/

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

/

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

(USC Thesis Other)

A community struggling to create a charter school: a rural case study

PDF

Transcript (if available)

Content

A COMMUNITY STRUGGLING TO CREATE A CHARTER SCHOOL:

A RURAL CASE STUDY

by

Katherine L. Hanson

________________________________

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 2006

Copyright 2006 Katherine L. Hanson

ii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to my mother, who instilled in me the love of learning,
and the desire and motivation to never stop reaching for more. It is because of her
selflessness for her children that I have reached this juncture.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This project is the culmination of the efforts of many wonderful people who
offered their guidance, support, and encouragement in the past three years. I am
especially indebted to Dr. Larry Picus, Dr. Penny Wohlstetter, and Dr. Gib
Hentschke for giving of their valuable time to serve on my dissertation committee.
As true subject matter experts, these scholars were able to keep me focused on the
pertinent issues, and guide me toward completion with professional, yet personal
care. I am enormously grateful to Dr. Hentschke, who has been a patient, pleasant
mentor. He was always just a phone call or an email away. His flexibility,
willingness to help, and constantly positive attitude made this project a pleasant
experience.
I must thank all of the outstanding professors who sacrificed (sic) of themselves
to travel to Oahu to teach our Hawaii Cohort. We were indeed fortunate to have
experienced such an incredibly talented, dedicated group of scholars who enriched
our academic and personal lives. Consequently, our close-knit group maintained
their enthusiasm and fervor for learning, and developed lifelong friendships. To Dr.
Melora Sundt, who gently but firmly prodded “Just do it!” …I did it!
I must share this achievement with my two wonderful children who inspire me on
a daily basis. To Kelly and Chip who have known little else other than “Mom writing
papers,” you were my rays of sunshine on those dark days!
I was blessed to have been reared in a family where learning was nurtured and
celebrated, and I only hope that I am a reflection of my parents who live by this
iv

credo. They have loved me unconditionally, believed in me, and supported me
without question my entire life.

v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS…………………………..…………………………….....iii
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………...…….……vii
ABSTRACT…………………………………………….…………………….....…viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION………………...…………………………………..1
What is a Charter?………………………….………………..……………2
Rural and Urban Differences………………………...……………….…..5
Population Density……………………....……………………………5
Economy……….………………………………………………………7
Curriculum………………………………………..………..…………..8
Fiscal Resources…………………………..………………………….10
Background of the Case….....…………………….…………………..…12
Educational Opportunities…………………………...………………13
Statement of the Problem…….………………………….….…………...17
Purpose of the Study.……………………….……………….……..……18
Significance of the Study…………………….……………………….....18
Research Questions……………….…………………………………..…19
Assumptions……………………………………………………….……21
Limitations…………………………………………………………...….21
Delimitations………………….……………………………………....…22
Organization of the Study…………………………….………...……….22

CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE…………….….…………..…….24
Charter Schools……….…………….…………………….……………..24
Founders………………………………...……………………….…..27
Students……………………………………………….……………...27
Philosophy…………………………………….……………………..29
School Size and Classroom Structure…………………………….….30
Accountability…………………………………….……………...…..31
Funding………………………………………….…………………...32
Charter Schools in Ohio…………………………….…………...………34
Creation and Operation...………….………………………….……..35
Accountability Requirements….…………………….……………….37
Authorization Process……...………….………………..……………37
Funding and Facilities Options…………………………………...…40
Student Enrollment Requirements…….……………………………..42
Challenges……………………………….....………………………..…..43
Start-up Funds……………………………………….………………45

vi

Facilities……………………………………….…………………….47
Conflicts with Educational Entities…………………………….……49
Internal Conflicts………………………….…………………………49

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY………………..…………….…….……………..51
Procedures…………………………………………...……...……….51
Reliability and Validity……………………………………...………53

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS…………….…………….………………........…………..55
Background of the Community………………………………...……55
Educational Climate……………………………………………...58
The Academic Truth……………………………….……………...67
The Players…………………………………………………………..70
Personal Motivations………………………...…………………...74
The Timeline………………...……………...………………………..76
The Plan………………………………….…………………………..78
Facilities……………………………………………………………...83
The Surveys……………………………………………….………....86
Discussion…………………………...………………..………...……92
Financial Obstacles………………………………….…………...94
Political Obstacles………………………………….……………..95
Institutional/Organizational Obstacles………………………...…96

CHAPTER 5: SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS……99
REFERENCES……………………..………………………...………..….….……100
APPENDICES
Appendix A: CSEC Survey……………………..…………….………106
Appendix B: County Schools Survey………………..………………..116

vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Gallia County Schools……………………………..…………………...…14

Figure 2: Gallia County: Secondary and Postsecondary Schools………………..….15

viii

ABSTRACT

Charter schools have gained widespread support in the last decade as an
alternative to traditional public education, but have been predominately serving
urban communities. This study documents the unsuccessful efforts of a group of
parents, teachers, and community members in rural southeastern Ohio to start a
charter school in their county. The research covered a twenty-three month period,
from fall of 1998 to fall of 2000, and focused on the factors that contributed to the
group’s failure to implement the community school plan. Qualitative data derived
from personal interviews, recorded meetings, and public and private documents form
the basis of the study. The results indicate that community and local board
opposition were the two most significant barriers that impeded the success of the
charter school project, while other factors such as lack of facilities, lack of start-up
funds, restrictive state charter laws, and internal conflict presented minimal
challenges. Recommendations for further research in the area of rural charter school
development were based on these results.

1

Chapter One: Introduction

Our country is experiencing a tremendous surge in the number of children
enrolled in elementary and secondary schools, and the need for more facilities and
teachers is creating shortages in many crucial areas of public education. We have
more children enrolled in schools now than at any time in our nation’s history, and
that number is increasing at a phenomenal rate. In September of 2000, 53 million
children entered public and private elementary and secondary schools in the Unites
States – an increase of 8 million schoolchildren in the last 15 years (United States
Department of Education, 2000). This record growth in student population translates
into new demands on our public education system.
For this reason alone, the demand for more educational options in the public
arena has been overwhelming. But in addition, concerned parents, teachers,
administrators, and legislators recognize that although enrollment is rising, academic
achievement is falling. The public education system has been failing to accomplish
the achievement goals established by state and federal mandates, and American
schools have been in acute crisis since the release of the 1983 report entitled, A
Nation at Risk (Good & Braden, 2000). Efforts were underway to revamp public
education, but by the mid 1990s education reform was stymied due to a variety of
reasons. Politics, special interest groups, and a myriad of educational fads and
schemes confused the reform movement and halted progress toward educational
change (Manno, Finn, & Vanourek, 2000). Out of this chaos emerged two education
reform approaches intended to provide educational choice and innovation that have
2

endured a decade of trial, error, and adjustment. These two alternatives to traditional
public education are the voucher system and charter schools. Both offer free-market
competition, but are distinctly different in their approaches toward that end.
What is a Charter?
A charter school operates under an educational charter, which is a written
agreement between a school and a granting authority that delineates the goals,
objectives, and responsibilities of both parties. Charters can be granted by local
school districts, states, or by the national government (Wohlstetter & Anderson,
1994). Typically, a charter must be renewed every five years (Wohlstetter & Griffin,
1998), but the duration of the charter can vary greatly (from 3 to 15 years) by state
(RPP International, 1999). In most states, charter schools operate under performance
contracts that specify the duration of the charter (Berman, Nelson, Ericson, Perry, &
Silverman, 1998). Charters must be renewed periodically (Griffin & Wohlstetter,
2000), based on whether or not each school has fulfilled its obligations as specified
in the charter. If the accepted performance standards are not met, the charter school
faces suspension or closure.
Just as the duration of the charter can vary by state, so can the number of
charters allowed per state. These provisions in state laws that govern the number of
charters allowed range from no limit in sixteen states, to fewer than nine schools
allowed in three of the 34 with charter school legislation (RPP International, 1999).
What makes charter schools different and desirable is that they are free from most
of the administrative and bureaucratic constraints that traditionally encumber public
3

schools, allowing for increased autonomy. The tradeoff is that charter schools must
demonstrate accountability in exchange for their independence. Although they are
held accountable for the academic achievement of their students, the methods by
which charter schools produce those results are completely individual. This freedom
to develop customized curricula and educational programs holds great appeal to
parents, teachers, and administrators who have felt restricted by traditional public
school settings. Charter schools support the growing trend in American society
toward decentralized decision-making, which is a stark contrast to the organization
and governance of our typical educational system. In fact, our country has whittled
its public school districts down from 117,000 in 1940, to a mere 14,800 today
(Gillespie, 2000). The concept of the charter school is built around the opposite
notion, that education can still be “public” when elected and appointed officials play
a strategic role rather than a functional role (Manno, et al., 2000). Perhaps this ability
to empower parents, teachers, and community members and make them stakeholders
in the education of their children is what makes charter schools such popular
educational options.
It takes a village to raise a child, or so the saying goes. Likewise, there is a
growing population of individuals concerned with the quality of public education
who believe it takes a community effort to educate a child. The concept of the
charter school is built around that notion, and by connecting parents, students,
teachers, and other members of the community, charter schools are changing the face
of education reform.
4

Since the inception of the first charter school law in Minnesota in 1991, the
growth of charter schools has been phenomenal. By the 2000/2001 school year, over
2,300 charter schools enrolled more than 576,000 students across 34 states and the
District of Columbia (Center for Educational Reform, 2001). President Clinton
increased federal funding for charter schools from $6 million in 1995 to $100 million
in 1999 (Guttman, 1999). In an effort to achieve their goal of 3,000 charter schools
by the end of his term in office, Clinton’s administration committed $175 million to
the Public Charter School Program for the 2001 fiscal year (Griffin & Wohlstetter,
2001). Additionally, President George W. Bush cited charter school issues as a key
component of his education platform. Charter schools are multiplying at a blistering
pace. Today, over half a million children attend a type of school that did not even
exist a decade ago (Center for Education Reform, 2001; Schorr, 2000). In fact, the
growth of charter schools seems to be impeded only by state legislation that impose
limits on the number of charter schools allowed per state, or otherwise inhibit
growth.
Critics of charter schools would claim that they are a marginal educational reform
strategy that often caters to malcontents, kids in trouble, and idiosyncratic parents on
the fringes traditional public education (Finn, 2000). Indeed, when asked why they
do not support charter schools, opponents most frequently respond that they perceive
the schools to be elitist. Many people are suspicious of charter schools, fearing that
they are designed to “cherry-pick” the top-performing students, leaving those most at
risk for failure to fend for themselves (Cole, 2000). In reality, this could not be
5

further from the truth, since charter legislation includes strict admissions regulations
that prevent such exclusion. This legislation will be discussed in more detail in
Chapter Two. While it is true that charter schools are well suited to serve specific
populations of students that are not well served by traditional public schools, they
often serve a greater number and percentage of at-risk students than their
counterparts (RPP International, 1999).
Rural and Urban Differences
Ideally, the charter school model would serve both urban and rural communities
equally well. In reality, Rural and urban communities differ greatly in many respects,
in terms of types of populations served, resources, educational needs, and
educational programs offered. In order to understand the needs and expectations of
students and parents in rural areas versus those of urban residents, the distinctions
between the two communities must be identified. Unfortunately, the distinctions
between “rural” and “urban” are obscure, and difficult to define in hard, fast terms.
Ours is now an urban society, and we have great difficulty agreeing upon a precise
definition of what is considered rural.
Population Density
There are some federally accepted guidelines that establish the definitions of rural
and urban schools and communities, out of necessity for demographic and statistical
record keeping. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, a rural
area is defined as a geographic area with a population of 2,500 or less (U. S.
Department of Education, 2000). The Census Bureau provides this conservative
6

definition, and many rural communities are actually far smaller. Based on this
definition, any elementary, middle, or secondary school that is located within such an
area is considered rural. During the 1997-98 academic year for which these data
were compiled, about one-fourth (24.7%) of all U. S. public schools were located in
rural areas. Interestingly, the states with the largest concentration of charter schools
were among the lowest in terms of public schools serving rural areas. Arizona,
California, Michigan, and Texas account for half of all charter schools (RPP
International, 2000), yet these states combined only represent about 4% of all rural
public schools (U. S. Department of Education, 2000). These percentages clearly
indicate that although our country serves a significantly large rural public school
population, charter schools still predominately serve urban communities.
Joyce Ley, the Director for the Rural Education Division of the Northwest
Regional Education Laboratory (NWREL), is quick to emphasize that rurality is not
a size issue when speaking of schools. A rural school can be quite large, or very
small, with no restrictions on enrollment, and still qualify as rural. Instead, rurality
speaks to population density of a given geographic area. Ley states that the NWREL
has offered its definition of a rural school as any school where 75% or more of the
students enrolled come from unincorporated areas. There are other factors that can
contribute to the categorization of rural communities, such as whether or not the
population has a recognized city government. For the sake of simplicity, consider a
rural community as one where there are fewer people spread over a larger area than
in most places.
7

Economy
Who makes up these rural communities that are being passed over by the charter
school movement? Rural America is as diverse as urban America, but far poorer.
Consider the following facts from a recent report (2000) funded by a foundation
called the Rural School and Community Trust. Of the 250 poorest counties in the
country, 244 are rural. Poverty is a glaring problem in rural communities, and over
15% of rural households live below the poverty line (Giglio, 1999). Poverty is
generally understood to negatively effect student achievement, for a variety of
reasons (Westra, 2000). Rural schools have high per-pupil costs due to problems
associated with economy-of-scale. It is cheaper per unit to fund greater amounts of
anything, including students. Additionally, rural schools suffer financially from high
transportation costs and the strain associated with bringing curricular technology to
the fringes of the educational mainstream. Research has shown that academic
achievement or poorer students is also tied closely to school size. Researchers
Howley and Bickel (2000) of Marshall University studied over 13,000 urban,
suburban, and rural schools from 2,200 districts. They were able to determine that
students from schools below the median size consistently outperformed their peers
from larger-than-average schools (Westra, 2000).
A large percentage of the young rural population (under age 18) is comprised of
minorities. Almost one in four rural students is a member of a minority group,
compared with one in three for the nation as a whole (Keller, 2000). Couple this
information with the fact that rural students come from less affluent homes, and this
8

translates into a high proportion of school-age rural residents who are in dire need of
financial and educational assistance. Unfortunately, such assistance is usually
diverted to the larger numbers rather than the proportionate need.
Curriculum
Rural students have unique educational needs, and schools in these communities
approach education from distinctly different vantage points than their urban
counterparts. They tend to be close to the communities they serve, and are places
where students, teachers, parents, and administrators know each other (Beeson &
Strange, 2000). Students from small communities need schools that provide the
necessary community and family involvement that they are accustomed to. They also
need increased emphasis on technological education, because distance and sparsity
combine to make these schools among the last to be “connected” to the digital world.
Ideally, rural students need teachers who are not required to wear many different
hats, and who are not required to teach outside of their certified subject area due to
teacher shortages. But this is not the reality in rural America. Recruiting and
retaining quality teachers in rural areas is difficult due to the chronically low salaries.
Perhaps most importantly, rural students need educational programs that reflect their
interests and career goals, while providing competitive academic challenges.
Program flexibility is a key aspect of charter schools, and allows for the type of
creative curriculum designs that best serve diverse rural communities. Many rural
schools place a good deal of emphasis on agribusiness, because that is the likely
career choice of many of their graduates. People persistently choose to remain in
9

rural areas if they can make a living there. Educational choices should be designed to
optimize the career choices that are available within a given rural community.
Certainly there is a greater demand for agriculturally based programs in the rural
environment than in urban areas. Rural schools also have a greater need for
accelerated programs in areas such as math and science, because these are areas
where rural schools have traditionally suffered from a lack of resources to fund the
courses. By addressing the specific needs of the residents who live and work in these
rural areas, charter schools can help students achieve their full potential in
educational and career goals that are more realistic for them, in certain instances.
Charter schools seem ideally equipped to provide for the unique needs of rural
students. Charter schools complement the “partnership theory” between school and
community that exists in rural locales. In a rural community, the school often serves
as the central point of many cultural, social, and athletic events (Harris, 2000).
Parents of students in rural communities are traditionally more involved in their
children’s education. This parent/student/teacher cooperation is a cornerstone of the
charter school movement. Indeed, rural charter schools are intended to promote
community involvement. Furthermore, there is little dissent among professional
educators that small class size is highly conducive to an optimal learning experience.
Schools throughout rural America tend to be small, both by necessity and by
community preference (Beeson & Strange, 2000). The small class size that is typical
of charter schools lends itself to the respectively smaller enrollments of rural
communities.
10

