5 Johnson- National Forum Journals - Dr. Kritsonis

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

CAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS MATCH CHARTER SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENTS? Shirley Johnson Sam Houston State University Steve Busch University of Houston ABSTRACT The focus of this discussion reflects the practical variables that differentiate four very successful charter schools throughout Texas from most traditional public school systems. There are seven concepts addressed that describe difference between charter and traditional public schools. Additionally, concepts are presented that traditional public schools can implement to improve school culture and climate while addressing student achievement.

T

remendous attention and financial support has been given to certain charter school organizations that have demonstrated success in certain cities throughout the nation. These charter school organizations are touted for their high level of student achievement coupled with their goal of enabling students to gain acceptance and attend four year universities. These achievements are to be acknowledged and put into perspective by asking the question: Can public schools do the same thing? Are public schools really equipped to achieve the same results? What do charter schools do better than traditional public schools? Our contention from the last several years of working with both traditional public schools and charter schools affirms that public schools certainly can learn from charter schools; however, the reverse can also be true. In that light, the focus of this discussion reflects the practical variables that differentiate the charter districts of YES 97

98

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

College Preparatory School (YES) in Houston, Texas, Harmony Math and Science Academies in various locations throughout Texas, IDEA Public Schools in Donna, Texas and UPLIFT Public Schools in Dallas, Texas. In initial conversations, it becomes apparent that the Heads of these charters are not cut from the same cloth as many public school administrators. The successful charter schools have traditionally been started by entrepreneurial personalities driven by a vision of achievement and excellence. Their vision and determination clearly shape the purpose and function of the charters that they lead and encourages the use of business models in their administration. As a result of learning from charter school operations, this discussion will highlight the practical differences that distinguish these particular charter districts from traditional public schools. The Development of Culture and Climate Part of the success of YES, Harmony, IDEA, and UPLIFT depends heavily on the carefully constructed culture that drives the implementation design and every managerial decision. Induction programs for administrators and teachers begin with understanding cultural impact and cultural alignment from central headquarters to the classroom. YES spends considerable dollars focusing perspective school leaders on the importance of developing and maintaining culture. YES even insists that the prospective school leaders emerge from the teacher ranks of the system or work in the system before they are even considered for a position as a school leader. Other charters approach the culture issue in a very similar manner. As a consequence, these charters open new schools with an emphasis on culture and then design the academic program focusing on strict attention to cultural alignment. For YES, it is getting students to a four year university with the mantra of “whatever it takes.” The development of the school culture and climate is a primary centerpiece of the effective charter schools and is supported by research in the field that suggests that the principal’s most effective

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 99

impact on student learning is mediated through the culture and climate of the school (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M., 2003). School leaders are taught the importance of crystallizing their personal educational beliefs and values in order to sculpt their vision for schooling the traditionally underserved student population. Most aspects of the school’s organizational design are then tightly aligned to the vision and influenced by the intended culture. As with public schools that are aware of the importance of culture, some directors are far more proficient with this impact than others. The lesson to be learned from this philosophical position is that unless the culture and climate are carefully embedded in the organization, a change of leadership will impact the culture each time there is a leadership change (Schlechty, 2002; Leithwood, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004; Jazzar & Algozzine, 2007). The charter schools mentioned before have been functioning for 12 to 15 years. They realized that unless the culture and climate is carefully managed and embedded, a new leader can create undesired changes, the situation currently plaguing traditional public schools. New leadership behavior can initiate a series of reactions among the charter employees that begins to shift the tenets of the culture and create change – some intended and worthwhile, some not. Charter schools are beginning to experience these changes as they age but they are far more responsive than public schools seem to be in understanding this cyclic impact. The phenomenon of cultural impact has occurred in traditional public schools for years (Marzanno, Waters, & McNulty, 2003). New schools initiated by the first principal hire a faculty reflective of their beliefs and values whether this work is done consciously or not. When leadership change occurs, subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts begin that influence the school’s view of the leader and also the working relationships within the school. Often the new leader does not recognize these important shifts and imposes new beliefs and values without considering the impact on the climate of the school. In most cases, principals in traditional public schools simply do not have the

