The start-up experiences of California charter schools are instructive for anyone who is thinking about “going” charter. In a survey administered to the 44 schools that were chartered in 1993, we asked about their reasons for seeking charter status as well as the challenges they faced. Thirty-four charter schools completed surveys (response rate: 77 percent). Half were located in metropolitan communities and school districts. Three-quarters were existing schools that converted to charter status. Most were elementary schools, spread across the state. All were sponsored by local school boards.
We found that California's charter-schools movement is being shaped by the special features of the state's charter law— exclusive local oversight of charter schools and ambiguity about the schools' legal status. California does not specify whether charter schools are to function autonomously, so each school must negotiate how it will deal with its local school board, its local teachers' unions, and its lack of start-up funding and technical assistance from the state.
Most Charters Seek Freedom, Not Autonomy
Most of the schools indicated they had petitioned for a charter to free themselves from rules and regulations (28 schools) and to gain control over decisions related to curriculum and instruction (26 schools). In sharp contrast, only one-third wanted to become legally autonomous.
With respect to operational and fiscal autonomy, most of the schools (80 percent) controlled internal decisions over staffing, curriculum, instruction, and student conduct (for example, the courses offered to students, the kinds of staff development provided to teachers, grading policies, and methods of assessing student progress). In addition, 70 percent controlled important aspects of school staffing, including selecting the principal and school staff. The schools exercised less control over student conduct and staffing decisions that had implications for other schools. For example, less than one-third could establish rules regulating student suspensions or expulsions. Only half had the authority to reassign or transfer teachers. Similarly, only about half reported managing their own budgets and controlling expenditures and purchases.
Charters Maintain Ties with Unions
Charter schools have the option to break traditional ties with the local teacher's union: a charter school may choose not to bargain, it may become its own bargaining unit, or it may follow the terms of district negotiated employee contracts. But only seven schools chose to become their own bargaining units, while three were still considering the issue of local representation at the time they were surveyed. In the other schools, teachers were covered by agreements bargained between unions and sponsoring districts, in many cases with the possibility of waiving specific contract provisions. For example, one school negotiated waivers that gave it increased control and flexibility in teacher evaluation and teacher assignment. Another school's charter included provisions to decrease class size and increase teachers' planning time (provided the school secured additional funding for these purposes).
Overall, at least two-thirds of the schools claimed jurisdiction over staff hiring and reassigning or transferring teachers. In addition, most charter schools (25 schools) reported using non-certificated community members and parents as classroom instructors.
Schools Need Start-Up Funds
While charter schools offer the prospect of educational reform without cost to taxpayers, nearly half the schools we surveyed (44 percent) reported that lack of start-up funding was a major obstacle. In fact, one school relinquished its charter designation early in 1994, after struggling unsuccessfully to secure start-up funding.
Although these newly-founded schools were few in number (eight schools), six reported that lack of funding was a great obstacle. It also was a problem for almost two-thirds of the schools in metropolitan areas. Funding was even a problem for one-third of the existing schools that converted to charter status. In reality, much of the cost of “going” charter was borne by those who were involved in the schools' planning and operations. In addition to start-up funding, many schools needed assistance with fiscal, legal, and operational questions and problems. Equally important, they needed fiscal resources that would enable them to gain access to such assistance.
Metropolitan Schools Have Special Problems
Charter schools in metropolitan districts were most likely to seek independence from their districts and thus less likey to receive support from their local boards. Compared to the charters located in small towns and rural districts, charters in metropolitan areas reported their districts were less likely to maintain good communication with the schools; provide visibility and recognition for the schools; promote the schools' programs; or encourage others to adopt the charter schools' practices.
By shifting the locus of control to local school boards, California's charter law provides for opportunities to restructure schools and to try out innovative educational approaches. However, it also thrusts local boards into new and unfamiliar roles.
All in all, the reports of California's charter schools during their first year suggest patterns that are well worth tracking over time.