The need for rural charter schools is great, and the benefits they have to offer
appear obvious, yet charter schools are being established predominately in urban
areas rather than rural communities. In light of this trend, it would seem that
policymakers are indifferent to the plight of their rural constituency. In reality, rural
people are nearly invisible, because they represent a demographic and political
majority in only five states. Even in California, with the nation’s 8
th
largest rural
population, rural residents constitute a mere 8% of the state’s entire population
(Beeson & Strange, 2000). Politicians are responding to the educational demands
where the voters are concentrated, and that is in the urban areas.
Economic, social, and cultural forces that influence crime, delinquency, and
violence first appear in urban areas and then spread to outlying rural areas
(Donnermeyer, 2000). Likewise, educational crises first rear their ugly heads in the
more visible metropolitan areas. One farmer from Ohio describes the phenomenon of
rural communities experiencing the problems of urban areas in a “trickle-down”
fashion as follows: “We’re on the same train as city people, but we’re in the
caboose” (Donnermeyer, 2000). The most prominent wounds receive the dressings
first. Consequently, rural communities are often left out of resource allocation
decisions in education, because when policymakers are making those decisions, the
problems are predominantly urban.
Fiscal Resources
It is quite possible that politics play a large role in why charter schools are more
common in urban areas than rural communities, as elected officials often seek to
11

address educational issues that represent the concerns of the majority of their
constituents first, rather than the minority. Fiscal considerations also contribute to the
predominance of charter schools being located in urban settings. As discussed
earlier, rural communities are more economically deprived than urban communities,
and urban areas receive the lion’s share of the educational appropriations. When it
comes to state or federal funding, money goes to the masses. Urban districts are
more heavily populated, and therefore receive the funding that is assigned to those
respective students. Charter schools tend to be conceived and approved in
environments that have educational dollars to appropriate to new endeavors.
Urban charter schools are more likely to survive financially for several reasons,
the least of which is not start-up costs. Many rural areas are already financially
burdened and resource-poor, and charter schools in those areas may not survive the
substantial start-up costs associated with opening. New charter schools need people
with operational business skills, and not just vision and hope for the future.
Once charter schools are open, their operating costs resemble those of other
public schools. Although one of the positive aspects of charter schools is usually
their independence from the larger district, there is one distinct disadvantage
associated with costs. As independent, small “districts,” charter schools are required
to provide the same level of services to special-needs children and fulfill the same
reporting requirements as all public schools. They just have fewer students over
which to spread the costs of these activities (Hassel, 1999). In a rural community,
these costs can be overwhelming.
12

Charter schools must use their flexibility to their financial advantage in order to
survive in small communities where they lack economies of scale. Even though they
cannot spread their costs over as many students, charter schools enjoy unparalleled
freedom to design systems of compensation to meet their needs. For example, charter
schools are not obligated to use employees for certain duties, but are free to contract
out services as they see fit. Unlike conventional public schools that must adhere to
strict salary schedules, charter schools are able to create and adjust their teacher pay
without approval from the governing authority (Hassel, 1999). With careful thought
and planning, charter schools can compensate for their lack of economies of scale
problems through selective cost cutting.
Another misconception about charter schools is that they siphon off funds from
public school districts, as the public dollars follow the student to the host charter
school. Although it is true that a percentage of designated per-pupil funds follow the
student to the charter school, the sponsoring organization retains a portion of that
money, regardless of whether or not the student attends the sponsoring school.
Chapter Two explores this situation in greater detail in the Funding section.
Background of the Case
On February 23, 1999, a group of concerned parents and community members
met in Gallipolis, Ohio, to discuss the possibility of forming a committee to explore
the idea of creating a concept for a charter school, as defined by the Ohio State
Legislature (Bill 3314) (Community School Advocacy, 1999). Calling themselves
the Community School Advocacy Group (CSAG), these concerned citizens were
13

motivated to seek alternative educational options because they perceived their
community to be in an academic crisis. Indeed, according to state standards, their
school district, as well as three surrounding districts, was educationally deficient.
Educational Opportunities
As shown in Figure 1, the county is divided into two school districts commonly
referred to by county residents as the “city” and “county” districts. The Gallia
County Local School District is comprised of eight public schools with an
enrollment of 4,526 students and a 19:1 student/teacher ratio. The Gallipolis City
School District consists of four public schools with an enrollment of 2,462 students
and a 22:1 student/teacher ratio. Additionally, there is one private elementary and
one private high school in the county, with a combined enrollment of 257 students.
Interestingly, both of these private schools operate within the city limits (Gallia
County Chamber of Commerce, 2001).
Figure 2 depicts the secondary and postsecondary educational opportunities
within Gallia County. The vocational/technical school located in the county, called
Buckeye Hills Career Center, serves six school districts in three counties. This public
joint vocational school has an enrollment of 528 11
th
and 12
th
grade students, 57 % of
whom hail from the host county. In addition to the programs available for high
school students by day, Buckeye Hills also offers continuing adult education courses
in the evenings (Buckeye Hills Career Center, 2001).
Gallia County is not without its institutions of higher learning, either. Rio Grande
Community College and Rio Grande University account for a combined enrollment

Figure 1. Gallia County Schools
14

15

16

of 3,400 students (Gallia County Chamber of Commerce, 2001). The community
college in particular enrolls many county residents. Ohio University and Marshall
University are both located less than an hour’s drive from the heart of Gallia County
as well.
Gallipolis is situated on the banks of the Ohio River, in rural Gallia County, Ohio.
The county is composed of two separate school districts, which have long been
divided over levy issues and other politically charged local topics. However, the two
districts stand united in one area – that of deplorably low proficiency scores as
compared with state standards. In fact, at that time, the Gallipolis City School
District was on “academic watch” and the Gallia County Local School District was
in “academic emergency” (see Figure 1).
These dubious distinctions were assigned by the Ohio Department of Education
(ODE), for the purpose of identifying districts that are at extreme risk due to poor
results on proficiency tests, and attendance and dropout rates (Marshall, 1998). The
state began issuing “grades” to school districts in August of 1997, in an effort to
identify academically bankrupt districts, so that intervention strategies could be
implemented. The report card consisted of four ratings: effective; continuous
improvement; academic watch; and academic emergency. Districts in academic
watch or academic emergency failing to show overall improvement of 2.5% in most
categories for two consecutive years would face corrective actions. One of the
corrective actions included in the improvement plan consisted of a site evaluation by
state officials, in order to establish an improvement guidance panel.
17

The CSAG’s alarm was justified, considering all five respective districts fell into
the lowest two performing categories. Shortly after the group’s first meeting, Ohio
governor Bob Taft proposed extending the charter program from the “Big Eight”
urban districts to include any district in academic emergency status (Marshall, 1998).
Without question, Gallia County would then be eligible to apply for charter status.
Rather than wait indefinitely for state officials to intervene and form a “guidance
panel” who would, in turn, formulate a plan of improvement, the CSAG was seeking
to initiate a plan of action (charter school) that would reap more immediate rewards
(academic improvement).
The need for educational reform in Gallia County was apparent, and the interest
level in the community school project was high. However, the county first had to
reconcile the political differences that have plagued it for decades in order to achieve
the common goal of creating an alternative public school that would be held to
higher accountability standards than the existing public schools.
Despite the desire to create a community school, and the existing urban models
that could serve as generic examples, the problem remained that there were no rural
models operating in Ohio to use as a basis for comparison. Theoretically, the CSAG
knew how such schools were created, but were completely unfamiliar with the reality
of implementation in such a community.
Statement of the Problem
The focus of this study is on the efforts of a group of concerned parents,
educators, and community members in rural southeastern Ohio to initiate a charter
18

school in their district. This charter school would have been the first school of its
kind in the county, and the first rural charter school in Ohio. Yet even as the charter
school movement was sweeping across the nation at an amazing rate and gaining
increasing support from parents, educators, and legislators, the diligent efforts of this
group failed. This study was designed to determine what factors contributed to this
failure, and to identify the reasons that rural communities are being passed over by
the charter school movement.
Purpose of the Study
Gallia County attempted to create the first rural community school in the state of
Ohio, without the benefit of existing models. The purpose of this study, therefore,
was to follow and document the efforts of one rural community as it attempted to
develop a community school. Specifically, the research focused on what was needed
in terms of state and local politics to bring such a concept to fruition.
Significance of the Study
This study is unique in that it details the efforts of a community in dire need of
educational improvement to create the first community school of its kind in that
state. Although literature exists that outline the process for starting a charter school,
little data address the specific obstacles that face the organizers of a proposed charter
school in a rural community, with problems quite different from those of urban
communities. Additionally, the community featured in this study has long been
deeply divided on educational issues, and separated by their differences into two
opposing groups. Thus, they faced the added challenges of overcoming these
19

differences in order to work toward a common goal. Although this group was
unsuccessful in their ultimate goal of starting a charter school in their community,
much can be learned from their efforts. It has often been said that we learn more
from our failures than from our successes. By documenting the progress of this
community school effort in its entirety, and examining the associated successes and
failures of the project, this study provides valuable insight for similar situations in
the future. The results may be transferable to rural communities faced with
comparable challenges.
Research Questions
The research questions addressed by this study deal with the issues that arise and
present challenges to a rural community trying to create a charter school. When this
study was conceptualized, there was no indication that the project would not
succeed. However, the research questions were designed to provide useful data
whether the community school group achieved their goal or not.
There has been much guidance and reflection generated on the many successes
and few failures in the area of charter school start-ups in the last ten years.
Theoretically the approach is simple, and it would appear that a community with this
much interest in and need for alternative public education would have little difficulty
implementing its vision. But even the most thorough planning and preparation
cannot account for the human, interpersonal, territorial, or political dynamics of this
highly volatile issue. This community’s history of pitting the county school board
against the city school board, long-standing reluctance to pass education levies, and
20

continued differences of opinions among citizens concerned with the quality of
education in Gallia County were issues likely to interfere with the progress of this
project.
The CSAG did its technical homework, and demonstrated that Gallia County was
a community prime for such a venture. The members of the CSAG knew what
needed to be done and were ready to make this dream a reality, yet they were still
experiencing opposition from people who feared change, and who worried that this
new community school was being created to serve the personal and political agendas
of a select group. Additionally, it is difficult to convince a local school board to
approve another public school that will redirect students, and thus public funding,
from their existing system. In such a rural situation, the biggest obstacles of the
creation of a community school could prove to be not the bureaucracy and legislative
red tape involved, but rather the residents of the community themselves.
With these issues in mind, and in an effort to provide data that will aid
communities in similar circumstance, the questions that direct this study are:
• What are some of the barriers frequently encountered by charter school
organizers, and to what extent, if any, did those obstacles play a role in this start-
up failure?
• Do charter laws favor urban communities, and if so, in what ways does this urban
bias inhibit rural communities from realizing their plans for charter schools?

21

• What unique problems confront a community that is divided into “city” and
“local” districts, in terms of cooperating in order to achieve a common
educational goal?
• How do individual motivations for creating a community school effect the
overall progress of the project?
Assumptions
Much of the data gathered for this study relies on information provided from
community surveys and questionnaires. It is assumed that the results were tallied
accurately, were unaltered, and were representative of the population being studied.
It is also assumed to be true that statements and information provided in interviews is
accurate and truthful.
Limitations
Not every action of the CSAG was either recorded or obtained, although every
effort was made to do so. Additionally, during the many hours of audiotaped
meetings recorded by a neutral research assistant, many of the aspects of physical
presence were “lost,” or unavailable, to the researcher. Often the subtle gestures,
body language, and posture can imply drastically different connotations to otherwise
innocent comments. Even though every effort was made to record every meeting and
obtain copies of all paperwork, there were inevitably missed opportunities to collect
data. Ideally the researcher would reside in the same community as the subjects,
where the study took place.

22

Delimitations
This study examined a narrowly defined population attempting to accomplish a
very specific objective. The parameters of the study included the unique academic
status of the charter applicants’ districts, the type of students this community school
would serve (high percentage of economically disadvantaged children), and
legislation that applies specifically to Ohio charter school applicants. Therefore, the
results of this study will only be generalizable to communities with similar
demographic, academic, financial, and legislative characteristics as those of the
population studied, who are attempting to create a charter school under similar
circumstances.
Organization of the Study
Chapter Two forms the conceptual framework for the specific focus of this study.
The first section provides a brief history and background of the charter school
movement in general. To understand how charter schools are impacting the direction
and future of public education, one must first know what charter schools are, how
they operate, and what makes them different from traditional public schools. The
second section examines the literature involving the process of starting a new charter
school, and the barriers to success that charter school organizers frequently
encounter. Specifically, the scope of this potion of the literature review is narrowed
to primarily focus on data that is pertinent to Ohio, and rural charter schools in
general. The final section discusses some of the common pitfalls and obstacles that
have plagued charter schools that have closed or are struggling to survive. These
23

obstacles are classified into four sub-sections, focusing on start-up funds, facilities
shortages, and conflicts with educational entities.
Chapter Three establishes the procedure of the study and the methods of data
collection, addresses issues of validity, and provides a sample of the interview
instrument.
Chapter Four presents a detailed account of one group’s efforts to start a charter
school in their community. Data is presented in the form of interview responses, and
discussed within the framework of the research questions.
Then final chapter provides a summary, conclusion, recommendations, and
implications for further study.

24

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
The literature available on charter schools is abundant, especially considering the
short time they have been in existence. Unfortunately, there is a gap in the research
in terms of rural charter schools. Charter school legislation by design benefits urban
areas, where the majority of these schools are located. More specifically, at the time
of this study, Ohio charter laws limited charter school start-ups to one of the “Big
Eight” urban districts. Consequently, all 48 charter schools in the state at that time
were in urban districts (Center for Education reform, 2001b). This legislation will be
discussed in further detail later in this chapter. Because of the dearth of rural charter
schools, scant empirical data exists on the subject.
A great deal of the research has focused on the overwhelming success rate of
charter schools, with very little attention being assigned to charter school failures.
Perhaps that is because there are so few failures to document. More than 50 reports
and studies have been conducted on the progress, success rates, and achievements of
charter schools, by state and national organizations and educational institutions. The
results of more than 80% of these studies indicate that charter schools are meeting or
exceeding their goals. Of all the charter schools opened in the last ten years, 97%
were still in business by the end of 1999. By contrast, only a handful (less than 3%)
had failed (Center for Education Reform, 2001b).
Charter Schools
Charter schools are a relatively new breed of public schools, and have only
been in existence since the early 1990s. Many people who are unfamiliar with
25

charter schools or who are misinformed do not realize that charter schools are public
schools that operate on public funds. They are schools of choice, and students and
parents choose these schools because they are in desperate need of fresh new
approaches to quality public education. Until recently, educational choice was
considered merely a distraction, since 90% of all students are in the public system
(Grossman, 2000). Now, teachers as well as parents are choosing charter schools for
their high academic standards, small class size (charter schools enroll an average of
250 students), and innovative approaches (WestEd, 2000).
As mentioned earlier, charter schools are one of the two relatively new
approaches to reform in public education. The other approach that has received much
attention recently from the public and from lawmakers is the voucher system. Under
a voucher system, parents can choose the public or private school of their choice for
their children, using a designated amount of public funds allocated per student
(McCarthy, 2000). Although the amount designated per student does not always
completely cover the tuition of the selected school, the financial assistance does open
many educational doors that would otherwise have remained closed for students
from families with limited income. As with most new initiatives, the voucher system
is controversial and critics feel the program does not truly afford an equitable
opportunity for all to attain the same quality of education. There have been recent
rulings regarding the use of public funds to attend parochial schools. In Wisconsin
and Ohio voucher programs have been reviewed at the Supreme Court level to
determine if they violate the constitutional requirement of separation of church and
26

state in public education (Gillespie, 2000; Wildavsky, 2000). Initial rulings have
both supported and refuted the use of tax dollars to provide religious education. With
this overview of the voucher system in mind, we shall now turn to a comparative
discussion of the charter school movement and how it fits into this educational
reform puzzle.
Charter schools share many similarities to both district public and private schools,
and are also very different in many crucial aspects (Manno, et al., 2000). These
schools are like private schools in that they offer alternatives to traditional public
education, yet they do so without the financial burden of “making up the cost
difference” that typically accompanies a private education. Unlike many private
schools, the issue of religion is a moot point in charter schools, since legal sanctions
prohibit them from either charging tuition or teaching religion, just as in all public
schools. The fact that religion is a non-issue in the charter movement also
distinguishes it from the voucher system, which does not always limit enrollment to
secular schools. However, like the voucher system and private schools, charter
schools offer elements of choice and competition in elementary and secondary
education, thus empowering parents to become “educational consumers.” But unlike
some private and magnet schools that can restrict admission to the academically
talented, or vouchers which are available only to low-income families, charter
schools serve the rich and poor alike, regardless of academic ability (Gresham,
2000).

