we submit attendance and fiscal reports, but never academic," he
stated. Though time-consuming, Mr. Lopez admitted that this added requirement
proved to be a useful tool that helped the school analyze its progress over time. The
school used the CDE web site to gather demographic and student achievement data
for the report. The principal was quite proud of the fact that the school increased its
2001 base API score by 57 points, thus exceeding its growth target of 19 points.
Oceanside's new charter petition addressed the 16 charter elements in a way
that was more comprehensive than their current 5-year-old charter. The final charter
renewal petition that Oceanside submitted to the district in March addressed the 16
elements of charter law, and presented measurable academic and sociocultural
student outcomes.
In comparison to the outcomes listed in the 1998 charter, the new outcomes
were strikingly different. The 1998 charter listed nine outcomes. O f the nine, only
three had the possibility of being measured by some type of objective assessment.
None of the outcomes were specifically aligned to an assessment measure. However,
three measures were listed to achieve the nine outcomes. O f the three, only one of
the measures identified the extent to which the students would show that they had
acquired the skills or knowledge specified in the outcomes. In contrast, the 2003
92
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
charter had six academic and four sociocultural goals, each aligned with a specific
assessment tool and a standard of measurement including the percentage of students,
the level of proficiency required to meet the goal, and a specific time frame.
The new academic outcomes referenced state objective assessments as well
as schoolwide assessments such as rubrics and projects. For example, the school
committed to meet or exceed its annual API improvement target (5% of the
difference between its yearly API and an API of 800). Another goal indicated that at
least 5% of students who score at the below basic or far below basic levels of the
California Standards Test will improve their performance on the same tests by at
least one level in one year o f study at the charter school. The following outcome was
measured by a schoolwide assessment tool: After 2 years o f study at the school, 75%
of all graduating students will be able to write English proficiently as demonstrated
by a score of three or four on the school's English Writing Rubric.
The hearings. The public hearing required for renewing charter schools gave
both schools an opportunity to share their accomplishments with the district. A large
group of parents, students, and teachers attended the hearings, many of whom were
prepared to give speeches in support of their school. In the interest of time, speeches
had to be limited to the schools' directors and one or two key parents, students, or
staff members. Ms. Green, who indicated to the committee that she did not often get
a chance to celebrate her school's accomplishments, had the school community stand
to be acknowledged. Then she proceeded to discuss the school's vision, values,
93
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
history, and academic achievements. The school's development director also spoke,
as did two parents and a child from the same family.
The hearings were important to the schools. Even though his school's time
was limited to 15 minutes and everyone who came to give support could not speak,
Mr. Lopez was happy with the results of the hearing for Oceanside. He exclaimed,
It was great! I was looking at their faces seeing the great support. The
speeches of the students were wonderful. The board did not make comments
but indicated that this was the school's time to shine. I was very happy with
so many people there. We directed something that parents and kids did
themselves and it was very satisfying.
Board deliberations and approval. In May, the Instruction Committee
deliberated the renewal of both charter schools in the same public session. The
charter schools coordinator reviewed the renewal process for the committee and the
criteria by which charters can be renewed. She proceeded to explain that the process
had evolved from what was expected 5 or 10 years ago. She pointed out the dilemma
of evaluating a school's academic performance against a charter that existed 5 years
ago that typically did not include measurements of performance that the district
requires today. She indicated that staff had been sifting through the data to provide
evidence to make a decision as to how to evaluate the school's performance. She told
the committee that several procedures were being put in place to simplify the
evaluation process in the future. These procedures included, raising standards on
what new and renewing charters need to look like, requiring explicit numeric
measures, and the department's commitment to conduct annual programmatic audits
for each charter school. In addition, with the help o f the accountability department,
94
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
she was developing a system to create school and charter-specific evaluation models.
With the new system, if an older existing charter does not define how achievement is
to be measured, ways will be found to collect and report meaningful achievement
data. Finally, she told the committee that the district is participating in an
accountability project with the Charter Schools Development Center to create a
charter-specific school quality review program that meets university accreditation
requirements.
Although both schools were eventually recommended for renewal, the
deliberations for each school were unique. The conversation about Oceanside
focused almost exclusively on student achievement. The staff report for Oceanside
asked that two measures of student performance be increased over what was in the
charter renewal petition. Oceanside's first charter goal stated 5% of students
performing below and far below basic on the California Standards Test, would
improve their performance after 1 year in the charter school. The staff report asked
that the percentage be changed to 20%, which would be essential if the school was to
close the performance gap.
Oceanside's second goal indicated that 50% of the students would score at
"acceptable" or "honorable" in all categories of the school's behavior rubric. The
staff recommended that 75% of the students score "acceptable" or above. They
reasoned that if only 50% of the students exhibited acceptable behavior, then the
other 50% would be unacceptable, which was unacceptable from the perspective of
the staff.
95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The committee indicated that although the school had made progress in the
past year, it had taken a long time to create a stable staff and to start seeing
achievement gains. One board member asserted that she would like to see at least
half of the children at or near grade level in reading and mathematics. She wondered
if the charter could be renewed for only 2 years, and then assess the school to see if
the progress and stability that seemed to have settled in continued. Another board
member concluded, "I think the issue is that if this charter would have come up for
review last year, you would not have been renewed because of the performance over
the years. The Oceanside community needs to know that explicitly."
The committee made it clear that it was interested in the school's academic
performance. For this reason, some members voiced concerns about renewing the
charter and asked for clarification of charter law on the issue of the terms of renewal.
They formally requested that the proposal be brought back in 2 years for public
review to make sure that the specified outcomes are being met or are somewhere
near the target. The committee also stated the importance of proceeding with the
plans to institute an annual review of all charter schools. After an agreement by the
school to revise its charter goals the Instruction Committee recommended the charter
for approval by consensus under the condition that the two goals be amended to a
more rigorous standard.
Oceanside's charter renewal was on a subsequent agenda for approval by the
full board. Along with the recommendation of the Instruction Committee, the
superintendent attached a letter to the board. In it, he stated that although Oceanside
96
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
had shown improvement in recent assessments, the percentage of students
performing at proficiency level and above on the California Standards Test, was far
below the district average for the appropriate grade levels. Stating that the charter
petition's original goals lacked sufficient rigor, he went on to explain that, although
reducing the number of students in the basic or far below basic of the California
Standards Test (CST) is desirable, it is more important to increase the percentage of
student who meet and exceed state performance standards. Therefore, the goal of the
school should be to increase the percentage of students performing at proficiency
level and above in the key accountability measures of English language arts and
mathematics on the CST, as required by state and federal guidelines and the
achievement targets set for all schools in district's Strategic Alignment Plan.
The Strategic Alignment Plan identifies baseline performance targets for
traditional schools called "Essential Indicators.” These targets have sufficient rigor to
enable schools to meet the state and federal guidelines for adequate progress and are
designed to be the primary evidence of a successful school. In an effort to set high
standards for achievement for charter schools that are consistent with the Essential
Indicators in the Strategic Alignment plan, the superintendent declared in his letter,
that these measures would be the criteria by which subsequent charter renewals for
Oceanside and other charters would be evaluated. Table 5 shows the baseline and 5-
year performance targets set for traditional schools and the targets established by the
Instruction Committee and superintendent for Seaview. With the amended goals, the
board voted unanimously to approve Oceanside's charter renewal.
97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 5
Oceanside and District Baseline Performance Targets
Percent
Proficient or
Adv. Proficient
Baseline 2002-03
Target
2003-04
Target
2004-05
Target
2005-06
Target
2006-07
Target
English/LA
Oceanside 5.00% 18.00% 31.00% 44.00% 57.00% 70.00%
District 15.00% 27.00% 37.80% 48.60% 59.40% 70.00%
Mathematics
Oceanside 2.00% 15.60% 29.20% 42.80% 56.40% 70.00%
District 13.50% 24.80% 36.10% 47.40% 58.70% 70.00%
Deliberations for Freedom's charter renewal did not focus on student
achievement. The staff report for Freedom Charter School indicated that the school
was experiencing academic success, was fiscally sound, and was not a burden to the
district. It consistently outscores other district middle schools on STAR reading and
mathematics. This year, it exceeded its API growth target by 28 points and had a
statewide rank of 3. Though small, the school has adequate financial reserves.
Freedom had a capable governing board and very low turnover in leadership. The
written staff report recommended renewal and suggested a set of follow-up questions
for the board to discuss with the petitioners.
The first four questions dealt with academic performance. For example, the
first question asked how the performance of the current eighth grade cohort
compared with the last. The second question asked for the specific interventions that
98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
helped underperforming students. Other questions related to parent satisfaction,
number of expulsions, lessons the district might learn from the school's experiences,
and outreach efforts.
Freedom had included much o f the data for these questions in the school's
progress report. The Instruction Committee chose not to ask questions about
academic achievement, but seemed mainly concerned about the school's lack of
ethnic diversity. Housed in an African American neighborhood, the school's four
foundational components are core academic studies, leadership development, literacy
development, and African American history and culture. Because of its location and
mission, the school's student population is almost exclusively African American with
a few students representing a blend of African American and other ethnic
backgrounds.
Stating its concern that the district would be vulnerable to a civil rights claim,
The Instruction Committee encouraged the school to broaden its focus to attract a
more diverse population. At the same time, it acknowledged that the district's
traditional schools were "out of balance". The principal of Freedom stated that the
school did not intend to exclude children of other ethnic backgrounds, but as it was
founded to address the concerns of educating African American students, it attracts
African American families.
The Board observed that the mission of the school's petition is the cause of
the problem and admitted that this situation was extremely challenging. It concluded
its comments by asking the school to make the nondiscrimination clause in its charter
99
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
more explicit. It needed to show that it has made a clear comprehensive effort to
diversify, and that'its admission practices are not exclusionary. Freedom's petition
was also approved by the Instruction Committee and by the school board at a
subsequent meeting.
Reflections on oversight. Both principals reflected on the district's oversight
for accountability and the renewal process they experienced. They acknowledged
that with one full-time coordinator, the charter department lacked the capacity to
provide much oversight. Ms. Green commented that she would welcome regular
communication with the district about the school's progress and clearer standards and
expectations for charter schools.
Mr. Lopez felt that a district renewal process similar to applying to a
foundation for a grant would have been helpful. Having a timeline and detailed,
incremental steps would have helped him avoid confusion. He also felt isolated and
wished that other people were going through the process in order to ask questions for
clarity and give each other feedback. Although Ms. Green's school was undergoing
its first renewal, he was not initially aware of it. Ms. Green also felt that district
expectations for renewal were unclear at the start of the process. She indicated that
she chose to rely primarily on the advice of the Charter Schools Development
Center. For her, this organization provides the most helpful guidelines for renewal
and most other charter issues.
100
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Summary o f Findings fo r Study Question 1
Study question 1 focused on the district's accountability oversight practices
for charter schools. Data sources included the charter schools coordinator, two
charter school principals, observations of a charter petition hearing and board of
education subcommittee deliberations on two charter renewals, and written
documents.
Seaview's charter division has only one full-time coordinator who receives
support from departments when reviewing charter petitions. The district has
traditionally provided technical support to charter petitioners and very little oversight
once charters are approved. Because of greater district, state, and federal emphasis
on student achievement and economic issues brought on by declining regular
enrollment due to charters and facilities issues, the district is now restructuring its
charter policies to require more rigorous standards for charter approval, and more
accountability oversight support for existing schools.
Charter school principals in the study recognize the district's limited capacity
to provide more oversight, and that accountability policies and practices are still
evolving. Principals would appreciate regular communication and more explicit
guidelines and expectations. Both principals appreciated the opportunity to share
their school's community support and accomplishments in the public hearings for
renewal.
Student achievement was a key factor in the district's deliberations on charter
petition renewal. One charter's renewal was contingent upon the school's willingness
101
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
to accept achievement goals recommended by the superintendent and the board that
were more rigorous than those written in the original charter renewal petition.
Beyond academics, issues of diversity versus each charter school's unique mission
challenge the district.
Clearly, the district is moving forward to implement stronger accountability
oversight. More rigorous criteria for charter approval are in place along with annual
reports and programmatic reviews for existing schools. The district recognizes that
competent oversight requires accurate data sources and is working to develop
systems that are compatible with charter goals.
Study Question 2: The Specific Challenges o f
District Accountability Oversight for Charter Schools
Data fo r Study Question 2
Study question 2 asked, "What are the specific challenges of district
accountability oversight for charter schools?" The question focused on the specific
issues of accountability oversight that presented the greatest challenges to the
district. Data were collected through interviews with the superintendent and the
charter schools coordinator, and an observation during the Instruction Committee's
deliberations on two charter petition renewals.
Findings fo r Study Question 2
The data analysis for study question 2 indicated that the district identified
specific challenges to its ability to provide accountability oversight for charter
schools. These challenges fell into five broad categories: (a) charter law, (b)
102
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessment (c) No Child Left Behind legislation (d) parent choice, and (e) politics.
This section describes the challenges under each category.
Charter law and oversight fo r student achievement. California's ambiguous
charter law affects the districts' oversight practices. The way in which the district
interprets oversight in charter law makes it difficult for it to intervene with corrective
action if the school is failing. According to the superintendent,
A challenge of authorizing charter schools is that charter law causes these
schools to have less accountability. Charter schools have the right to set their
own strategic plan, goals, and objectives that do not necessarily align with the
district's vision. The district is responsible for monitoring progress, and if the
school is failing, the district's only recourse is to take that information to the
School Board with the recommendation for charter revocation. Because
districts that are responsible to govern them do not have any other leverage
than to take away their charter, our hands are pretty well tied in that process.
There is no supervision unless you write letters and document what is going
on. You can do all that, but you can't give any tickets.
The superintendent believes that under charter law, the chartering district should
have more authority to give direction to and provide intermediate intervention for a
failing school or one that is in violation of charter law prior to taking action to
revoke the charter.
Assessing student progress. Seaview currently has limited capacity to
monitor charter school effectiveness based on data. Finding fair and reliable ways of
assessing annual student progress over time is a major challenge. The district has
schoolwide and subgroup STAR assessment data available for charter schools.
However, there are pitfalls to using this data source exclusively. Because most of the
schools are evolving, it is difficult to compare a school to itself or to other schools.
Some schools are adding a grade every year, which makes it difficult to establish
103
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
data on cohorts over time. Some have struggled with major governance restructuring.
One year might be disastrous, but the next might be splendid if the restructuring
effort was effective.
The ability track disaggregated individual student data is challenging for the
district. Because charter schools are considered independent of the district, the
schools conduct their own state standardized tests. Each charter school has its own
way of tracking student progress, or has not fully developed adequate systems. The
district has the same aggregate data schoolwide and for subgroups in its database that
the California Department of education provides. It does not have individual student
data. The coordinator feels that it would be useful for the department to collect
longitudinal data on individual students through the grades or even if they move to
other charter schools throughout the district.
Student transience makes meaningful data analysis difficult. Several charter
schools have high mobility rates, which creates barriers to a school or district's
ability to collect a significant number of students to form a cohort whose progress
can be tracked over time. Students move in and out of the district and between
regular and charter schools. According to the coordinator,
The dilemma for charters is how to promise a certain level of achievement
when you really don't control what your student population is going to be. If
we were to hold them to an exact score, that would be an impossible
prediction. If what they commit to is helping students develop and close
learning gaps, that goal may be easier to predict. No matter where a student
is, we will close the gap to some extent in so many years.
The desire to maintain small schools of choice causes problems for the
district as it attempts to evaluate school effectiveness. Charters in the district have
104
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relatively small numbers of students. Although they are small, comparing a charter to
