Indiana University’s Role in the
Indiana Charter School Movement
A report submitted to the
Indiana University Board of Trustees
March 2002
Charter School Task Force
Cassandra M. Cole
Lynn H. Coyne
Gerardo M. Gonzalez (chair)
Gwynn Mettetal
Martha McCarthy
Kim K. Metcalf
Khaula H. Murtadha
Charles M. Reigeluth
Kathleen A. Smith
Neil D. Theobald
The task force would like to thank Brian Horvitz,
who provided expert assistance on all aspects of the project.
Indiana University’s Role in the
Indiana Charter School Movement
Executive Summary
P.L. 100-2001 provides public funding for charter schools in Indiana. Indiana
University — in its continuing tradition of supporting K-12 public education in the state
— shares responsibility for contributing to the effectiveness of these schools. As Hoosier
children begin to attend charter schools in coming years, IU’s responsibility must be to
deliver the same support for quality education to these schools that is provided to other
public schools. The purpose of the present paper is to recommend a process by which
Indiana University, and particularly its School of Education, can assist teachers,
administrators, and parents in providing appropriate and effective education for every
student, no matter what school the child attends.
Indiana’s charter school law allows for (a) converting existing public schools into
charters, (b) reorganizing existing private schools as charters — although charter schools
must be “nonsectarian and nonreligious” (I.C. 20-5.5-1-4), or (c) creating new schools as
charters. Three entities — public school corporations, state universities that award fouryear baccalaureate degrees, and the Mayor of Indianapolis — are eligible to sponsor the
creation of these new or converted public schools.
Certain aspects of Indiana University’s role with charter schools are clear from its
teaching, research, and service mission. For example, a requisite role — with regard to
both charter and other K-12 schools — is the preparation of high quality teachers and
administrators. In addition, it may well prove to be the case that charter schools require
different types of high quality personnel than do other public schools. With this
possibility in mind, and in an expansion of its ongoing, fundamental role with traditional
schools, Indiana University must use the research it conducts on charter schools to inform
its preparation program for educators who will work in this new setting.
Beyond this, and as a result of the unique nature of the charter school movement
in Indiana, Indiana University should also play a leadership role in organizing a
consortium on K-12 issues constituted by the five four-year, public universities with
education schools in Indiana (Ball State University, Indiana State University, Indiana
University, Purdue University, and The University of Southern Indiana). The five
Education Deans have signed a letter of agreement supporting the establishment of this
consortium. One of the consortium’s first task would be to draw upon the unique
attributes of each institution to provide a broad range of services and information about
the operation and effectiveness of charter schools. This approach is particularly desirable
because it allows coordination across the five state universities to most efficiently pool
the resources and strengths of each, while avoiding duplication of services.
The consortium’s utility and productivity will depend directly upon the resources
that are provided to support its activity. Additional resources will be necessary to
facilitate two kinds of work: (1) coordination on a consortium level, to be financed jointly
by all five institutions or through external grants, and (2) the performance of each
university’s role(s) within the consortium, to be borne by each university individually,
with or without external grants. It is strongly recommended that member institutions not
be expected to reallocate existing funds to support the important work of the consortium.
ii
CONTENTS
Executive Summary
1.
i
Contents
iii
Preface
1
Introduction
1
Overview of the Charter School Movement
3
School Choice and the Context of Charter Schools
3
The Value, Character, and Impact of Charter Schools
7
Perceived Benefits and Detriments of Charter Schools
7
Character of Charter Schools and Charter School Students
9
Impact of Charter Schools
2.
3.
4.
11
Summary of Background and Overview of Charter Schools
13
Indiana’s Charter School Law
15
Responsibilities of University Sponsors
16
Financial Implications of University Sponsorship
17
Local Implications of University Sponsorship
19
Potential University Roles
19
Role Options
20
A Higher Education Consortium
21
Recommendations for Indiana University
22
References
25
iii
Indiana University’s Role in the
Indiana Charter School Movement
Preface
This White Paper is based on the fundamental premise that Indiana University
does not set education policy for the State of Indiana. The Indiana General Assembly has
deemed charter schools to be an appropriate component of K-12 public education in
Indiana. Therefore, Indiana University — in its continuing tradition of supporting K-12
public education in the state — shares responsibility for contributing to the effectiveness
of these schools. Concurrently, though, Indiana University must ensure that its
involvement with the implementation of charter schools in Indiana does not divert
resources from its core missions of undergraduate and graduate teaching, research, and
public service.
Introduction
The charter school movement has taken the country by storm, leaving in
its wake 33 state laws allowing parents, educators, or entrepreneurs to
create independent schools that are publicly funded but free from many
state and local regulations. (Wells & Associates, 1998, p. 305)
Since Wells and her colleagues wrote this in 1998, at least six additional states
have approved charter school legislation, 421 new charter schools have opened, and over
90,000 more students have begun attending charter schools. In autumn, 2000, more than
300,000 students attended 2,048 charter schools. By September 2001, shortly after the
Indiana Legislature passed charter school legislation, there were 2,372 operating charter
schools in the U.S. serving just over 576,000 students, with 70 new schools already
scheduled to open by the autumn of 2002 (Education Commission of the States, 2001).