100

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

strategies to make important changes in dysfunctional school climates. The negative results are evident throughout traditional school systems. The schools impacted by dysfunctional climates, especially in high schools, are a composite of small teachers groups created by personal preferences (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008) reflecting their own beliefs and values that co-exist with the larger school community. If not noticed, these smaller cultures spin in an independent climate that maybe affected by the larger school culture but very little by that of the principal. The result is that described by Zaccaoro (2001) and Sergiovanni (2000) when the principal loses influence because the informal leader of each affinity group interprets the directives or discussions by the principal even though the entire group heard the principal’s initial discussion. This process goes unnoticed by administrators and is not generally afforded concern until the school has functioned in a dysfunctional manner for a period of time and the principal is replaced as a result. The challenge is to illuminate this phenomenon and conduct the necessary research to describe the results, develop programs to enable leaders to manage the phenomenon, and then teach such in university preparation programs for both charter and traditional public schools. The charter schools have implemented the right thought process regarding culture and climate; start each school with clear set of beliefs and values that positively influence both. The Concept of Small Well embedded in the philosophy of these charter schools is the concept of small schools. Even though the criteria for charter school formation in most states require a cap on the number of students that may be maintained in each school, these charter schools attest to the value of small schools. What occurs as a result of this philosophical tenet of “small” is: (1) that every student is known well by a significant adult, a tenet of Ted Sizer’s (2004) Essential Schools;

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 101

(2) that curricula is structured according to the philosophy of the charter rather than the central headquarters of a charter district; (3) that extended time is included in the schedule directed toward the needs of each student; (4) that the budget can be directed toward the academic program rather than extracurricular programs, i.e. football; and (5) that student management is much better served in a small environment where no child is lost in the sheer size of the organization (Pittman & Haughwout, 1987). Unfortunately, traditional public schools have efficiently used funding to create large schools, particularly high schools that are more cost effective from a facilities standpoint. The justifications that have driven the design of high schools is no longer appropriate but we continue to replicate them knowing that they do not effectively serve students, especially the traditionally underserved. Charter schools have made the case clearly but we fail to recognize and use their contribution to build more effective small high schools. It will take an unusual public school superintendent to publicly advocate for systemic change that substantially changes this philosophy of educating students in order to break this practice and stave off the rancor of parents who believe that by attending a large traditional public high school their son/daughter will have a better chance to receive a college scholarship to play a sport. The More Rigorous Curricula Currently being instituted in most of these charter schools is the International Baccalaureate (IB) program that offers a very rigorous program within the core content areas. It is being used to replace the state standard aligned scope and sequence in an effort to provide a more rigorous program. Different from many public schools is the intentional offering of the IB program to all students. The intent is not to provide only those students who qualify for the “Gifted and Talented” program with the rigor of the IB program, but to provide all students with this same rigor (Office of Innovation and Improvement,

102

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

2008). Charter schools realize the challenge of offering students such a program but those who take the challenge are committed to “doing whatever it takes.” Public schools, on the other hand, often provide either IB or Advanced Placement (AP) programs for those students who qualify through gifted and talented matrices or succumb to the pressure of parents wanting their students out of “regular” classes. Charters tend to recognize that IB placement is driven by perception of the teachers, students, family, and parents. Taking these parental perceptions out of the equation requires the public school and charter administrators to determine how the traditionally underserved can be brought to speed both attitudinally and academically in order to handle the rigor. Most charters struggling with this concept realize that using such programs must be supported by clearly establishing the culture and climate of the campus and nurturing the parental view of the charter’s belief and intention regarding the rigor of such programs as IB (U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007). Traditional public schools have a great deal to learn from charters regarding this process. The expectations of the charter schools in this area are clearly different from many public schools. Charters are also aware that substantial remediation must be initiated for many students if they are to successfully participate in the rigor of advanced programming such as IB and the cultures of these charters require teachers and staff to spend the time needed to support these students. The Extracurricular Program Most states support strong extracurricular programs in schools with sports programs as the primary focal point. Arguably these programs have been an important part of many individuals’ lives in a multitude of different ways; however, when constructing the master schedule, hiring teachers, and creating financial support for the academic program are affected, then it is time to examine the philosophy and use of the extracurricular program. The charters have

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 103

been forced to examine the issue of extracurricular activities due to the funding required for the supplies, personnel, and facilities necessary to support such expensive programs. They have included sports in the schools but they are truly an extracurricular/intramural function operating after school on a fee for service basis in many of the charter programs. Scheduling is not shaped by the extracurricular programs such as athletics, band, choir, cheerleaders, etc. and students understand that academics are foremost; the extracurricular activities are truly “extra.” Some of the charter programs participate in intraschool competition in several sports but the charter programs cannot and do not invest in expensive stadiums, athletic resources or expensive coaching staffs. The Scheduling Process Currently, so many traditional public school programs at the secondary level begin scheduling with singleton courses designed to support placement of the athletes, both girls and boys. Then the schedule is constructed to allow for band, choir, drama and other elective singleton courses (such as AP Physics, etc.) that are wonderful for students but also influence the quality of placement for many core courses. Ahead of the general program courses are considerations for gifted and AP/IB courses leaving the important core program to fill in the remainder of the schedule. Such constraints often prohibit schedule designs that address the needs of many students needing support and/or remediation to become part of rigorous programs such as IB/AP. These charter programs start shaping the schedule with the important core courses first. Critical activities such as student advisement and team planning periods quickly follow to provide continual support for each student. The entire schedule focuses on course arrangements that support the delivery of instruction and tutorial programs focused on improved student achievement. Rarely are these charter school programs focused on courses during the day