another charter is problematic because they are all so different demographically and
in approaches to learning. For the same reasons, it is difficult to compare charter
schools to traditional district schools. The coordinator commented,
If tracking a small number of students year by year, one child has the flu on a
test day that can skew numbers in one direction. A couple o f well-prepared
students can skew it in another direction. In neither case does that necessarily
tell us that it was an effective school with effective teachers, or an effective
approach to teaching and learning. We favor small learning environments. So
it makes it difficult for us as evaluators. We don't want to encourage a school
to get big just to make it easy for us to be good evaluators.
Inconsistencies in assessment systems and requirements have had
complicating outcomes. The district has struggled with the proliferation of different
student assessment measurements and standards at the state and federal level. "How
much does it mean to compare one year's numbers to an earlier year if the testing
instrument has evolved? Even if the recently implemented components of STAR are
good, there is not much history,” the coordinator stated.
No Child Left Behind. The district is beginning to look at the legislation
under No Child Left Behind as it applies to charter schools. Where charters are
explicitly mentioned, the district has had clear direction. Conversely, questions arise
among district staff in those sections were regulations for charters are inconsistent.
The staff must attempt to determine if the law applies by default if charters are not
expressly mentioned, or if they are exempt. Will NCLB allow individual state
agreements, waivers, and interpretations with charters continue? For example, will
105
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NCLB define core subjects that differ from California's definition and will teachers
need to be credentialed according to federal guidelines?
Questions arose over accountability agreements between charter schools and
authorizing districts and how Adequate Yearly Progress applies. If the state
continues to allow authorizes and charter schools to define what performance goals
ought to be, what weight will AYP carry in charter agreements? Will charters under
existing agreements have to come up to a higher standard now or when they are
renewed? The lack of consensus throughout the state on fair, appropriate tests and
what to test creates a challenge for the district to develop an evaluation system that is
acceptable to most people. The district feels that multiple measures may create less
controversy, however, what if the school meets some, but not all of the criteria?
Under NCLB, teachers working in underperforming schools must be highly
credentialed. The district's charter schools have large numbers of teachers on
emergency credentials and waivers that do not fit the definition of highly qualified.
Hiring teachers with minimal credentials is a way that some charter schools are able
to stay within their budgets, according to the superintendent. There is some concern
that if these teachers are unable to work in charter schools with low achieving
students, the schools may not survive because they will not be able to afford to hire
fully credentialed teachers in all positions.
Acknowledging parent choice. Another challenge facing the district is
honoring parents' reasons for supporting a charter school. If a parent wants a child in
a school because it is small, safe, close to where he or she works and the siblings are
106
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
there, should that school be allowed to continue even if it cannot demonstrate
academic progress by federal and state standards? It will be difficult for the board to
try to revoke a school that has failed to show academic progress yet meets other
human needs, has strong community support, and the public perceives it as better
than the traditional school. According to the coordinator, "If the public perceives the
school is their child's best option, it is difficult to close it for poor academic progress
alone."
Political climate. According to the superintendent and the charter schools
coordinator, the political climate of the district can influence how the public
perceives school board decisions on charter school approval, oversight, or denial.
Regardless of the district's motive for a decision, there are those who will attribute it
to such factors as lack of desire for competition, or, the characteristics, however
defined, of the school community.
An organization such as the teachers' collective bargaining association, may
oppose favorable decisions on charters because it sees them as competition. For
example, at the Instruction Committee deliberations for the two charter school
renewals, an executive board member of the teachers' collective bargaining
organization, implored the Committee to deny the charters on financial grounds. He
argued that the charter teachers made more money than the district teachers did,
though they were not covered by the contract and had no retirement benefits.
According to him, charters have the potential to entice teachers to leave the district
107
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
thus creating an unstable teaching force that will eventually affect educational
outcomes for students.
Board members may have strong opinions of their own about charters, or feel
obliged to listen to persuasive constituency groups that may or may not favor
charters. There is concern that in cases where Seaview feels that it needs to take
action against a school that is violating charter law, the district's only recourse is to
provide documentation, and even then, pressure from various groups may cause the
Board not to support the district's argument against the school.
Summary o f Findings fo r Study Question 2
Study question 2 focused on the challenges of accountability oversight as
perceived by the district. Data were gathered from interviews with the
Superintendent and the charter schools coordinator, and observations conducted at a
Board of Education meeting.
Challenges could be classified into five areas. First, it was clear that the
district's interpretation of California charter laws affects its philosophy and actions
toward oversight and intervention. The notion that the only intervention is revocation
prevents the district from providing interim sanctions for failing schools.
Second, determining how to evaluate the effectiveness of a charter school's
program is challenging. Comparing a charter school to other traditional schools or
charters is problematic because of the uniqueness of each charter and small size.
Assessing student progress is difficult because of high mobility rates, and the
inability to tract data on individual and cohorts of students over time. The constant
108
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
evolution of state assessments and measures of progress has prevented the district
from establishing reliable baseline data.
Third, the No Child Left Behind legislation is confusing as it relates to
charter schools. The district is unclear as to which criteria will be used to evaluate
charter school progress. Will current district and charter accountability agreements
be honored or will higher standards be imposed on schools? Enforcing compliance
requirements, such as hiring highly qualified teachers has the potential of putting
some schools in jeopardy of closing.
The fourth challenge is honoring parent choice. Parents many times enroll
their students in charter schools for reasons other than academics. If a school is low
performing yet meeting other needs of students and their families, should it be
allowed to continue operating?
Finally, the political climate of the district has the potential to influence
district and school board decisions about charter schools. Constituency groups and
the board's own feelings toward charter schools are forces that affect actions toward
schools. Even with strong documentation the district may not get support for its
recommendation to sanction a school.
Study Question 3: The Strategies the District Utilizes
to Overcome the Challenges o f Oversight
fo r Charter Schools
Data fo r Study Question 3
Study question 3 asked, "What strategies does the district utilize to overcome
the challenges of oversight for charter schools?" The question focused on
109
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
understanding the ways in which the district is attempting to overcome the
challenges related to oversight for student achievement in charter schools. Data were
gathered from interviews with the superintendent, charter schools coordinator,
principal of Oceanside Charter School and the principal of Freedom Academy, the
small autonomous school.
Findings fo r Study Question 3
In compiling the data for question 3, it was clear that the strategies discussed
and observed were holistic and had the potential to help to mitigate more than one
challenge. The strategies rather than the challenges they were developed to overcome
provide the organization for this section.
Charter department reorganization. The past 10 years have provided the
district with experience as a charter authorizer. It now wants to build on that
experience by taking the next step to reorganize the charter department, define its
philosophy, and clarify its roles and responsibilities. The district has typically acted
as consultant by providing feedback and review for charter developers so that the
petitions had a greater chance of approval. It now wants to focus more energy on
increasing on-going accountability oversight for existing schools. According to the
coordinator,
In the past, applicants had the expectation that the district would help them
develop their charters. The frustration o f the district is that it is not our
responsibility to write the charter for the applicants. Nor is it our obligation to
implement the charter for them once they get approved .... We need to pull
back and create a different balance point.
110
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Networking with other charter authorizers and support providers. To
accomplish this redefinition of the role of the charter schools department, the
coordinator, and one charter school principal are participating in a statewide
accountability project for charter schools and charter-granting agencies sponsored by
the Charter Schools Development Center. The group has begun to share each other's
accountability documents and those from authorizers in other states. Participants in
the project have committed to assisting with the development and piloting of tools
for charter petition screening, oversight, and renewal. The tools include rubrics of
quality indicators, oversight guidelines, and instruments for charter screening, site
visits, and renewal.
Seaview plans to use these tools as a strategy to overcome some of the
ambiguities of charter law and political pressure by developing more explicit policies
that define what the standard of review will be for charter approval, ongoing
oversight, renewal, and revocation.
Establishing baseline performance targets. As described in the data for study
question 1, the superintendent and the Board have defined the standard of
achievement by which charters will be judged effective for renewal. These targets
are now established for all the schools in the district. For charters, this strategy
serves more than one district purpose. First, the targets are rigorous enough for
schools to meet Adequate Yearly Progress established by the state and federal
government. Second, it gives the district an objective measure of achievement
111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
capable of mitigating the influences of constituent groups on board of education
decisions.
Small autonomous schools. One strategy employed by the district to
counteract the challenges of charter school oversight has been the development of
small autonomous schools. Prior to coming to Seaview, the superintendent was
actively involved in developing small academies in his previous district. With the
support of community organizations, parent advocates, and educational non-profit
groups, he and the school board instituted these schools 2 years ago as a means of
giving more students, parents, and teachers a choice as to where and in what type of
environment they attend school. By providing more choice, he believes that there
will be less o f an incentive for charter schools. He also feels that by giving the small
autonomous schools more autonomy, yet not making them charter schools, the
district has a greater capacity to provide greater accountability oversight without the
encumbrance of charter law.
The superintendent personally oversees the nine small autonomous schools
and feels that they are held to slightly higher standards than traditional schools.
I look for better achievement. We are giving them more autonomy. There is a
trade-off between autonomy and accountability. I look at results. I look at
their neighborhood schools and I look for better results. I supervise the nine
schools, evaluate the principals, and read their plans.
The schools must still adhere to the Education Code, give district
assessments, and use the district's report card and standards-based materials. They
have greater autonomy in staff selection, professional development, governance, and
112
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
establishing their own unique vision. The schools are supported in part through non
profit organizations and grants.
Politically, these schools may be able to accomplish what charter schools
have failed to do. Because they are independent, charter schools stand apart from the
district and have alienated certain groups. The district is looking for support for
reform from within the system. The strategy o f working within the structure of the
district is to create buy-in from organizations such as teachers unions, and encourage
parents to stay in the district's schools. The director of Challenge Academy, one of
the small autonomous schools made the following statement:
Our goal is to collaborate and work together with the district, and eventually
the state, to develop systems that are responsive to student needs so that race,
language, and zip code are not predictors of student success and quality
education is equitable. It is important to maintain ourselves in the public
forum because it is where we have strength in redefining our unions and other
employees of the district. We have a greater capacity to access public and
private organizations willing to fund what we are trying to do if we exist in
the public market.
Improved data management systems. At the time this study was conducted,
members o f the district's Accountability Department were collaborating with the
charter department to develop more effective ways of tracking data on assessments
unique to charter schools. Because the system was still under development, no
further data on this project could be collected.
Summary o f Study Question 3
Study question 3 examined the strategies the district has developed to
overcome the challenges of oversight for charter school accountability. There is no
one-to-one correspondence between the strategies and the challenges. Each strategy
113
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
has the potential of addressing multiple challenges. The district is reexamining its
philosophy toward charter authorizing. In the future, it plans to provide more on
going oversight for the existing schools and less technical support for prospective
petitioners. More policies and tools are being developed to make charter approval,
renewal, and revocation more explicit and less susceptible to the pressure of
constituent groups. Seaview has sought support by networking with other charter
authorizers who are participating in the Accountability Project sponsored by Charter
Schools Development Center. More sophisticated data analysis systems are being
designed to allow the district to more accurately evaluate student achievement by
absolute and value added measures. School performance targets designed to ensure
that charter schools meet the achievement requirements of No Child Left Behind
have been established. Finally, to overcome the challenges of charter law while
creating choice and alternative opportunities for student learning, the district has
instituted small autonomous schools that are directly overseen by the Superintendent.
Question 4: District Accountability Oversight
fo r Traditional Public Schools
Data fo r Study Question 4
Study question 4 asked, "How does the district provide accountability
oversight for traditional public schools?" The question focused on the district's
practices for holding traditional public schools accountable for student achievement.
The data were gathered from interviews with the superintendent, directors from the
central office Division of Student Achievement, field administrator, a traditional
school principal and the principal of a small autonomous school. Additional evidence
114
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
was obtained through analyzing written documents obtained from the district office,
district web site, and school sites.
Findings fo r Study Question 4
The first part of the section is organized on the district's Strategic Alignment
Plan, the major instrument of accountability for traditional schools. It discusses the
plan's four areas of focus, which incorporate the elements of performance-based
accountability: standards, assessment, rewards, and sanctions. The section also
presents data from the point of view of two principals.
The Strategic Alignment Plan. In the fall of 2002, the district implemented
the Strategic Alignment Plan. This 5-year plan, designed to ensure that all students
meet high standards of performance, is the foundation of the district's accountability
system. The plan identifies four areas that contribute to student achievement: (a)
building community and strong relationships, (b) supporting excellence in teaching
and learning, (c) investing in people, and (d) developing excellence in operations and
services. To bring the Strategic Alignment Plan to the site level, each year schools
develop a Single Plan for Student Achievement aligned with district, state, and
federal requirements. The plan includes school goals and planned improvements in
student performance identified by the district. These improvements are referred to as
"Essential Indicators.” The current improvement priorities are as follows:
1. Essential Indicator #1: Student success in Reading, Language Arts,
Math, and Algebra. At least seven out of ten students (70%) will meet or
exceed state performance standards in reading, language arts, math, and
algebra, as measured by the California Standards Test.
115
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2. Essential Indicator #2: closing the Achievement gap. At least seven
out of every ten students (70%) in each racial/ethnic, language, or gender
subgroup will meet or exceed district performance standards in all core
subjects as measured by the California Standards Test.
3. Essential Indicator #3: English fluency for English language learners
and non-mainstreamed-English speakers. Ten out of every 10 students
(100%) continuously enrolled for seven years will be redesignated in 5 years.
4. Essential Indicator #4: Student high school graduation. At least nine
out of every ten students in grade twelve will meet requirements for
promotion to the next grade level.
5. Essential Indicator #5: Student attendance in school and class. Every
elementary school and middle school will attain a minimum of 97% annual
student attendance, and every high school will attain a minimum of 95%
annual student attendance.
Seaview's student achievement department has developed calendar and self-
analysis questions to assist the schools in the completion o f their Single Plans for
Student Achievement. Each month, a separate set of self-analysis questions must be
addressed by the faculty and governance groups such as the School Site Council,
School Advisory Council, and English Learner Advisory Council. This self-analysis
process is designed to facilitate the implementation of the district's Strategic
Alignment Plan at the site level and to make each school's plan a "living process"
rather than a static document. It also functions as an accountability tool as well as a
compliance document. As an instrument of accountability, the monthly questions and
evidence gathering process is designed to help each school community document its
progress toward reaching the goals and commitments established in the strategic
plan. As a compliance process, the self-analysis discussion questions, and required
116
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
documentation provide the state and NCLB mandated input for the school plans and
the state Coordinated Compliance Review (CCR) self review.
Standards. The district has adopted the California content standards. Two
objectives of the Strategic Alignment Plan are specifically related to the state
standards. The first objective is to provide standards-based instruction and
instructional materials. According to the Student Achievement Department directors,
the district has implemented Open Court Reading and Harcourt Mathematics for
elementary schools. Integrated into the reading and mathematics programs are
intervention strands for students two or more years below grade level, as well as
sections to address the needs of English learners and gifted students. School
improvement plans must identify how and by whom these and other standards-based
materials are used to improve student achievement. Secondary school courses are
aligned to the state standards. All new courses must be screened and approved by a
committee that calibrates content to the standards.
The second objective is to provide standards-driven professional
development for teachers and site administrators. School improvement plans must
address professional development activities related to standards-based materials and