1
Undoubtedly, Wells’ metaphorical description of the charter school movement continues
to accurately reflect the scope and speed of the movement across the country.
In spite of their number and growing popularity, little is known about charter
schools – the way they are organized and managed, the ways in which they operate, or
their impacts on the educators, families, and students whom they involve. Further, the
research base that sponsors might access to help them identify particularly promising
charter school proposals remains disappointingly thin. As Indiana becomes an active
participant in the development and operation of charter schools, Indiana University must
choose among a variety of potential roles and responsibilities it might play in this
process.
The purpose of the present paper is, in essence, to facilitate the consideration of
options through which Indiana University, and particularly its School of Education, can
most effectively and appropriately contribute to the charter school process in Indiana.
The paper is based upon the input and guidance from School of Education Dean Gerardo
Gonzalez and of members of a Task Force of Indiana University faculty. The information
and ideas of the paper have been drawn from the deliberations of these individuals and
are organized into four primary sections. The first section of the paper provides a brief
overview of the charter school movement and what is known about these schools. The
second section attempts to summarize the key elements of Indiana’s charter school law
and its implications for Indiana University. The third section presents a range of methods
of involvement available to Indiana University, discussing potential benefits and
problems of each. The final section of the paper builds upon the earlier sections to
recommend and explain what the Task Force believes to be the most appropriate course
2
of action for Indiana University’s involvement in the charter school movement in
Indiana.
1. Overview of the Charter Schools Movement
As noted above, the charter school movement in the U.S. has proceeded with
surprising speed since the first such school opened in Minnesota in 1992. This growth
results from a number of factors, not the least of which is the more general national
interest in the issue of providing parents with greater choice in their children’s education.
In order to understand charter schools, it is important to consider the context in which
charter schools are developing and the broader trend toward school choice.
School Choice and the Context of Charter Schools
School choice has been called the “education issue of the new decade.” The idea
of providing parents or families with a greater range of educational options is
increasingly popular among individuals from a variety of political and philosophical
persuasions. Perhaps as a result of the diversity among those who support greater school
choice, the supposed benefits of these programs range widely. And, as might be expected,
“school choice” means different things to different people. However, it is generally
agreed that school choice can be taken to mean providing individual parents or families
with some range of educational alternatives from which they may choose those they
believe best for their children. It should be noted that in this definition the alternatives
could consist of a wide range of options. These options may include, but are not limited
to, choice of the classroom or teacher with whom a student works, choice of special
programs within a school, choice among public schools within or outside one’s district of
3
residence, and choice of schools, including private schools with or without religious
affiliation. Thus, while some proposed choice programs are comparatively dramatic and
challenge traditional beliefs about the nature and purposes of public schooling (e.g.,
voucher programs that use public funds to support private school enrollment), others are
commonly available and widely accepted (e.g., allowing choice of a child’s teacher).
Charter schools, then, are one of many options.
Metcalf, Muller, and Legan (2001) place alternative approaches to school choice
along a continuum from those they refer to as “public-public” (i.e., allowing only limited
choice from among traditional public schools) to those they consider “public-private”
(i.e., allowing choice that includes private school options). This continuum is reproduced
below.
-
Public-Public
Teacher
Classroom
Special Program
School-within-a-school
Magnet School
Intra-District
Inter-District
Semi-Public
Home Schooling
Charter Schools
Public-Private
Tuition Tax Credits
Vouchers
As can be seen, charter schools lie somewhere between what Metcalf, Muller, and
Legan refer to as “public-public” choice options and those they term “public-private”
options. Public-public choices are those that allow parents to select from options within
the existing public school context, but even here the parameters can be more or less
4
restrictive. Very limited choice might be made within a child’s existing public school,
such as selection of the child’s teacher, classroom, or special program. Somewhat less
restrictive, but still within the traditional public sector, would be magnet schools or
special program schools that could be chosen by families within the district as
alternatives to their neighborhood or assigned school. Beyond this, but still within the
public sector, would be open enrollment programs that allow parents to choose among the
public schools within or outside their school district of residence (intra-district choice and
inter-district choice, respectively). Because these choice options are more commonly
available and because they are restricted to choices among traditional public schools, they
are much less controversial than other approaches to educational choice.
At the other end of the continuum, Metcalf, Muller, and Legan place what they
refer to as “public-private” alternatives. These options use public funds to support
choices that can include private, even religious, schools. Tuition tax credits are an
indirect method of financial support, in that they allow parents to deduct a limited portion
of their investment in private education from their income tax liability. Thus, parents pay
for private education but are reimbursed for a portion of the expense through tax credits.
Voucher programs are also a form of public-private choice, but more directly use public
funds to support private education.1 As they have been implemented to date, these
programs provide qualified families with vouchers that can be used to defray all or a
portion of the tuition at the private school of their choice. Because these public-private
choices include options outside the traditional public schools, and particularly because
1
Metcalf and his colleagues limit their discussion of voucher programs to those that use public funds, and
they justify this delimitation on grounds that it is only public-funded voucher programs that have direct
implications on educational policy. However, they acknowledge that a substantial number of voucher
programs in the U.S. are funded through private foundations or entities.