104

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

that relate to anything that does not bolster the academic program. The only variances are usually courses or elective offerings that relate to the culture of the particular school since each of these charter districts provide the school leader an opportunity to shape the focus of the school to either the community or a particular philosophy (i.e. community service, math, science). Scheduling in these charters is designed to support the instructional program; scheduling is not driven by the needs of an overpowering extracurricular program that does not broadly contribute to student achievement. There are more similarities among elementary schedules between the charter schools and public school than in the secondary programs. The Selection and Maintenance of Students Most traditional public school employees believe that open enrollment public charter schools are able to hand select their students and expel them at will; however, this belief is not true and remains the basis for supporting ignorance of the laws surrounding charter school management. These charter schools are required to maintain a lottery and be classified as an open enrollment charter. They receive students from many different places in the cities they serve, but the school leaders tend to recruit from the areas in the immediate vicinity. For these schools, students must follow the rules established by the charter and parents must abide by the discipline management process of the charter. Students who fail to abide by the discipline policy may be removed but only after the school leader has done everything possible to maintain the student; much like public schools. Leaver rates for all of the charters mentioned are watched very closely by both the state agency and by funders (Texas Education Agency, 2006). For example, certain funders are very vigilant to ask the difficult questions as to why leaver rates accelerate at certain grade levels and then challenge the charter to remedy that situation in order to maintain funding. The charter’s response to this challenge has created some interesting and creative solutions.

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 105

These charters design the culture with support of the traditionally underserved student in mind knowing that most of the students that enter their program initially will need considerable remediation. As a charter opens, the school leaders are aware, especially at the secondary level, that many of their students will come because they have not been successful in public schools and their parents are desperate for help. To prepare for these students, the school leaders test each student upon entry to diagnose academic competency. Even though the student’s development may not be on grade level, instruction is maintained at grade level while the student received remedial immersion and overwhelming emotional support during the transition. Teachers are trained to recognize the resistance that many remedial students exhibit and they counter with consistency and constant parental communication. The teachers in these charter schools work long hours while students have phone access to teachers in the evening as well. The goal is maintain every student with whatever it takes. Numerous public schools across the nation who are classified as Title I schools and serve the traditionally underserved populations have demonstrated exemplary student performance as well. In all of those cases, it is the culture and climate of that school that supports the belief that all students can and will learn (Johnson & Uline, 2005). It is important to pursue those factors and variables that make those schools different so that others may learn. Our suspicion and experience pushes us to examine the leadership experience of the principal in creating the culture and climate that encourages these crucial beliefs about student performance. The common aspects that Johnson and Asera (1999) found are clearly those tenets that underpin these charter schools (they are listed in the conclusion). The Matter of Finances Most charter schools function with attention to tight budgetary decisions. They are also saddled with the difficulty of finding

106

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

buildings and/or property that will accommodate a school concept without the same state funding percentages as public schools. Even though provided with funding from the state agencies, every head of high functioning charters finds funding from other sources to supplement. Some of the charters that function with high profile funding sources such as the Gates foundation and the Dell Foundation are required to justify expenditures in direct relationship to student achievement and the value add of each teacher. These charters must undergo in depth questioning regarding the use of funding in relationship to performance. Some superintendents of public schools actively seek additional funding to maintain performance. Most grant initiatives in public schools are generated by central administrators that are hired to write grants and usually focus on particular areas such as science, math or other popular instructional targets. Most charter heads seek funding to provide important supporting functions such as: (a) professional development for incoming personnel, (b) continued professional development for both teachers and administrators, (c) software and/or programs to support instructional delivery; (d) and, facilities construction and/or property purchases. Charter schools such as YES, Harmony and others have even been given money to support sophisticated strategic planning from organizations that usually provide services to the private business sector. These heads are in constant search of supplemental funding to extend the growth of the charter and the opportunities afforded their students. In Conclusion So we return to the question, can traditional public schools do what successful charter schools have been able to do? The answer is clearly yes if there is a demonstrated willingness to consider several important concepts which have been repeatedly documented for several years (Johnson, 2005). To be successful, schools must:

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 107

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Deliver rigorous instruction aligned to standards. Provide leadership that results in continuous instructional improvement by spending substantial time in classrooms working with teachers on instructional issues. Design instruction to ensure every student’s success. Engage parents and community. Create a culture in which individuals feel valued. Possess the same ambitious academic goals pursued by excellent schools that serve affluent students. Place strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills integrated throughout a rich, full curriculum. Expect that their students can and will excel. Enable educators to feel supported by their leaders as they work to improve instruction. Support improvement of instruction through continuous teacher collaboration. Use data to focus teacher collaboration on student work. Enable students to acquire substantial evidence of their ability to succeed academically. Create opportunities for learning to become fun and exciting for students and to be celebrated often. Becomes a place where everyone (students, teachers, parents, community members) feels like they belong.