instructional practices in general and for specific subgroups such as English
Learners, African American, Gifted and Talented and Special Education students. In
addition, instruction for the development of in-class or extended day interventions to
improve student performance must be identified. The district provides monthly
117
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
follow-up staff development that all teachers must attend. Schools may also identify
site initiated standards-based training.
Assessment. An objective of the Strategic Alignment Plan is to implement
ongoing assessment of progress by using state and local assessment to modify
instruction and improve student achievement. To achieve this objective, schools
must focus on summative as well as formative assessment. Plans must identify areas
of strength and weakness from the previous year's STAR assessments, list
modifications to student progress or staff development to address the weaknesses,
and include an evaluation of their impact. Areas of strength and weakness from local
assessments must be included in the plan. Examples of formative assessments
include Open Court Benchmark Assessments and Harcourt Math Benchmark
Assessments for elementary schools, and uniform benchmark math assessments for
Grades 6-12. Sites must describe the results and how they were used, and what
impact they had on student achievement or professional development. Schools may
also include site-based assessment results.
Another assessment-related objective is to provide training and collaboration
for data analyses. School plans must identify staff development or other support
related to using assessments and data to inform instruction or target interventions. A
comprehensive online district data portal is accessible to schools. Aggregate and
disaggregated data is presented through colorful tables and graphs that allow for
efficient analysis.
118
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Positive school climate. In addition to providing data on student academic
progress, schools must assess their progress in providing an environment conducive
to student achievement. This section of the plan requires information on attendance
and discipline. Site plans must include a summary of student attendance and show
progress toward district established targets. Modifications to program to improve
student attendance and an evaluation of their impact must be included. A summary
of suspension/expulsion data is required in the plan. Schools must also indicate the
success of program modifications such as violence prevention, alternatives to
suspension, and the involvement of social services.
Family and community support. An objective of the Strategic School Plan is
to engage families and the community to support improved student achievement.
Schools must describe how they have attempted to build cultural links between home
and school. They must also indicate how they and/or other community groups have
helped parents understand and support their children's progress. Finally, plans must
describe how the school has involved Special Education, Title I, and English-leamer
parents in understanding the resources provided by the school.
Sanctions and rewards. The superintendent indicated that each school is
expected to meet the targets established by the Strategic Alignment Plan.
Interventions are provided for those schools who are unable to meet their goals.
Under his current contract, the superintendent has the ability to take intermediate
interventions to correct, or sanction schools that are not making satisfactory progress
and reward those that show growth.
119
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to the superintendent, before initiating corrective interventions,
the district develops a comprehensive profile of a school consisting of multiple
measures as listed in the strategic plan in addition to evaluations of teachers,
classified employees, and site leadership. Interventions can range from consultants
for low performing schools, such as those participating in the Intensive Intervention
for Underperforming Schools Program (II/USP) to reassigning the principal and
changing the leadership. Ultimately, a school that does not show improvement over
time may be reconstituted; however, the district has never taken such a drastic step.
In the past, 40% of the staff have been changed and up to 70% of the district's
principals were reassigned.
The field administrator indicated that if one of his assigned schools is not showing
positive achievement growth, he collaborates with the principal to analyze weak
areas, and provide the proper professional development for the staff and principal. If
the school does not participate in professional growth and shows no improvement,
these deficiencies will be reflected in the principal's evaluation.
In evaluating student achievement, the superintendent emphasizes the
importance of looking beyond the API score by examining disaggregated data to
determine individual student growth, and that of significant subgroups such as
ethnicity and low socioeconomic status. When speaking of the value of the API, he
stated, "If a school goes from 436 to 515, that's a good gain. Who did they move and
who didn't they move? .... The Essential Indicators are the number of students
above the 50 percentile."
120
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The field administrator concurred,
I understand high stakes. The state is not looking at it correctly. We should be
looking at individual student growth versus school performance. If a kid
came in as a one, did he move to a two? The school should be held
accountable for moving a group of students from one place to another. If you
are a middle school and 85 percent of your kids performed a the 25th
percentile, I shouldn't punish you for that. I should punish you if for 3 years
they are still at the 25th percentile. In what ways are you going to focus on
certain kids that will move your API?
Rewards for student achievement are less apparent than sanctions in Seaview.
The district has depended on the state's Performance Award program for schools that
meet their API targets. Beyond that, one district director stated, "The school gets a
pat on the back and that's about it.” The principal of Wildwood Middle School
mentioned that, although his school did not qualify, he was aware of state
recognition for API scores and acknowledgement through district publications and at
board meetings.
The field administrator indicated that while there are no district monitory
rewards, achieving schools might enjoy more instructional autonomy. However, he
does not expect the schools to stop probing for ways to improve even more.
I give the schools that are making it a freer hand to try something different.
Not so much micromanaging. By the same token, just because they make
their API, I begin to ask the tough questions: Let's really disaggregate the
data. Are we showing gains with all kids? These kids didn't move, why not?
What if the high kids are slipping? What if they entered at the 75th percentile
and they are leaving at the 65th percentile? We've got a problem.
At our meetings, I will give them resources that they can read themselves or
use with their staff. I model ways that they can be doing those things to
improve.
121
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Mr. Osborne, the principal of the small autonomous school, had a perception
of rewards and sanctions that was closer to the market accountability approach one
would find in charter schools. He also believed, as did the field administrator, that
achievement brought the reward o f increased district responsiveness and greater
autonomy.
The banquet of public opinion has its own way o f rewarding and sanctioning
what we do. There has been a clear transition over the past year to more
responsiveness from many departments in the district. Part o f the reward is
what translates into the positive attention we have received in our contacts
with the departments. Furthering the work toward actualizing autonomy is
really what will ultimately be the greatest reward.
On-going oversight fo r accountability. Because o f the size o f the district,
Seaview currently has the capacity to create support systems to help schools keep
track of the accountability and compliance documentation. Central office divisions
create tools such as the Strategic School Plan Self-Analysis Calendar and Template
to assist principals with data collection for accountability and compliance. The
district maintains a data portal with extensive disaggregated data for each school.
Principals can log on and download data for their self-analysis and to complete their
Single Plans for Student Achievement. According to a director in the Division of
Student Achievement,
The district tries to design many structures to make life easy for the principals
so they don't have layer upon layer of mandates and compliance
requirements. The real push is to design processes that allow principals to
combine all the different mandates, state, federal, Title I, and school site plan,
into one package. If they do one thing, it fulfills many requirements.
122
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Clusters of schools are assigned field administrators who provide support and
supervision for principals. Some of their duties include monitoring the
implementation of the Single Plan for Student Achievement and document
collection, accompanying principals on frequent site visits and classroom
walkthroughs, and evaluating principals. As stated in the findings for study question
3, the superintendent assumes the field administrator position for the principals of the
small autonomous schools.
A view from the schools, Mr. Neville, principal of Wildwood Middle School,
stated that the current district accountability system is fair and straightforward. He
observed that under the leadership of the current superintendent and the school
board, the district has started to align its practices with the state standards. He
believed that by addressing the standards, his school has made positive gains in
student achievement. Although he acknowledges that the school is not performing at
a level acceptable by the state or the district, STAR test results show that the school
is improving slightly each year.
Wildwood is considered a "target" school, one that is in need of intense
intervention, because of the level of student performance. As a state II/USP school, it
receives additional funding for program improvement. According to Mr. Neville,
interventions under this program have included special staff development related to
curriulum and instructional strategies and on-site consultants to work with the staff
to help them improve student performance.
123
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wildwood has not had a change in staffing because o f poor achievement. Mr.
Neville indicated that his staff is highly qualified, but the majority of teachers are
within the first five years of their careers. As an urban school, several teachers have
been recruited through Teach for America. Those teachers contract for 2 years, so the
turn over is great. Consequently, the school has instructional support facilitators to
oversee math, science, and language arts instruction for new as well as experienced
teachers.
Mr. Neville indicated that site administrators also receive support. He and his
vice principals are required to attend 30 hours o f district-provided professional
development. Various options from which the administrators may choose are
available throughout the year.
Interventions designed to improve student achievement are in place at
Wildwood. Classroom interventions include Accelerated Reader and Accelerated
Math for students performing below grade level and a 7th period class for those
students who receive grades below C. The district has implemented the High Point
reading program for students reading below grade level. The principal feels that
more interventions are necessary in the lower elementary grades, so that more
students arrive at middle school capable of doing grade level work.
Wildwood's field administrator monitors the school's progress in
implementing its Single Plan for Student Achievement. He periodically checks to see
if the school has made its goals and reviews the monthly self-analysis data. Mr.
124
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Neville indicated that Ms evaluation by the field administrator reflects on what has
been accomplished toward implementing the plan.
Mr. Neville appreciates the help he receives from the field administrator who
visits at least twice a month for 2 to 4 hours. While at the site, the director and the
principal visit classrooms and assess instruction by using a walk through rubric
based on the California Standards o f the Teaching Profession. The principal feels the
process is valuable because he and the field administrator develop a thorough
knowledge of what is going on in classrooms, and can readily see when instructional
improvement occurs.
Mr. Osborne, principal of one of the small autonomous schools commented
on his experiences being supervised by the superintendent. He described a
collaborative model o f oversight facilitated by the superintendent, in which the
administrators of the small autonomous schools support each other.
Our field administrator is the superintendent. We have observations and
meetings as a group at different school sites. We spend 50% of our time in
classrooms observing specific work and observing each other. This is the
single greatest thing we do. It helps us build our own accountability.
The field administrator and both principals acknowledge the superintendent
for the district's recent focus on accountability. The field administrator commented,
The superintendent holds me accountable for being in classrooms and
watching what is going on. Expectations for principals come from the
superintendent. . .. At the beginning of 2002-2003 we began to look more at
performance and academic achievement. We've got a good start by giving
each school a growth target.
Mr. Neville concurred that the focus on accountability was relatively recent.
For years, the state and the district had created an awareness of the need to develop
125
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
and use standards but before the current administration schools were not held
accountable for results.
The district started last school year to really focus on the state standards. As
far as having discussions and dialogue on where we are In relation to the
standards, that's been going on for a decade. Within the last several years,
under the administration of the current superintendent and board, we are
leaning toward aligning what we do with those standards. Because o f that,
Wildwood has seen some overall improvement in student achievement on
standardized tests. We are not performing at a level that is acceptable by the
state or district, but we are showing some gains every year.
Summary o f Findings fo r Study Question 4
Study question 4 sought to understand the district's accountability oversight
practices for traditional schools. Data were gathered through interviews with the
superintendent, central office directors o f achievement, a field administrator, and two
principals. Additional information was acquired by examining district and school site
documents and by accessing data from the district's web page.
Seaview's Strategic Alignment Plan is the basis o f the district's accountability
system. The plan sets district and schoolwide goals designed to enhance student
achievement. Schools are held accountable for working toward meeting the goals
and receive interventions to assist them. Those schools that continue to show
insufficient progress face a variety of consequences.
Ongoing oversight for accountability consists o f support from the central
office in the form of organizational tools, professional development opportunities,
and a comprehensive data portal. A field administrator supervises a cluster of
principals and provides support with the implementation of each school's
126
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
achievement plan and classroom supervision. The traditional school principal
appreciates the support he receives from the district and his field supervisor.
The superintendent's leadership over the past 3 years is viewed as the force
behind the accountability focus. He has instituted reform through the creation of
small autonomous secondary schools that have greater instructional flexibility than
traditional schools. In exchange for increased autonomy, the superintendent directly
holds the schools accountable for academic results.
Study Question 5: The Specific Challenges of District
Accountability Oversight fo r Traditional Public Schools
D atafor Study Question 5
Study question 5 asked, "What are the specific challenges of district
accountability oversight for traditional public schools?" The question focused on
discovering the specific issues that presented the greatest challenges to the district as
it provides oversight for traditional public schools. The data for study question 5
were gathered from interviews with the superintendent, field administrator, directors
from the central office Division of Student Achievement, and two principals.
Findings fo r Study Question 5
The findings for study question 5, are arranged under three broad topics: (a)
student interventions, (b) accountability vs. compliance, and (c) communicating
common expectations. Data reflects the perceptions o f each of the individuals
interviewed, and are not necessarily a collective opinion.
The superintendent stated that holding traditional schools accountable under
the district's current system was not a challenge for him because, unlike with charter
127
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools, he has the ability under Ms current contract to take intermediate steps to
correct or sanction schools that are not making satisfactory progress. He did foresee
that No CMld Left Behind would pose a bit o f a challenge, but he felt confident that
the district had the capacity to implement it well.
Student interventions. Student interventions in low performing schools
seemed to be the NCLB mandate that most concerned the superintendent, who
responded with a series of questions and comments about the logistics of providing
for and evaluating supplemental services.
What do you do when you have to set aside up to 20% o f Title I money for
interventions for low performing schools? How do you set that up? How do
you make sure parents are aware? How do you ensure that interventions are
aligned with what you are doing curriulum-wise? How do you track the
intervention to see that is a value added to the kids in your program? You
can’ t isolate the impact o f that program. If it doesn't work the school district
gets blamed. If it does work, the after school program [provider] gets all the
credit.
One o f the accountability directors in the division o f student achievement
echoed the superintendent's concern with the quality and alignment of intervention
programs. She indicated that to implement the requirements under the Social
Promotion legislation, the district was currently contracting with two different
commercial tutorial services to provide after school intensive intervention. She
stated,
We want to make sure that interventions are aligned with what takes place
during the day. I worry about it because Open Court [the classroom reading
program] has such a clear and explicit delivery system that sometimes
students may be getting mixed messages before and after school.
128
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Accountability vs. compliance. Balancing accountability with compliance is a
challenge for the central office personnel. State auditors, the evidence requirements
of the Consolidated Compliance Review, Consent Decrees, and other federal and
state mandates require the central office to constantly collect documentation from the
school sites. According to the director, the real challenge is to design processes that
allow principals to combine all the different mandates, state, federal, Title I, and
school site plan into one package that fulfills many requirements. She stated,
We always have the end goal of making life easier for the school site and it
has to make sense for the people who have to live there. Our accountability
goal is that we want people to be good strong instructional leaders. If we pile
operational work on them, we are being naive about what principals have to
do.
The challenge o f fulfilling compliance requirements at the expense of student
learning was expressed by the field administrator.
During the last 2 years, 80% of our work was looking at compliance issues.
We were out of compliance in a lot of areas. The state drives compliance. We
had a CCR [Coordinated Compliance Review] coming. We had to get ready.
Between that and other issues, kids took the back burner, and that's just being
honest.
Communicating common expectations. According to the elementary
achievement director, Seaview's large size makes it difficult for the district to
maintain a common knowledge base and expectations of practice for teachers and
administrators.
With so many new teachers, it is challenging for the district to ensure that
they have good content knowledge, instructional strategies, and classroom
management skills. Principals need to view themselves as more than building
managers. New principals need training in teacher observation and coaching,
and accessing and using data for school improvement.
129
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The secondary achievement director voiced some frustration at her limited
ability to influence what happens at the school site. Because they have no direct
influence on the site administrators, central office directors must depend on the field
administrators to ensure that district curriulum and instruction plans are implemented
properly at the school sites. Finding ways of maintaining open communication and