5
they include religiously affiliated schools, they are the most controversial approaches to
choice.
The middle of the continuum, which Metcalf and his colleagues label “semiprivate” options, include choices within parameters that are neither clearly public nor
clearly private. Included in this category would be home schooling, a choice that a
growing number of families across the country have made, and charter schools, like those
to be introduced in Indiana. In each case, the state funds the students’ education and
continues to oversee and monitor the “schools”. However, in both approaches, the
educational entity (i.e., the home/parent or charter school) is given wide latitude in the
educational approach used and is freed from many of the bureaucratic procedures with
which traditional public schools must comply.
The U.S. Department of Education defines charter schools as follows:
Charter schools are public schools, but what sets them apart is their
charter – a contract with a state or local agency that provides them with
public funds for a specified time period. The charter itself states the terms
under which the school can be held accountable for improving student
performance and achieving goals set out in the charter. This contract frees
charter developers from a number of regulations that otherwise apply to
public schools. (U.S. Department of Education, 1998)
Thus, charter schools represent a sort of “middle ground” between creating
options within the current public school system and the more radical inclusion of nonpublic school options. They are, in effect, public schools that are allowed to operate much
like private schools. As such, they are both similar to and distinct from traditional publicpublic approaches and the more dramatic public-private approaches. It may be this
balance between the extremes that explains the surprising progress of the movement in
little more than a decade and the widely diverse political support it has received. This
6
moderation also may explain the widely divergent perceptions of the value, character, and
impact of charter schools.
The Value, Character, and Impact of Charter Schools
In spite of the magnitude of the charter schools movement, there remains much
confusion about exactly what constitutes a charter school and how such schools are
distinct from existing public or private schools. Most available literature, both in support
of and in opposition to charter schools, is based largely upon ideology or supposition.
The limited available research on charter schools is primarily descriptive, with a few
small studies conducted by agencies that advocate for or oppose the movement. However,
in order to make an informed and effective decision about how Indiana University can
best participate in Indiana’s charter school movement, it is important to be aware of what
is known or supposed about such schools.
Perceived Benefits and Detriments of Charter Schools. Assertions about the poor
quality of public schools in this country are often used by those who support charter
schools as evidence of the need for dramatic reform of the structure, delivery, and
governance of public education (e.g., Manno, Vanourek, & Finn, 1999). Proponents see
charter schools as a way to both improve traditional public schools and of improving on
them. According to this argument, because charter schools are freed from many of the
bureaucratic or regulatory restrictions of public schools, they should allow teachers to be
more innovative and creative in designing and providing instruction, and these new ways
of teaching could serve as models for improving traditional public schools. The marketdriven nature of charter schools, and thus of the public schools from which their students
come, is expected to force all schools to be more accountable to parents and students;
7
those that fail to meet expectations and, thus, to maintain sufficient “market-share” will
be forced to close. Based on an assertion that public schools, as government subsidized
monopolies, are extremely cost-inefficient, charter schools are assumed to provide
education at a much lower cost to the public. And, according to proponents, because
these schools will serve only those parents who have intentionally chosen to enroll their
children in these programs, parent involvement and, thus, student learning should
increase. Less explicit in the arguments for charter schools, and for school choice more
generally, are the supposed benefits of forcing change in traditional public education,
minimizing the involvement of government in education, and reducing the power of
teacher unions.
In contrast, those who oppose charter schools base their opposition on both
educational and moral grounds. Charter schools, because they are not subject to the same
restrictions and regulations of public schools, are seen as having an unfair advantage over
public schools. Unlike public schools, charter schools will have the flexibility to develop
unique programs in order to attract students, whereas public schools are restricted in the
range and type of programs they can offer. Relatedly, charter schools are anticipated to
draw the most involved and talented families away from public schools through “cream
skimming” (Cobb & Glass, 1999), leaving public schools to serve at-risk or other
students with special needs who may be difficult and expensive to educate. Similarly, a
further unfair advantage is seen as created by the very notion of schools that serve only
families who are sufficiently interested in and motivated to pursue enrollment of their
children while public schools must, by law, take all students. Opponents also argue that
charter schools may actively discourage the inclusion of low achieving students or
8
students with special needs. An additional concern is that such schools may implicitly or
explicitly discriminate against minority or poor children, resulting in increased racial,
ethnic, or social segregation. Across these arguments is concern that charter schools are
antithetical to development of representative, democratic citizenship, a fundamental
purpose of public education.
To what extent are the perceptions of advocates or opponents borne out in fact?
As explained earlier, few neutral or independent studies have been conducted on charter
schools, and most studies provide mixed results. Much remains to be learned, especially
about the impact of charter schools on students, families, and schools. However, a
longitudinal study of charter schools by the U.S. Department of Education and the
findings of additional, smaller studies provide some information about charter schools
and the students whom they serve.
Character of Charter Schools and Charter School Students. The character of a
charter school is largely and directly dependent upon the legislation of the state in which
the school is established (Vergari, 1999). Nonetheless, the U.S. Department of Education
indicates that there appear to be some common attributes of charter schools across the
country (Nelson, Berman, Ericson, Kamprath, Perry, Silverman, & Solomon, 2000).