27

Founders
According to the Center for Education Reform (2001), charter school founders
can be categorized into three general groups: grassroots organizations of parents,
teachers, and community members; entrepreneurs; or existing schools converting to
charter status. Furthermore, these groups organize to create charter schools for one or
more of the following reasons: to realize an educational vision; to gain autonomy; or
to serve a special population. Regardless of the type of group that organizes to form
a charter school, they share a common desire to be involved in shaping the direction
of the school (Izu et al., 1998). Many of the parents are disgruntled with their public
school systems, and seek better educational opportunities for their children. Often
teachers and educational professionals want to pursue their own educational visions,
but have felt thwarted by the conventional setting. Additionally, many “third parties”
represent both non-profit and for-profit organizations, multi-service community
groups, or even government agencies that want to start or operate their own schools,
for a variety of reasons. Although their educational priorities vary greatly, these
charter school initiators all seek to improve quality and choice in public education.
Students
Parental demand for more educational options in the public arena has been
overwhelming, and there is generally a waiting list of three to four applicants per
student seat available in charter schools (Goenner, 1996). In a recent annual report
published by the U.S. Department of Education, 70% of the nation’s charter schools
have waiting lists (Osborne, 1999). Some charter school critics fear that these
28

schools will become elitist schools, serving a select population of privileged
students. In fact, charter schools are legally forbidden to discriminate in their
admissions policies or practices “on the basis of intellectual or athletic ability,
achievement or aptitude measures, handicap status, or any other basis that would be
illegal if used by a school district” (Goenner, 1996). Instead of becoming elitist
academies as feared, charter schools have racially and economically diverse student
bodies, and serve students similar to those in their traditional public school
counterparts (RPP International, 1999). In some states, charter school legislation
encourages such schools to serve students at risk of academic failure, many of whom
are likely to belong to minority groups (Schnaiberg, 2000).
Although it is illegal for charter schools to discriminate in their admissions
policies, they are free to establish certain criteria by which students are selected to
enroll. For example, some charter schools require parents to volunteer a certain
number of hours in support of the school, and/or demonstrate an active involvement
in the education of their children (Freedman, 1998; Perry, 1998). These criteria
notwithstanding, charter schools are essentially publicly funded schools of choice,
theoretically open to all who agree to abide by such policies regarding commitment
or involvement.
By offering an alternative to traditional public education that allows for increased
autonomy and flexibility, charter schools are gaining support from parents and
educators who are dissatisfied with educational quality and school district
bureaucracies (Hadderman, 1998). The public is beginning to view charter schools as
29

promising vehicles for expanding choice and accountability (McGrath, 1999). Those
involved with charter schools especially appreciate the hands-on approach these
schools demand, and are anxious to take advantage of the opportunity to influence
public education. Professor Frank Smith, of Columbia University Teachers College,
sees the charter school movement as a chance to involve entire communities in
redesigning all schools and converting them to “client-centered, learning cultures”
(Smith, 1997). In short, charter schools are helping to redefine public education, and
are serving as benchmarks for the improvement of all public schools.
Philosophy
Charter schools spring from the desire to meet educational needs that are not
being fulfilled through traditional public education avenues. These schools are
created in an effort to respond to dreams, demands, and frustrations that the regular
system is not satisfying, and are therefore consumer-oriented (Manno, 1998).
Charter school advocates seek to improve student performance through the
development of high-quality learning communities that utilize fresh approaches to
teaching and learning through rigorous curricula (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998). The
people in this community of learners can draw on personal and community resources
as an integral component of the learning experience (Moursund, 1998). The small
class size and increased parental involvement that are the cornerstones of the charter
school movement contribute to greater academic success because the educational
experience becomes more personal for the students. Instructional programs tend to
focus on integrating the community into the learning process, and many charter
30

schools invite community members to become active participants in these programs.
Secondary charter schools often form partnerships with local businesses and
institutions that provide internships and training that help prepare for college or
careers (Wohlstetter & Griffin, 1998). Some excellent traditional public schools
accomplish these objectives, and make efforts to link their schools to the respective
communities, but not to the extent that charter schools do. This philosophy of
making parents and community members stakeholders in the education of their youth
instills pride in the school and fosters genuine concern for the educational direction
of that school.
As a result of their emphasis on decentralized management, charter schools
empower those involved, enabling them to be involved in decision-making. Parents
and teachers are able to participate in decisions that range from curriculum and
instruction to how money is spent and who is hired. Consequently these
stakeholders, who are closest to the students, are able to help the decision-making
process be more responsive to the student needs (Izu et al., 1998).
School Size and Classroom Structure
One dramatic characteristic of the charter school movement is the small school
size. Some charter schools have a student population of fewer than 50, while others
boast enrollments in excess of 1,000 (Manno, 1998). However, the U. S. Department
of Education’s 1999 Third-Year Report on Charter Schools indicates that the median
number of students enrolled in charter schools is 132, compared to 486 in all public
schools (RPP International, 1999). Charter schools can either be newly created
31

schools or pre-existing public schools converted to charter status. Newly created
charter schools, or “start-ups,” are the most common applicants for charter status,
and tend to be smaller than converted schools. According to a federal study of these
schools nationwide, approximately 70% of charter schools are newly created, and
enroll fewer than 200 students (RPP International, 1999). Parents, educators, and
charter school founders are drawn by this personalized environment, and place a high
value on small class sizes.
The organizational freedom that accompanies the creation of a self-governed
school allows for charter schools to experiment with many facets of classroom and
faculty structure that were previously untouchable in public settings. In a recent two-
year study conducted by Manno, et al. (1998), the authors found examples of charter
schools that utilized self-contained classrooms, teams of teachers responsible for
large groups of children, grade clusters, schools with multi-year “houses,” teachers
who move up the grades as their pupils do, and much more. About one-fourth of
charter schools have chosen organizational charters such as K-8, K-12, or ungraded
schools that enable the students to stay together for an extended period of time (RPP
International, 1999). This freedom to experiment with such aspects of student-
teacher interaction is one of the features that attracts many charter school supporters.
Accountability
Because charter schools are generally founded in order to improve student
performance through innovative teaching and learning practices (Wohlstetter &
Griffin, 1997), accountability is a central theme shared by founders, parents, and
32

legislators. In some instances, funding can even be linked to student performance. In
exchange for increased autonomy and freedom from regulations that apply to other
public schools, charter schools have increased accountability and reporting
requirements (RPP International, 1999). In some states this improvement might be
required on standardized tests and other measures. However, most charter schools
(85%, according to the RPP Third-Year Report) also report using a wide variety of
assessment methods to measure student progress. Some of these nontraditional
methods include student portfolios, performance assessments, parent surveys, student
surveys, behavioral indicators, and student demonstrations of their work (RPP
International, 1999). Regardless of the manner in which student achievement is
measured, the fact remains that charter schools are held to more stringent standards
of accountability than conventional public school systems.
Funding
Charter schools receive their revenues from several different sources, and are
eligible for federal grants and state funds. Because they are public schools that are
not allowed to charge tuition, charter schools are funded according to enrollment
(U S Charter Schools, 1999). How the student count is used for funding varies,
depending on the charter approving source, and whether it is a state or local authority
(Essigs, 1997).
Federal funds are available to all public schools, to include charter schools,
through a variety of grant programs. Some of these prominent federal grant programs
include start-up grants, Title I grants, Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act
33

(IDEA) grants, and various charitable foundations. Generally, federal funds can be
distributed either directly from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) as grants, or
funneled down through state or local agencies and awarded as subgrants. The
distinguishing characteristic that determines how directly the money is routed to the
charter school is whether or not the school is recognized as an independent local
educational agency (LEA), or “district.” If a state recognizes a charter school as an
independent LEA, and that charter school meets federal eligibility requirements, then
the state educational agency (SEA) may award funds directly to the school.
However, if the charter school is included in an existing LEA (such as a local school
district), then the state will distribute federal funds through the “parent” educational
agency (U S Charter Schools, 1999).
State funds are usually distributed according to state law, and that distribution is
based primarily on student enrollment, or average daily attendance. Actual
allocations may vary, however, since they are subject to individual interpretations
and negotiations with state, district, or sponsoring agencies (U S Charter Schools,
1999). Typically a charter school receives 85 to 95% of the public funds for each
student enrolled (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2000). Thus, some
opponents of the charter movement warn that this increased competition for scarce
dollars will result in a net financial loss to the “losing” school district, because
students attending the new school do not necessarily reduce the sponsoring
organization’s costs (Collins, 1999).

34

States that receive grants then redistribute these funds in the forms of subgrants to
charter schools. Up to 5 percent of these grant awards may be set aside by the state
for administrative purposes, and an additional 20 percent may be used to establish a
revolving loan fund for charter schools (Blanchette, 1998).
Charter Schools in Ohio
Chapter One provided a brief history and description of charter schools and their
value in the educational reform movement. Let us now examine the status of charter
schools in a state that has historically been described as defining mainstream
America – Ohio.
Ohio has enthusiastically embraced charter schools, and is considered by many to
be an accurate barometer by which to measure national educational concerns and
issues. Consequently, much of the legislation that governs the opening and operation
of charter schools in Ohio is typical of charter legislation that governs other states.
However, charter school laws do vary from state to state in several important
respects, such as: who is allowed to operate a charter school, who is allowed to grant
a charter, how charter schools are funded, what student performance standards are
required, how many charters can be authorized per state duration of the charter, and
which charter schools are sanctioned (start-ups and/or conversions). This case study
concerns a community in Southeastern Ohio as they attempted to start the first
community school within their district. Thus, this section will outline what it takes to
create a charter school in Ohio, and examine how the state compares to other states
in terms of charter legislation (strength or weakness of charter laws). These
35

similarities and differences will be addressed in order to identify charter school
requirements that are unique to Ohio.
Creation and Operation
Charter schools are referred to as “community schools” in Ohio,
1
and there are
currently 69 community schools in operation across the state. In 1997 the first
charter school law passed in Ohio allowing conversion charter schools in any district,
but limiting new start- up schools to a few large urban areas, known as “the Big
Eight,” boasting student populations of over 12,000 (Center for Education Reform,
2001b). Any person or group of individuals could initially propose the establishment
of a charter school in Ohio, but if the proposed school did not fall within the
geographic boundaries of one of the state’s largest eight cities (Cleveland,
Columbus, Cincinnati, Dayton, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, and Toledo), it had to
be a conversion from an existing public school. A conversion school is an existing
public school that has been converted to a community school, and remains under the
jurisdiction of its school board/district (Perez). As mentioned earlier, when this study
was undertaken there were 48 community schools operating in the state, and they
were all limited Ohio’s eight urban districts (Center for Educational Reform, 2001b).
Two years later, in 1999, the charter legislation in Ohio was expanded to include
the Urban 21 districts, and further broadened in 2000 to allow community schools to
be established in any school district designated as in “academic emergency” by the
Ohio Department of Education (ODE) (WestEd, 2000).

1
Throughout this study the terms community school and charter school will be synonymous in
reference to Ohio.
36

Even with the amended legislation allowing charter schools to be established in
districts in academic emergency, which definitely includes many rural districts,
Ohio’s charter laws remain among the most restrictive. Of the 37 states with charter
laws in place at the time of this study, only four included limitations on charter
schools serving urban versus rural locations (Center for Education reform, 2001b).
Many states placed restrictions on the number of schools allowed, or the percentage
of charter schools that could be conversions or start-ups, but Ohio was the most
restrictive in terms of allowing charter schools to be located in rural communities.
A fairly thorough summary of Ohio’s charter legislation prepared by the Ohio
Department of Education provides a succinct portrait of the rules and restrictions that
apply in that state. At first glance, these guidelines suggest that Ohio is at the
forefront of the charter school movement, with laws that allow for community school
initiation and expansion. For example, Ohio is one of 13 states that places no cap on
the number of charters that can be created. By comparison, the remaining 24 states
with charter legislation limit either the total number of charter schools in the state,
the number allowed per district, or the number allowed per year. Upon closer
examination, however, Ohio’s charter laws provide a far more restrictive approach to
the development of community schools than do the laws of most other states.
Community schools in Ohio operate under a maximum term of five years, as do
charter schools in the majority of other states (RPP International, 2000). Charter
schools that have not met their performance standards at the end of that term risk
being shut down. Ohio’s willingness to encourage unlimited competition in the form
37

of charter school openings, and the diligent monitoring of achievement results
clearly indicate the state’s level of commitment to restructuring the old-school
monopoly on public education.
Accountability Requirements
Accountability is a central theme in Ohio charter legislation. Potential community
school operators must first negotiate a contract with the governing authority, and that
contract faces significant scrutiny from both the school board and the public.
Additionally, charter school teachers must be state certified and take part in the
state’s proficiency testing program (Ohio State Senate, 2000), and student
performance is assessed through a variety of measures. Each school must participate
in the state’s proficiency testing for all students in grades 4, 6, 9 and 12 (Ohio
Department of Education, 1998a, 1998b). Additionally, the contract between the
school and the sponsoring authority will identify other performance measures that
could include standardized tests, portfolios, performance assessments, or surveys
from parents or students (Ohio Department of Education, 1998c).
Authorization Process
When examining the authorization process for opening a community school in
Ohio, there are two important aspects to consider: who can apply to establish such a
school and who (what entity) can sponsor it. The guidelines vary by district not only
concerning the type of charter school that may be established, but also the entity that
has chartering authority. In Ohio, these granting agencies consist of both local boards

38

and state boards (RPP International, 1999). But the authorization process, like the
guidelines governing the opening of charter schools in Ohio, is complicated.
The board of education of any city, local, or exempted village school district may
sponsor a conversion charter school. In other words, authority is granted by a local
board of education. Asking a local school board to approve a new school and
embrace funding competition is a difficult thing to do. Not surprisingly, as of 1998,
no local school board had ever approved a charter school in Ohio (Leonardi, 1998).
In fact, at the end of 1998 only 21 of the nation’s 35 charter laws empowered any
entity with the authority to grant charters without the approval of the local board.
The remaining 14 states gave local boards ultimate veto power over the opening of
charter schools in their areas (Hassel, 1999). Local boards often fear the competition
because losing students equates to losing dollars, and focuses attention on the
inadequacies of the existing system. Ironically, changes are most likely to occur in
school districts where there is a presence or a possibility of charters (Hassel, 1999).
It is these “second-order effects,” or ripples of improvement, that supporters of the
charter movement are counting on to improve the state of public education.
In an effort to focus on urban educational revitalization and stimulate educational
opportunity in cities that are in urgent need of reform, Ohio lawmakers created a
much broader authorization base for start-up charter schools, however. Remember
that in 1998, start-up community schools could only be created in Big Eight school
districts in Ohio. In a Big Eight district, a start-up charter school had several
different sponsoring options. A Big Eight charter school could not only be sponsored
39

by the local school board, but also by the respective district board of education, the
state board of education, or the board of education of a joint vocational school
district with the majority of its territory in the same county (Ohio Department of
Education, 1998). Additionally, one district in the state had been established as an
independent charter system, and was authorized to be its own granting agent. Sound
confusing? Apparently the Center for Education Reform thought so, ranking Ohio
charter legislation 23
rd
out of the nation’s 37 charter laws, even though Ohio had the
10
th
largest charter school population. The intent of the lawmakers and politicians to
improve urban education in Ohio was noble. However, limiting the scope of
educational opportunity undermines the purpose of charter schools, which is to make
better schools for all children.
These restrictions on the type and location of charter schools in Ohio caused that
state’s charter laws to receive a mediocre rating from the Center for Education
Reform (CER), an independent, non-profit advocacy organization working toward
fundamental school reform (Center for Education Reform, 2001a). This organization
has undertaken the task of evaluating the strength of individual state legislation
establishing charter schools by annually “grading” each state’s progress in achieving
its charter school goals. The CER defines a strong charter law as one that fosters the
development of numerous, genuinely autonomous charter schools. By contrast, a
weak law is identified as one that provides few opportunities or incentives for
effective charter school development (Allen, 2000). Unfortunately, Ohio’s charter
legislation received an overall grade of “C” in 1999, which is considered to be a
40