collaboration with all o f the directors is challenging.
The field administrator believed that communicating common curricular
expectations had to begin with identifying system-wide needs, developing on going
professional development programs to address those needs, and encouraging
collaboration among teachers and administrators. He felt that the district was off to a
good start by focusing on growth targets, but systemically more needed to be done to
encourage schools to take ownership o f their accountability. He stated,
Are we coaching schools to meet those targets? We need to look at patterns
and set up district-wide professional development based on those patterns .. .
Do professional development based on need. Wildwood Middle School has
contracted with people to help with school stuff but not to help build
capacity. It is a Band-Aid approach, triage approach. We need look at what
made the cut and then let's move the window. I don't see that Seaview School
District has protocols set up to prepare people to do that.... A cycle of
inquiry or data based inquiry where the school gets used to asking the
questions and they don't have to wait for me to answer the questions.
Summary o f findings fo r Study Question 5
Data collected for study question 5 identified the challenges o f accountability
oversight for traditional schools as articulated by the superintendent, field
administrator and district directors. The challenges were organized into three
categories. First, student interventions and support services in low performing
130
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
schools as mandated by state social promotion legislation have been difficult for the
district to align with daily classroom instruction. There is apprehension that the
effectiveness o f the supplemental services required under the No Child Left Behind
legislation will be difficult to assess. There is also the concern that students will be
confused if the curriculum and instructional methods are not aligned with district
programs.
Second, district directors are sensitive to the need to manage bureaucratic
compliance imposed by the system, state, and federal government. According to one
administrator, the needs of students sometimes seem secondary to fulfilling
bureaucratic mandates. Another stated the need to simplify the compliance demands
on the principals so they can focus on instructional leadership.
Third, the size o f the district makes it difficult to communicate a common
knowledge base and expectations of practice for teachers and administrators.
Principals need coaching in how to build capacity at the school site to manage school
improvement by creating opportunities for faculty collaboration and inquiry-based
learning.
Question 6: The Strategies the District Utilizes to Overcome
the Challenges o f Oversight fo r Traditional Schools
Data fo r Study Question 6
Study question 6 asked, "What are the strategies the district utilizes to
overcome the challenges o f oversight for traditional schools?" Study question 6
focused on exploring the specific ways in which the district attempts to mitigate the
challenges of holding traditional schools accountable for student achievement. Data
131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
were gathered through interviews with the superintendent, central office student
achievement directors, the field administrator, and traditional and small autonomous
school principals. Additional data came from documents gathered at the district
office, school sites, and the district's web page.
Findings fo r Study Question 6
The findings for study question 6 are organized to correspond to the
challenges identified in the findings for study question 5: student interventions,
accountability vs. compliance, and maintaining common expectations.
Student interventions. The district is concerned with Aligning student
interventions and supplemental services required under No Child Left Behind with
the regular classroom curriulum. To overcome this challenge, Seaview is exploring
the possibility o f applying to the state to become a service provider. Eliminating
external supplemental service providers would give the district greater control over
the content and delivery of the curriulum so that it can be aligned with Open Court
methodology and other district curricula. Administrators believe this change will
eliminate conflicting instructional approaches that may be confusing for students.
Accountability vs. compliance. The district has instituted several strategies
and tools to help site administrators focus more on accountability and less on
compliance. Three years ago, the district instituted an organizational structure called
"Files and Folders.” This system outlines what documentation must be regularly
collected for compliance. Principals use binders for different program titles in which
they store specific evidence. A chart details the specific information requested.
132
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
According to the elementary director, district personnel periodically check to see if
the binders are kept up to date in preparation for visits from the state auditors. She
believes this organizational system helps principals, especially new ones, to look at
data in different was to keep track o f targeted students.
Accountability is ongoing and data driven. A monthly accountability calendar
details a series of questions about student achievement and or the learning
environment that must be answered by different stakeholders in the school
community such as the teaching staff, Parent Advisory Council, or Site Council.
These questions are designed to help schools analyze the effectiveness of their
programs and take action to improve them. According to the director, principals are
expected to track student progress through district benchmark tests and the STAR
results. For example, principals monitor the progress of English Language Learners
toward English proficiency and the effectiveness o f intervention programs for
students at risk of failure.
The division of student achievement sends out "Assessment Updates" that
keep schools informed as to when district and state required assessments are
administered. For example, Open Court reading assessments are given several times
per year. All site reports and district reports for this program are posted on the
district's web portal.
The district provides a large amount of disaggregated data on its web portal.
These data are available by school to principals and teachers for the purpose of site
self-assessment. Central office personnel and the field administrators who supervise
133
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
principals also monitor each school's progress toward meeting the goals set in the
Single Plans for Student Achievement. Much of the data are accessible on line to the
public as well.
M aintaining common expectations. To overcome the difficulties of
maintaining common expectations o f practice, the district has aligned its observation
tools with the C alifornia Standards o f the Teaching Profession. Everyone supporting
the teachers use these instruments for consistency. Teachers are made aware of the
expectations to which they are held accountable. Principals use standard observation
forms to conduct frequent classroom visits. The superintendent mandates that
principals must be in classrooms daily and keep observation logs.
Professional development is provided for teachers and administrators. For
example, the district applied for and was granted a federal Reading First grant to
provide intensive coaching for the Open Court reading program and research-based
best teaching practices and strategies. Under AB75, site principals are completing a
three-module program designed to strengthen instructional leadership. According to
Mr. Neville, principals are expected to complete 30 hours of professional
development a year.
District directors have begun weekly meetings with the field administrators.
These three-hour meetings help to encourage greater collaboration and open
communication between the district, the field administrators, and the school sites.
Although the district currently has developed structures to build coherence
and common expectations, there is a fear among directors that with fewer financial
134
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
resources, district personnel will not be available to provide personalized support to
the schools and may be viewed as a series of departments that do not communicate
with sites, or that are only concerned with bureaucratic structures.
Summary o f Findings fo r Question 6
Question 6 focused on the strategies Seaview has implemented to overcome
the challenges of traditional school oversight for accountability. An analysis of the
data for question 6 identified three general strategies. First, the district has an interest
in having interventions and supplemental programs for underachieving students
aligned with the curriulum and instructional methods o f the classroom. Seaview is
considering applying to the state to become its own supplemental services provider.
Second, the district central office has developed organizational tools to
expedite the collection o f compliance information. The comprehensive district data
portal provides data to help schools analyze their strengths and needs, and to make
school accountability transparent to the community. Field supervisors visit schools
frequently to help principals to focus on meeting the district achievement targets and
the goals set forth in their achievement plans.
Third, to improve communication and develop common expectations of
practice for teachers and administrators, the district has aligned its observation tools
to the California Standards o f the Teaching Profession. Prinicpals are receiving
leadership professional development under AB 75. Collaboration has increased
between the central office directors and the field administrators. There is some
135
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
concern that with the state's current budget crises these strategies are in jeopardy of
being discontinued.
Question 7: The Extent to Which Charter Schools are Held
More (or Less) Accountable for Student Achievement
Than Traditional Schools Within the Same D istrict
D ata fo r Study Question 7
Study question 7 asked," To what extent (if any) are charter schools held
more (or less) accountable for student achievement than traditional schools within
the same district?" Study question 7 focused on the ways in which a district with
schools operating under two governance systems holds each accountable for student
achievement, and is one type of school held more or less accountable than another.
Data for question seven were gathered through interviews with the superintendent,
charter schools coordinator, two directors o f student achievement, one field
administrator, and charter and traditional school site principals. Additional data were
' collected through document analysis and observations o f two governing board
meetings.
Findings fo r Study Question 7
To answer question 7, relevant findings from the study questions 1 through 6
were imposed upon the three part conceptual framework o f accountability presented
in chapter 3. Tables 6, 7, and 8 show a comparison of district accountability
oversight practices for charter and traditional schools and their relationship to the
Accountability Conceptual Framework. The Accountability Conceptual Framework
is based on the theory that accountability systems for student achievement need to
136
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
include three basic dements: (a) standards, (b) assessment data, and (c) rewards and
sanctions. The tables compare how charter and traditional schools are currently held
accountable for student achievement in each o f the elements o f the framework.
Standards. The data show that charter and traditional schools in the district
have standards for student achievement. However, district schools must adhere to the
state standards and align all materials and professional development to those
standards. Charter schools have been free to determine their own standards, and until
the spring of 2003, their own student performance goals. Now, the district sets the
target goals for traditional as well as charter schools.
Table 6
The Relationship o f the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data: Standards
Standards
District Accountability Oversight for District Accountability Oversight for
Charter Schools Traditional Schools
Standards Used Schools determine standards for
charter
State standards
Goals and Schools set charter goals and School goals, ’ ’ Essential Indicators"
outcomes outcomes set by the district and aligned with
New charters and renewals must
address the "Essential Indicators"
District Strategic Alignment Plan
137
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6 (continued)
The Relationship o f the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data: Standards
Standards
District Accountability Oversight for
Charter Schools
District Accountability Oversight for
Traditional Schools
Capacity
Building
Materials determined by the school
Professional development determined
by the school
District determined materials are
aligned with the state standards
Professional development for teachers
and administrators is aligned with the
standards mid curriculum
Assessment. Schoolwlde and disaggregated data is collected and analyzed
regularly by school and central office personnel for traditional schools. The district
holds traditional schools accountable for administering state as well as district
assessments. Additional learning environment measures such as attendance and
suspension and expulsion data are gathered and analyzed to determine the
effectiveness of a school. Principals are expected to track the achievement of
indi vidual students and the proficiency levels o f English language learners. Most
data, with the exception of individual student data, are accessible to the public
through the district's extensive data portal.
Field administrators monitor the traditional schools through frequent visits.
They assist principals with instructional supervision by visiting classrooms regularly.
The directors also monitor the schools progress toward implementing their Single
Plans for Student Achievement and meeting their target goals.
138
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The directors also monitor the schools progress toward implementing their Single
Plans for Student Achievement and meeting their target goals.
Charter school assessment data has been limited to information available to
the district through the STAR system. Schoolwide and data disaggregated by
subgroups is available to the district through the data portal. However, to date, the
district has not kept track of individual student achievement data and has left this
responsibility to the school sites. The district is working to implement a new data
system that is capable o f tracking the achievement of individual students in charter
schools.
Although the district examines STAR results for charter schools, communicating
with the charter schools about student achievement data has not been a function of
oversight, nor has a site visit process to monitor classroom instruction been
implemented to date. The district has relied on the charter school's governing board
to hold the school accountable for student achievement, and to monitor its progress
toward meeting charter outcomes. The district is in the process o f developing an
oversight process that, in the future, will include site visits and require charter
schools to submit annual reports.
Currently, student assessment data has been used to hold charter schools
accountable during the renewal process at the end o f 5 years o f operation. A
renewing charter school must submit a 5-year Progress Data Report in which it
describes academic achievement and progress toward meeting charter outcomes. As
139
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The district is in the process of restructuring its oversight practices. New
policies, implemented with the renewal of two charter schools in the spring of 2003,
are requiring low achieving schools to set more rigorous student performance goals
in the charter petitions, and in one particular case, the school's progress to be
reevaluated at the end o f 2 years. In the past, the district has provided consulting
support for new charter applicants. Seaview has determined that it has a greater
responsibility to provide effective oversight for the existing charters. To accomplish
the task of restructuring, the district Is participating in an accountability project
sponsored by the Charter Schools Development Center to define its ongoing
oversight practices for charter schools.
Table 7
The Relationship o f the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data: Assessment
Assessment
District Accountability Oversight for
Charter Schools
District Accountability Oversight for
Traditional Schools
Assessment Schools participate independently in Schools participate in STAR and
measures STAR. District assessments: academic,
attendance, suspension/expulsion.
Use of data Limited to STAR reports Data is schoolwide, and disaggregated
by subgroups and individual students.
140
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 7 (continued)
The Relationship o f the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data: Assessment
Assessment
District Accountability Oversight for District Accountability Oversight for
Charter Schools Traditional Schools
Use of data Data-portal accessed by district Data-portal accessed by district
(continued) personnel and the community contains personnel and the community contains
STAR information. STAR information and progress
Progress reports are required for toward district "Essential Indicators".
renewal. Monthly data analysis reports are
District looks at STAR data. required of schools.
District will monitor progress toward Principals are expected to track
"Essential Indicators" in the future. student achievement.
The superintendent and field
administrators track student
achievement.
Monitoring and No site visits for academic Frequent visits by field administrators
capacity performance oversight. assist principals to monitor classroom
building Charter goals are monitored by school Instruction.
site and governance team. Field administrators evaluate
Site-determined evaluation and principals and monitor Single Plans
monitoring processes are conducted. for Student Achievement.
Teacher evaluations are aligned with
California Standards of the Teaching
Profession.
Organizational tools are provided.
141
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Rewards and sanctions. Limited evidence was available to make
generalizations about rewards for academic achievement. The findings indicate that
traditional schools that meet their academic goals may be rewarded with greater
autonomy and a greater response from the district. Other forms of recognition appear
to be limited to state performance awards and those celebrations initiated by school
sites.
The district has the capacity to implement interventions at any time for
underperforming traditional schools. These interventions range from additional
professional development and coaching for teachers and principals, to reassignment
of teaching or administrative staff members. Principals' evaluations are linked to the
successful implementation of the school's Single Plan for Student Achievement.
To date, the district has not imposed sanctions on charter schools for poor
academic performance. Past revocations have been for governance and operational
issues. During the term of the charter, the district has relied on the school community
to hold the school accountable for student achievement. In the future, charters risk
nonrenewal if they cannot meet their target goals as established by the district.
142
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 8
The Relationship of the Accountability Conceptual Framework to the Data: Rewards and Sanctions
Rewards and Sanctions
District Accountability Oversight for
Charter Schools
District Accountability Oversight for
Traditional Schools
Rewards Renewal of charter State rewards for achieving schools
Recognition at Board Meetings
Increased autonomy (in some cases)
Interventions Requiring more rigorous student
performance goals to get the charter
renewed
Principal's evaluation tied to
implementation of Single Plan
Special professional development or
consultants for underperforming
schools
Supplemental services for students
Sanctions Non-Renewal-option under charter
law
Revocations: past revocations for
operational problems and none for
poor performance
Reliance on school community to
hold the school accountable for
student achievement during the term
of the charter
State sanctions
Reassignment of teachers and or site
administrators
143
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Discussion
Findings for each study question were made after analyzing the collected
data. The findings were then analyzed to determine their meaning and relevance to
the study. The major findings o f the study are as follows:
1. Seaview has greater capacity for accountability oversight for
traditional schools.
2. Seaview's charter oversight style has been influenced by its
interpretation of California charter law, legal status as an authorizing entity, and
regulatory environment.
3. Due to increased state and federal accountability requirements for all
schools, Seaview's accountability oversight practices for charter schools are evolving
toward more consistent monitoring o f student achievement and more uniform
objective performance standards.
4. Seaview's ability to collect and analyze a variety of data to monitor
student achievement in charter as well as traditional schools is critical to the
maintenance of an effective accountability system
5. The experiment with small autonomous schools is creating new
models o f accountability and capacity building for schools.
Oversight fo r Traditional Schools