Charter schools are typically smaller than public schools (median enrollment 137 and
475, respectively) and have roughly the same student-to-teacher ratio as public schools
(16:1 and 17:1, respectively). The vast majority of charter schools were newly established
(70%), with only 20% representing conversion of pre-existing public schools. Although
one-third of state charter school laws allow conversion of pre-existing private schools,
slightly less than 10% of charter schools arose in this manner.
9
State laws differ in the extent to which they limit the number or types of
sponsoring agencies (Vergari, 1999). When charter legislation limits sponsorship solely
to districts or existing public schools, the number of charter schools is a much smaller
proportion of total public schools than in states allowing sponsorship by multiple
agencies (Manno, Vanourek, & Finn, 1999). These non-public school sponsoring entities
have included groups of teachers and parents, state universities, and non-profit and forprofit corporations (Scheider, 1998).
The most consistent finding across studies of charter schools is that many schools
face financial difficulty (see Ericson & Silverman, 2001; Manno et al., 1999; Wells &
Research Associates, 1998; Nelson et al., 2000). Most states fund charter schools using
some form of per-pupil expenditure equal to that for public schools in either the state or
the district in which the charter school is located. Critics, such as Garn (1998), note that
in some cases this approach provides charter schools with a financial advantage because
it reflects costs incurred by public schools that can be avoided by charter schools (e.g.,
special education students may be discouraged from attending a charter school,
transportation or other services may not be provided by charter schools). Further, some
research indicates that charter schools, particularly those that are operated by for-profit
entities, attempt to reduce or eliminate non-instructional costs (Lancaster-Dykgraaf &
Kane-Lewis, 1998). However, other studies argue that any financial advantage gained
through these measures is more than lost through capital expenditures (Nelson et al.,
2000; Wells & Research Associates, 1998). Charter schools must fund capital
investments either by drawing from the per-pupil apportionment or external sources. For
this reason, the financial hurdles are greatest for independent, “mom and pop” charter
10
schools that have limited access to external funding sources, and least for existing public
schools that are converted to charters and for charter schools operated by for-profit
management companies. Nearly all charter schools studied by the U.S. Department of
Education (see Ericson & Silverman, 2001; Nelson et al., 2000) reported the need to
supplement state funding with corporate or private funds.
Students who attend charter schools tend to be similar to their peers in
surrounding public schools in most demographic characteristics, although there are
substantial differences across states. Charter school students are about equally likely to be
of limited English proficiency as their public school peers (approximately 10%),
somewhat more likely to qualify for free or reduced price lunch (39% versus 37%), and
somewhat less likely to be white (49% versus 59%).
Critics of charter schools (e.g., Garn, 1998; Lancaster-Dykgraff & Kane-Lewis,
1998; McKinney, 1996) suggest that charter schools, particularly those operated by forprofit entities, enroll a much smaller proportion of students with special needs than do
public schools. Lancaster-Dykgraaf and Kane-Lewis indicate that only about 3% of the
enrollments in 10 of 11 charter schools in the greater Grand Rapids area were students
with special needs, “far below the normal 10 to 13 percent in traditional public schools”
(p. 52). The U.S. Department of Education similarly reports that a smaller proportion of
charter school students are classified as special needs (8%) than are public school
students (11%).
Impact of Charter Schools. Surprisingly, despite rapid growth in the number of
charter schools across the U.S., there is to date no conclusive data either to support either
a positive or negative impact of charter schools. However, charter school parents
11
consistently report that improved quality of academic instruction was the primary reason
they chose to enroll their children in charter schools rather than in their regular public
schools, and the schools themselves report such a focus. In a report conducted for the
U.S. Department of Education, choice proponents report that charter schools were much
more likely than public schools to view their primary mission as improving students’
academic performance (Hill, Celio, Campbell, Herdman, & Bulkley, 2001). In spite of
financial limitations, the charter schools focused resources to “strengthen the school’s
academic performance and reinforce its focus on quality instruction” (p. ix). Similar
results have been reported in statewide studies (e.g., Georgia Department of Education,
2000; Miron & Nelson, 2000; Reynolds, 2000; and others).
An ongoing study of U.S. charter schools conducted by the Department of
Education has not yet included examination of student achievement or other academic
outcomes. While charter advocates, like the Center for Education Reform, report that 61
of 65 “objective, research-based studies” conclude that “charter schools have been
innovative, accountable, and successful” (p. 1), only a small number of studies report
findings associated with student achievement or related outcomes. Of these, most suffer
from methodological weaknesses (e.g., failure to control for achievement differences that
existed prior to charter school enrollment) that make the validity of their conclusions
about charter school impact suspect. The result is a difficult mix of seemingly
contradictory findings. For example, a study of Arizona charter schools by the Goldwater
Institute reports that charter school students showed significantly greater gains in reading
than did public school students, but slightly lower gains in mathematics (Solman, Paark,
& Garcia, 2001). In contrast, Horn and Miron (2000) studied charter schools in the
12
greater Grand Rapids, Michigan area and conclude that, “on the whole, it is clear that
host district students outperform charter school students in terms of absolute passing rates
on the MEAP [Michigan Assessment of Educational Progress]” (p. v).