weak score based on the CER’s established standards. Ohio received a C because,
despite its many community schools, the law initially limited charters to the Big
Eight urban districts, restricted funding, and hobbled charter autonomy with too
many restrictions (Allen, 2000).
It must be noted that some legislative changes have been implemented in the Ohio
charter laws in the recent past. Still behind the times as of 1999, the expanded law
allowed for charter school start-ups in the remaining 21 Urban districts as well, but
continued to exclude all start-ups in rural districts. Finally, in 2000, the ODE
declared that community schools could be established in any district that had been
placed in the academic emergency category (Hughes, 1999). These changes resulted
in Ohio receiving an overall grade of “B” in 2001, and rising to the rank of 14
th
out
of the nation’s 38 states with charter school laws. Most importantly, these ratings
suggest that Ohio is “likely to continue to foster strong charter schools that offer
parents alternatives, innovation, and accountability” (Center for Education Reform,
2001a).
Funding and Facilities Options
Funding for charter schools in Ohio is limited to the state foundation amount per
student, and does not include funds from local property taxes. This means that
community schools have no tax base from which to draw funds for buildings and
infrastructure, unlike their traditional public school counterparts. They may not
charge tuition, levy taxes, or issue bonds secured by tax revenues, and must provide
transportation for students who are within the geographic borders of their normally
41

assigned district. The per-pupil amount designated by a state formula is the
maximum amount allowed per student, but community schools are free to seek
additional public funds through grants and other government and private sources.
Charter schools in Ohio are entitled to equal funding for special education services
and Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid (DPIA), proportionate to the number of
students they enroll. Categorical aid attributable to these special populations will be
paid to the school, and the school must abide by both state and federal regulations
regarding such programs and services (Ohio Department of Education, 1998). Ohio
falls about mid-pack of all states with charter legislation in the area of per-pupil
funding.
The issue of satisfactory public school facilities is an area of great concern to
Ohioans, and is a problem not limited to charter schools. According to a 1999 news
release by the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), Ohio ranked dead last among
all fifty states in the condition of its school facilities in a report prepared by the
General Accounting Office. The ODE recognizes that too many Ohio children,
especially in poor rural and urban districts, attend classes in dreadfully sub-standard
facilities (Zelman, 1999). With existing school facilities in such disrepair, and state
legislation restrictive in regard to start-ups, this issue is even more critical to the
potential community schools converting from an existing public school.
Facilities options are as diverse for community schools as they are for any public
school in Ohio. A community school’s governing authority may lease existing
private or public facilities as needed, but not construct new facilities using public
42

funds. This means that even if charter school organizers in Ohio meet all the
requirements established to create a new start-up school, they cannot use public
money for bricks and mortar. If they choose to construct facilities, they must do so
with private funds. Finally, any facility used for a community school must meet all
health and safety standards established by law for school buildings. If a community
school is to be located in a facility owned by a school district or educational service
center, an agreement must be entered into by both parties prior to opening (Ohio
Department of Education, 1998).
Student Enrollment Requirements
There are federal laws regulating admissions procedures for charter schools, and
Ohio community schools must comply with these rigid requirements. Community
schools are nondiscriminatory and are open to all students, regardless of race, sex,
religion, handicapping condition, or intellectual or athletic ability (Ohio Department
of Education). Minority and ethnic enrollment must reflect the community the school
serves, or be in violation of a federal desegregation order. In the case of such a
violation, the community school must take corrective measures to balance the racial
composition, or face closure (Allen, 2000).
Schools may choose to limit enrollment to a particular geographic area (that is
within the school district where the community school is located), or to at-risk
students (Allen, 2000). If applications to a community school exceed the school’s
capacity, students are admitted via a lottery system. Although the term lottery
suggests random selection, in reality there are criteria that can establish preference in
43

certain instances. For example, students who were enrolled at the school the previous
year and/or siblings or enrolled students may be given preference for enrollment. A
minimum of 25 students must be enrolled at a community school (Ohio Department
of Education, 1998). Students are free to withdraw from community schools at any
time, without penalty. This means that any student that withdraws from a community
school is eligible to re-enroll in a school within the district he or she would normally
be assigned to attend. Students may be expelled from community schools, but
expulsion criteria must be detailed in the school’s contract (Ohio Department of
Education, 1998).
Challenges
This study is designed to identify obstacles that impeded the community school
effort in Gallia County, Ohio. In order to provide a theoretical framework for
comparison, this section of the literature review includes data from other charter
ventures that encountered difficulty or failed to open. By comparing such challenges,
common stumbling blocks can be identified as potential problems for future efforts.
There is a dearth of literature available concerning charter school failures, however.
As noted earlier, 97% of all charter schools that ever opened their doors are still open
(Center for Education Reform, 2001b). There have been failures, but most of these
failures occur after the charter schools open their doors.
In a recent report entitled, The State of Charter Schools: National Study of
Charter Schools Fourth Year Report (RPP International, 2000), twenty-one “barriers
to implementation” were listed and ranked in order of difficulty presented. The
44

rankings were derived from the survey responses of nearly 1000 open charter
schools, during 1998-99. Of these twenty-one barriers, nine can be considered to
directly influence charter school start-up efforts, and fall into three distinct categories
– financial, political, and institutional/organizational. The remaining obstacles cited
apply to the operation period after the schools opened, and were still trying to fully
implement their charters. Since this community school effort never reached fruition,
those obstacles that occur after a charter school’s opening do not apply, and are
therefore omitted from this list. The nine commonly recognized barriers are listed
below, in order from most difficult to least difficult:
Financial Obstacles
1. Lack of start-up funds.
2. Inadequate facilities.
Political Obstacles
3. State or local board opposition.
4. District resistance or regulations.
5. State department of education resistance.
6. Internal processes or conflicts.
7. Community opposition.
Institutional/Organizational Obstacles
8. Health and safety regulations.
9. Federal regulations.

45

The challenges encountered by the Ohio Community School Advocacy Group
(CSAG) will be viewed through these nine parameters in Chapter Four, to identify
similarities or differences. The literature available on this topic seems to
compartmentalize start-up barriers into three of the aforementioned categories: start-
up funds, facilities, and conflict with educational entities.
Additionally, although it is not commonly acknowledged as one of the top three
obstacles that charter founders face, the topic of internal conflicts will be addressed
as well, since it is often the pivotal point around which a small community succeeds
or fails in any venture. Personalities clash and conflict occurs in both urban and rural
communities without discretion, but in an urban setting it is much easier to avoid
working with those individuals who do not agree with you on aspects of any project.
In a rural community where the pool of interested parties working on a given project
is much smaller, and where people interact with one another on a more regular basis
out of necessity, it is difficult to avoid working with individuals with whom you
disagree. Perhaps the reason that internal conflicts are not cited as a predominant
problem is because the overwhelming majority of charter schools are created in
urban communities, where interpersonal relationships do not come into play as much
as in a rural community.
Start-up Funds
Appropriately, start-up funding is discussed first here because it tops the list of
challenges that charter school founders faces as they attempt to get their schools up
and running. The lack of start-up funds was the number one deterrent to charter
46

school start-ups in the last few years. This fiscal barrier tends to affect newly created
charter schools more than conversion schools. While 58% of all charter schools
report a lack of start-up funds to be a very difficult problem, 65% of start-up charter
schools cite this as a very difficult problem (RPPI, 1999).
In response to this capital financing crisis, federal and state legislators are just
beginning to amend their charter laws to allow charter schools more access to state
funds. As of 1999, only 11 of the 37 charter school laws in existence provided any
start-up funding at all. This meant that charter school founders had to be fully
operational before ever seeing a dime of state or local public education funding
(Center for Education reform, 2001). At the federal level, the president’s FY 2001
budget increased by $30 million the amount of support designated for the support
and development of charter schools (Charter Friends National Network, 2001;
Thomas, 2000). As a direct result, fewer charter schools (39% in 1999, compared
with 59% in 1996) reported start-up costs as a significant hurdle they encountered
(RPP International, 2000).
This need for capital creates an ideal opportunity for venture capitalists and for-
profit management companies to step in provide the start-up money – for a price.
Currently about 10% of charter schools nationwide rely on the management services
of such for-profit companies as Edison Schools, Inc., White Hat Management,
SABIS® Educational Systems, Advantage Schools, and many others (Learning
Exchange, 2001).

47

Because many rural areas are resource poor, such shortages of start-up capital and
inadequate facilities can easily become the largest deterrent to charter school
success. Therefore, it is essential that the rural charter school efforts gain strong
community support and backing from educators, and seek financial and in-kind
contributions.
Facilities
Not far behind start-up funds on the list of barriers is the issue of facilities. In fact,
many would argue that securing facilities is even more of a problem than obtaining
adequate start-up capital. Inadequate facilities were listed as the fourth greatest
hurdle that new charter schools had to overcome in order to open, with 39% of
schools surveyed rating this issue as very difficult (RPP International, 2000).
Charter schools sometimes fail to open even after their charters have been
approved simply because they cannot find a suitable facility. Many charter school
founders enter into the process somewhat naively, with blinders on to the often-harsh
realities of what is involved in the enormous undertaking of opening a charter
school. In a report entitled, Paying for the Charter Schoolhouse, the Charter Friends
National Network noted that four out of ten approved charter schools could not open
in one state, because they were unable to find suitable and affordable facilities
(Kennedy, 2001). According to the network, locating and financing facilities has
become the most daunting challenge.
Because charter schools embody daring new educational concepts that are often
outside the box of traditional teaching methods, people are not surprised when they
48

see charter schools occupy non-conventional locations. Most observers attribute such
a move to the charter schools’ desire to create unique learning environments that
inspire students’ imaginations. In reality, charter schools often take up residency in
non-traditional locations because they have nowhere else to go. Some new charter
schools have been able to move into district-owned facilities, closed private schools,
or community-owned buildings, but many must depend on retail space that is usually
in dire need of refurbishing (Kennedy, 2001).
Consequently, charter students often attend classes in former grocery stores and
bakeries, office buildings, theaters, shopping malls, airports, and even museums
(Kennedy, 2001). Although these facilities do undoubtedly create a stimulating and
unique learning environment, the challenge lies in ensuring that they also meet
federal health and safety regulations, and are appropriately transformed into a place
where students can learn.
Nowhere has the issue of inadequate facilities been felt more sharply than in
Ohio, where new start-ups were limited to the urban school districts and start-up
funds were have virtually nonexistent. Thus, potential founders who were
considering a charter outside of one of the specified urban areas were doubly
hobbled. Now that the criteria for start-ups in Ohio has changed slightly to include
districts in academic emergency and additional start-up funds have become available,
charter school organizers have a better chance of accomplishing their goals.

49

Conflict with Educational Entities
This category encompasses several educational levels, to include state or local
boards, district boards, and state department of education boards. Charter school
founders rarely realize how difficult it can be to take on an entrenched, self-
preserving education establishment, in order to create competition for that system
(Cole, 2000). As noted earlier, local boards are often reluctant to relinquish control,
dollars, or students to a potential charter school. They almost always see charter
efforts as a threat to their survival. When they are faced with competition, many
educational administrators feel that the weaknesses of their systems are being
exposed and scrutinized. Not all administrators are wary of this attention, but it is
usually the healthier school systems in less need of reform that do not fear
competition. According to the RPP International fourth year report, over 20% of new
charter schools encountered state or local board opposition.
Internal Conflicts
The charter school experiment can be dual-edged in a rural community, and there
doesn’t seem to be much gray area in terms of support. Charter schools either
experience large-scale support or full-scale rebuttal in close-knit rural communities.
In other words, efforts to create a rural charter school usually either unify a
community or tear it apart at the seams.
For example, interpersonal relationships and community politics can play a large
role in how well received the project is. Poor economic conditions can influence
attitudes, and make rural residents wary of any project that is a potential expense
50

(Collins, 1999). Facilities options and capital resources are usually more limited in
rural communities as well. The human resource pool is also smaller in a small
community, thus making it more difficult to organize groups of people with varying,
necessary skill sets. Faced with these challenges that are more prevalent in rural
areas, one might wonder what the advantages could be of attempting to create a
charter school in such a community. In actuality, there are a number of positive
consequences of such an effort. Charter schools by design tend to bring people
together to strive toward shared objectives, or to toil on a common problem.
…charter schools are not just educational institutions. They are
also examples – and wellsprings – of community rebirth. They are
instruments of civil society as well places of teaching and learning.
The exercise of founding and sustaining a charter school can
breathe new life into ailing communities as well as into failing
educational systems” (Finn, 2000, p. 243).

In rural areas, the focus on school improvement might unify citizens. A charter
school might be successful if the community climate supports educational
alternatives. The chances for charter school success in a rural community depend
largely on the community’s historic context, and the willingness of its citizens to
persevere in the pursuit of their educational goals (Finn, 2000). The importance of
these characteristics becomes evident and is borne out in Chapter Four, as we
examine what went wrong in Gallia County, Ohio.

51

Chapter Three: Methodology
Qualitative data derived from a case study of one community’s efforts to establish
a charter school in rural Ohio form the basis of this study. A case study approach was
chosen because this slice of rural Ohio where the study took place can be
representative of any rural community in America. Although the details of another
non-urban charter school effort might differ from those of this study, people that
reside in rural areas have much in common, regardless of the geographic area where
they live. In order to understand the problems outlined in this study, meaningful
research must be contextual and descriptive. The participants’ “voices” must be
heard. Some of the strengths that qualitative inquiry bring to this study include the
ability to understand the interpersonal interactions between the supporters and critics
of the project, as well as real-world observations, dilemmas, and solutions (Marshall
& Rossman, 1995).
The researcher first became aware of the charter school project in Gallia County
from a local pastor in the community, well before any formal progress had been
made toward organizing an advocacy group. Upon learning that there were no rural
models available to serve as examples, the researcher decided to document the
efforts of this community as they began their journey toward creating a charter
school outside of a Big Eight community.
Procedure
The community school project in Gallia County spanned a time period of 23
months, from the fall of 1998 until the fall of 2000. Data on this project was
52

collected from a variety of sources, to include written and audiotaped interviews and
meetings, newspaper articles, results of community surveys and questionnaires
distributed by the CSAG, and correspondence between the charter founders and the
granting agencies. A neutral party attended and recorded all meetings of the CSAG,
and took notes regarding any aspects of the actions or discussions that could not be
captured on audiotape. Additionally, interviews were conducted with those who
opposed the proposed community school, thus allowing them to voice their dissent
and provide insight concerning the chasm that divides community members on this
issue. Although many people were interviewed for the purposes of this study, Table
1 lists the following individuals because their comments are quoted extensively
throughout Chapter Four:
Table 1
Partial List of Interviewees, and Their Positions in the Community
Interviewee Position in the Community
Vera Barnes Retired Teacher
Sue Roe CSAG Member and Educational Administrator
Steve Foster CSAG Founder
Bob Cole Gallia County School Board Member
Joe Simmons Local Pastor and Education Reform Advocate
Brenda Mason Gallia County Schools Superintendent
Lynn Blevins Gallia County Elementary Teacher

53

Each of these individuals will be described in greater detail as their comments are
introduced throughout subsequent discussions.
Reliability and Validity
Reliability is not a key issue in this case study, since the exact conditions are
impossible to replicate. Qualitative research is more concerned with issues of
validity, and several measures were taken to ensure the data were trustworthy. First,
all individual interviews were conducted by the researcher, and were recorded on
audiotape. Because the researcher had formerly resided in Gallia County, many of
the people involved with the community school project were acquainted with her, or
knew of her family. Although it is likely that this familiarity helped to secure
interviews, it also called for increased vigilance on the part of the researcher to
remain neutral. Toward this end, interview questions were open-ended, and designed
to let the subjects pursue topics freely, and without guidance from the interviewer.
Each interview consisted of the following six foundation questions, which were not
directly associated with the research questions:
1. Please tell me a little about yourself, such as what kind of work you do, and
what your involvement was with the effort to start a community school in
Gallia County.
2. When did the plans for the community school begin in earnest?
3. What was your motivation for serving on the committee?
4. What factors do you think either helped or hindered the effort?
5. Do you feel that the Gallipolis City School District and the Gallia County
54

Local School District shared similar views on the subject of the community
school project?
6. If you had to name one single reason that caused this effort to fail, what
would it be?
Furthermore, the researcher personally attended meetings whenever possible, as
an observer only. When circumstances precluded her attendance, the researcher
designated one individual to attend in her stead, who also recorded the meetings on
audiotape as a nonparticipant. The research assistant who attended these meetings is
the researcher’s mother, who is a retired educator from Gallia County. To reduce the
chance of researcher bias the research assistant refrained from participating in the
discussions regarding this issue, making any value judgments in her recorded
observations, or attempting to interpret the data in any way either individually or
with the researcher. All interviews and meeting minutes were transcribed verbatim,
and given back to the interviewees/speakers to check for accuracy in reporting
whenever possible.