Seaview has many of the systems in place necessary to hold traditional
schools accountable for student achievement that are consistent with those described
in the literature. It is beyond the scope of this study to comment on the degree of
144
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
consistent implementation, but the data indicate that the district has greater capacity
to provide oversight for traditional schools than it does for its charter schools.
Standards have been adopted. The Strategic Alignment Plan makes the goals explicit
and public. Staff is assigned to support schools to meet standards and goals. Schools
are continuously monitored for student achievement. The district and schools have
access to aggregated and disaggregated data on student achievement. The data
reporting system is publicly accessible to all stakeholders thus reflecting Finn's
(Finn, 2002) theory of transparent accountability. Professional development and
supports are in place to build the capacity o f teachers and site administrators. There
is limited evidence on the rewards available for schools that show positive
performance. This is consistent with the literature that shows California districts are
generally weak in this area (Guth et al., 1999).
The data seem to indicate that the superintendent, with support of the
governance board is leading the accountability movement in the district. District and
site administrators mentioned his focus on raising student achievement by
identifying standards, establishing goals for each school, monitoring progress toward
attaining the goals, building the capacity o f teachers and administrators, and having
consequences for schools that fail to show progress. Through his actions and public
statements, the superintendent has acknowledged his responsibility for student
achievement. Adams and Kirst (1999) assert that results are caused through an
individual's action or inaction. Superintendents who are causally responsible must be
empowered to create results. The capacity to act comes from resources, ability to
145
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
predict consequences o f an action, discretion to act, and being in a position to make
something happen (Adams & Kirst, 1999).
The superintendent had articulated that holding traditional schools
accountable was not a challenge for him. To some extent, he was aware of the
consequences of his actions, because he had been given the discretion to impose
interventions and sanctions under his contract with the board. He was aware of the
responsibility the board had given him and was free to act independently. Material
and human resources such as central office administrative support from the
department o f student achievement, the Instruction Committee, field administrators
to work directly with principals, and a well-developed data management system were
available to support his actions.
Seaview's O versight Style fo r Charter Accountability
In her research on the factors that influence authorizer's styles, Vergari
(2000) identified four areas: (a) legal framework, (b) regulatory task environment,
(c) political factors, and (d) internal leadership. The study provided evidence that
supports this theory. This section will focus on the variables that, from the evidence,
most profoundly affect Seaview's accountability oversight style: legal framework,
and regulatory task environment.
Legal fram ew ork. Findings for study question 1 indicated that the
superintendent's interpretation of California charter law helped to influence
accountability oversight practices for charter schools. The ambiguities of charter law
enabled him to infer that he had no authority to impose sanctions or intermediate
146
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
interventions on a failing school before revocation, and he acted accordingly. This
finding is consistent with Vergari's (2000) theory that the legal framework in which
an authorizer operates determines how much discretion that authorizer has to hold
charter schools accountable. California's purposely vague descriptions of oversight
allow for a broad range of interpretation among authorizers. Seaview saw
accountability oversight as purely a market-driven function.
Evidence to support this theory was further reinforced by the charter schools
coordinator's belief that a charter school's community would hold it accountable for
academic effectiveness. Her philosophy is consistent with the opinions of many of
the authorizers in Vergari's (2Q00)study who maintained that oversight was the
responsibility of the charter school's governing board.
Seaview's legal structure as a local education agency has also affected its
capacity to provide oversight. With 15 charter schools and only one full-time
coordinator with part-time clerical help, there is a limit to the amount of oversight
the district can be expected to provide. These findings support the literature
indicating that local district authorizers seem to have less capacity to carry out their
oversight functions that other types o f authorizing agencies (Bierlein Palmer & Gau,
2003; SRI International, 2002).
The charter coordinator and the district must set priorities as to which
oversight functions it should focus its limited resources. In the past, the emphasis has
been on providing technical support to build the capacity o f charter petitioners
enabling them to develop reasonably comprehensive documents that had some
147
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
chance of approval. The district is now in the process of shifting its focus from
technical support for petitioners to increased oversight for the operating schools.
Again, a compromise must be made. To provide greater oversight, the support for
petition development, which is an important authorizing function, will be reduced.
Approving a reasonably comprehensive charter petition is the first stage of
accountability oversight (SRI International, 2002).
Regulatory task environment. Lack of capacity has influenced the regulatory
tasks the district performs. The frequency of interactions between the district and the
charter schools is limited. No site visits have been routinely conducted to monitor
student achievement. Monitoring has been more for the purpose o f providing
information such as the renewal criteria. Tasks have focused on the charter approval
function and this year, on renewal.
If one compares the district's capacity for charter accountability oversight to
its oversight capacity for traditional schools, Seaview currently lacks the factors
necessary for causal responsibility toward charter schools. First, with limited
staffing, funds, and data, the district lacks resources needed to do the task. Second,
due to the ambiguity o f charter law and political influences, the district cannot be
certain of the outcomes of their actions. Third, the way the superintendent has
interpreted charter law prevents him from having the leverage and discretion he
needs to act.
Though the superintendent may not currently have the factors necessary for
causal responsibility, he does have obligation and sense of purpose when it comes to
148
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
holding charter schools responsible for student achievement. According to Adams
and Kirst (1999),
In this regard, superintendents who are responsible for student achievement
assume an obligation to act in ways that influence student achievement. The
obligation can arise via a school board directive, state program advisory,
legislative reform, or intrinsic construction of a superintendent's role related
to student achievement, (p. 478)
All o f Adams and Kirst's factors have contributed to the superintendent's
sense of purpose in Seaview. First, he has gotten a clear directive from the school
board to hold charter schools to a higher standard of student achievement as
evidenced by the charter renewal deliberations. Next, state accountability
requirements driven by federal mandates under No Child Left Behind have increased
the district's level o f concern for charter school achievement. Finally, the
superintendent's active involvement in monitoring student achievement is indicative
of how he defines his role within the district.
The Evolution o f Charter School Oversight
The evidence presented in the study indicates that the district is actively
moving toward improving the systems and criteria for charter school accountability
oversight. Through collaboration with other authorizers and the Charter Schools
Development Center, the district is redefining its role and developing tools for
effective charter oversight.
Charter renewal deliberations and revised petitions revealed that the
governing board and superintendent have established objective performance goals
for charter schools, while allowing schools to also identify goals unique to their
149
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
mission and vision. Charter schools must now meet the achievement goals necessary
for all schools to meet state and federal accountability requirements. These goals,
along with the charter's unique goals and assessments will present a more balanced
picture of school performance. The district is interested in value added measures that
focus on. individual student growth over a period of time based on assessments that
are objective and linked to state standards. Holding the charter schools accountable
for meeting measurable outcomes will provide the superintendent and the board the
leverage they need to take appropriate action for failing schools. It will also give the
charter school community and other constituent groups a clear message describing
the common criteria by which all schools will be judged effective. Assessment based
on standards is important for districts like Seaview with a diverse group of charter
and traditional schools. Finally, comparative performance data allows parents to
make informed choices (Finn et al., 2000).
The district and charter schools must also not lose sight of the vision for
learning that makes each school unique. Authentic measures of student performance
are also important (Hill et al., 2002). Therefore, it was essential for the charter
schools who were renewed to also include performance measures based on
portfolios, rubrics, and other site determined assessments, along with attendance and
behavior criteria.
State and federal requirements, that apply to charter schools as well as regular
schools, have the potential to move authorizing districts like Seaview toward
developing accountability systems for charter schools that have characteristics of
150
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
market and performance-based accountability. According to Ladd (2002), "Neither
parental choice nor a system based on test scores alone is sufficient for the purposes
of holding schools accountable to the public " (p. 28). Standards-based
accountability focuses on increasing student achievement, while the market approach
forces schools to address the desires of parents and students. Both can compliment
each other by allowing a school the autonomy to instruct students in what the school
feels is in their best interest, while stakeholders hold the school accountable for
maintaining a known standard of quality (Finn, 2002).
Access to D ata
Seaview's access to aggregated and disaggregated individual student
achievement data is critical to maintaining an effective accountability system for
traditional, as well as charter schools. Seaview has a well-developed system o f data
management for traditional schools. For traditional schools, the district is able to
track state assessments as well as district formative assessments such as the Open
Court Reading and secondary school math assessments for groups, as well as
individual students. Principals have access to data disaggregated by a variety o f
criteria. The district is capable o f looking beyond the schoolwide API data to focus
on the growth of individual students and cohorts over time. Research has shown that
the capacity to collect and analyze data is a critical component of an accountability
system that many districts have not developed (Massell, 2000). Contrary to the
research, Seaview has the ability to use data for decision-making purposes, but
mainly for traditional schools.
151
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Because charter schools are independent o f the district for testing purposes,
the district is unable to track the progress of individual students. Seaview's interest in
having access to individual student data for charters is not unique. Recent surveys
have shown that California districts desire the ability to track students individually
through the states' data system (EdSouce, 2003; Zimmer et al., 2003). Currently,
Seaview recognizes the need to expand its data management system to include
STAR charter school data for individual students, and to develop ways of assessing
charter and small autonomous schools on alternative assessments. Once these
systems are in place, the district will have access to the data it needs to effectively
measure charter schools' progress toward meeting the districts achievement targets
and charter goals.
Sm all Autonomous Schools and Capacity Building
As a strategy for providing choice and alternative forms o f schools while still
maintaining control through oversight, the district instituted small autonomous
schools. These schools were formed from collaboration between the district, non
profit organizations, and community advocates. They provide a laboratory for
systemic reform that engages rather than alienates constituencies within the system.
Through these schools, the district has the capacity to provide a degree of autonomy
as well as support. Whereas charter schools are viewed as being independent of the
district by law, the autonomous schools are treated as part of the system.
The nine schools enjoy some degree of autonomy but still receive regular
oversight and assistance. The district also appears to facilitate collaborative
152
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
relationships among the schools. Charters, by contrast, are responsible for their own
networking and collegial support. The two charter school principals indicated that
they are isolated and are expected to figure things out for themselves. The data
confirm research showing that charters depend on. external support. While wishing to
be autonomous, these schools still need assistance (University of California, 1998).
This paper has addressed the capacity o f the authorizing district to hold
schools accountable for student achievement. In a performance-based accountability
system, the principals also have an obligation to build the capacity o f the agents that
they hold accountable (Adams & Kirst, 1999). Newmann et al. (1997) define
organizational capacity as, "The degree to which the human, technical, and social
resources of an organization are organized into an effective collective enterprise" (p.
47). These researchers go on to theorize that external accountability systems can
build organizational capacity in schools, "Through provision o f technical resources
(including aiding in the formulation o f high standards for curriculum and student
performance), resources, professional development to enhance teachers' knowledge,
and deregulation to strengthen schools autonomy" (p. 48).
The field administrator mentioned capacity building as one of the districts'
challenges for traditional schools. Through the small autonomous schools, Seaview
appears to be building that capacity by seeking a balance between autonomy and
dependence for its schools. The small autonomous school model has the potential of
combining the autonomy schools desire with strategic oversight and assistance they
still require for building organizational capacity.
153
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
The small autonomous school reform model in Seaview may have
implications for how the district constructs its new oversight practices for charter
schools. Charter granting agencies could ensure that these independent schools
acquire the operational and educational skills and knowledge they need to be
successful (Ladd, 2002). If charter schools are to reach their target goals, they will
need support for capacity building as well. Carnochan states,
"Thus, it seems that the call for autonomy often is coupled with requests for
assistance. The data suggest that districts should consider increasing both
autonomy and assistance for local schools, especially since these districts, as
the charter-granting institutions, are ultimately responsible for holding the
charter schools accountable for student outcomes, (p. 72)
This chapter has presented the data for each research question. Five major themes
based on the findings from the research question were discussed. Chapter 5 presents
the summary, conclusions, and implications o f the study.
154
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Chapter 5
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications of the Study
Overview o f the Problem
Providing adequate accountability oversight for traditional schools and the
charter schools they authorize is challenging for California school districts. State and
federal accountability reforms are focusing on student achievement in the individual
school rather than on district inputs and processes. Districts must develop systems in
which schools of different governance structures can be evaluated fairly and
accurately.
If one is to consider greater autonomy for all schools, there is a need to
understand the district's oversight function for charter and traditional schools.
Studies have focused on the challenges districts face switching from a more
compliance-based system to one that is performance-based. Some limited studies
have focused on how authorizers throughout the nation hold charter schools
accountable for student achievement. None o f these studies have primarily
investigated the challenges of a district trying to hold schools with different
governance systems accountable for student achievement. Understanding the
practices of district authorizers has the potential to influence how schools are held
accountable under performance-based systems in the future.
155
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Purpose o f the Study
The purpose of the study was to discover the degree (if any) to which
differences in school governance influence how schools are held accountable for
student performance.
The study addressed the following questions:
1. How does the district provide accountability oversight for charter
schools?
2. What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight
for charter schools?
3. What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges of
accountability oversight for charter schools?
4. How does the district provide accountability oversight for traditional
public schools?
5. What are the specific challenges of district accountability oversight
for traditional public schools?
6. What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges of
accountability oversight for traditional public schools?
7. To what extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less)
accountable for student achievement than traditional schools within the same
district?
156
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Methodology
A qualitative case study methodology was used to answer the research
questions. This methodology was chosen, because it was important to study the
context in which the participants interacted and the conditions that influenced their
decisions. The causal links that the study investigated were too complex to be
revealed through surveys or experimental research.
Purposeful sampling based on predetermined criteria was used to select the
participants for the study. It was important to have a school district with traditional
schools, performance-based accountability policies, and at least one charter school
recently or currently involved in the renewal process. A large California urban
district was selected for the study. Participants included the superintendent and four
other central office administrators, two charter school principals, one traditional
school principal, and one principal o f a small district autonomous school.
Two interview protocols consisting of structured and semistructured questions were
developed to collect data to answer the study questions. The first protocol was
designed to elicit information on the district's accountability system for traditional
schools. The second protocol was used for gathering information on charter school
accountability oversight. Additional data was acquired through documents and
observing district governance board meetings.
The data were collected in several rounds between March and June 2003.
Once the data were gathered, the findings were analyzed through a simple
framework of performance-based accountability that helped to identify standards,
157
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
assessment, and rewards and sanctions. A comparison was made o f the
accountability approaches for the two types o f school governance structures to
determine the similarities and differences among them.
Findings
Findings for Study Question 1
Study question 1 sought to determine the district's accountability oversight
practices for charter schools. Data were gathered through interviews with the
superintendent, the charter schools coordinator, two charter school principals, and
observations of two district governance board meetings. Additional information
came from written documents.
The district's charter division is small, consisting of one full-time coordinator
and a part-time assistant. The district has limited capacity to provide oversight as
recognized by the district personnel and the principals. At the time of the study, there
were no systems in place for on going oversight for accountability. Because of more
rigorous state and federal accountability requirements, the division is restructuring to
focus on providing greater accountability oversight for operating schools rather than