There is some evidence that charter schools have at least some impact on the
public schools in their area, primarily through competition or other market forces (Horn
& Miron, 2000; Wells & Research Associates, 1998; Zollers & Ramanathan, 1998). In
order to counter what they see as “false advertising” by charter schools, many public
schools have initiated more intensive and intentional efforts to inform parents of the
quality of the education they provide. Further, public schools were often prompted to
initiate new services (e.g., before and after school programs, unique curricular programs,
etc.) to compete with charter schools for students. Critics fear that the loss of students
from public to charter schools will lead to reductions in public school services and staff
or, more extreme, school closures. This is believed to be particularly likely in small
districts or those that are not experiencing general increases in student enrollments.
Summary of Background and Overview of Charter Schools
There are few things we know with certainty about charter schools in the U.S.
Without doubt, they represent the fastest growing element of a decade-long trend toward
greater parental choice regarding their children’s education. These schools appear as a
moderate alternative to the more contentious proposals like tuition tax credits or publiclyfunded voucher programs. State charter laws directly and substantially affect both the
character and number of charter schools, with proportionally larger numbers of charter
schools in states that allow multiple entities to sponsor charter schools. Charter schools
are typically smaller than public schools and have a slightly lower student-to-teacher
13
ratio. Most charter schools are newly established schools, though about 30% are
converted former public or private schools. A higher proportion of non-White students
attend these schools than attend traditional public schools, though a smaller proportion
require special services.
Most charter school parents report that they chose their children’s schools to
acquire more effective instruction, and most charter schools report that their primary
emphasis is on improving students’ academic achievement. Although public schools and
charter schools face different financial obstacles, charter schools appear to focus
resources on improved instruction (Horn & Miron, 2001). However, there is no clear
evidence that attending a charter school impacts student outcomes significantly, either
positively or negatively.
The impact of charter schools on the surrounding public schools is in many ways
context dependent, and may be seen as either positive or negative, depending upon the
perspective taken. In some areas, particularly in small districts and states in which
proportionally greater numbers of charter schools are established, reduced revenues to
public schools as a result of loss of students to charter schools may force public schools
to eliminate services, increase class size, eliminate staff, or close schools. To compete
more effectively with charter schools and to avoid substantial loss of students and
revenue, public schools often increase the types of non-instructional services they
provide, offer unique curricula, and increase communication with parents. Regardless of
the extent or directionality of the impact of charter schools on public schools, public
school personnel perceive them to be serious threats to the ability of public schools to
serve all students.
14
2. Indiana’s Charter School Law
In May, 2001, Indiana became the 37th state to introduce charter schools into its
public education system. The legislation, which was signed into law as P.L. 100-2001,
allows for (a) converting existing public schools into charters, (b) reorganizing existing
private schools as charters — although charter schools must be “nonsectarian and
nonreligious” (I.C. 20-5.5-1-4), or (c) creating new schools as charters. Three entities —
public school corporations, state universities that award four-year baccalaureate degrees,
and the mayor of Indianapolis — are eligible to sponsor the creation of these new or
converted public schools.2 While for-profit groups are barred from directly organizing
charter schools, for-profit entities are eligible to be employed in managing and operating
such charter schools. Sponsors may not serve as organizers of schools they sponsor.
These schools are to be operated on the basis of a contract between an organizer
and a sponsor. The contract cannot be for less than three years but must be for a fixed
period. While these contracts are intended to encourage innovative and autonomous
programs, charter schools are subject to all laws and constitutional requirements
prohibiting discrimination. The contracts between the organizers and sponsors must
describe the school organizational structure and governance plan and provide a wide
range of information including curriculum and instructional methods, admissions
policies, and budget and financial plans. In addition, the right to bargain collectively,
including the right to organize, is not restricted.
2
An existing public school may be converted into a charter school only by the governing body of the
school corporation in which the school is located.
15
Responsibilities of University Sponsors
Within a university, the ultimate responsibility for choosing to sponsor charter
schools lies with the university’s board of trustees. However, “the university’s board of
trustees may vote to assign sponsorship authority and sponsorship responsibilities to
another person or entity that functions under the direction of the university’s board” (IC
IC 20-5.5-3-13).
Once an eligible organization agrees to serve as a charter school sponsor, it
assumes fairly specific reporting responsibilities, as outlined in a September 11, 2001
memo from the Indiana Department of Education:
1. A sponsor must notify the organizer who submits a proposal of the acceptance or
the rejection of the proposal not later than 60 days after the organizer submits the
proposal. No constraints exist on when an organizer may submit a proposal. Thus,
an organizer may submit a proposal at any time during the year. According to the
General Counsel of the Indiana State Board of Education, “a sponsor may not be
able to restrict applications to certain time periods without running afoul of
judicial review standards” (McDowell, 2001, p. 21).
2. A sponsor must notify the Department of Education of the receipt of a proposal
and the acceptance or rejection of the proposal. If rejected, the reasons for the
rejection must be included.