Rhetorically, traditional public school educators know all of this important information. For some of them, however, it often gets lost as the application of the concepts are planned and implemented. In defense of traditional public schools, there are several factors that obscure the implementation of these ideas. Familiarity Breeds Blindness

108

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

The old adage of living in the forest often precludes being able to see the trees. In the case of education, we become comfortable with status quo school cultures and find excuses to explain away slipping performance and failure to respond to whirling global demands. Familiarity allows educators to maintain the usual, fail to see and understand what has eroded instructional effectiveness and label variables outside of our control as the culprit for lagging student achievement. The result creates a serious blindness to the real problems and prohibits effective change of mental models. Systemic Misunderstanding The afore mentioned concepts are often viewed as isolated components that can be “added on” to a system. They are not strategically woven into existing cultural systems within schools which create stand alone processes that often fail because they are not linked with complimentary systemic components (Schlechty, 2002). Such views contribute to systemic fragmentation that leave many administrators wondering why the addition of one or two of the concepts did not produce the results achieved in other public schools or charters. Not Understanding the Cyclic Nature of Schools There is a cyclic nature to schools that must be understood, particularly at the secondary level. When new, schools begin with a culture that can last as long as the principal is present or the founding teachers maintain the culture. The culture within a building has more life span than the length of a principal’s contract. Teachers hold tightly to the culture because it offers comfort and security in the work environment. As a result, when administrators change, the culture of the school shifts minimally. To complicate matters, there is not just one culture in a building. It is a complex matrix of overlapping relationships that solidify through affinities. In order to implement the

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 109

previously listed concepts, a principal must carefully diagnosis the affinity groups within the larger culture and determine effective strategies to create a critical mass of support in order to systemically implement those ideas. Too often the cultural issues are ignored by principals and the resiliency of the building culture and the affinity groups survive the intended efforts to improve the school. Frustrated, principals frequently move on and the cyclic nature of the building maintains. The cycles can spin for decades creating very difficult obstacles for principals as they attempt to improve student performance and the campus culture. Unwillingness to Break the Mold Then very simply, the superintendents and school boards are not willing to change the current philosophy of traditional school districts. The urgency and the logic do not seem to be present and the districts maintain their current practices. Sometimes it can be a principal who is mired in a comfortable situation and is opposed to disrupting the building with change of any kind. Finally The successful charter schools are not bound by all of the same regulations as traditional public schools; however, for practical purposes they function in much the same way as do traditional public schools. The charter schools that perform at acceptable and less levels of performance cannot necessarily contribute to the body of knowledge regarding performance because their student performance is very similar to many urban or inner city schools and less than many rural and suburban schools in Texas (Texas Education Agency, 2006). It is the contributing work of the successful charters that should be illuminated as exemplary of prudent practice. It will take conviction

110

NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

and planning to steer many public schools to recognize and embrace the strategies used by the successful charter schools. REFERENCES Johnson, J. (2005). Characteristics of schools that close achievement gaps. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Ohio Department of Education. http://www.ode.state.oh.us/achievement_gaps Johnson, J., & Uline, C. (Eds.) (1999). Hope for urban education: A study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban elementary schools. U.S. Department of Education – Office of the Undersecretary. http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/pdfs/UrbanSchools.pdf. Johnson, J., & Uline, C. (2005). Preparing educational leaders to close achievement gaps. Theory into practice, 44(1), 45-52. Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004). Executive summary: How leadership influences student learning. The Wallace Foundation. Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2008). Educational administration (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Corporation. Malakian, A. (2008). Small-company failures may cause big migraines. United States Banker, 118(7), 2-38. Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership that works: From research to practice. Aurora, CO: McREAL. Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2008, August). Moving mountains: Chartering to improve student achievement. The Education Innovator, VI(8). http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2008/0821.html Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987, Winter). Influence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343. Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 111

Sizer, T. (2004). Horace’s Compromise: The dilemma of the American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin. Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice perspective (4th ed.). Needham Heights, Maryland: Allyn and Bacon. Texas Center for Educational Research. (2005). Texas openenrollment charter schools:2003-04 evaluation. Austin, TX: TCER. Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas open-enrollment charter schools: Sixth year evaluation. Austin, TX: Author. U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2007). K–8 charter schools closing the achievement gap. Jessup, MD: Education Publications Center. http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.pdf. Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M., (2003). Educational leadership and student achievement: The elusive search for an association. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-423. Zaccaro, S. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.