technical support for potential charter school applicants.
Student achievement was an important factor in the renewal o f two charter
petitions. In order to be approved for renewal, one school had to agree to adopt the
same rigorous academic standards as the district's traditional schools. These
standards would become the renewal criteria for subsequent charter schools.
158
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Findings for Study Question 2
Study question 2 asked, "What are the specific challenges of district
accountability oversight for charter schools?" Data were collected from interviews
with the superintendent and charter schools coordinator and observations o f the
district's governing board. The individuals interviewed identified five major
challenges. First, the ambiguities of charter law give authorizers little leverage to
intervene in a failing school prior to revocation. Second, the small size o f charter
schools and the district's inability to analyze individual and cohort student
achievement data over time, makes judging student performance difficult. Third,
federal legislation under the No Child Left Behind Act is unclear in many areas for
charter schools. Fourth, taking into account the reasons why parents choose charter
schools for their students makes it difficult to act on a failing school. Fifth, the
political climate of the district has the potential to influence school board decisions
regarding charter schools.
Findings fo r Study Question 3
Study question 3 focused on the strategies the district uses to overcome the
challenges of accountability oversight for charter schools. Data were gathered
through interviews with the superintendent and charter schools coordinator, and by
attending meetings of the Charter Schools Development Center Accountability
Project, of which the district is a participant. The district is implementing strategies
that have the potential o f addressing multiple challenges. It is restructuring its
practices to provide more accountability oversight for charter schools. Seaview is
159
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
networking with other charter school authorizers to create tools that will make their
oversight practices more effective. A more sophisticated data analysis system is
under development to more accurately track student achievement data. Finally, the
district has instituted small autonomous schools that have greater flexibility than
traditional schools but are still under the control of the district.
Findings fo r Study Question 4
Study question 4 investigated the district's accountability oversight practices
for traditional schools. Data were gathered through interviews with the
superintendent, central office administrators, one traditional school principal, and
one principal from a small autonomous school. Additional information was acquired
through documents and the district's web page. The district's Strategic Alignment
Plan is the foundation o f the accountability system for traditional schools. Schools
have specific target goals based on the priorities in the plan. Ongoing oversight and
support is provided by central office administration and field administrators who
spend time working with principals at the school sites. The district has a well-
developed data management system that is accessible by schools and the general
public. Interventions and sanctions are in place for failing schools. The
superintendent takes direct responsibility for holding the small autonomous schools
accountable for student achievement.
Findings fo r Study Question 5
Study question 5 sought to identify the challenges of accountability oversight
for traditional schools. Data was limited to interviews with the superintendent and
160
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
central office administrators. The superintendent believed that because the district
governing board had given him the discretion to take action against failing schools,
he had few challenges. However, the participants articulated three areas o f concern.
First, it is difficult to align student interventions mandated by state and federal
programs and assess their effectiveness. Second, the district struggles with managing
the amount of bureaucratic compliance imposed on schools by the district, state, and
federal government. Third, the size o f the district makes it difficult to communicate a
common knowledge base and expectations of practice for teachers and
administrators
Findings for Study Question 6
Study question 6 investigated the strategies the district has put in place to
minimize the challenge of accountability oversight for traditional schools. Data was
collected through interviews with the superintendent, central office administrators,
and principals. Additional information came from documents school and district
documents and the district's website. The district is in the process of applying to the
state to become its own supplemental service provider. The district has designed a
variety of organizational tools to minimize the impact of compliance information
required of schools. Field administrators assist principals to monitor student
achievement and instruction at the school sites.
Findings fo r Study Question 7
Data from study questions 1 through 6 were analyzed to answer question 7.
Seaview's accountability practices for traditional and charter schools were compared
161
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
using a simple framework comprised o f the three commonly accepted criteria for
performance-based accountability: (a) standards, (b) assessment, and (d) rewards and
sanctions. In all three categories, the data indicate that historically, the district has a
higher level o f accountability oversight in place for traditional schools, specifically
in the areas of assessment and program monitoring. This year, the district imposed
more rigorous renewal requirements for charter schools. Schools must now meet the
same district determined achievement targets as traditional schools.
Conclusions
Seaview school district currently has more systems in place to hold
traditional schools more accountable for student achievement. Standards are set for
all students and assessments are in place to measure attainment of the standards.
Rewards, although minimal, and sanctions are available for schools that achieve or
fail. The superintendent, with the support of the district governance board takes
responsibility for holding traditional schools accountable.
Seaview's oversight style for charter school accountability has been
significantly influenced by the way in which the district interprets charter law and its
regulatory environment. The ambiguity o f California charter law has caused the
superintendent to believe that he has limited capacity to intervene prior to the
revocation process when a school is failing. Historically, the district maintained that
the charter school's governing board was responsible for monitoring the school’ s
academic progress. Lack of capacity in the district's regulatory environment has
162
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
prevented Seaview from conducting site visits and other forms of accountability
oversight.
Federal and state accountability requirements for all schools have caused
Seaview to begin the process of developing more consistent oversight policies for
charter school accountability. The district is imposing more rigorous objective
measures for charter petition approval and renewal. Seaview is actively involved
with other California authorizers and the Charter School's Development Center to
create commonly acceptable criteria and processes for charter school oversight.
The ability to collect and analyze data to make decisions about a school's
level o f performance is critical to Seaview's accountability system. The district has a
well-developed system for collecting and analyzing data for traditional schools, but
desires a way to track the achievement o f individual students attending charter
schools. Currently, Seaview is in the process of creating a system that is compatible
with charter school assessment needs.
The district's small autonomous schools appear to be a hybrid of charter and
traditional schools. These schools have a greater degree o f autonomy than traditional
schools, yet they still receive oversight and support, unlike charter schools that are
independent. The superintendent personally supervises the schools and engages them
in activities to build their capacity for internal accountability. Seaview's experiment
with small autonomous schools has the potential to bring about systemic changes in
how traditional and charter schools are held accountable for student achievement.
163
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Implications
The findings and conclusions of this study have led to implications for
district authorizers, policy makers, and researchers.
District Administrators
As districts shape their oversight polices for charter schools or consider
deregulating traditional schools, it is important to make opportunities to dialogue
with schools to determine what autonomies they most value and in what ways they
still desire services and support. Oversight policies should be considered that serve
two purposes: (a) monitoring student achievement and (b) building the capacity of
the school to accomplish the achievement goals.
Policymakers
This study revealed three policy areas that need to be addressed in order to
build the capacity o f California school district authorizers to adequately hold schools
accountable for student achievement. First, districts must have the ability to collect
better data on charter schools. Value added assessments require that schools and
districts keep track of annual test scores for individual as well as cohort groups.
While there are data systems available to schools and districts that accomplish this
function, they are expensive to establish and maintain. The California Department of
Education must act quickly to develop a confidential system o f tracking individual
student data that is accessible to schools and districts.
Second, the lines of authority among the state, authorizers, and charter
schools still need to be more explicitly defined. It is important for the state to engage
164
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
the three stakeholder groups in discussions to craft accountability policies that are
clear and specific. Charter schools need to know what they must be accountable for
and to whom. Authorizers need guidelines giving them the leverage to deliver
responsible oversight. Charter Schools Development Center, a source of support for
authorizers and schools, has formed a project to develop accountability tools for
authorizers. The state should seriously consider collaborating with members of this
project before any new accountability legislation is enacted. A collaborative effort
between the charter community and the state to craft accountability polices will
ensure greater ownership from authorizers and charter schools. Such endeavors will
help to mitigate the polarizing effects of current charter policies and practices.
Researchers
The study has implications for further research. First, this study focused on a
large district with separate departments for each type of school governance structure.
Further research needs to be done to investigate challenges o f smaller district
authorizers in which oversight for charter and traditional schools is the responsibility
of the same core group of individuals.
Second, because of the study's small sample, the findings are limited to the
degree that they can be generalized. Similar studies need to be conducted with a
larger group of authorizers and schools. The addition of an anonymous survey may
yield data that the intimacy o f interviews may not permit some respondents to
provide.
165
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Third, research needs to be done that examines the extent to which different
types of charter granting entities view capacity building as a function of oversight for
accountability.
166
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, I., & Kirst, M. (1999). New demands and concepts for educational
accountability. In J. Murphy & K. Louis (Eds.), H andbook o f Research on
Educational Adm inistration (2nd ed., pp. 463-489). San Francisco, CA:
Jfossey-Bass.
Bierlein Palmer, L., & Gau, R. (2003). Charter school authorizing: Are states
making the grade? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Budde, R. (1996). The evolution o f the charter concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 75(1),
72-73.
Bulkley, K. (2001). Educational performance and charter school authorizers: The
accountability bind. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(37), 1-22.
California Department o f Education. (1998). Steering by results: A high-stakes
rewards and interventions program fo r California schools and students.
Sacramento, CA: California Department of Education.
California Department of Education. (2002). Charter schools. Retrieved October 15,
2002, from http://cde.ca.gov/charter
California State Auditor. (2002). California's charter schools: Oversight at all levels
could be stronger to ensure charter schools' accountability (No. 2002-104).
Sacramento, CA: Bureau of State Audits.
Camochan, S. (2002). Reinventing government: What urban school districts can
learn from charter schools. In A. S. Wells (Ed.), Where charter school policy
fails: The problems o f accountability and equity (pp. 54-76). New York:
Teachers College Press.
Center for Education Reform. (2001). Charter school laws: State by state ranking
and profiles. Retrieved January 21,2001, from http:/Avmv.edreform.com
Center for Education Reform. (2002). Charter school closures: The opportunity fo r
accountability. Retrieved October 20,2002, from http://www.edreform.com
168
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Center for Education Reform. (2003a). Charter school highlights and statistics.
Retrieved April 18,2003, from http://www.edreform.com
Center for Education Reform. (2003b). Charter schools in California. Retrieved
April 18,2003, from http: //www. edreform.com
Center for Educational Reform. (2000). Charter schools today: Changing the face o f
American education. Retrieved January, 2002, from
http://www.edrefomi.com
Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Cowan, K. I., & Manasevit, L. (2002). The new Title I: Balancingflexibility with
accountability. Washington, DC: Thompson Publishing Group, Inc.
Davies, B., & Hentschke, G. C. (forthcoming). Changing resources and
organisational patterns: The challenge of resourcing education in the 21st
century. Journal o f Educational Change.
EdSouce. (2003). Show me the data. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2001). Aligning California's educational reforms: Progress made and the
work that remains. Palo Alto, CA: EdSource.
EdSource. (2002). Update: California's education reforms. Palo Alto, CA:
EdSource.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure fo r school leadership. Washington,
DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability
in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.),
Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp.
65-98). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
169
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Finn, C. E. (2002). Real accountability in K- 12 education: The marriage of Ted and
Alice. In W. M. Evers & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), School accountability: An
assessment by the Koret Task Force on K-12 Education (Vol. 2002, pp. 23-
46): Hoover Institution.
Finn, C. E., Bierlein, L., & Manno, B. V. (1997). Charier school accountability:
Findings and prospects (Vol. 425). Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa
Educational Foundation.
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action:
renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Fiske, E. B., & Ladd, H. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale.
Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability. Retrieved October 26, 2002, from
http://www.cpre.org
Fuller, B. (Ed.). (2000). Inside charter schools: The paradox o f radical
decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Fuller, B., Burr, E., Huerta, L., Puryear, S., & Wexler, E. (1999). School choice:
Abundant hopes, scarce evidence o f results. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis
for California Education (PACE).
Fusarelli, L. D. (2001). The political construction of accountability: When rhetoric
meets reality. Education and Urban Society, 33, 157-169.
Gam, G. (2001). Moving from bureaucratic to market accountability: The problem of
imperfect information. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 571-599.
Gerwitz, S., Ball, S. J., & Bowe, R. (1995). Markets, choice, and equity in education.
Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Gill, B. P., Timpane, P. M., Ross, K., & Brewer, D. J. (2001). Rhetoric versus
reality: What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charter
schools. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
170
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Goertz, M. E. (2000). Local accountability: The role o f the district and school in
monitoring policy, practice, and achievement Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Educational Research Association. New Orleans,
LA.
Goertz, M. E., Duffy, M. C., & Le Floch, K. C. (2001). Assessment and
accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. Retrieved August 30,
2002, from http://www.cpre. org/Pufalications/RR-Q46. pdf
Goertz, M. E., Massell, D., & Chun, T. (1998). District response to state
accountability policies'. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, New York, NY.
Goodlad, J. (2002). Kudzu, rabbits, and school reform. Phi Delta Kappan, 84(1), lb-
23.
Griffin, N. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2001). Building a plane while flying it: Early
lessons from developing charter schools. Teachers College Record, 103, 336-
365.
Guth, G., Holtzman, D., Schneider, S., Carlos, L., Smith, J., Hayward, G., & Calvo,
N. (1999). Evaluation o f California's standards based accountability system:
Final report November 1999. Retrieved October 30, 2002, from
fattp://www.' wested. org
Hart, G., & Burr, S. (1996). The story of California's charter school legislation. Phi
Delta Kappan, 75(1), 37-40.
Hassel, B. (1998). Charter schools: politics and practice in four states. In P. E.
Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 249-275).
Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hassel, B. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the
promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hassel, B., & Batdorff, M. (2002). How are charter schools being held accountable
fo r results? Paper presented at the National Association of Charter School
Authorizers Annual Conference, San Antonio, TX.
171
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Hassel, B., & Herdman, P. (2000). Charter school accountability: A guide to issues
and options fo r charter authorizers. Charlotte, NC: Public Impact.
Hassel, B., & Vergari, S. (1999). Charter-granting agencies: The challenges of
oversight. Education and Urban Society, 31, 406-428.
Hentschke, G. (1997). Beyond competing school reforms. Education and Urban
Society, 29(4), 474-489.
Herdman, P. (2002). The Massachusetts charter school initiative: A model for public
school accountability? In S. Vergari (Ed.), The charter school landscape (pp.
113-132). Pittsburgh. PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Herdman, P., Smith, N., & Skinner, C. (2002). Charter schools and the new
accountability provisions in NCLB. Retrieved August 13, 2002, from
http://www. charterfriends, ore
Hess, F. (2001). Waddya mean you want to close my school? Education in Urban
Society, 33, 141-156.
Hill, P. T. (1997). Accountability under charters and other school-centered reforms.
Retrieved January 26, 2002, from
http://www.crpe.org/publications/pubpage.htm.
Hill, P. T., Lake, R , & Celio, M. B. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in
public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
Hill, P. T., Lake, R., Celio, M. B., Campbell, C., Herdman, P., & Bulkley, K. (2001).
A study o f charter school accountability: National charter school
accountability study (No. RC97110302). Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing
Public Education.
Isaac, S., & Michael, W. B. (1995). Handbook in research and evaluation (3rd ed.).
San Diego, CA: EdITS.
172
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Izu, J. A,, Carlos, L., Yamashiro, K., Picas, L., Tushnet, N., & Wohlstetter, P.
(1998). The findings and implications o f increasedflexibility and
accountability: an evaluation o f charter schools in Los Angeles Unified
School District. Retrieved April 4, 2002, from http://www.wested.org
Kirst, M., Hayward, G., & Fuller, B. (2000). Governance and accountability. In
Critical Issues in California education 2000: Are the reform pieces fitting
together? (pp. 79-94). Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.
Kolderie, T. (1990). Beyond choice to the new public schools: withdrawing the
exclusive franchise in public education. Retrieved July 12, 2002, from
http: //www .ppionlme. or g
Ladd, H. (2002). Market-based reforms in urban education. Washington, DC:
Economic Policy Institute.
Lane, B. (1997). Choice matters: policy alternatives and implications fo r charter
schools. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
Levin, H. M. (1990). The theory of choice applied to education. In W. H. Clune & J.
F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education volume 1: The
theory o f choice and control in education (pp. 247-284). London, England:
The Falmer Press.
Little Hoover Commission. (1996). The charter movement: education reform school
by school. Retrieved June, 2000, from
http://www.lhc. ca.gov/lhcdir/13 8rp.html
Manno, B. V., Finn, C. E., & Bierlein, L. A. (1998). Charter schools:
Accomplishments and dilemmas. Teachers College Record, 99, 537-558.
Massell, D. (2000). The district role in building capacity. Retrieved October 26,
2002, from http: //www.cpre.org
Massell, D., Kirst, M., & Hoppe, M. (1997). Persistence and change: Standards-
based systemic reform (No. BR-21). Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy
Research in Education.
173
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Merriam, S, B. (2001). Qualitative research and case study application in education.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Millot, M. D. (1995). What are charter schools? An introduction to the concept and.
the statutes. Retrieved January 26, 2002, from
http://www.crpe.org/publications/bubpage.html
Minney, P. (2001). Stale legal issues regarding California charter schools.
Retrieved January 10, 2001, from
http://www.csus.edu/ier/charter/caleeal.html
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2002). What's public about charter schools? Lessons
learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press,
Inc
Mohrman, S. A., Wohlstetter, P., & Associates. (1994). School-based management:
Organizing for high performance. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.
Murphy, J., & Shiftman, C. D. (2002). Understanding and assessing the charter
school movement. New York: Teachers college Press.
Nathan, J. (1996a). Charter schools: creating hope and opportunity fo r American
education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Nathan, J. (1996b). Possibilities, problems, and progress: Early lessons from the
charter movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 18-23.
National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2002). Building excellence in
charter school authorizing: Critical design issues and transparency design
issues. Alexandria, VA: National Association o f Charter School Authorizers.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The
imperative fo r educational reform. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education.
174
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Newmann, F., & King, B. (1997). Accountability and school performance:
implications from restructuring schools. Harvard Educational Review, 67(1),
41-69.
Newmann, F., & Wehlage, G. (1996). Successful school restructuring: A report to
the public and educators by the Center on Organizational Restructuring o f
Schools. Madison, WI: Author.
Obbard, J., & Gardner, L. (2003). Charter Currents. Retrieved March 29, 2003, from
http://vAVw.cachartershools.org
Paris, J. (1998). Standards and charters: Horace Mann meets Tinker Bell.
Educational Policy, 12, 380-396.
Premack, E. (1996). Charter schools: California's education reform "power tool". Phi
Delta Kappan, 78(1), 60-64.
Rolfes, E. (1998). How are school districts responding to charter laws and charter
schools? Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE).
RPP International. (2000). The state o f charter schools 2000 national study o f
charter schools: Fourth year report. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of
Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
RPP International. (2001). Challenge and opportunity: The impact o f charter schools
on school districts. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Education, Office
of Educational Research and Improvement.
Shanker, A. (1998, July 10). Convention plots new course— A charter for change.
New York Times, p. 7.
Smith, N. (2003). Catching the wave: Lessons from California's charter schools.
Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
SRI International. (1997). Evaluation o f charter school effectiveness. Menlo Park,
CA: Author.
175
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
SRI International (2002). A decade o f public charter schools: Evaluation o f the
public charier schools program: 2000-2001 evaluation report, Menlo Park,
CA: Author.
Sugarman, S., & Kuboyama, E. (2001). Approving charter schools: The gate-keeper
function. Retrieved February 18, 2002, from
www.iaw.berkeiev.edu/faculty/sugarmans/
Tyack, D., & Cuban, L. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century o f public school
reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
U. S. Department of Education. (2002). Questions and answers on No Child Left
Behind. Retrieved April 8, 2003, from
http://wwwnclb. gov/next/faq/accountabilitv. html#4
U. S. Department of Education. (2003). The impact o f the new Title 1 requirements
on charter schools: Non-regulatoiy guidance. Retrieved April 8, 2003, from
http://www. ed. eov/offices/OII/choice/charterguidanceoS. pdf
University of California, L. A. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric o f charter school reform:
A study o f 10 California school districts. Los Angeles: University o f
California, Los Angeles.
Vergari, S. (2000). The regulatory styles of statewide charter school authorizers:
Arizona, Massachusetts, and Michigan. Educational Administration
Quarterly, 36(5), 730-756.
Vergari, S. (2001). Charter school authorizers: Public agents for holding charter
schools accountable. Education and Urban Society, 33, 129-140.
Vergari, S. (2002). Introduction. In S. Vergari (Ed.), The charter school landscape
(pp. 1-16). Pittsburgh. PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Weil, D. (2000). Charier schools: A reference handbook. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-
CLIO.
Wells, A. S. (1993). Time to choose. New York: Hill and Wang.
176
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Wells, A. S. (2002). Why public policy fails to live up to the potential of charter
school reform: An introduction. In A. S. Wells (Ed.), Where charter School
Policy Fails: The problems o f Accountability and Equity (pp. 1-25). New
York: Teachers College Press.
Wells, A. S., Gratzik, C., Camochan, S., Slayton, J., & Vasudeva, A. (1999).
Underlying policy assumptions of charter school reform: The multiple
meanings of a movement. Teachers College Record, 100(3), 513-535.
Wells, A. S., Vasuveda, A., Holme, J. J., & Cooper, C. W. (2002). The politics of
accountability: California school districts and charter school reform. In A. S.
Wells (Ed.), Where charter school policy fa ils: The problems o f
accountability and equity (pp. 29-53). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. C. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning
communities: Early lessons from charter schools. Retrieved 7/12, 2002, from
http: //www. cpre. org/Publications/QP-03. pdf
Wohlstetter, P., Griffin, N. C., & Chau, D. (2002). Charter schools in California: A
bruising campaign for public school choice. In S. Vergari (Ed.), The charter
school landscape (pp. 32-53). Pittsburgh. PA. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Zimmer, ffi, Buddin, R., Chau, D., Daley, G., Gill, B P., Guarino, C., Hamilton, L.,
Krop, C., McCaffrey, D., Sandler, M., & Brewer, D. J. (2003). Charter
school operations and performance: Evidence from California. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
177
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
Interview Protocols
Interview Protocol Introduction
Good moming/aftemoon. I appreciate you arranging your schedule to meet
with me today. Seaview School District was chosen for this study because you have
traditional schools as well as charter schools. .Also, your district has an
accountability system in place and has recently renewed or is in the process of
renewing a charter school. The purpose of this study is to determine how or if a
difference in school governance (charter and traditional schools) influences how
schools are held accountable for student achievement. I will be investigating the
accountability oversight practices of Seaview School District to explore its concerns
and strategies as it provides oversight for student achievement and to identify the
conditions that influence its decisions and actions in holding traditional and charter
school accountable. Information from the study may prove to be valuable to other
districts such as yours that are trying to provide responsible accountability oversight
for two different models o f school governance. It also has the potential to inform
policy makers and those individuals who are influential in developing accountability
policies. Your participation, and that o f some of your colleagues, is vital to gaining
more knowledge in this area.
You may know or have been referred by other individuals in the district who
are participating in the study; therefore, I must ask you to limit your answers to
describing or contrasting the district’s accountability processes for traditional or
180
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
charter schools. Please do not reveal information o f a sensitive nature or that is
directed at individuals. In order to protect the identity of the district and the
participants in the published study, the district, responses, and positions of
individuals and the district will remain anonymous. I will provide a copy of the
findings to the district when the study is completed.
Now, I would like to ask you a series o f questions, some are structured while
others are open-ended. For greater accuracy, I have brought a portable tape recorder
but I must ask your permission to use it. I will take written notes during the
interview. The interview is coded so that your name will not appear on the recording
or written notes. Have you any questions before we begin?
181
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interview Protocol 1
District Oversight for Charter School Accountability
Section 1
Study Question 1. How does the district provide accountability oversight for charter
schools?
1. Please describe your role and the composition of the charter schools department.
2. Describe your charter petition approval process.
Use probes as needed:
(a) What, if any, services or materials address accountability?
(b) How is accountability addressed in charter documents and MOUs?
(c) What materials do you provide for petitioners?
(d) How are the charter school stakeholders made aware of the expectations
of the accountability system?
(e) What assistance does the district provide for charter petitioners?
3. Once a charter has been approved, what type o f accountability oversight does the
district provide?
Use probes as needed:
(a) What accountability data does the district require charter schools to
provide?
(b) How does the district use the data?
(c) How is school performance assessed?
(d) How are targets set for individual charter schools?
(e) Are there absolute measures as well as measures over time? Please
describe.
(f) How are charter schools in need o f improvement identified?
(g) What strategies does the district use to help failing schools?
(h) What incentives and consequences do the charter schools face?
(i) Do you conduct site visits? If so, how often do you visit, and for what
purpose?
4. Have your developed a formal charter renewal process? Please describe the
process.
Use probes as needed:
(a) What elements of school performance are most important to the district
as it considers charter renewal?
(b) How are these elements made clear to the charter school?
(c) What measures axe used to determine if schools have met the goals
stated in their original charters?
182
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5. Specifically, discuss the process for the charter schools that are renewing this
year.
Use probes as needed:
(a) How were the schools informed of the renewal process?
(b) Do the schools know the criteria on which they will be evaluated?
(c) How were the performance goals established for the revised charter
petition?
(d) How will the district gather information to determine if the school
meets these goals?
(e) What conditions or factors do you think will influence the district's
renewal decision for_________ school? What are the most important
factors?
6. Has the district ever revoked a charter? If so, please explain the circumstances.
Section 2
Study Question 2: What are the specific challenges of district accountability
oversight for charter schools?
Study Question 3: What strategies does the district utilize to overcome the challenges
of accountability oversight? ____________________________
1. In your opinion, what are the greatest challenges of holding charter schools
accountable for student achievement?
Use probes as needed:
(a) In what ways (if any) have state actions or policies influenced
accountability oversight?
(b) Has California's accountability system (STAR, API, etc.) aligned or
conflicted with the accountability system for charter schools? Give
examples.
(c) How have the provisions o f the No Child Left Behind Act influenced
charter school accountability?
(d) Are there conditions (political, financial, and other) that help or hinder
the district’ s ability to evaluate a school on meeting charter goals alone?
2. What strategies or systems does the district have or plan to develop to overcome
the challenges?
3. Based on your experiences, what regulations, or processes would you suggest to
the California Department of Education or policy makers that would improve
accountability oversight for charter schools?
183
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4. What type of support do you think charter authorizers need in order to effectively
carry out their responsibilities for accountability oversight? What agencies
should provide that support?
Section 3
Study Question 7: To what extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less)
accountable for student achievement than traditional schools within the same
district?
1. Have the district's charter accountability oversight practices influenced how it
evaluates non-charter schools?
2. Have any of the accountability oversight practices for traditional schools
influenced the way the district evaluates charter schools?
3. What do you consider the differences (or similarities) in how charter and
traditional schools are held accountable in your district?
4. What are the specific challenges in developing and implementing accountability
systems in a district that has schools with diverse governance structures?
5. Has the district developed any strategies to address those challenges?
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Is there any other information you would
like to share? Are there other people whom I might interview to get additional
information?
184
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Interview Protocol 2
District Accountability Oversight for Traditional Schools
Section 1
Study Question 4: How does the district provide accountability oversight for
traditional public schools? ________________________
1. Describe your role and your department.
2. Can you describe the key elements o f your district’ s accountability system?
Use probes as needed:
(a) Do you use the state standards as written or have you adopted your
own?
(b) What assessments do you use to measure student progress?
(c) What systems are in place to collect, analyze and manage data?
(d) Do you have goals that schools need to meet? How are they
determined?
(e) What rewards are in pace for schools that meet the goals?
(f) What interventions do you have for schools that fail to meet their goals?
(g) Describe professional development in your district.
(h) How do you provide on-going oversight for accountability?
3. Specifically, if a school is failing, what conditions might influence the
accountability decisions made for that particular school? Give an example.
Section 2
Study Question 5: What are the specific challenges of district accountability
oversight for traditional public schools?
Study Question 6: What strategies does the district use to overcome the challenges?
1. What are the current conditions or factors within your district and externally that
support or hinder the implementation of your accountability system?
2. What, in you opinion, are the greatest challenges to implementing you
accountability system?
Use probes as needed:
(a) In what ways (if any) have state actions or policies influenced the
accountability system your district has adopted or is developing?
(b) Has California's accountability system (STAR, API, Etc.) aligned or
conflicted with the district’s accountability system? Give examples.
185
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
(c) How have the provisions o f the No Child Left Behind Act influenced
your accountability system?
(d) How have the provisions o f the No Child Left behind Act influenced
your accountability system?
3. What strategies or systems will the district put in place to overcome the
challenges?
Section 3
Study Question 7: To what extent (if any) are charter schools held more (or less)
accountable for student achievement than traditional schools within the same
district?
1. Have charter schools influenced your accountability practices for traditional
schools?
2. If so, please explain.
3. What do you consider the differences (or similarities) in how charter and
traditional schools are held accountable in your district?
4. What are the specific challenges in developing and implementing accountability
systems in a district that has schools with diverse governance structures?
5. Has the district developed any strategies to address those challenges?
Thank you for your thoughtful responses. Is there any other information you would
like to share? Are there other people whom I might interview to get additional
information?
186
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
DATA MANAGEMENT FORMS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
Contact Interview Summary Form
Contact #
/ Ti
Contact Date 1
me ;
Phone Observation
Phone # :
Contact type: Interview
Individual
Job title and function
Group meeting topic:
Participants Job Function TR
CH DW !
;
|
i
j
| |
Main issues or themes;
Summary o f information received on target questions:
Question Information
Other salient, interesting, or important information:
New or remaining target questions or actions remaining with this contact:
188
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX B
Document Summary Form
Date received: Date reviewed: Document #:
Received from:
Relevance: Traditional Charter District wide (traditional and charter)
Represents:
Data/ Assessments/Analysis Standards, Evaluation Criteria
Interventions/ Support Sanctions/Rewards
Name or description of the document:
Event or contact with which the document is associated:
Purpose and importance o f the document:
Summary o f Contents:
189
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX C
List of Documents
District Documents For Charter School Oversight
1. Charter School Regulations (Title V, California Administrative Code of
Regulations) June 21, 2001
2. CSDC Charter School Regulations Title V, California Administrative Code of
Regulations) April 14, 2002
3. CSD Charter Schools Act of 1992: As amended through the end of the 2000
regular legislative session and by a ballot measure enacted during the 2000
regular election (February 2001)
4. Minimum Annual Instructional Minutes— Draft
5. State testing— Draft
6 . California Department o f Education: Office Staff and Contact Information
7. CD SC Evolution of Major Features o f California's Charter School Laws 1992-
2001
8. Seaview Unified School District Charter Schools: Guidelines and
Requirements of Charter School Petitions
9. CDSC Collective Bargaining and California Charter Schools: Assembly Bill
631 (Chapter 828, CDSC Statutes of 1999) Amended Education and
Government Code Sections
10. CSDC Guide to the Brown Act
11. Charter Petition Scoring Rubric
12. Seaview Charter Schools Directory
Documents from Charter Schools
1. Oceanside Charter Renewal Petition 2003
2. Bylaws o f Oceanside Charter School
3. Oceanside Charter School Five-Year Budget Projections
4. Oceanside Charter School Five-Year Cash Flows
5. Oceanside Charter School Progress Data Report
6. Oceanside Charter Renewal Petition 1998
7. Freedom Charter School Renewal Petition 2003
191
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Documents
D istrict Governing B oard Documents
1. Agenda 4.23.03: Public hearing for Freedom Charter School renewal
2. Charter Renewal petition for Freedom Charter School
3. Agenda 5.21.03 Decision to approve the Oceanside Charter School petition and
Freedom Charter School petition
4. Minutes 5.21.03 Approval of the Oceanside Charter School petition and charter
proposal
5. Staff Report for Oceanside Charter School Renewal
6. Staff Report for Freedom Charter School Renewal
D istrict and Traditional School Accountability Documents
1. Traditional School Comprehensive School Plans (from school sites)
2. 2003 School Plan Update
3. Accountability Updates
4. Assessment Update
5. Open Court Performance Assessment Calendar 2002-2003
6. S SC/EL AC Documents for Meetings and School Plan Processes
7. Seaview Professional Development Calendar
8. Seaview Student Achievement Memo to Principals
9. Classroom Observation Guide
10. Seaview Planned Improvement in Student Performance
11. School Site Council Month to Month Guide
12. English Learner Program Compliance Benchmarks
13. Data Report for Teachers
14. Elementary Promotions-Retention Roster
15. Seaview Parent Notification of Student Test Results and Program ELL
Students (Draft)
16. ELL Student Reclassification Form
17. ELL Compliance Item List Letter
18. "Files and Folders" Improvement Process
19. Seaview Directory o f Schools
20. Superintendent's Letter #1
21. District Mission and Core Beliefs
22. Superintendent's Biography
192
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
List of Documents
School Performance Data fo r Traditional and Charter Schools
1. 2002 Academic Performance Index (API) base report for each school
2. API school report for each school
3. Similar Schools Rank list
4. District data portal profiles for each school
5. School Accountability Report Cards (SARCS) for each school
6. California Basic Educational Data System (CBEDS) information for each
school
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Exploring a team-based model for organizing schools: The case of Fenton Avenue Charter School