3. If a sponsor rejects a proposal, the organizer may amend the proposal and
resubmit it to the same or a different sponsor or appeal the rejection to a statelevel charter school review panel. The review panel has 45 days to (a) reject the
16
proposal, (b) recommend that the proposal should be amended, or (c) approve the
proposal, conditional upon acceptance by a sponsor.
This procedure could generate legal expenses for the sponsor because “it would seem that
the [review panel’s] decision to support the sponsor’s rejection would be subject to
judicial review” (McDowell, p. 5).
Once a university enters into a charter school agreement, it will assume a set of
new responsibilities. Monitoring, oversight, and technical support for a K-12 public
school are traditionally the province of the school corporation. The introduction of
charter schools breaks the link between these schools and the bureaucracy that has
provided these services. P.L. 100-2001 clearly allocates the first two tasks to the sponsor
of the charter school: “For each charter school established under this article, the charter
school and the organizer are accountable to the sponsor for ensuring compliance with: (1)
applicable federal and state laws; (2) the charter; and (3) the Constitution of the State of
Indiana” (IC 20-5.5-8-3).
Unlike school corporations, which cannot be sued by schools, “it is unquestioned
that a charter school in Indiana is a legal entity with the power to sue and be sued”
(McDowell, p. 10). Thus, it appears that charter schools may be in a position to sue their
sponsors. The standing of a university sponsor in a lawsuit against a charter school is also
at issue.
Financial Implications of University Sponsorship
For these services, the reimbursement to sponsors differs by type of sponsor.
Local school corporations are allowed to charge charter schools “not more than one
hundred three percent (103%) of the actual cost of the services” (IC 20-5.5-7-4). State
17
universities can charge “an administrative fee equal to not more than three percent (3%)
of the total amount the governing body distributes” (IC 20-5.5-7-4). The governing body
is the school corporation in which the student resides. Under the current interpretation of
the Indiana Department of Education, “the total amount the governing body distributes”
includes only local revenues. In the case of many southern Indiana school corporations,
local revenues account for 20% or less of the total school revenue.
Two examples may help clarify the difficulty a university may face in sponsoring
a charter school. A university sponsor of a 100-student charter school in Brown County
could charge a maximum administrative fee of $5,308 in 2002 to cover legal,
programmatic, fiscal, and reporting responsibilities. Even in the case of a high-wealth
school corporation such as Pike Township, a university sponsor of a 100-student charter
school could charge a maximum administrative fee of $11,578 in 2002 to cover these
costs. Yet, P.L. 100-2001 directs sponsors to “oversee a charter school’s compliance
with: (1) the charter; and (2) all applicable laws” (IC 20-5.5-9-3). Thus, the legislation
mandates that charter school operators annually submit to the sponsor attendance records,
student performance records, financial information, and any other information necessary
to comply with state and federal government requirements or the charter. The costs
charter school sponsors will incur in meeting these requirements are likely to require
university sponsors to seek additional revenue sources to subsidize their involvement.
As was mentioned earlier, the General Counsel for the Indiana State Board of
Education has raised the likelihood that the appeals process for charter schools will
involve judicial review. Given the process outlined above for calculating administrative
fees, a university sponsor will receive no reimbursement for the cost of evaluating an
18
unsuccessful proposal. To the extent that these proceedings involve legal counsel, the
cost of rejecting charter school proposals could become prohibitive.
Local Implications of University Sponsorship
Sponsoring a charter school could have serious consequences for the school
corporation in which the school is sponsored. For example, sponsoring an elementary
charter school that drew 200 students from all other elementary schools in the district
would likely require a school corporation to close one of its buildings, thereby forcing it
to redistrict, which is a highly unpopular and politically explosive undertaking.
Furthermore, the closing of the building would necessitate laying off teachers,
administrators, and other staff. Such an action would likely hurt that school corporation’s
attitude toward the university and impede the university’s ability to perform its other
missions with that school corporation.
3. Potential University Roles
Certain aspects of Indiana University’s role with charter schools are clear from its
teaching, research, and service mission. For example, recent research provides strong
evidence that there is a wide range of effectiveness among teachers and that teacher
quality is by far the single most important school factor affecting student achievement
(Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 1999; Wright, Horn, & Sanders, 1997). Further research
demonstrates that more selective teacher preparation programs have positive impacts on
student achievement (Ehrenberg & Brewer, 1994, 1995; Ferguson, 1991, 1998; Strauss &
Sawyer, 1986) and that subject matter preparation in those programs affects student
achievement in those subjects (Goldhaber & Brewer, 1997; Monk & Rice, 1994). Thus, a
19
requisite role for Indiana University — with regard to both charter and other K-12
schools — is the preparation of high quality teachers.
In addition, it may well prove to be the case that charter schools require a
different type of high quality teacher than does a traditional public school. With this
possibility in mind, in a manner similar to what is currently done for traditional schools,
Indiana University must use the research it conducts on charter schools to inform its
preparation program for teachers who will work in this new setting.
Role Options
These are obvious, mandatory roles for Indiana University to play in the charter
school movement. What is more difficult is to decide which paths, among a range of
appropriate courses of action, to take with regard to charter schools. One option is for
Indiana University to become a university sponsor of charter schools in the state of
Indiana. As explained in the previous section, though, the costs the University would
incur in sponsorship are likely to far exceed the administrative fee we would be allowed
to collect under the legislation (a maximum of three percent of the local school district
revenues). Thus, sponsorship would entail seeking additional revenue sources to
subsidize this involvement.
Even if additional revenue sources were to become available, charter school
sponsorship by Indiana University would raise questions about duplication of effort and
mission centrality. Ball State University has already announced that it will serve as a
sponsor of charter schools in Indiana. This role may be particularly appropriate for Ball
State with the institution’s origins as a normal school and existing sponsorship of the
Burris Laboratory School and the Indiana Math and Science Academy. Because Ball
20
State will have the authority to sponsor charter schools throughout the state, it may be
both unnecessary and inefficient for Indiana University to devote resources to
sponsorship. Instead, the state would be better served if Indiana University assumed a
role that complemented, but did not replicate, Ball State’s role as sponsor. For example,
as a recognized leader in educational scholarship and research, the School of Education at
Indiana University would be well suited to contribute ideologically neutral information
on the operation of charter schools.
A Higher Education Consortium
The charter school movement in Indiana may be well served by the public
universities through a collaborative arrangement that capitalizes on each institution’s
interests and strengths, rather than through multiple university sponsorship. A role
Indiana University could play in this context would be to provide leadership for
development of a higher education consortium to address K-12 issues throughout the
state. Such a consortium would include the five four-year, public universities with
education schools in Indiana (Ball State University, Indiana State University, Indiana
University, Purdue University, and The University of Southern Indiana). The five
Education Deans have signed a letter of agreement supporting the establishment of a
consortium in which each cooperating university would take on some set of functional
responsibilities that reflect the strengths of that particular campus. With regard to charter
schools, among these responsibilities would be research, technical assistance, information
distribution, evaluation, and school sponsorship.
For example, within the consortium we believe there is a strong need for a
university to support charter school organizers in the design of their schools. Perhaps the
21
strongest rationale for charter school legislation is to free schools from bureaucratic
constraints so they can explore fundamentally different and better ways of meeting
students’ needs. Yet most of the thousands of charter schools that have been formed to
date look remarkably similar to their traditional public school counterparts. Charter
school organizers typically lack the time, the money, and the knowledge of educational
research necessary to design a school that may provide a quantum improvement in
meeting students’ needs.
A potential benefit of having a consortium is that costs associated with each of
these responsibilities would be distributed among the different universities, depending on
which role each campus assumes. In such an arrangement, each of the universities could
have some say in helping develop the guidelines and criteria the sponsoring agent will
use in determining which charter school applicants should be sponsored, regardless of
which university takes on the sponsor role.
4. Recommendations for Indiana University
It is, therefore, the opinion of this Task Force that Indiana University should work
proactively to establish a consortium on K-12 issues constituted by the five four-year,
public universities with education schools in Indiana (Ball State University, Indiana State
University, Indiana University, Purdue University, and The University of Southern
Indiana). The five Education Deans have signed a letter of agreement supporting the
establishment of this consortium. One of the consortium’s first tasks would be to draw
upon the unique attributes of each institution to provide a broad range of services and
information about the operation and effectiveness of charter schools. This approach is
22
particularly desirable because it allows coordination across the five state universities to
most efficiently pool the resources and strengths of each, while avoiding duplication of
services.
We recommend that Indiana University assume leadership for organizing this
consortium. Dean Gonzalez, of the School of Education, has initiated frequent
communication about the charter school movement in Indiana with representatives from
the institutions that would be represented in the consortium. This provides a solid basis
on which to formally develop the consortium, define roles and develop processes by
which the contributions of individual consortium members could be coordinated. It is our
belief, however, that the consortium should not preclude any member institution, Indiana
University included, from engaging in or supporting additional activities related to
charter schools. For example, establishing a Center for Research on Indiana Charter
Schools or supporting individual faculty research, teaching or service for charter schools
should remain viable options. These details can be specified over time and through
consensus of the consortium members.
It is critical to note that the consortium’s utility and productivity will depend
directly upon the resources that are provided to support its activity. Additional resources
will be necessary to facilitate two kinds of work: (1) coordination on a consortium level,
to be financed jointly by all five institutions or through external grants, and (2) the
performance of each university’s role(s) within the consortium, to be borne by each
university individually, with or without external grants. It should not be expected that
member institutions reallocate existing funds to support the important work of the
consortium.
23
In closing, we would like to reiterate that the recommendation of this Task Force
is grounded in Indiana University’s longstanding support for K-12 public education
throughout the state. Underlying this tradition, a fundamental goal of the university has
been and must remain to assist teachers, administrators, and parents in providing
appropriate and effective education for every student, no matter what school the child
attends. As Indiana children begin to attend charter schools in coming years, our
responsibility must be to provide the same support for quality education to these schools
that is provided to traditional public schools. We believe that Indiana University can best
fulfill its responsibility as the premier research institution in the state, through leadership
in a collaborative consortium of the type we have outlined here. Such a collaborative
approach, in which each member institution can contribute to the partnership on the basis
of distinct capabilities and needs, would be of tremendous value to the legislators, policy
makers, educators, and families of the State of Indiana.
24
References
Center for Education Reform. (2001). Education reform update. Back-to-school bulletin
#3. Retrieved September 21, 2001 from http://www.edreform.com/press/2001/
010917.html.
Cobb, C., Glass, G., & Crockett, C. (2000, April). The U.S. charter school movement and
ethnic segregation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, New Orleans.
Education Commission of the States. (2001). Charter schools: Selected research &
readings. ECS issue page. Retrieved September 20, 2001 from http://www.ecs.org/
html/IssueSection
Ehrenberg, R. G, & Brewer, D. J. (1994). Do school and teacher characteristics matter?
Evidence from High School and Beyond. Economics of Education Review, 13, 1-17.
Ehrenberg, R. G, & Brewer, D. J. (1995). Did teachers’ verbal ability and race matter in
the 1960s? Coleman revisited. Economics of Education Review, 14, 1-21.
Ericson, J. & Silverman, D. (2001). Challenge and opportunity: The impact of charter
schools on school districts. RPP International. Washington: U.S. Department of
Education.
Ferguson, R.F. (1991). Paying for public education: new evidence on how and why
money matters,” Harvard Journal on Legislation, 28, 465-498.
Ferguson, R. F. (1998). Can schools narrow the Black-White test score gap?. In C. Jencks
& M. Phillips (Eds.), Black-White test score gap (pp. 318-374). Washington, D.C.:
The Brookings Institute.
25
Garn, G. (1998). The thinking behind Arizona’s charter movement. Educational
Leadership, 55, 48-50.
Georgia Department of Education. (2000). Annual charter school report for Georgia:
1999-2000. Atlanta: Author.
Goldhaber, D. D., & Brewer, D. J. (1997). Why don’t schools and teachers seem to
matter? Assessing the impact of unobservables on educational productivity. Journal
of Human Resources, 32, 505-523.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., & Rivkin, S. G. (1999, January). Do higher salaries buy
better teachers?. Paper presented to the Meetings of the American Economics
Association.
Hill, P., Lake, R., Celio, M., Campbell, C., Herdman, P., & Bulkley, K. (2001). A study of
charter school accountability. Report from the National Charter School
Accountability Study prepared for the U.S. Department of Education. Seattle:
University of Washington.
Horn, J. & Miron, G. (2000). An evaluation of the Michigan charter school initiative:
Performance, accountability, and impact. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan
University, The Evaluation Center.
Lancaster-Dykgraaf, C. & Kane-Lewis, S. (1998). For-profit charter schools: What the
public needs to know. Educational Leadership, 56 (2), 51-53.
McDowell, K. C. (2001, January-March). Chartering a new course in Indiana: emergence
of charter schools in Indiana. Quarterly Report, 2-31. (Available from the Indiana
State Board of Education)
26
McKinney, J. (1996). Charter schools: A new barrier for children with disabilities.
Educational Leadership, 54(2), 22-25.
Manno, B., Vanourek, G., & Finn, C. (1999). Charter schools: Serving disadvantaged
youth. Education and Urban Society, 31, 429-445.
Metcalf, K., Muller, P, & Legan, N. (2001). School choice in America: The great debate.
Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.
Miron, G. & Nelson, C. (2000). Autonomy in exchange for accountability: An initial
study of Pennsylvania charter schools. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan
University, The Evaluation Center.
Monk, D. & Rice, J. K. (1994). Multilevel teacher resource effects on pupil performance
in secondary mathematics and science: the case of teacher subject-matter preparation.
In R. G. Ehrenberg (Ed.), Choices and consequences: contemporary policy issues in
education (pp. 29-58). Ithaca, NY: ILR Press.
Nelson, B., Berman, P., Ericson, J., Kamprath, N., Perry, R., Silverman, D., & Solomon,
D. (2000). The state of charter schools, 2000. National Study of charter schools,
Fourth-year report. Emeryville, CA: RPP International. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 030 203).
Reynolds, K. (2000). Innovations in charter schools: A summary of innovative or unique
aspects of Michigan charter schools. Kalamazoo, MI: Western Michigan University,
The Evaluation Center.
Schneider, A. (1998). Tracking the charter school movement. School Business Affairs, 64
(6), 17-23.
27
Solman, L., Paark, K., & Garcia, D. (2001). Does charter school attendance improve test
scores? Phoenix, AZ: The Goldwater Institute, The Center for Market-Based
Education.
Strauss, R. P., & Sawyer, E. A. (1986). Some new evidence on teacher and student
competencies. Economics of Education Review, 5, 41-48.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). A national study of charter schools. (ED/OERI
Report No. SAI 98-3032). Emeryville, CA: RPP International. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 029 424).
Vergari, S. (1999). Charter schools: A primer on the issues. Education and Urban
Society, 31, 389-405.
Wells, A. & Research Associates. (1998). Charter school reform in California: Does it
meet expectations? Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 305-312.
Wright, P. S., Horn, S. P., & Sanders, W. L. (1997). Teacher and classroom context
effects on student achievement: implications for teacher evaluation. Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11,
Zollers, N. J., & Ramanathan, A. K. (1998). For-profit charter schools and students with
disabilities: the sordid side of the business of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 297304.
28