55

Chapter Four: Results
This chapter is divided into several sections. In the first section I will provide a
brief history and background of Gallia County in order to provide an understanding
of the culture of the community. In other sections I will further describe the
educational environment of the county, the group of people who comprised the
CSAG group, their plan for the community school, and the survey tools they devised
and circulated. Each major topic will command a section heading, for purposes of
clarity. The bulk of the chapter will be devoted to the actual timeline and events that
transpired over the two-year course of this study, with much emphasis placed on
first-person accounts. These events will be viewed through the framework of the
three categories of barriers to implementation that were cited earlier: financial,
political, and institutional/organizational challenges.
Background of the Community
In order to understand the difficulties and challenges that the members of the
CSAG faced as they worked diligently to establish a charter school in Gallia County,
one must first understand the community. As a composite image of the culture and
socio-economic status of this county is depicted, it will become apparent why this
community was in dire need of educational reform. Although the people are similar
to those in countless other rural communities in Appalachia, certain educational,
political, economic, and geographic issues set Gallia County apart from other rural
counties.

56

Serving as the county seat of Gallia County, Gallipolis is a picturesque river town
nestled on the banks of the Ohio River. The name is French, and stands for “City of
the Gauls,” due to the nature of the town’s origin. In 1790, in the midst of the French
Revolution, 500 French noblemen, professional people, artisans, and their families
fled the turmoil of war-ravaged France to create a new life in the wilderness of the
Ohio Valley (Gallia County Chamber of Commerce, 2001). The famous “French
500” left a lasting impact on Gallipolis, which still reflects remnants of the French
culture and history of its roots. The architecture of the many historical homes and
buildings in the downtown area are decidedly French, and several have been
designated as historical sites. The downtown merchants have traditionally depended
upon local residents to support their small businesses, which are located around a
scenic park on the water’s edge. This scenic park boasts a central gazebo that was
once featured in an issue of National Geographic, as an example of quaint river
towns.
Despite its charming presence, Gallia County has been experiencing serious
economic and unemployment problems in the last few years. At the time this study
was initiated (1998), Gallipolis was officially a city, with an estimated population of
5,045. As a result of steadily declining commercial opportunities and new zoning
regulations, the population has since dwindled to well under 5,000, and Gallipolis is
now designated as a village (Ohio Cities and Towns, 2001). The majority of the
county’s 32,820 people reside outside of Gallipolis, in decidedly rural areas (Gallia
County Auditor’s Office, 2001). This declining population, coupled with a higher-
57

than-average unemployment rate and lower-than-average annual wages, has
combined to create an economically depressed area.
For a better understanding of the quality of life in Gallia County, consider some
statistical comparisons to both the state of Ohio and the nation.
2
According to
statistics published by the Ohio State University Extension for 1998, Gallia County
was below state and national averages in many critical categories. For example, the
unemployment rate in Gallia County was 8.9%, which was nearly twice that of the
remainder of the state and the nation. Gallia County’s median family income of
$28,349 ranked 77
th
out of the state’s 88 counties, and 38% of the children lived
below the poverty level, which was 13% over the state average.
This downward trend was not limited to the income and poverty statistics, but
also extended to the educational arena of Gallia County as well. In 1998, the dropout
rate for this county was 4.9%, which has increased steadily since the 1988 dropout
rate of 1.08%. The graduation rate was a poor 51.9%. On a similar note, 35% of
Gallia County residents did not hold a high school degree. There seemed to be little
hope for the economic and educational future of this county, due to the unfortunate
fact that all of the statistics mentioned above represented declines. The situation in
Gallia County was not improving – it was worsening.

2
Most statistics provided throughout this study will reference 1998, since it is essential that the data
accurately reflect the conditions at the time of this study. Statistics that refer to other time periods will
be appropriately defined

58

Educational Climate
With such a variety of educational choices and a relatively low student/teacher
ratio within the county, it would seem that education would be an issue that
commands top priority in Gallia County. Unfortunately, this is not the case.
Education-related levies have a long history of defeat in this community. According
to one local school board member, an education-related levy has not been passed
since 1990. In fact, despite the demonstrated need for a new high school in the city
district, residents voted against proposed bond issues to finance the project in both
1998 and 1999. According to public documents provided by Gallipolis City School
District officials, the district was serving 960 more students than it should, based on
Ohio state educational standards.
This figure did not refer to the student/teacher ratio, which was above average,
but rather to the inadequacies of the existing physical facilities. A comprehensive,
full-scale public relations campaign was mounted in an attempt to secure funding to
build a planned $18,780,000 new high school to house 750 students. The initial bond
issue was raised in 1998, and called for a 7.4 mill assessment. A mill is one-tenth of
a penny, which generates $1.00 for every $1,000 of property valuation. The overall
millage rate in the city district would have increased to 28.9, which would still have
been lower than the state average of 31 mills. The bond issue was summarily
defeated, however, and the city school board members returned to the drawing board.
After restructuring the bond issue to reflect 1999 district tax valuation, the
proponents of the issue were able to lower the millage rate to 7.0, and again
59

enthusiastically attempted to elicit support from the community. Once again, the
bond issue was voted down.
Ironically, the district had first voted on the issue of a new high school in 1985,
when 8.4 mills would have been assessed, and defeated the issue in short order. Even
though the millage rate for the same issue would have been less in 1998 than 13
years before, the people of the Gallipolis City School District were unwilling to
sacrifice for the necessary educational improvements. The voters repeatedly made
their priorities quite clear, and it appeared that those priorities did not involve
education.
In all fairness, however, it must be noted that the voters of the city school district
had other reasons to be skeptical of this project. The plan called for the proposed
high school to be built on 100 acres of recently purchased land near one of the city
school district’s elementary schools. According to information published in the 1998
bond issue information packet, the land was purchased with money accumulated
over a period of several years, from savings generated through improved energy
efficiency and a more economical staff health insurance plan. Many people were
unaware of the land purchase, and first learned of it at the same time they were
presented with the bond issue. As one retired teacher who lives within the city school
district pointed out:
They had already purchased the land off of Route 141, in
Centenary, and people resented the fact that they went ahead and
selected the site without any input from the voters. The people said
it was underhanded, and that they [the city school board] were
pushing something through that they [the voters] didn’t know
enough about.

60

According to a local school board member, this assessment hit near the mark.
Agreeing that voters felt that they had not been a part of the decision-making process
in regard to site selection and land purchases for a proposed new high school, she
explained: “Jim Walters [City Schools Superintendent] was devastated by the public
outcry against the levies, and the purchase of the land around Green School. But
people wanted to be a part of the process – the decisions about their schools.”
The perception that the general public was routinely being excluded from
decisions of major importance concerning the proposed high school extended deep
into the community. “People are not voting for our levies, because we’re not
addressing their concerns,” commented CSAG member Sue Roe. She added, “I think
that we’re, we’re pretending we know more…I hear this all the time, ‘We’re smarter
than the people out there. We will tell you what’s good for you.’” Roe went on to tell
of an instance where she and a fellow concerned citizen had been rebuffed from a
city school board meeting that was being held to interview three architects who were
vying for the contract to design the new high school. In Roe’s words:
We went to the board meeting…. They did not advertise it. We
heard about it through the grapevine….So we went, we showed up,
we sat in. One of the school board members stood up and said,
“This is not open to the public.” And there were also two teachers
there, and one of the teachers said, “Well, this is a school board
meeting, we should be able to listen,” and he said “No.” We had to
go stand in the parking lot while they decided.

Area residents harbored strong feelings about educational levies, and took firm
stances on the issues. Differences of opinion over bond issues often divided
community members and friends, and long-standing loyalties sometimes caused
61

people to turn a deaf ear to proposed changes. Roe told of a local businesswoman
who was asked by a teacher how she was going to vote on an upcoming levy. When
she stated her opinion, according to Roe, the teachers got together and decided to
boycott her flower shop. Likewise, Foster claimed to have lost clients at his
veterinarian clinic due to his public stance on local education issues. Describing the
political climate in Gallia County, Roe made a humorous analogy to a larger
community where individuals are not preoccupied with the opinions and affairs of
their neighbors.
Local politics are very bad. I came from Columbia, South
Carolina, you know, city of a million. You could die in the front
yard and you know, nobody would notice, unless you violated the
covenants of the subdivision.

The mutual distrust between school boards and citizens was nothing new in Gallia
County. Levy issues notwithstanding, there had been enormously controversial
decisions made in the recent past that greatly impacted the entire county, without
sufficient input. The event that perhaps contributed most to the malcontent of many
of the county residents was the restructuring of the county school system in 1992.
Prior to 1992 there were four high schools spread at fairly equal geographic
intervals throughout the county (see Figure 2). These high schools had long been
serving the rural residents in the farthest reaches of the county, in communities that
often centered on the activities and athletics of their high schools. As the previous
literature emphasized, this phenomenon of rural communities identifying with their
respective schools is quite common, so “losing” that community focal point can
create a social void.
62

During the late 1980s, the county district experienced a huge reduction in tax
revenue, when the tax assessment guidelines were changed regarding one of the
county’s two industrial plants. According to Cole, the change in tax revenue cost the
county $1.3 million annually. Consequently, due to fiscal reasons the county district
was forced to consolidate the existing four high schools into one. In the words of
county board member Bob Cole, “And so the district was reeling from that cut and
trying to cope with that…and so, rather than work their way out of it, the board, the
administration at that time recommended it.” Although the consolidation was
intended to cut the county school system’s operating expenses, according to Cole it
had just the opposite effect: “What savings they’d made in some areas they took up
in transportation and other problems.”
This decision was made rather suddenly, and without the input of county
residents. The state school board reviewed the county’s facilities, and recommended
consolidating all four high schools into one, to be located in the largest physical
facilities available, Kyger Creek High School. Several portable classrooms were
added, and the newly formed consolidated school became River Valley High School.
Unfortunately, though it did boast the largest facility, Kyger Creek was not the
newest high school, nor was it the most centrally located. In fact, it was located in
one extreme end of the county, as is depicted in Figure 1. Many people felt this was
the wrong site, and local minister and education reform advocate Pastor Joe
Simmons echoed their sentiments when he said,
…they moved it all to River Valley, which was a geographical
mess. If they’da put the school at Southwestern [see Figure 2], it
would have been very geographically located. And it also would
63

have been just a few minutes, five minutes or less, from the
university.

Because of River Valley’s location, many students were faced with unusually
long bus rides or commutes, and participating in extracurricular activities posed a
logistical nightmare. “For some kids on the bus it was an hour, an hour and a half
twice a day,” complained CSAG founder, Steve Foster. Indeed, many students were
traveling 70 miles a day just to go to school and return home.
Not everyone on the school board agreed with the decision, either. Cole actually
resigned his position, though he had been serving on the board for many years,
because he felt so strongly about the issue. He would later reconsider and be
reelected to the board. Apparently Cole wasn’t necessarily against hard decisions
that were borne out of inevitable change, but rather how those decisions were made.
Describing Cole’s reason for resigning, Simmons said, “And it wasn’t that he [Cole]
thought that it was wrong to close those schools. What he said is, ‘It is wrong to
close those schools without public support.’” Once again, the centralized, top-down
decision making of the school board created hard feelings and a sense of
powerlessness among county residents.
The resulting furor among county residents did nothing to mend the already
strained relationship between the county and the city districts, either. Students from
the southernmost tip of the county were being bused directly through the city of
Gallipolis en route to their new high school – right past the city district’s only high
school, which happened to be fairly centrally located in the county. To add insult to
injury, the city district boundaries had been changed over the years so that they
64

extended in an irregular pattern nearly the entire width of the county, virtually
dividing the county district in half. The resulting district lines and the geographic
location of the new high school elicited the following analogy from Pastor Simmons:
“It’s a mess. Geographically, we look like Bosnia, and we function like Bosnia.”
To their credit, the local school board recognized the transportation crisis and
tried to effect measures to remedy the situation. Current acting county school board
superintendent Brenda Mason was serving as a county board member at the time of
the River Valley fiasco. She explained that the board went to great expense to
provide countywide transportation alternatives for students who wished to participate
in after-school events. “Shuttle buses are provided for students participating in
extracurricular activities to go back to the attendance area elementary school.”
Although this step was taken in good faith, and did alleviate some of the problem, it
still presented logistical difficulties for parents who then had to ferry their children to
and from the elementary schools. Added to that fact was the inconvenience of shuttle
bus schedules that did not always coincide with the transportation needs of the
students. The result was a situation that still far from being reconciled.
By 1996 the county school board was still trying to meet the needs of the county
residents, and failing miserably. Realizing that students in the southern end of the
county were the most disadvantaged in terms of transportation and perceived
isolation from their home communities, the school board prepared to reopen Hannan
Trace High School (see Figure 2), under the moniker of South Gallia High School.
Students who had formerly attended Hannan Trace High School prior to 1992 would
65

return to their alma mater, which was unchanged except for its name. As part of that
move, it was decided that students who had formerly resided in the Southwestern
High School attendance area would be given the option to choose whether they
would attend South Gallia or River Valley. Students from the Southwestern area had
been uprooted from their educational and social communities to attend school in a
completely new environment with mostly unfamiliar people just four short years
before. These students and their families were unwilling to make another drastic
move, both physically and socially, to the entirely opposite end of the county.
Consequently, even though the commute was closer for many students to South
Gallia, the majority (70%) chose to remain at River Valley.
This attempt to better serve the residents of southern end of Gallia County did
help to soothe tensions in the area, but it also created new problems. Just a few miles
from the South Gallia High School is a community called Crown City, located close
to the Gallia County border. Living in perhaps the most remote community in the
county, Crown City residents have always conducted much of their business and
employment activities in neighboring Lawrence County, located just minutes from
their municipality. Prior to the opening of River Valley, high schools students from
Crown City had traditionally attended Hannan Trace High School. The two
communities were inextricably linked in many ways. Upon learning of the county
school board’s decision to reopen South Gallia, residents of Crown City “Proper”
had had enough – they voted themselves out of the Gallia County Local School
District and into the neighboring Fairland School District. Now if students from
66

Crown City chose to attend any high school in Gallia County, they had to do so in an
open enrollment status.
In the midst of all of this turmoil involving the high schools in the county school
system, yet another controversial issue was being broached. In 1993, the State
Department of Education was commissioned to conduct a consolidation study to
evaluate the feasibility of consolidating the Gallipolis City School District and the
Gallia County Local School District into one unified district. Based on the findings,
the study recommended that the two districts merge into one, in order to operate
more efficiently, reduce costs, and provide greater educational opportunities for the
students in the combined district (Ohio State Department of Education, 1993). It
should be noted for discussion purposes later in this study that, in addition to the
three rationale cited previously, the study suggested a fourth possible benefit of the
consolidation. It is this last rationale that would have addressed one of the most
pressing problems in the county, albeit not one of the most tangible. The fourth
recommended reason for consolidation suggested that such a move would assure the
integrity of the total county, including Gallipolis (Ohio State Department of
Education, 1993).
The benefits of consolidation seem to be numerous, and the state’s
recommendations were based on fiscal and geographic considerations. But the
longstanding feuds over recent changes and proposed changes in both systems left
residents suspicious and distrustful of such a venture. The topic of countywide
consolidation was again broached in 1995, and was included in surveys conducted in
67

2000 (see Appendixes A and B). In February of 2001, The Gallipolis Daily Tribune
published comments of local residents concerning the issue of consolidation. Some
saw it as a possible solution to the need for new high schools in both districts. “If it
would be more equitable as far as a tax base is concerned, I can see a benefit to
consolidation. Both school districts need new high schools,” said one man. Others
viewed it as a further waste of already underused facilities. A county resident
expressed her concern: “But what about the unused schools? It seems that they could
put them to some use, like making community centers out of them for kids.” Said
another, “I don’t think it would work. It involves too many kids.” After nearly a
decade of discussion on the subject, the feelings of many Gallia County residents
were reflected in the comments of a longtime city resident: “It’s something that has
been studied to death, but if it can be done efficiently in terms of funding, then
maybe it would be a good idea.” Once again, a “good idea” had withered in this
community so divided on educational issues.
The Academic Truth
The facility shortage was not enough of an issue to sway the voters of the
Gallipolis community to vote for the proposed new city high school, and the county
district could not resolve consolidation issues either. The two districts could not even
reach consensus on the issue of district consolidation, which continued to be a hotly
contested topic. These issues aside, what should have been of greater concern was
the state of academic crisis in which the entire county was deeply embroiled.

68

As previously mentioned, the Ohio General Assembly passed Senate Bill 55 in
1997, requiring the Ohio Department of Education to issue annual “report cards” to
each of its 608 school districts beginning in 1999. The prototype of the first official
report was released in 1998, and the two Gallia County school districts were able to
assess their overall academic standings. The report cards outlined 18 performance
standards that comprised the basis for classification of school districts into one of
four performance rating categories. The percentage of performance standards
achieved by each district determined whether it would be assigned a rating of:
effective, continuous improvement, academic watch, or academic emergency.
Gallipolis City School District received a rating of “academic watch,” meeting only
six of the 18 State Proficiency Standards. Gallia County Local School District
received the lowest possible rating of “academic emergency,” achieving proficiency
in a dismal 2 of the 18 standards (Ohio Department of Education, 1998a, 1998b). Not
everyone felt that the proficiency scores told the entire story, or that the situation was
as dire as it appeared on the surface. Some education professionals within the city
school district were quick to point out that, although the Gallipolis City Schools had
been placed in the academic watch category, well over half of the state’s school
districts had received similar ratings (Gallipolis City Schools, 1998). The effect of
the state’s report card was apparent: both school districts had been served notice,
calling them to action to address the educational crises in their communities, yet
voters defeated all related bond issues that were raised immediately after receiving
the abysmal performance ratings.
69

The community was not without citizens who were concerned with the quality of
education in the county. One independently organized group of people who worked
diligently on behalf of the proposed bond issues was the Concerned Area Citizens for
Education (C.A.R.E.) committee (Walters, 1998). The Gallia County Education
Committee was another group of concerned community representatives who met
regularly to develop strategies to increase community-wide interest in and support
for all levels of education. Additionally, educational leaders in the community
designated a team of individuals who were dedicated to the task of becoming one of
the state’s BEST (Building Excellence Schools for Today & the 21
st
Century)
communities. Sponsored by the Ohio Education Improvement Consortium (OEIC),
this initiative was launched to help raise the performance standards of all of Ohio’s
students. In order to be designated a BEST community, each local education
improvement committee had to meet or exceed 10 general criteria that were designed
to accelerate community educational reform (Ohio Education Improvement
Consortium, 1998). In fact, various members from these educational committees
joined the CSAG, and joined forces to realize their common goal of creating a
community school that would be held to higher accountability standards and spark
renewed vigor into the educational embers of the community. The next section offers
a description of the key members of the CSAG, who formed the backbone of the
project.

70

The Players
Since the majority of this process is going to be described, or “heard” through the
voices of the actual people who were deeply involved in the community school
project, it is important to become acquainted with those participants. Although many
individuals were interviewed for this study, only a few were key figures who played
major roles in the events that took place over the 23-month life of the project.
Therefore, I have omitted names of the speakers, for the most part, except when
citing comments of the main participants of the controversial efforts. Fictitious
names were assigned to the central participants in order to help the reader follow the
actions of the committee, and gain a sense of individual personalities, and how they
interacted.
During the collection of my data for this study, I attended meetings of the CSAG
and conducted personal interviews with the majority of the committee members.
When asked who was the one person who was responsible for initiating the plan for
the community school, the members unanimously indicated that Steven Foster, a
local veterinarian, was the force that galvanized the concerned county residents into
action. As another CSAG member commented, “I heard that it was basically a group
of parents that started talking about it. I think that Steve was probably the one that
got the ball rolling into a committee.” Foster was a product of the county school
system, and had returned to establish his professional practice in the same area.
Another committee leader who was a founding member of the CSAG was a local
Lutheran minister who had a long history of personal involvement in educational
71

issues within Gallia County, Pastor Joe Simmons. As Simmons explained,
I moved to this county a little over 18 years ago. And within two or
three days of moving here they had a public meeting for tax levies
for the city schools. And I attended that public meeting…18 years
ago, and I have been involved in the education process ever since.

Not one to mince words or beat around the bush, Simmons was known in the
community for his straightforward, outspoken opinions about the county’s
educational systems. A proponent of educational reform, Simmons considered it his
responsibility as a community leader to be actively involved in such issues. In a
community that is resistant to educational change, this candor and enthusiasm did not
always garner the responses he hoped for. “When I went to that meeting 18 years
ago, uh, I had a member of this congregation, who was on the school board,”
Simmons said. “He didn’t even speak to me. Here I am, his pastor, we were probably
really good friends –uh, he, he didn’t know much about me at that point.” Acutely
aware that his strong stance on sensitive issues involving the state of education in the
community sometimes made him a controversial figure, Simmons nevertheless
remained in the fray. Referring to his work with Foster on the community school
project, Simmons said, “As far as the two school boards are concerned, me and Steve
are the two dang-dirtiest dogs in this county.”
One local businessman who was active in the Chamber of Commerce and other
civic organizations joined the CSAG and was a key figure in the process,
consistently providing meeting facilities and administrative support. This merchant
was Charles Saunders, and his business was centrally located on the park front,
72

directly across from the Ohio River. Not long after he became involved with the
community school project, Saunders’ wife was elected to serve on the city school
board, thus reinforcing the couple’s commitment to education in the city district.
Soft-spoken and possessing excellent facilitating skills, Saunders maintained a
reassuring air of confidence in group meetings.
With his parish church located across the street from the city’s only high school,
Gallia Academy, Father Richard Roth was literally and figuratively embedded in the
city’s educational community. Also hoping to effect positive change in the system,
Roth was an early an active member of the CSAG. With no cafeteria on the high
school premises, hot lunches were brought to the school from a nearby elementary
school. Traditionally, most high school students walked the two blocks to the city’s
limited food service establishments, and ate fast food or bakery items. Through his
parish and in his church facilities, Roth established an alternative lunch program for
the high school students, offering balanced, hot meals at reasonable prices for those
who chose to participate.
Bob Cole had been a member of the county school board for many years, and had
a reputation of genuine concern for the educational well-being of the community,
and often served as the board’s spokesman to the media and the public. Cole was
thorough and matter-of-fact in his approach to his responsibility as a school board
member. This levelheaded attitude did not exempt him from becoming frustrated and
angry at times, however. At one point during an especially heated ongoing debate
over the highly sensitive issue of consolidating several county high schools, Cole
73

resigned his position on the school board, only to reconsider later and run
successfully for re-election. Believing that there was room for educational choice
and improvement in Gallia County, Cole became a member of the CSAG.
Another driving force behind the community school effort was Sue Roe, who had
moved to Gallipolis in 1990. As a parent who was concerned with the future of her
children’s educational opportunities in the community, Roe was a vocal supporter of
the project and an active CSAG team member. With a background in University
Administration, Roe had some experience working with educational issues, and a
keen desire to help turn things around in the local education scene.
The CSAG also consisted of representatives from both the city and county school
districts. One very active member was also on the city school board, and the group
included a teacher from both the county school system and the city school system. At
any given meeting there could be a different group of people, as the open structure of
the committee encouraged participation and inclusion. There was a cross-section of
the community represented on the committee, with parents, clergymen, teachers,
school board members, merchants, and concerned citizens all working together
toward the common goal of a community school. Ironically, the overwhelming
majority of the committee members did not have children in the school system, but
were motivated by other reasons to seek educational choice. To determine if
individual reasons for participating on the CSAG had any influence on the level of
commitment toward the project, I asked committee members to describe the factors
that inspired them to join the effort.
74

Personal Motivations
Although each person on the committee cited unique reasons for his or her
involvement with the CSAG, they all shared one common motivation – their
discontent with the current state of education in Gallia County, particularly at the
secondary level. With two children preparing to enter the city high school, Roe was
apprehensive about the opportunities available to them there. Her reasons were more
personal. As Roe explained,
Basically, we’re dissatisfied with the education level 7-12. We’re
basically very satisfied here with K-6. But in the seventh
grade…..uh, I even had a counselor make the comment to me, “Oh,
just get them through the seventh and eighth grade because they
don’t really learn anything anyway.”

The prospect for change was not good either, considering the recent failure of the
two bond issues. Roe later went on to add, “We just felt like there was a need for
something different – that we were not going to get levies passed. I think that was
probably the initial impetus - that our levies wouldn’t pass.” Likewise, county school
board member Cole echoed similar concerns about the options available to his own
daughter:
I know my own situation…my daughter looked at her options, uh
the options that were available to her in, in normal public school
process. That system was not really what she was looking for at the
time, and we explored other options. And I guess I look at it from
that standpoint. I think we need to have other options available for
kids to choose from.

The organizer of the effort and father of three, Foster, received a wake-up call
concerning the state of education in Gallia County and was driven to action. When
75

asked if his motivation was personal, Foster was quick to reply:
Yeah, I have my own children. And then…you know with the
realization when the proficiencies came out, despite the problems
with them, they were an indication of the quality of the system. I
think, to me it was a shock that we did so poorly. And as a result, I
was more motivated…it wasn’t like we were just marginal – we
were so low.

Others were interested in the charter school effort purely in an educational reform
sense. Neither of the two clergymen for example, had children in the school system.
The Catholic priest of course did not have any children, and the Lutheran minister’s
children had all graduated from college. Simmons was devoted to the cause of
reform because, as he puts it, “Next to your spiritual life, education is the most
important thing that is going to prepare you to lead.”
Foster and Simmons were arguably the two most dogged committee members.
Interestingly, the two men had very different motivations for seeking to start a
charter school, yet they both worked with equal determination and fervor to
accomplish the mission. Regardless of individual differences in motivation, the
committee members all shared a common vision. As Roe pointed out,
I think everybody’s motivation was the same. I really believe that
everybody was pretty much on the same page as far as why they
wanted the charter school…they just wanted a better school. It was
genuinely – I think a genuine from-the-heart effort, by everyone on
that committee.

The committee was enthusiastic, unified, and eager to move forward with the plan
for a community school. The mission had a far better chance of success it gained the
support of at least one of the educational entities in the county, however, for
76

sponsoring purposes. Therefore, the CSAG had to devise a plan that was thorough
and that specifically addressed areas of concern among residents. The challenge was
to create a plan that would accomplish these goals and yet not appear threatening to
the respective school board members, educational administrators, or community
members.
The Timeline
The CSAG held their first official meeting in February, 1999, although
individuals had been informally discussing the idea for months. This meeting came
about as a result of a previous meeting between several concerned citizens and
former Ohio Senator Cooper Snyder. The group conducted weekly meetings
thereafter, which were announced in information articles published in the local
newspaper, and open to the public. With guidance from Snyder, in less than three
months time, the group had developed a mission statement, and a timeline for their
project. Furthermore, they had conducted visits to two charter schools within the
state to gather information. The committee planned to prepare a proposal and
development plan to be considered before the 1999 State Legislature. With a
proposed opening date of September, 2000, the committee was definitely working
within a reasonable schedule. With nearly a year and a half to realize their plan, the
future looked bright for the members of the CSAG.
In an effort to identify areas for improvement in the group’s example, the
intended timeline will be compared to the actual timeline of events as they occurred.

77

The following schedule was established by the CSAG (Community School
Advocacy Group, 1999):
May 1, 1999 – September 31, 1999
1. Gather information regarding community interest in a charter school,
addressing specific community needs.
2. Publish general survey and results.
3. Interpret data and repeat survey, if necessary.
4. Continue weekly meetings.
5. Organize a public meeting to feature speakers who are experts on community
schools, and facilitate a question and answer period.
6. Initiate a search for a suitable facility.
October 1, 1999 – December 31, 1999
1. Continue community awareness activities and weekly meetings.
2. Devise general goals and objectives based on interpreted data from surveys.
January1, 2000 – February 28, 2000
1. Elect a governing board.
2. Governing board will devise basic admission policies and achievement
standards.
3. Form a curriculum committee to create a basic curriculum to submit to the
governing board for approval.

78

March 1, 2000 – June 31 – 2000
1. Devise a financial accountability plan to submit to the governing board for
approval.
2. Finalize a tentative budget.
3. Develop employment policies.
4. Recruit and hire staff and faculty.
July 1, 2000 – August 31, 2000
1. Secure facility and make ready for classes.
2. Purchase and install equipment.
3. Arrange support services.
4. Schedule final health and safety inspections.
5. Establish students’ rights and responsibilities.
6. Schedule meetings with parents and students to complete necessary
paperwork.
September, 2000 – Opening Day!
In addition to the tasks they planned to conduct as a committee, the CSAG also
contacted three professional management companies who specialized in charter
school management. These three companies were Hope Academy, Edison College,
and Beacon Educational Management School Services.
The Plan
Ever the optimists, the CSAG members were moving ahead with their project,
although in the spring of 1999 the laws that governed creation and sponsorship of
79

community schools in Ohio still excluded start-ups outside of the Big Eight.
Amazingly, the CSAG was moving forward with their plan for education reform in
their community, even though the state laws at that time did not yet allow for a start-
up school in their district. Since they had no intention of converting an existing
public school to a community school based on the level of turmoil the two districts
were already experiencing, sponsorship was a moot point. Because the group’s
leaders had established contact with the agency within the State Board of Education
governing charter schools, and had been communicating with that office and
working with them on a regular basis, they were aware of pending legislation that
would drastically change their situation, if passed. The state office had informed the
CSAG that soon it was likely that the expanded law would allow for start-up
community schools in districts placed on academic emergency, regardless of that
districts location in regard to the Big Eight. Along with that improvement would
come expanded sponsorship authority, in that such a start-up could seek sponsorship
from either the respective district that was on academic emergency, or the state.
Looking ahead to the future, the CSAG approached the county school board in the
spring of 1999 with their plan, in an attempt to determine how receptive the board
would be in regard to sponsoring such a school within their district. Thinking that the
less-than-ideal county situation would enhance their chances of working together,
Foster says his group treated the meeting as a symbolic gesture; an effort to promote
partnership and harmony. “We went to them [county board] first, as a sort of an
‘olive-branch’ type of thing,” Foster said. He added, “That way, even if they didn’t
80

want to help, at least we could say we asked.” Meanwhile, the group was also
working with the state charter school representatives as a potential sponsoring agent,
assuming the law would pass allowing the creation of their rural community school.
It was a wise move on the part of the CSAG, for they did not receive a hearty
endorsement from the county board of education. According to Foster, after he and
the CSAG approached the county board with an offer to work cooperatively, they
“never heard a word back from them.” Indeed, the message was never circulated
well throughout the county system. In fact, one twenty-year veteran teacher of the
county school system said she had never heard the community school mentioned. As
she stated:
To be honest with you, I didn’t know anything about it. It was
never mentioned at school. There was some gossip in the teachers’
lounge about it…that it would skim off the best students and our
school would become a dumping ground.

This teacher was echoing the common refrain among charter school doubters, that
such schools could become elitist.
But according to Patricia Hughes, Community Schools Consultant in the State
Office of School Options, the CSAG’s proposed plan was impressive. Stating that
the plan was realistic in scope and that it appeared to have broad-based support,
Hughes wrote to the county schools superintendent, urging him to consider
sponsoring such a project if the proposed legislation passed in June of 1999.
However, the CSAG ultimately chose to seek sponsorship from the state, perceiving
the county board to be unresponsive.
81

The educational plan was based on the principles that charter schools are known
for, with particular emphasis placed on parental and community involvement. The
only significant difference was an item in the plan which specifically addressed a
unique local issue – that of county unification. The following is an excerpt from
Section C of the plan, entitled, “Educational Program and Goals, Curricular Focus
and Instructional Design Concepts:”
Local issues addressed in our curriculum: Finally we would like to
see a school which does not discriminate between the “city kids”
and the “county kids….” We believe that our differences are
superficial and that ALL kids can learn in the same environment,
with the same teachers without some feeling left out or somehow
“less” than the others. We will put forth the philosophy not that
everyone is “equal” as in “the same” but that everyone has
important things that they can contribute to each other, their
communities, and the world as they graduate. Each child needs to
be “special” in that they have unique needs, goals, and talents. In a
small school setting such as our community school, each can have
an individualized program that “fits” with the whole school where
each child feels he or she is valued. Every child will have the
opportunity to feel part of the school and avoid the alienation and
potentially bad behaviors that result from those feelings.

Recognizing that the division between county and city educational systems was a
weakness in the county’s character, the CSAG was attempting to address that issue
through their curricular design. The committee’s intent was to create an atmosphere
of equality where each student would feel valued, without sacrificing academic
individuality. They planned to achieve these goals through small class size and
individualized learning.
The plan intended to target students in grades 7, 8, 9, and 10 the first year, with an
approximate enrollment of 30 students per grade level. Each year the group’s plan
82

was to add a grade level, first to accommodate students moving into grades 11 and
12, then working backwards annually from grade 6 down to kindergarten, as
necessary. The CSAG focused on the secondary level because that is where they
perceived the greatest needs to be. In an initial market survey that the CSAG
distributed through the local newspaper and in local businesses, 73% of the
respondents indicated that the greatest need for educational improvement was in
grades 7-12. The CSAG envisioned a student/teacher ratio of approximately 15:1.
Enrollment was to be open to both the city and county school districts, as well as
three adjoining districts that were either in academic watch or academic emergency
status.
Members of the group had received positive responses from others in the
community who had heard of their plan, and who professed interest in participating
in the project. Based on the feedback they were getting, the group members did not
foresee a problem securing enough students to open, since the law in Ohio required
an enrollment of only 25 students to open and operate a charter school. In Foster’s
words, “There was more interest from the teachers at Gallia Academy to put their
kids in the charter school, then any other group of people.” Given the fragile state of
affairs within the city school system, however, these teachers were unwilling to offer
their support publicly until the community school was established. As Foster
explained,
…they came to me and said, “You know, you get this going, you
know – don’t mention my name now, but if the charter school gets
going, I’d be interested in putting my child in.” And there aren’t
that many teachers, and I had fifteen or twenty that spoke to me
about putting their kids in the system. And that kind of reflects the
83

idea…there was a lot of closet interest. You know, they were
interested, they weren’t going to come out in public, they sure
weren’t going to come to a meeting. I was certain if we got the
school up and going, the second and third year it would have really
taken off.

To those familiar with the local politics and the “I don’t want to get involved”
attitude so prevalent in the county, this lack of support came as no surprise. Teachers
who did take the initiative to attend meetings of the CSAG often felt like they were
placing themselves in an awkward situation, in regard to their jobs. It was noted that
at an early meeting of the CSAG, in the summer of 1999, an area teacher declined to
be photographed with the rest of the group for an informational article to be
published in the local newspaper. Similarly, she did not want her name used in the
article, or the related literature. When reminded of that meeting, Pastor Simmons
declared,
Oh yeah, absolutely! I remember that. We never did take that
picture, and it’s all about politics. We never did take that picture
because there were people working on that committee that didn’t
want to. …they were afraid if people saw them working together it
would have negative political repercussions on ‘em. And you
know, it’s a shame.

In this community, each statement a person made that had anything to do with
education was analyzed, and every action scrutinized, for signs of disloyalty. This
especially held true if the person under scrutiny was a teacher, administrator, or civic
leader.
Facilities
Another example that illustrates the powerful effect that local politics could have
on efforts of educational reform in Gallia County had to do with the topic of
84

potential facilities. Although this issue was not the proverbial straw that broke the
community school’s back, it too, was a source of controversy.
Because they did not want to find themselves in the same geographic quandary
that the county school system was in with its high schools, the CSAG was seeking to
centrally locate their community school, right from the beginning. With this criterion
always in mind, they approached churches, local businesses, and even the local
university in an attempt to secure appropriate facilities. One promising avenue of
exploration involved local businessman and restaurant magnate, Bob Evans. A
lifelong resident of the county, Evans agreed to donate a parcel of land to the project,
and possibly some start-up money for building purposes. The CSAG was
apprehensive about “starting from scratch,” however, in terms of facilities. They had
visited several charter schools in the state by this time, all of which had been
struggling financially, even though they were operating in rented or leased facilities.
Knowing that constructing a new school would be much more expensive than renting
or leasing existing facilities, and that there was no start-up money available from the
state, the CSAG explored other options.
The committee approached the University of Rio Grande with the idea of utilizing
some of their facilities, and was warmly received by the university administration.
Initially, according to Roe, the response was enthusiastic and positive.
The vice president was all for it. He’s got kids, and I think they
probably would have even gone [to the community school]. The
faculty were excited about it, and they had facilities available.
They said, “We’ve got a dorm, no problem! We can convert it.
We’ve got some space, and we’d love to have the kids on campus,
because that’s potential students.”

85

By all accounts it looked as if the CSAG and the university could form a mutually
beneficial partnership. There was talk of sharing laboratory space, possibly even
having university faculty as part-time instructors and guest lecturers. In addition, the
university was already participating in a program that enabled high school students
to attend college courses for a portion of their day, if they met the qualifications for
participation. The university was centrally located, and also very proximal to the
vocational school (see Figure 2). Pastor Simmons shared a conversation he had with
former Senator Snyder on the subject of starting a community school at Rio Grande:
We need a high school at Rio Grande, I said to Cooper Snyder.
And I said to him, if we did that, we could have an education
system second to none in the state of Ohio. And he said, “You’re
wrong. You could have an education second to none in the
NATION, because you’re getting a university, a vocational school,
all working together.”

But the university board members eventually withdrew their offer of facilities
support, reportedly due to pressure from the city school superintendent, Jim Walters.
Both Roe and Simmons recounted hearing that the city school board threatened to
sever the working relationship between the city schools and the university’s
Education department. This would prove to be quite damaging to the university,
since they depended on the city schools as a resource in which to place their student
teachers who were majoring in Education. Speaking of the city school board’s
opposition to the community school project, Roe said,
I mean, it wasn’t just mild opposition, they were adamantly
opposed. The teacher’s union was up in arms, as they are in many
places. …they were hearing that we might have one and they were
really fearful for their jobs and so forth.
86

In reality, the option of locating in the community of Rio Grande was not feasible
anyway, for another obvious reason. Rio Grande fell within the Gallipolis City
School District, which was in academic watch. Legally, the community school could
only be started in a district that was in academic emergency, since it was in a rural
area.
Even as they wrestled with facility issues, the committee moved forward with
other aspects of their project. The community school group was now ready to design
a survey that would enable them to gather data for planning purposes. At no time
was the lack of support more evident than during the development and
implementation of the surveys. In fact, it can be argued that it was the surveys and
the accompanying controversies that eroded the CSAG, and led to their eventual
disintegration.
The Surveys
Over the course of many months, the CSAG worked long and hard to create a
survey that would be comprehensive and thorough, thus allowing everyone who
responded the opportunity to voice their concerns. They decided to address issues of
concern to both school districts, and to name their survey committee the Community
Education Survey Committee (CESC). The committee members wanted to receive
input from both county and city residents. After all, the committee members realized
that it was this lack of communication that had created many of the problems in the
county and city school systems. Questions were drafted, reviewed, rephrased, and
87

reviewed time and again, in a sincere effort to create a fair and useful survey tool.
Members from all factions of the community worked together on this survey, to
include city and county school board members, teachers, and community members.
When the CSEC felt that they had an instrument that was worthy of distribution (see
Appendix A), they scheduled a luncheon to review it, and invited city schools
superintendent Walters to attend.
Upon reviewing the survey, Walters was not in agreement that it should be
distributed. In fact, according to a CSAG member who wishes to remain anonymous,
he felt quite strongly that it was not a fair evaluative instrument, and that the
questions were designed to shed a poor light on the city school system. In the words
of the anonymous member,

Jim was very hostile about it. So we had this luncheon and he was
very hostile – very hostile about this survey. He said it was
designed to make him look bad. There were a lot of objections to
it. And my response was, “Tell us what you want us to do, we’ll
work on the questions to make them more palatable, you know,
whatever needs to be done.”

According to the committee member, after the luncheon, Charles Saunders, who
had been instrumental in facilitating the meetings involving the survey design,
approached an independent firm for help in salvaging the survey. Saunders knew Dr.
Ron Jones, of the University of Rio Grande’s Mathematics department, and asked for
his assistance. A savvy businessmen, Saunders is adept at handling unpleasant
situations in a cool, calm fashion. As a merchant who also lived in the heart of the
city district, Saunders was also well acquainted with the superintendent and his board
88

members. After all, Saunders own wife had just been elected to the city school board.
Realizing that the survey would not receive much support from the city system in its
current state, Saunders enlisted the help of Ohio University’s Institute for Local
Government Administration and Rural Development (ILGARD), through Dr. Jones.
When they accepted the project, ILGARD representatives out-sourced the task of
compiling the data and interpreting the data to Dr. Jones. To many committee
members, this was a sudden and abrupt decision that was not made by consensus.
Roe said she approached Saunders about the issue when she hadn’t heard anything
for a period of time, and was concerned about the next step the committee would
take on the survey. Roe recalled the conversation:
And I talked with him, maybe a week later, because all of a sudden
I hadn’t heard anything. I said, you know we need to redo this,
maybe try to take some of these…and he was very evasive with
me, and he said, “Well, I think, we, they just thought it’s too
negative, they just think the whole survey is too negative. So I
gave it to Ron Jones and I’m going to let him do it with this
company, this group at Ohio University, as a consultant.”

For many committee members who had labored on the survey project, this was
the ultimate insult. Individuals were contacting one another, confused, and desperate
to find out what was happening with the survey they had created. When Father Roth
learned that another entity had taken over the survey project, he was confused and
upset. He, along with Pastor Simmons and Foster, called Roe to find out what the
status of the survey was.
Everyone was calling me. Father Roth left a message at my home
to call him back at any hour, even if it was after midnight. They all
wanted to know what was going on. So I told them “I don’t know.
All of a sudden, I don’t know.” They were so upset they were
89

ready to…Father Roth was ready to sabotage the whole thing. He
said, “I’m just ready to go, you know.” And I said, “Okay, let’s
just wait and see what’s going to happen.” Well, finally, they had a
meeting – basically handed out the new questionnaire – and said
“This is the way it’s going to be.” Well, you now how that goes
over with a committee that’s worked a long time on something.

Pastor Simmons admitted that the city was probably not too pleased with the
initial survey, but added, “All I can say is, I felt like I had input on the final
questionnaire. I’ve read the final questionnaire, and I, I still was happy with it.”
The survey issue had become a sore point among committee members, and Cole,
who had worked on this survey for some time, felt that it was time to part ways with
the CSEC on this issue. As another member of the CSAG stated more bluntly, “And
Bob Cole got mad, and he said, ‘To heck with you guys, I’m not doing this survey.’
And then they went off and did their own survey.” Cole subsequently helped prepare
a separate survey (see Appendix B), sponsored by the county system that he felt
would better address the issues specific to the county schools. When Cole announced
the upcoming county survey in the paper, he made the distinction that this was to be
a separate survey from the one that the CSEC was preparing, though he
acknowledged his participation in the development of that survey as well. Cole’s felt
that there were three distinct groups of people who had very different reasons for
supporting a survey of any kind. According to Cole:
I think there were a group of people who wanted to improve each
of the individual school systems – both the county and the city, and
they wanted a survey that would come out that would tell them
some of the things they needed to look at and needed to improve. I
think there was a group of people looking at this thinking that it
would show that the people of both districts wanted to consolidate.
I think there was a group of people who were wanting to see just
90

how much dissatisfaction there was there, so that it would provide
support for an alternative, such as the charter school.

Shortly before the CSEC survey was distributed, county superintendent Richard
Hastings published a statement in the paper, denying any involvement with that
survey. According to his statement,
The Gallia County Local Board of Education understands that
many school district residents have [will receive] received copies
of the (CSEC) survey and wants to assure the community that the
board has not been involved with the construction of the survey,
nor does it endorse the survey (Gallipolis Daily Tribune, 2000).

This public distancing of the county system from the CSEC survey was
particularly disappointing to Pastor Simmons. As he lamented, “Well, that article in
the paper was a…really…a heartbreaker. He [Hastings] was talking about our
survey, and he was associated with it. People from the BEST committee, of the
county system came from the beginning.” He went on to name two county teachers
and a county board member who had participated on the CSEC committee, then
added, “People from the county system were on this survey from the ground up, and
the week before it came out, he had that article that said they had nothing to do with
it.”
As result of the confusion surrounding the surveys, the public was faced with the
problem of trying to distinguish which entity was conducting which survey, and for
what purpose(s). This confusion was compounded by the fact that the two surveys
were distributed within a very short time of one another. Indeed, the CSEC survey
had a requested return date of August 30, 2000, and the county survey was dated
91

August, 2000, although it was released at a later date. Consequently, the response
rate of the surveys was not what either committee had hoped for, and nothing was
done with the results after they were compiled. The CSEC initially planned to send
out 4,000 confidential, random surveys, and hoped to receive at least 800 responses.
Even the more jaded committee members were shocked by the lack of response.
CSAG founder Foster believed that this poor response was attributable to the
attitudes of the people surveyed, rather than the controversy and confusion
associated with the surveys. Foster summarized his opinion on the issue:
I think the response to the survey, the lack or response to the
survey, very well mirrors the public interest in the schools. We
don’t have much interest in the school system, and the people are
satisfied with the status quo. Or if they aren’t satisfied with the
status quo, they aren’t going to do anything about it because of the
politics or just because it’s just not that important to them. And I
think the response to the surveys and the response to the levies, all
parallel. This community is not interested in education.

Offering a different take on the apathetic attitudes that were representative of
those polled, Simmons added, “The whole problem with many of the difficulties we
have in Gallia County, is, they denial is a river running through Egypt. And they will
not deal with these problems.” It was at this point that the CSAG seemed to lose
interest in working as a group. This is also when Sue Roe severed her ties with the
CSAG. She said, “Everybody was fed up. And I think that ended the cooperation.
And that was the end of the committee.”
In yet another example of the constant friction between the county and city
systems, the survey experiment had ended in complete and utter disaster.
Consequently, as a direct result, the CSAG lost momentum and soon disbanded. The
92

project that they had devoted nearly two years worth of their energy and enthusiasm
was dead, and along with the community school project died the hopes of many who
saw this as a realistic, positive step in the right direction of their community’s
educational future.
Discussion
Each of the topics cited as critical elements affecting the outcome of the Gallia
County charter school effort has been discussed at some length throughout the
preceding sections of this chapter. In the context of the research questions that were
stated earlier in Chapter One, these findings illuminate several issues. In answer to
the question of whether charter laws favor rural communities, the review of the
charter legislation for the 37 states indicates that they do indeed encourage charter
schools development in urban areas more than in rural communities. In Ohio, in
particular, the legislation was such that only those rural districts that were
categorized as in “academic emergency” could even attempt to start a charter school.
As for how rural community members realize their plans for a charter school, the
CGSC plan was arguably appropriate and sufficiently strong, and should have served
as an example in thorough planning. Guided by former Senator and charter school
expert Cooper Snyder and others in the state office, the CSAG devised a solid plan
and adhered to a timeline that allowed for ample time to realize their goal. Lacking a
model of a rural community school start-up, and lacking legislation that would have
made the process much easier to accomplish, the committee managed to work
together to create a serious plan of action with a strong mission statement.
93

Despite the careful planning of the CSAG, communication between the
committee and the general public proved to be less than adequate. By relying solely
on occasional announcements in the newspaper, the CSAG did not garner sufficient
support for initial planning meetings and related activities. Additionally, although
they listed “community awareness activities” as a goal to accomplish, they did not
clearly identify what these activities were, nor did they follow through on many.
They did schedule meetings with speakers and plan visits to other charter schools,
but because of the communications issue related earlier, attendance was poor at these
events.
The plan provided for the hiring of staff and faculty, yet did not address the issue
of student recruitment. Although the committee felt confident that they would have
sufficient applicants, this issue should have been more clearly defined. The group
also reserved the task of securing facilities until the final two months prior to
opening the school’s doors. Given the difficulty they were having in that area, the
CSAG might have been better served to prioritize that item much higher on the
timeline. The barriers to realizing the vision of a rural charter school did not result
from poor planning. These observations are all the result of hindsight, but do not
represent the purpose of this research. The obstacles that impeded this effort can be
attributed to various other reasons, which brings us to the first stated research
question, involving common obstacles that charter school founders face.
Earlier in Chapter Two, the literature identified several common barriers that
obstruct the creation of new charter schools. These nine barriers will now be
94

addressed in the context of this study, to determine to what extent, if any, each
applies. In addition to these nine obstacles, this study identified challenges that were
unique to this community, and that do not fit into one of the nine, neat categories of
charter school obstacles. Although not each of these categories is a perfect fit for the
problems the CSAG encountered, they represent the closest approximation to a
useful and realistic list available.
Financial Obstacles
Although there were virtually no state start-up funds available to the CSAG at the
time they initiated their project, they were made aware of legislative changes in the
course of their work that would have possibly made such funds available. By all
accounts of those involved, this was not a major deterrent in the progress of the
project, because the committee members felt confident that they could raise the funds
through private and in-kind donations from local philanthropists.
The issue of inadequate facilities was one that caused some degree of frustration
for the CSAG members. As possible sites were explored, and organizations were
approached for assistance, commitments of support fluctuated or were nonexistent.
However, even though a suitable site was never definitely identified, this did not
seem to be an issue of great concern to the CSAG members either. Whether they felt
confident that they would eventually locate a site, or whether they never got close
enough to that stage of implementation in their plan is unclear. Not one member
cited facilities as a major problem that contributed to the failure of their project.

95

Political Obstacles
The group received genuine and sincere help from all state officials and
representatives that they contacted for assistance. The CSAG reported that they
received complete cooperation from the Ohio State Department of Education, and
felt that they would have been ultimately sponsored by the state with no difficulty. In
fact, it was representatives from the state office who wrote letters to the county board
on behalf of the CSAG and their proposed community school. Local opposition did
prove to be a major hurdle, however. Neither the city nor the county systems
supported the CSAG’s efforts, and indeed might have hampered those efforts in the
long run, through the controversy surrounding the surveys. It was purportedly also
due to pressure from the city school board that an offer of a potential school site was
withdrawn, from the University of Rio Grande.
Although not reason enough in itself to cause the start-up effort to fail in Gallia
County, weak Ohio legislation restricting charter school start-ups to urban areas or
districts in academic emergency significantly hampered the CSAG’s efforts. Because
of this law, the group was forced to limit their search for a suitable site to areas that
fell within the county district, which was in academic emergency. To their credit, the
CSAG members never let this obstacle discourage them. They felt confident that
they would find a location within the county that would serve their purposes, and that
they would eventually be sponsored there, albeit by a state entity.
Internal conflicts among the members of the CSAG were few, if any. When the
issue of the survey began to become controversial, there were some hard feelings
96

between certain committee members. Likewise, when all CSAG members were not
consulted prior to outsourcing the survey draft for a revision, the survey committee
consequently lost two key figures who removed themselves from the effort. Most of
the conflicts were the result of tension between the county school board, the city
school board, and the CSAG, due to the competing surveys.
There was significant community opposition, because the general public was ill
informed of the project. The committee relied mainly on the local newspaper as their
primary source of communication with the residents of Gallia County. In a major
city where the majority of the residents subscribe to the paper, that might suffice. But
in a rural community such as Gallia County, where only a fraction of the residents
live within the delivery area of the paper (less than 5,000 out of a county population
of around 33,000, according to newspaper officials), the newspaper is not the best
method to get your message to the masses. By this point, the residents were so wary
about educational matters in their county that they were reluctant to even get
involved in the community school project.
Institutional/Organizational Obstacles
Individual motivations for serving on the community school committee did not
seem to play a factor in the group’s failure to open the school. In fact, the results of
this study indicate that there was no correlation between why a person was working
toward this goal and how hard that person worked.
By far, the most serious of all factors that contributed to the failure of the
proposed community school was the opposition from the two respective school
97

districts. Gallia County has long been divided along an invisible line of county
versus city, and the two factions view one another with mistrust. That undercurrent
runs through both school districts, to include parents, teachers, and administrators.
Additionally, the county residents have traditionally felt that Gallia County was
divided into the “haves” and the “have-nots,” for many subtle economic and
perceived reasons. The issues of high school closures, consolidations, poor
proficiency scores, facilities shortages, transportation problems, and failed levies are
proof that both the county and the city districts are dealing with problems of great
magnitude. Thus it is nearly impossible to convince the county to unite in any
educational effort, when they cannot even resolve issues within their own districts.
In order to unite the county and get them to work toward a common goal, it is first
necessary to identify a goal that all factions agree is critical, and worth working to
achieve. In other situations that might not be as severe as that found in Gallia
County, this task might prove easier to accomplish. In this county, however, the
wounds are deep and the scars are thick. If there is to be any hope of uniting Gallia
County residents on educational issues, the administration of both districts will have
to adjust their governance attitudes. The people of these school districts have made it
clear that they will not tolerate exclusion when it comes to decisions that directly
affect them. Yet time after time decisions are made without sufficient input from the
residents, in a top-down, centralized fashion. This type of governance leaves people
feeling helpless and invisible. Instead, the school boards must listen to the concerns
of the people before they act, and empower the citizens of their districts. In order to
98

gain cooperation, they must make each individual a stakeholder in the educational
future of their community.

99

Chapter Five: Summary, Conclusion, and Recommendations
This study chronicled the efforts of a rural community as they attempted to create
the first rural charter school in the state of Ohio, in order to identify what factors
contribute to the success or failure of such a project. Based on these findings, it can
be concluded that the Community School Advocacy Group of Gallia County failed
in their attempt to create a charter school in their community because they were able
to overcome the community and local board opposition to the project. Other factors
that contributed to the failure included lack of facilities, lack of start-up funds,
restrictive state charter legislation, and internal conflict. However, these were
relatively minor factors, and they have been identified in previous literature as
possible common barriers.
Although the study focused on a very specific population, the inferences drawn
from this research may also apply to comparable communities attempting a similar
project. Specifically, the results of this study could prove useful to other rural
communities that are planning to start charter school, and help those communities
avoid similar obstacles.
Because the previous research lacks data documenting rural charter schools start-
ups, this is an area of recommended further study. Future research should also focus
on effective communication techniques between sponsoring local boards and rural
charter school organizers. Lastly, there is a need for additional research on methods
for charter founders to involve the community in their projects, and make them
stakeholders in the educational process.
100

REFERENCES
Allen, J. (2000). Charter school laws: State by state ranking and profiles. The
Center for Education Reform. Available: http://www.edreform.com.

Associated Press. (1999, April 1, 1999). Taft proposes expanding charter
school program. Gallipolis Daily Tribune.

Baker, C. (1999, ). Charter schools could spread; possibility explored in
Gallia Co. Gallipolis Daily Tribune.

Beeson, E., & Strange, M. (2000). Why rural matters: The need for every
state to take action on rural education. Available:
http:/www.ruraledu.org/streport/summary.html.

Berman, P., Nelson, B., Ericson, J., Perry, R., & Silverman, D. (1998). A
national study of charter schools, second-year report.

Blanchette, C. M. (1998). Charter schools: Recent experiences in accessing
federal funds : United States General Accounting Office.

Buckeye Hills Career Center. (2001). Available: http://bhcc.k12.oh.us/.

Center for Education Reform. (2001a). Charter school laws: Scorecard and
ranking. Available: http://www.edreform.com.

Center for Educational Reform. (2001b). Charter schools today: Changing the
face of American education. Available:
http://www.edreform.com/press/2001/010917.html.

Charter Friends National Network. (2001). Federal legislation and policy:
Federal start-up grant program. Available:
http://www.charterfriedns.org/fedpolicy/cfi-fedpolicy8.html.

Cole, W. (2000, July 10). One classy failure. Time, 156, 77-8.

Collins, T. (1999). Charter schools: An approach for rural education? ERIC
Digest, 98(3).

Community School Advocacy Group. (1999). Gallipolis, Ohio.
Community School Advocacy Group. (1999). Proposed community/charter
school serving Gallia, Gallipolis, Meigs, Oak Hill and Jackson School Districts.

101

Donnermeyer, J. F. (2000). Crime and violence in rural communities. The
Ohio State University. Available:
http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/drugfree/v1donner.htm.

Finn, C. (2000). Charter schools: A public-building strategy that creates
communities. National Civic Review, 83(3), 243-55.

Freedman, S. (1998). Testimony presented on charter schools to
Massachusetts Legislature Education Committee. Radical Teacher, 53, 27-32.

Gallia County Auditor's Office. (2001). Available:
http://www.galliaauditor.ddti.net/start/asp.

Gallia County Chamber of Commerce. (2001). Available:
http://www.galliacounty.org.

Gallipolis City School District. (1998). Gallipolis City Schools bond issue:
Questions & answers. Gallipolis, Ohio: Concerned Area Residents for Education.

Gallipolis City Schools. (1998). Gallipolis City Schools: Traditions of
excellence.

Giglio, S. (1999). Rural education. Available:
http://www/wc.edu/staff/dkelly/seminar/html.

Gillespie, N. (2000). Charter course. Reason, 31, 5-6.

Goenner, J. N. (1996). Charter schools: The revitalization of public
education. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(September), 32.

Good, T. L., & Braden, J. S. (2000). Charter schools: Another reform failure
or a worthwhile investment? Phi Delta Kappan, 81(10), 745-50.

Gresham, A. (2000). Desert bloom: Arizona's free market in education. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81(10), 751-7.

Griffin, N. C., & Wohlstetter, P. (2001, April). Building a plane while flying
it: early lessons from developing charter schools. Teacher's College Record, 103,
336-65.

Grossman, J. A. (2000, March). Philanthropy is revolutionizing education.
USA Today, 1287, 54-5.

Guttman, M. (1999). Are charter schools the answer? child, 28.

102

Hadderman, M. (1998). Charter schools. ERIC, 118, 1-3.
Harris, M. K. (1999). The role of schools in rural communities. Available:
http://www.wc.edu/staff/dkelly/seminar/html.

Hassel, B. C. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls,
fulfilling the challenge: Brookings Institution Press.

Hughes, P. (1999). Ohio Department of Education.

Izu, J. A., Carlos, L., Yamashiro, K., Picus, L., Tushnet, N., & Wohlstetter, P.
(1998). The findings and implications of increased flexibility and accountability: An
evaluation of charter schools in Los Angeles Unified School District (cross site
report). Los Angeles: WestEd, University of Southern California.

Keller, B. (2000). Ten states seen as topping rural education priority list.
Education Week, 20(2), 17.

Kennedy, M. (2001). Out of the box. American School and University, 73(9),
16-20.

Learning Exchange, The. (2001). Charter School Management Companies.
Available: http://www.lx.org/csp/mgmtcos.html.

Leonardi, R. C. (1998, November). Charter schools in Ohio: The rush to
mend them should not end them. Perspective on Current Issues.

Manno, B., Finn, C. E., & Berlein, L. A. (1998). Charter schools:
Accomplishments and dilemmas. Teachers College Record, 99(3), 537-58.

Manno, B. V., Finn, C. E., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Beyond the schoolhouse
door: How charter schools are transforming U. S. public education. Phi Delta
Kappan, 81(10), 736-44.

Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (1995). Designing qualitative research.
(second ed.): SAGE Publications.

Marshall, A. (1998, July 15). Grading the schools. Gallipolis Daily Tribune,
pp. A-1.

McCarthy, M. (2000). What is the verdict on school vouchers? Phi Delta
Kappan, 8(15), 371-8.

103

McGrath, E. (1999, August). Do-it yourself schools. Working Woman, 62-
69.

Moursund, D. G. (1998). Charter schools. Learning and Leading With
Technology, 26(3), 4-5.

Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). Charter schools:
Definition and specifics. Available: http://www.nwrel.org/charter.

Ohio Cities and Towns. (2001). Available:
http://www.ohwy.com/oh/g/gallipol.htm.

Ohio Department of Education. (1998). State of Ohio 1998 school district
report card: Gallia County Local School District.

Ohio Department of Education. (1998). State of Ohio 1998 school district
report card: Gallipolis City School District.

Ohio Department of Education. (1998). Community schools in Ohio resource
guide (pp. 23).

Ohio Department of Education. (1999). Office of School Options. Available:
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/oso/cs/cs%20Directory.htm.

Ohio Education Improvement Consortium. (1998). Ten criteria for Ohio's
BEST communities.

Ohio State Department of Education. (1993). A consolidation study:
Gallipolis City and Gallia County - Local.

Ohio State Senate. (2000). Education code, chapter 3314: Community
schools.

Ohio State University Extension. (1998). Gallia County profile.
Olson. (2000, April 26). Redefining 'public' schools. Education Week, 19, 24-
25, 27.

Osborne, D. (1999). Healthy competition. The New Republic, 221, 31-33.

Perez, S. R. S. (1998). Ohio community schools : 52nd House District.

Perry, E. A. (1998). Charter parents: Involved or not? Educational Horizons,
77, 37-40.

104

RPP International. (1999). The state of charter schools: A national study of
charter schools, third year report . Washington, D.C.: Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

RPP International. (2000). The state of charter schools: National study of
charter schools, fourth year report . Washington, D.C.: Department of Education,
Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Schnaiberg, L. (2000, May 10). Charter schools: Diversity may be at odds.
Education Week, 19, 1, 18-20.

School building assistance. (1999, April 4). Gallipolis Daily Tribune, pp. A-
1.

Schorr, J. (2000). You still need a blackboard. The Washington Monthly, 32,
15-20.

Seder, R. (1999). Satellite charter schools: Addressing the school-facilities
crunch through public-private partnerships : RPPI.

Smith, F. L. (1997). Guidance for the charter bound. The School
Administrator, 54, 18-22.

Staff. (2000, April 20). Gallia County local schools not involved in
community survey. Gallipolis Daily Tribune, pp. A-1, A-6.

Thomas, D. (2000). Charter schools get boost from federal start-up funds.
Available: http://www.ed.gov.PressRelease/02/211.html.

U S Charter Schools. (1999). Budget, financing, and fundraising. Available:
http://www.uscharterschools.org/tech_assist/ta_finance.htm.

United States Department of Education. (2000). Highlights from the baby
boom echo: Growing pains. Available:
http://www.ed.gov/pubs/bbecho00/part2.html.

Walters, J. (1998).

WestEd. (2000). U.S. Department of Education. Available:
http://www.uscharterschools.org.

Westra, K. (2000). Small schools reduce poverty's power over student
achievement . Washington, D. C.

105

Wildavsky, B. (2000). Vouchers lose in court. U.S. News and World Report,
128, 30.

Wohlstetter, P., & Anderson, L. (1994). What can U. S. charter schools learn
from England's grant-maintained schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 75(February), 486-491.

Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. C. (1997). First lessons: Charter schools as
learning communities : Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania.

Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning
communities: Early lessons from charter schools: Consortium for Policy Research in
Education.

Zelman, S. T. (1999). Report says more progress needed in school reform:
Ohio Department of Education.

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Charter schools have gained widespread support in the last decade as an alternative to traditional public education, but have been predominately serving urban communities. This study documents the unsuccessful efforts of a group of parents, teachers, and community members in rural southeastern Ohio to start a charter school in their county. The research covered a twenty-three month period, from fall of 1998 to fall of 2000, and focused on the factors that contributed to the group's failure to implement the community school plan. Qualitative data derived from personal interviews, recorded meetings, and public and private documents form the basis of the study. The results indicate that community and local board opposition were the two most significant barriers that impeded the success of the charter school project, while other factors such as lack of facilities, lack of start-up funds, restrictive state charter laws, and internal conflict presented minimal challenges. Recommendations for further research in the area of rural charter school development were based on these results.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Creating connections: an implementation study of promising practices for mentoring in California charter schools

PDF

Understanding measures of school success: a study of a Wisconsin charter school

PDF

Charter schools, data use, and the 21st century: how charter schools use data to inform instruction that prepares students for the 21st century

PDF

Scaling up charter management organizations: understanding how policies, people and places influence growth

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: Case studies of four California charter schools

PDF

Response to the growth of charter schools in California school districts: an evaluation study

PDF

Resource allocation in successful schools: case studies of California elementary schools

PDF

Parent compacts in urban charter schools: an exploration of contents and processes

PDF

Allocation of educational resources to improve student achievement: case studies of five California schools

PDF

Through the eyes of art: uncovering promising practices in arts-themed learning in California charter elementary schools

PDF

The allocation of resources at the school level to improve learning for struggling readers: What is adequate?

PDF

Making the Golden State glitter again: how the evidence based adequacy model can save struggling schools in difficult times

PDF

Investigating promising school leadership practices in two California charter schools

PDF

The middle college high school: a case study

PDF

An investigation of standards-based education under the auspices of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: a case study of one small rural school district

PDF

Writing across the curriculum: exploring promising practices in two California charter schools

PDF

Resource allocation and instructional improvement strategies in rural single-school elementary districts

PDF

Problems solved, problems created: A critical-case analysis of a public-private partnership in alternative education for at-risk students

PDF

Designing school systems to encourage data use and instructional improvement: a comparison of educational organizations

PDF

The integration of academics into career-technical education in two California charter schools