PDF

Administrative evaluations and their impact on school leadership in public and private secondary schools: A comparison study of governance structure

PDF

California charter schools: Including students with disabilities

PDF

Formal or informal organizational structure: Learning the ropes to get work done

PDF

A comparison of public and private governance in new teacher induction practices

PDF

Accountability practices: A comparison between two elementary schools under different governance models

PDF

A comparative case study: Tutoring in reading in two settings

PDF

The transition to school-based management: testing an organizational change model in public schools

PDF

A longitudinal comparative study of the effects of charter schools on minority and low-SES students in California

PDF

An exploration of project -based learning in two California charter schools

PDF

Implementation challenges of a school district's technology plan at the middle school level

PDF

Fulfilling the mission to serve the underserved: A case study of a private, Catholic, urban college's two -year program

PDF

Governance and instructional practices in a conventional and a charter school

PDF

Adult school student achievement on the California High School Exit Examination: Are adult schools ready for the challenge?

PDF

California school dropouts: An analysis of the common characteristics and duration of programs identified as successful in retaining students in school

PDF

A case study of the role of high school booster organizations in fund raising, governance issues, and personnel decisions

PDF

Accountability in public -private partnerships

PDF

A comparative study of American, Australian, British, and Canadian museum visitors' understanding of the nature of evolutionary theory

PDF

Implementing and assessing problem -based learning in non -traditional post -secondary aviation safety curricula: A case study

PDF

Implementation of performance indicators for the district office of the Dos Palos -Oro Loma Joint Unified School District

Asset Metadata

Creator Henderson, Linda Courtney (author)

Core Title Holding traditional and charter schools accountable for student achievement in one California school district

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, administration,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Hentschke, Guilbert (committee chair), Cohn, Carl (committee member), Wohlstetter, Priscilla (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-484089

Unique identifier UC11340133

Identifier 3133281.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-484089 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 3133281.pdf

Dmrecord 484089

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Henderson, Linda Courtney

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA