Eight high school athletes set 6 new records during the 2008 track and field season. The shinning star of the boys had to be German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School, who set 2 new records and led all boys by taking the top spot in 5 of 6 middle distance racesthe 1,500, 1,600, 3,000 and 3,200-meter runs and the 2 mile.

Fernandez ran the 3,000 in 8:04. 1 to set a new record for a high-school-only race, and he set a National Federation record with an 8:34. 23 clocking in the 3,200. He also led all comers with a 3:44. 8 in the 1,500, a 4:00. 29 in the 1,600 (No. 2 all-time), a 4:01. 69 in the mile, and an 8:37. 22 in the 2 mile.

Chris Derrick of Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville (IL) ran 5,000 meters in 13:55. 96 to set the USA boys record for a high-school-only race.

Christine Babcock of Woodbridge High School in Irvin (CA) ran the 1,600 in 4:36. 57 to set the new girls record, breaking the old mark of 4:38. 15.

Jordan Hasay of Mission Prep High School in San Luis Obispo, another outstanding girls middle distance runner, led the nation with top times in the 3,000 meters (9:23. 90), 3,200 meters (10:03. 07) and the 2 mile ( 9:55. 57). Babcock’s best 2 mile was 10:07. 54.

USA Boys High School Track and Field Records and Best 2008 Performances Current through 6-6-08

100 Meters: 10. 08 – 10. 17 by Jeff Demps of South Lake High School in Groveland (FL). No. 5 all-time high school autotimed performer.

200 Meters: 20. 13 – 20. 65 by Brandon O’Connor of Southridge High School in Miami (FL).

400 Meters: 44. 69 – 46. 28 by Joey Hughes of Poly High School in Long Beach (CA).

800 Meters: 1:46. 45 – 1:48. 97 by Joseph Franklin of Godby High School in Tallahassee (FL).

1,500 Meters: 3:38. 26 – 3:44. 8 by German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School.

1,600 Meters: 3:53. 43 record set at equivalent yards distance – 4:00. 29 by German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School. No. 2 all-time performer.

Mile: 3:53. 43 – 4:01. 09 by Rob Finnerty of Burnsville (MN) High School. No. 7 all-time performer. German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School ran 4:01. 69 to become the No. 8 all-time performer.

3,000 Meters: 8:03. 67 – 8:04. 1 by German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School. Sets New Record for a high school race.

3,200 Meters: 8:36. 3 for 2-Mile – 8:34. 23 by German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School. National Federation record.

2 Miles: 8:36. 3 – 8:37. 22 by German Fernandez of Riverbank (CA) High School.

3,000 Meter Steeplechase: 8:50. 1 – 9:17. 43 by Pat Dupont of Fairport (NY) High School.

5,000 Meters: 13:37. 91 – 13:55. 96 by Chris Derrick of Neuqua Valley High School in Naperville (IL) – Sets the USA record for a high-school-only race.

10,000 Meters: 28:32. 7 – 30:53. 08 by Donald Cabral of Glastonbury (CT) High School.

110-Meter High Hurdles: 13. 22 record set at equivalent yards distance – 13. 51 by Spencer Adams of Butler High School in Charlotte (NC).

300-Meter Intermediate Hurdles: 35. 28 – 35. 71 by Reggie Wyatt of La Sierra High School in Riverside (CA).

400-Meter Intermediate Hurdles: 49. 38 – 50. 46 by Reggie Wyatt of La Sierra High School in Riverside (CA).

4×100-Meter Relay: 39. 76 – 40. 26 by Rowlett (TX) High School.

4×200-Meter Relay: 1:23. 31 – 1:24. 06 by Hightower High School in Sugar Land (TX). No. 6 all-time high school relay performance.

4×400-Meter Relay: 3:07. 40 – 3:09. 59 by Dominguez High School in Compton (CA).

4×800 Meter Relay: 7:32. 89 – 7:38. 79 by North Penn High School in Lansdale (PA).

4xMile Relay: 17:06. 6 – 17:28. 47 indoors by Danbury (CT) High School.

800 Medley Relay: 1:28. 43 – 1:31. 28 by Raytown South High School in Raytown (MO).

Sprint Medley Relay: 3:21. 1 – 3:26. 16 by Mid-Prairie Community High School in Wellman (IA).

Distance Medley Relay: 9:49. 78 – 10:02. 47 by Carroll High School in Southlake (TX).

4×110 Hurdle Relay: 56:32 – 58:57 by Irvington (NJ) High School.

High Jump: 7-7 – 7-3. 75 indoors by Eric Kynard of Rogers High School in Toledo (OH). No. 8 all-time indoor high school performer.

Pole Vault: 18-3 – 17-4. 5 by Nico Weiler of Los Gatos (CA) High School.

Long Jump: 26-9. 25 – 25-6. 75 indoors by Christian Taylor of Sandy Creek High School in Tyrone (GA).

Triple Jump: 54-10. 25 – 52-6. 50 by Christian Taylor of Sandy Creek High School in Tryone (GA).

Shot Put: 81-3. 5 – 71-3 by Jordan Clarke of Bartlett High School in Anchorage, AK. No. 8 all-time performer.

Discus Throw: 234-3 – 222-1 by Mason Finley of Buena Vista (CO) High School. No. 3 all-time performer.

Hammer Throw: 255-11 – 250-1 by Conor McCullough of Chaminade High School in West Hills, CA. No. 3 all-time performer.

Javelin Throw: 241-11 – 223-8 by Kyle Smith of Daphne (AL) High School.

Decathlon: 7,264 – 7,262 wind-aided by Curtis Beach of Academy High School in Albuquerque (NM).

USA Girls High School Track and Field Records and Best 2008 Performances Current through 6-10-08

100 Meters: 11. 11 – 11. 16 by Victoria Jordan of Dunbar High School in Fort Worth (TX). Equals No. 5 all-time high school performer.

200 Meters: 22. 11 – 23. 43 indoors by Ashton Purvis of St. Elizabeth High School in Oakland (CA). No. 5 all-time indoor performer.

400 Meters: 50. 69 – 52. 83 indoors by Nadonnia Rodriques of Boys & Girls High School in Brooklyn (NY). No. 4 all-time indoor performer.

800 Meters: 2:00. 07 – 2:01. 61 by Chanelle Price of Easton (PA) High School.

1,500 Meters: 4:16. 6 – 4:17. 46 by Jordan Hasay of Mission Prep High School in San Luis Obispo (CA). No. 7 all-time high school performance; Hasay also has the No. 4 and No. 5 all-time performances run in 2007.

1,600 Meters: 4:38. 15 – 4:36. 57 by Christine Babcock of Woodbridge High School in Irvin (CA) – Sets new USA High School Record, breaking the previous mark of 4:38. 15.

Mile: 4:35. 24 – 4:35. 41 by Christine Babcock of Woodbridge High School in Irvin (CA). No. 2 all-time performer.

3,000 Meters: 9:08. 06 – 9:23. 90 by Jordan Hasay of Mission Prep High School in San Luis Obispo.

3,200 Meters: 9:48. 59 – 10:03. 07 by Jordan Hasay of Mission Prep High School in San Luis Obispo. Equals No. 6 all-time performer.

2 Miles – 9:55. 57 by Jordan Hasay of Mission Prep High School in San Luis Obispo.

5,000 Meters: 15:52. 88 – 17:03. 79 indoors by Chelsea Ley of Kingsway High School in Woolwich Township (NJ).

100-Meter High Hurdles: 12. 95 – 13. 26 by Jacquelyn Coward of West High School in Knoxville (TN).

300-Meter Hurdles: 39. 98 – 40. 96 by Donique Flemings of Saginaw (TX) High School.

400-Meter Hurdles: 55. 20 – 58. 96 by Ryann Krais of Methacton High School in Norristown (PA).

4×100-Meter Relay: 44. 50 – 45. 17 by Dunbar High School in Fort Worth (TX).

4×200-Meter Relay: 1:33. 87 – 1:35. 94 by Dunbar High School in Fort Worth (TX). No. 11 all-time high school relay team performance.

4×400-Meter Relay: 3:35. 49 – 3:37. 16 by Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt (MD). No. 8 all-time high school relay team performance.

4×800-Meter Relay: 8:50. 41 – 8:43. 12 by Eleanor Roosevelt High School in Greenbelt (MD). Sets new USA High School Record, breaking the previous mark of 8:50. 41.

4xMile Relay: 19:56. 75 – 20:10. 76 by Saugus High School in La Crescenta (CA). No. 3 all-time high school relay team performance.

Distance Medley Relay: 11:33. 42 – 11:42. 16 by Roxbury High School in Succasunna (NJ). No. 11 all-time high school relay team performance.

800 Sprint Medley – 1:44. 51 by Logan High School in Union City (CA).

Sprint Medley – 4:00. 97 by Wilson High School in Long Beach (CA).

Distance Medley – 11:42. 16 by Roxbury High School in Succasunna (NJ). No. 11 all-time high school relay team performance.

4 x 100H – 61:05 by Union (NJ) High School.

High Jump: 6-4 – 6-1. 25 by Shanay Briscoe of Cypress Christian High School in Houston (TX) and by Victoria Lucas of Midland (TX) High School.

Pole Vault: 14-1. 25 – 14-0 by Rachel Laurent of Vanderbilt Catholic High School in Houma (LA). No. 2 all-time performer.

Long Jump: 22-3 – 20. 5 by Vashti Thomas of Mr. Pleasant High School in San Jose (CA).

Triple Jump: 44-11. 75 – 43-1. 5 indoors by Vashti Thomas of Mt. Pleasant High School in San Jose (CA). No. 7 all-time performer.

Shot Put: 54-10. 75 – 52-4 indoors by Karen Shump of Penncrest High School in Media (PA). No. 6 all-time performer.

Discus Throw: 188-4 – 183-11 by Anastasia Jelmini of Shafter (CA) High School.

Hammer Throw: 201-7 – 194. 0 by Allison Horner of Lovett High School in Atlanta (GA) No. 3 all-time performance.

Javelin Throw: 176-5 – 167-11 by Hannah Carson of Rhodes Junior High (Middle) School in Mesa (AZ). Sets new USA high school freshman record.

The Principal’s Role in Rural Schools

“Leadership is influence…[and] the ability to obtain followers. ” (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006, p. 569)

Principals of rural schools spend a large percentage of their time teaching cross-age, multi-grade students (Starr & White, 2008). As recent legislation and litigation continue to place more responsibility on the principal, site level responsibilities challenge the constant, increasing role of the administrator (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006).

Most principals in rural schools get little in the way of administrative support, ancillary personnel, and ground staff (Starr & White, 2008). While principals in larger schools are able to delegate and share in management tasks, this is not a luxury afforded to their small rural counterparts (Starr & White, 2008). Regardless of the size of the school, principals still have a moral obligation to comply with federal and state standards. The ethical behavior of educators, write Rude & Whetstone (2008), is a driving force that ensures balance.

Statement of the Problem

A rural school district is classified as such in that all of the schools in that particular district are located in counties with a population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile and was identified as rural by a governmental agency (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006). Due in large part to declining enrollment, loss of resources, and loss of population, most school districts across America, rural schools and district are confronted and faced with continuous challenges (Patterson et al. . , 2005). Additional barriers involve resistance to change, economic challenges, and geographic challenges (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006).

Principals in rural school districts do not receive funding which assists in overcoming small-school challenges. The problems faced by rural school principals create additional leadership challenges which require the need for increased school personnel. Other problems faced by principals include (a) redefined principalship, (b) workload proliferation, (c) educational equity issues, (d) escalating role multiplicity, and (e) school survival (Starr & White, 2008).

Redefined principalship. School reforms have made a drastic impact on the way schools operate and the way principals are positioned. Principals see their main role as instructional leaders (Starr & White, 2008). Principals express concern over the bureaucratic interference, which changes the nature of their roles and the way in which they work (Starr & White, 2008). There is constant complaining that rural school principals have to do more with less (Starr & White, 2008).

“Principals feel dislocated and alienated from debates about education policy-making, whereas previously they felt more involved, connected, and integral to the business of making a difference and setting direction” (Starr & White, 2008, p. 5). There is an ongoing consensus that principals are marginalized and ignored by education bureaucracies. Many principals are not supported by the education system at either the state or federal level (Starr & White, 2008). It is vital, says Wright (2007), that policy makers, educational administrators, and local citizens understand that schools are vital to rural communities.

Further, rural principals feel that there is a sense that the system is not set up to assist them, but rather the system is there to mandate, appraise, control, admonish when expectations are not met (Starr & White, 2008). Principals believe that the system is unsupportive and detracts from the more important work—the system, they say, is a nuisance (Starr & White, 2008).

Workload proliferation. The biggest concern expressed by principals is the increased amount of mandatory administrative and compliance work arriving from district, state, and federal governments (Starr & White, 2008). In addition to their increased workload, principals are also in the classrooms teaching. Workload pressures, principals say, also steal time from family life. Principals express anger and frustration with the ever increasing workload in the following ways

I’m running the whole day… I find it very hard to close the door when someone wants to see me—because who else would they see?… It’s getting worse the longer I’m in the job. It’s very tiring. . . You just never stop… It’s just never-ending. I’m always busy. It’s the horrendous hours you put in to do things well…so it’s huge…You’ve still got to do it all the things you’ve got to do in bigger schools, but you’ve only got one day of administrative school services officer support, and by the time they ay the bills…and get stuff ready for the school council, what’s normally left…is left to you… I just put in the extra hours.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 4).

Principals as absorbed with the extra requirements of their existing work lives. They argue that they are too busy to engage with reforms, as the use of personnel time is valuable. Because principals are too busy coping with the everyday immediate needs of the school, they have no time to participate in politics (Starr & White, 2008).

Educational equity issues. Educational equity, according to Starr & White (2008), appears dependent on a principal’s ability to prepare a strong, convincing case utilizing standardized samples. Starr & White (2008) use the example of staffing for students with special needs being a submission-based exercise with strict criteria; therefore, there are fewer students qualifying for extra support.

Resources are “difficult to obtain despite increasing learning support needs as homogeneity decreases in some rural populations” (Starr & White, 2008, p. 5). Even if funding submissions are successful, there is more work to be done. Now suitable teachers have to be found and progress and final reports are required (Starr & White, 2008).

Escalating role multiplicity. Principals, according to Starr & White (2008), see their main role as instructional leader. Principals in small rural schools do not have assistant principals and unanimously complain about the lack of administrative support in undertaking increasing external demands (Starr & White, 2008). The breadth of the problem is stated in the following comments

There’s a feeling of great frustration amongst principals for the lack of support and care from the Department… I think we’re getting sick of trying to make do… Morale is terribly low for principals…the role is busier and more complex. I…work every night of the week. You work most Sundays… If it’s for the school you don’t mind, but if it’s for the Department you tend to put it off…otherwise you’d be working all of the time…You can’t take a day off. The work[load] has skyrocketed and resources have disappeared. . . There’s no time to do anything thoroughly. . . The Department’s on about outcomes and improvement, but how do they expect it’s going to happen? They’re making things worse. The support and money [from] the Department isn’t there now. The job satisfaction isn’t what it used to be. The demands are getting greater and greater… People are getting a lot more jaded than they used to…they’re getting run down. There’s too much expectation and responsibility put on principals.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 4)

The sidelining of important educational matters and unrealistic expectations are a burden on principals. The increase in responsibility also causes an increase in managerial tasks, feelings of isolation, rising stress levels, and a decrease in professional satisfaction (Starr & White, 2008). These concerns detract from the real issues of leadership because of the lack of reward principals receive for their hard work, as they receive no tangible evidence of any positive outcomes.

School survival. As resources decline, funding for rural schools depend to a great extent on the successful completion of funding submissions (Starr & White, 2008). One principal expressed her frustration by stating

I get the impression that if you’re [a] small [school], people think you can cope… You haven’t got that many kids to deal with, so you don’t need extra resources. You should just get on with it. I think we’re disadvantaged from a perception point of view. I think we’re viewed as so insignificant as to not matter very much… So you start to think, “Why bother?”

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 5)

If schools become too small, they are subject to closure. Many rural schools are facing continual enrollment decline. Starr & White (2008) suggest population trends show no immediate solution to this problem. Principals made the following comments on this issue

You’re concerned all the time about survival. [The school is]…an asset in the community, you wonder what would happen if it closed. So you watch the enrollments and fear every time a family moves out of the district taking several kids with them. You can’t get caught riding a dead horse. The numbers went down quite rapidly…due to local demographics. We had big groups—well big for us, say 10 in each class. Then those students went off to high school and we were left with only 3 or 4 kids per class. Our numbers are decreasing. Because we’re isolated, there’s not much up here anymore employment-wise. We get a few transient families who will stay for 4-6 months and leave again… [This school] is not cost effective…and that makes you worry about what [will happen] in the longer term. We have to make do and do more with less. There should be differential staffing that recognizes the real needs… But while we’re losing numbers, the staffing formula makes things worse. You lose teachers and it’s even busier. We should have more control over human resources.

          (Starr & White, 2008, pp. 6-7).

As a result of decreasing numbers in population, school closures have increased over the past several decades. If a rural school closes, it usually means that children are forced to travel long distances to ascertain alternative schooling (Starr & White, 2008).

Significance of the Study

Cruzeiro & Morgan (2006) write that inclusionary schools occur through purposeful leadership. The principal, Cruzeiro & Morgan (2006) writes, is the key to leading others through the change process. In order to do so, the principal must validate its perception with other stakeholders in the school community, including teachers, families, students and community members, and also in other rural communities (Cruzeiro & Morgan, 2006). Validation, according to Cruzeiro & Morgan (2006) involves evaluating reported inclusion efforts, in particular, leadership.

School reform has criticized over the years for universalizing schools and students (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Such reform pays insufficient attention to race, class or gender. The premise takes into consideration the differences between rural and urban school. Further, commitment to a formal education which sustains local communities is a thing of the past and has been replaced with national and global school improvement initiatives (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). The future health of rural schools is related to the sustainability of their rural communities (Zacharakis et al. , 2008).

Literature Review

Background. Wallin & Reimer (2008) write while rural scholars and educational stakeholders believe rural schools should serve local community interests, conflicts still exists over the purpose of schooling. Concerns in urban school reforms are often overshadowed by those of the rural schools. Rural schools, according to Wright (2007), serve a vital role in recreating communities in a highly mobile, industrialized society. Further, according to Wallin & Reimer (2008), rural schools are often plagued with educational problems such as (a) isolation from specialized services; (b) limited accessibility to quality staff development and university services; (c) teacher shortages in math and science; (d) decreasing enrollment which leads to decreased funding; and (e) declining pool of qualified administrative candidates.

Many rural schools offer fewer support and extracurricular programs overall than nonrural schools (Hardré et al. , 2007). Often times when studies are presented on school district issues, the circumstances of rural schools are overlooked. As a result, rural schools are not included in school improvement plans across all school systems (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Rural school principals are left bearing the burden of survival are dependent on the funding from school districts.

Analysis. It is quite evident that in order for schools to succeed they must hire principals who are willing to work to keep rural schools open. The school districts have an obligation to ensure that they do all they can to encourage and motivate school leaders. Districts need to consider promoting from within the community when seeking loyal rural school principals.

Synthesis. Challenges faced by principals in small rural schools result in creative initiatives. As a result, principals in rural communities are moving beyond traditional pathways to deliver educational benefits to their students (Starr & White, 2008). Such pathways involve cross-school activities, extensive use of information, involvement from the community, and greater communication (Starr & White, 2008).

Principals are working in a collective effort to cover teaching, learning, leadership, and management requirements, and to keep up-to-date with standardization and legislation. These collective activities occur as a result of school reform and the lack of available resources. Some principal explain the basis of these collaborative efforts as follows

We decided to combine our collective funding to hire a teacher for six schools, and share learning resources. [The literacy focus] was critical so we went from there, starting with “how can we solve this problem rather than re-inventing the wheel?” There’s a range of activities that are organized across the schools—drama days, inter-school sports days, combined with professional development days. The job is getting bigger all the time. You can’t do it all yourself. You can’t get caught up in all the red tape about parents needing police checks and not being out of sight of teachers… You just have to be pragmatic—do what needs to be done and take on any help that’s on offer.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 7)

Evaluation. Studies show regardless of the issues rural school districts have with staying in business, studies do very well academically and socially as they move from middle school to high school (Patterson et al. , 2005). According to a study released by the U. S. Department of Education, students in rural areas perform better in science and math than those in urban areas (Anonymous, 2007). Patterson et al. (2005) writes “Evidence of their accomplishments can be found in State Assessment scores, honor roll listings, homecoming candidate announcements, and those who have excelled in various extracurricular activities” (p. 153).

A 2006 report from the American College Testing Program, Inc. show performance of students on this high stakes test continue to climb (Zacharakis et al. , 2008). Anonymous (2007) states compared to students at all grade levels, students in rural schools scored better on national science and math tests than children in cities. Smaller schools, Patterson et al. (2005) writes, perform well on state-mandated assessment tests.

Students in Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and most other states in the Heartland evidence the highest percentage (60-80%) of students who take this test (Zacharakis et al. , 2008). Further, the US Department of Education showed student achievement scores well above the state average in almost all content areas and in some cases reaching the state’s “standard of excellence” rating (Patterson et al. , 2005).

According to Anonymous (2007), the achievement in science by rural students is better because students get their education in a real-world setting as well as in classrooms. Zacharakis et al. (2008) write that measuring school success by the standard parameters of student test scores and achievement is meaningless in the overall scheme of defining the purpose of a rural community. “Parental involvement is an important factor—huge factor—in student achievement” (Anonymous, 2007, p. 59).

Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations

 “In any moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing, the next best thing is the wrong thing, and the worse thing you can do is nothing. ” – Theodore Roosevelt (Rude & Whetstone, 2008).

Restatement of the Problem. Keeping well-liked principals on board increases the morale of parents and satisfies the need of the communities (Patterson et al. , 2005). However, principals in rural schools have more than their fair share of work. Principals in rural schools are overworked and need more assistance to serve the schools in the manner best serving to the students. The school districts are not stepping up to the task of providing more assistance to the small rural school principal. As such, the lack of funding and administrative assistance is reflective in the high turnover rate of principals who leave because the work is too much to handle alone. Hardré et al. (2007) writes “Many rural schools find it hard to recruit and retain high quality teaching staff. ”

Restatement of the Purpose. According to Berkeley & Ludlow (2008), the ethical imperative is an ideal based upon an assumption that we must both do good and do good well (p. 3). However, the job of a rural school principal is both cumbersome and burdensome. One principal describes his disparate workload in this manner

You have to constantly be on the front foot. . . You try and keep up with what the Department wants, you have to watch your numbers [enrollments], you have to keep an ear to the ground to know what’s happening in the community that might spill over into the school, and you have to watch how staff in the school are faring with pressures to do as much as a large school does. It’s a juggling act that’s a lot about survival.

          (Starr & White, 2008, p. 6)

School leaders have the skills and experience to contribute to community leadership in rural communities, yet they are recruited for their school administrative skills and not for their community leadership skills (Zacharakis et al. , 2008).

Findings. It is possible for principals in rural schools to focus on three components which might assist them in having success in their endeavors (a) Legitimization of Alternatives, (b) Diverse Networks, and (c) Resource Mobilization.

Legitimization of Alternatives focuses on the value of constructive controversy so that communities can engage in discussions around inclusive processes, without the political nature of those discussions becoming personal (Willin & Reimer, 2008). As a consequence Willin & Reimer (2008) write, superficial harmony and destructive conflict are replaced with processes that encourage dialogue and thoughtful decision making. Such alternatives are legitimized and valued, therefore continuous improvement occurs as goals are monitored and assessed (Wallin & Reimer, 2008).

Diverse Networks involve establishing horizontal and vertical networks to access potential sources of experience and knowledge (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Diverse networks are diverse and inclusive and are created through both broad-based and personal invitations (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Horizontal networks are teachers, administrators, staff, trustees, the school and the community. Vertical networks are individuals linked to regional, provincial, and national organizations (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). Such networks are diverse, can change and grow or narrow, depending on the issue at hand.

Resource mobilization speaks to the need to develop surplus in the community through private and collective local investments (Wallin & Reimer, 2008). According to Wallin & Reimer (2008), there is an equal distribution of resources and individuals or groups are encouraged to take risks to improve the community. These resources are available to everyone with the criteria being clear and visible to all.

Further findings indicate that principals are also community leaders who make significant contribution to local community and economic development activities (Zacharakis et al. , 2008). It is concluded, therefore, that leaders should be developed from within. As such, local leadership should include professional development training and support for principals to attend workshops and national conferences (Zacharakis et al. , 2008).

The professional role and responsibility of rural school principals receive a vast amount of guidance through the use of ethical guidelines as well as examples from real world practice (Rude & Whetstone, 2008). It would unethical for a principal to assume a role or responsibility for which he or she is not qualified. Once professional development is implemented utilizing the right training, it can produce the desired results (Rude & Whetstone, 2008).

Conclusions

Small rural principals spend a substantial amount of their time teaching. They “face multiple conflicting work demands in ways that far exceed those of their non-rural peers” (Starr & White, 2008, p. 6). Further, Starr & White (2008) write, the necessity of teaching multi-grade and ability levels concurrently and the absence of personnel, such as an assistant principal, business manager, specialist teacher, student counselor, and maintenance staff, make the principal’s more labor intensive. Younker (2008) writes, “one of the many joys of teaching in a rural school used to be the amount of contact [he] could have with the students in [his] class whom [he] saw as people, not statistical variations” (p. 13). Principals need to get back to developing one-to-one relationships with their students and not treat their students as wedges on pie charts.

It is necessary that participants from all levels of the school district participate in collaborative efforts. Combining the leadership of “principals, school councils, and education department officers enables schools to engage future scenario planning, to share expertise, and to devise combined strategic plans to affect community educational provision—including making decisions about what is educationally viable and what is not” (Starr & White, 2008, pp. 8-9). Educational capacity and community development should be co-mingled so that sustainability replaces fear about school closures. Further, distance learning opportunities allow the use of broad curriculums and enable the transmission of lessons to students and parents (Starr & White, 2008). In this regard, all rural communities will benefit if everyone come together to present ideas which can solve this dilemma.

Authors Rude & Whetstone (2008) put it all together in this writing

The challenges facing educational communities today are as sacred in their importance as they are difficult to undergo. It is up to ethical leaders in rural communities that are far away from the mainstream of urban life to take a piece of the mess and not wait for higher authorities to figure out the answers. Those who do not see the significant benefits of adaptive changes that benefit the school and community as a whole, to the point where they simply cannot or will not go along with the change will become casualties. Ethical leaders are willing to accept these casualties as a result of courage and commitment to ethical change based on moral purpose (p. 16).

Recommends for Further Study. It is recommended, as a result of this study, that federal and state government fund further investigation into small rural school principals (Starr & White, 2008). That they encourage new forms of resource allocation, and maintain an equal distribution leadership in all schools. Further, that government and state officials invest in the future of our schools by rewarding principals who work over and above the call of duty to maintain schools whose doors can now remain open. “Rural research is essential because rural schools often face serious economic and community resource constraints that place rural students at risk for low motivation and lack of school success” (Hardré et al. , 2007).

References

Anonymous. (2007). Study: rural students better in science. Techniques, 82(6), p. 59.

Berkeley, T. R. , & Ludlow, B. L. (2007). Ethical dilemmas in rural special education: a call for a conversation about the ethics of practice. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1/2), pp. 3-9.

Cruzeiro, P. A. , & Morgan, R. L. (2006). The rural principal’s role with consideration for special education. Education, 126(3), pp. 569-579.

Hardré, P. L. , Crowson, H. M. , Debacker, T. K. , & White, D. (2007). Predicting the academic motivation of rural high school students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 75(4), pp. 247-269.

Patterson, J. A. , Koenigs, A. , Mohn, G. , & Rasmussen, C. (2005). Working against ourselves: decision making in a small rural school district. Journal of Educational Administration, 44(2), pp. 142-158.

Rude, H. A. , & Whetstone, P. J. (2008). Ethical considerations for special educators in rural America. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(1/2), pp. 10-18.

Starr, K. , & White, S. (2008). The small rural school principalship: key challenges and cross-school responses. Journal of Research in Rural Education, 23(5), pp. 1-12.

Wallin, D. C. , & Reimer, L. (2008). Educational priorities and capacity: a rural perspective. Canadian Journal of Education, 31(3), pp. 591-613.

Wright, K. A. (2007). Reenergizing small communities: a vital role for rural schools. The Educational Forum, 71(4), pp. 345-360.

Younker, K. (2008). Our mandate as teachers in a democracy. English Journal, 97(5), pp. 13-14.

Zacharakis, J. , Devin, M. , & Miller, T. (2008). Political economy of rural schools in the heartland. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(3), pp. 16-22.

  

Introduction:

              Due to the decline in the quality of public education in Texas, state lawmakers passed legislation in 1995. The new law permitted the opening and implementation of charter schools. These new charters schools encourage and support innovative teaching for a variety of learning styles, improve the achievement of students, and provide options within the public school system (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). Prior to the new legislation, there was no opportunity for choice within the public school system with regard to a child’s education, and children attended school according to their zip code. That deficiency began to change when the first charter school in Texas opened in the fall of 1996.

The Texas Education Agency (TEA) reports that the “first generation” of charters consisted of 17 schools and had a collective population of 2,412 students. Legislation initially limited open-enrollment charters to 20 schools; however, lawmakers increased the cap to 100 schools in 1997 and to 215 schools in 2001 (Story 2007, 1). As of 2007, Texas had one of the largest and most flexible charter school programs in the United States (Story 2007, 1). Currently, Texas charter schools serve over 113,000 students, an estimated two percent of all public school students.   Moreover, of those 113,000 students in charter schools, 80 percent are minority and 60 percent are economically disadvantaged students (Terry and Alexander 2008, 7).

Research Analysis-Lifting the Cap:

 The State of Texas currently has 210 active open-enrollment charter schools.   In addition, Texas will likely reach the cap of 215 open-enrollment charter schools by 2009. If the cap remains in place, many parents and children will be at a disadvantage, unable to choose the best quality education for their families. Many charter education supporters have and will continue to push for greater parental control and increased accountability with an emphasis on improved public relations. However, these supporters encounter a lot of resistance, because opponents see charter schools as competition to the public schools.  Consequently, increased restrictions and mandates stifle charter school growth.

 If the Texas government and the education policy stakeholders review the statistical findings and evaluate the impact of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas, they will find a clear picture of the positive outcomes charter schools provide. It becomes apparent through the examination of the economic and social factors of open-enrollment charter schools that lifting the cap on the number of open-enrollment charter schools in Texas would be beneficial to the current public school system.  

            Contrary to common public perception, charter schools are public schools.   Similar to public schools, charter schools cannot charge tuition according to state law. However, “charter schools have a significant amount of autonomy and are free to be innovative in educational and administrative practices,” as stated on the Resource Center for Charter Schools (Technology Help for Administrators 2008).   Before a charter school in Texas breaks ground, the entity must submit a proposal, similar to a business proposal, for approval, which typically includes a mission statement, a philosophy and a vision. Furthermore, the proposal provides information regarding basic logistics, including class size, number of school days and hours, the programs that will service students and a projected budget. On many occasions, charter schools seek the help of outside agencies to provide guidance, classroom modeling, in-house training, and resources in order to assist in achieving the mission. For example, an open-enrollment charter school in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania used a research based program / agency from San Francisco, California called the “Developmental Studies Center” (DSC). The DSC trained the faculty, provided resources and provided ongoing support in order to achieve the school’s mission and goal. In fact, the school bases its philosophy on a democratic model that gives students a voice, which promotes and fosters the students’ academic, social, and emotional growth. Significantly, this school recognizes the existence of multiple intelligences and diverse learning styles. One program that addresses the choice of students and multiple intelligences is the choice of electives for all of the student population once a week. They also incorporate a “service learning program” to assist in molding stewards of the community (Service Learning Programs, 2008).

Similarly, in Houston, Texas, “KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program) Academy Houston,” whose mission is to “help. . . students develop academic skills, intellectual habits, and qualities of character necessary to succeed in high school, college, and the competitive world beyond” is a very successful charter school that services grades 5-8 (U. S. Department of Education 2008).   Texas recognized it as an “exemplary school” every year since 1996, and the U. S. Department of Education recognized it as a “Blue Ribbon” school. The dedication of its teachers and administrators, including being on call by way of cell phone 24/7 to address the academic needs of students led to this success of the charter school (U. S. Department of Education 2008).   This innovative dedication would not be something conducive to the public school sector.   In view of the fact that employees of mainstream public schools, are subject to collective bargaining and union contracts, have set hours and specific responsibilities in their contracts and do not deviate from them.

By employing the flexibility of the charter program and by working outside the traditional eight hours of instructional time for students, the American Youth Works in Austin, Texas is a charter school that is able to better focus on the unique needs of its students. The school allows students half a day to pursue employment opportunities, to participate in work study programs or to take care of family members, including the students’ own children. The school requires the students to fulfill only four hours of traditional instructional time in order to accommodate the individual’s life experience (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4).

Other charter schools may extend the school day in order to improve academic achievement or may extend the school year to expose the students to supplemental material and expanded learning. Equally important, a mission aimed at addressing the varied learning styles through the theory of multiple intelligences may be the goal of another charter school. There are even charter schools that focus on the arts, architecture and design, leadership, and literacy. Charter schools generally do not fit the traditional model of the mainstream public school; instead, they find ways to educate children and stimulate learning based on innovative ideas and strategies.

When a charter is operating, the entity will receive direct funding from the state and the federal government. However, charters do not receive funding for their facilities, so it is up to the charter school to raise money, solicit donations, apply for startup grants from the federal government or choose to borrow from private lenders (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5).

Terry states, in a “GO San Angelo” article, that charter schools may not charge tuition, teach religion, discriminate, or cherry-pick students (Terry 2008, 1). To elaborate, if a charter school encourages families to volunteer 20 hours of their time to help with various needs of the school such as painting, helping in the classroom, making packets, cleaning, etc. , the school cannot in any way enforce this as a “requirement. ” If a family is penalized in any way, such as a student being removed from school for incompletion of hours, it would be considered payment for education. Moreover, charter schools may not discriminate in the enrollment of students or cherry-pick, select a student based on academic performance, behavior, or other preferential selection, its admissions. .

Charter schools require different regulations compared to traditional public schools (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). An example is that charter schools, as opposed to mainstream public schools, require teachers to provide parents and guardians of students in their school with a written notice of their qualifications. Another example of the differences in regulation is under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Federal Regulation Part 300, which reauthorizes the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). Originally, law required charter schools to provide and complete academic testing for a child within 60 school days from the date of a request from a parent or guardian, while it required traditional public schools to provide and complete the same within 60 calendar days.   Under the reauthorization, the requirement changed to 60 school days for both public and charter schools. Before this became universal for both mainstream public and charter schools, it was a disadvantage for the charter schools to adhere to the time restraint because it was more difficult in terms of the high cost of academic testing and limited funding.

To be sure, accountability is universal for district public schools and charter schools, as the pressure of No Child Left Behind impacts both sectors of education. Both are required to administer standardized tests, and all students must test at their current grade level rather than their level of ability. For instance, an eighth grader who is reading at a third grade level must take the eighth grade reading standardized test.

According to the article “Texas Charter Schools: An Assessment in 2005″, produced by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, “when student performance is evaluated on the basis of test scores, students in Texas charter schools perform on the average lower than do students in traditional public schools. However, when changes in test scores are used to judge performance, academic gains by charter school students can be demonstrated” (Patterson 2005, 5). This means that even though some charter school students’ performance does not exceed the performance of traditional public schools according to standardized test results, the students are individually making better academic progress in the charter schools. In addition, because most charter schools typically specialize in helping disadvantaged youth, many students in charter schools identify as an at-risk population for dropping out of school and come from low income homes which could hinder their test performance (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). Accordingly, basing decisions of success on standardized test scores is an unfair assessment of charter school performance.

Currently, the government enforces some regulation on charter schools that forces them to shut down if they have two consecutive years of undesirable performance, which typically measures by standardized test scores. This is harsher and inequitable compared to the five years allowed for the mainstream public school districts (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). For example, a charter school may be able to improve a fifth grade student whose reading level is equivalent to third grade but still fail with unacceptable performance because the student failed the fifth grade Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test reading section (Terry and Alexander 2008, 1).

During the 2007-2008 school years, 113,760 students enrolled in charter schools in Texas, and an estimated 16,810 students were on a waiting list (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). Houston’s regional charter school’s waiting list was the largest at 7,415 students; coming in second was the Dallas / Fort Worth region at 5,896 students, and Rio Grand Valley had 2,110 students.   Furthermore, the Austin region had a waiting list of 623; the Corpus Christi region had a waiting list of 159; and the San Antonio region had a waiting list of 488 students (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). According to Robelen, since these numbers stem from a survey in which only half of the schools participated, the actual number of students on a waiting list for charter schools in Texas is likely higher (Robelen 2008, 1).

The large number of students on the waiting lists for charter school enrollment demonstrates the significant demand for educational options, which is the fundamental purpose of the legislation for charter schools. The rapidly growing number of students on waiting lists demonstrates the need for lawmakers to lift the cap limiting the number of charter schools in Texas.   When a charter school has more applicants than they can allow, an enrollment lottery determines which students will be attending the upcoming school year.   Terry asks readers to “imagine parents, whose child is trapped in a low-performing public school, crying for joy that their child is randomly selected to attend a school with a track record of serving at-risk students with innovative strategies” (Terry 2008, 1). On the other hand, one can imagine the cries of a parent whose child is a student in a low-performing public school when their child looses the enrollment lottery.  

There are four different types of charter schools: open-enrollment charters, district charters, university charters, and home-rule district charters. Open-enrollment charter schools service the largest population, 89,156 students as of the 2007-2008 school year. Open-enrollment charters are by definition independent school units and can have multiple campuses. The school district operates the district charter schools that consisted of 23,275 students in the 2007-2008 school years. University charters are generally in operation at public senior university or college and consisted of 1,329 students attending 19 different university charter schools in 2007-2008. Furthermore, a home-rule charter means districts have the ability to convert into charter school status which includes an extensive voting process. There is no cap on the number of district charters; however, there are no home-rule charter schools operating in Texas (Terry and Alexander 2008, 3).

Open enrollment charter schools do not drain financial resources from mainstream public schools because they do not receive state funding. In fact, the excess money in the state education budget applies to the student’s home district and the neighboring school where the child resides. For example, in the 2005-2006 school year, the cost per student in Texas was $9,629; charter schools were given approximately $1,500 less per student (Terry and Alexander, 2008a, 1). Thus, operating a charter school saves the district money in educating a child because charter schools expend less money per child.

Because charter schools receive less money per student compared to mainstream school districts in Texas, it is necessary for charter schools to incorporate fund raising into their fiscal plans. Moreover, charter school fundraising brings more dollars into the public sector.   According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, in Illinois the total of public and private funding for charter schools brought in a total of $11 million dollars to help educate the youth. In addition, charter schools introduce new resources into public education. Grants provide funds designed for charter schools phases such as, planning, development, and initial implementation which are not available to the public school system if charter schools were not in existence (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

It is incorrect for the districts in Texas to believe that charter schools negatively impact their bottom line or hinder their budgetary plan. In the event of the opening of a new charter school, the state provides the district with short term financial aids in order to prevent an impact on the school district revenue (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008). Because charter schools typically enroll a diverse student body with a variety of characteristics, the fiscal impact is a factor of enrollment only (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008). In addition, public and charter schools receive a percentage of money for students with disabilities; therefore, the public district receives an even higher amount than the $1,500 per special education student.   Finally, socioeconomic factors dictate funding for individual students and services offered (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

Districts can easily reduce expenses to adapt to charter schools. The National Alliance for Charter Schools, reports that school districts can often adjust to student enrollment fluctuations-where there may be some key adjustments the first year, the following years have little to no impact on the school district (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).    The National Alliance for Charter Schools also believes that if a charter school is thriving, and the district cannot adjust to the fluctuation in enrollment, it is likely due to the district’s own failed policies and rules (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

Charter schools in Texas increase the employment of teachers in the district as well. Many teachers struggle to obtain a teaching position once they graduate and charter schools open the doors for many of these qualified teachers to find a job in education. The state law only requires teachers to be state certified to work in a charter school if they specialize in special education or bilingual education (Terry and Alexander 2008a, 6). The state government in Texas does not require charter schools to employ certified teachers, but many choose to do so, especially with the shortage of teaching opportunities. Story supports this by stating statistics that show charter schools employ 26 percent of new teachers in the field compared to traditional public schools, which employ a mere 7 percent respectively (Story 2007, 3). In addition, charter schools can impact the traditional school district in a positive way by reducing the need for districts to hire new teachers by eliminating overcrowding, which reduces the average cost of hiring and training a new teacher, estimated to be about $8,000 per teacher (The National Alliance for Charter Schools 2008).  

The impact of charter schools in the community’s economic and social growth is rapidly increasing. As stated earlier, charter schools do not receive funding for facilities from the state, however the districts that have charters schools receive and excess of approximately $1,500 per student that attends a charter school.  Therefore, without the funding for a facility, charter schools renovate, remodel and/or rehabilitate existing property within a community in order to accommodate students. Having a charter school residing in a neighborhood has the potential to generate tax revenue and increase the value of real estate (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools 2008).

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools also suggests that if charter schools are successful in educating students, it can reduce the dropout rate in high schools and increase college admissions and graduates. Texas seems to have a high dropout rate, and those students who graduate do not have the communication and math skills necessary for college and require remedial math and reading programs to qualify for admission to college (Terry and Alexander 2008, 4). One of the most successful schools in Texas is a charter school that reduced their dropout rates dramatically under the direction of the mission of their charter.

 These charter schools often provide a safe haven for youth by providing aftercare and tutoring. Importantly, charter schools often give communities a sense of pride. Many charter schools offer Boy Scouts of America, sports, and other programs in order to facilitate teambuilding, self esteem, and help foster a sense of community, and growth in a child. Some charter schools open their doors for tutoring and mentoring on Saturdays to offer extra assistance as well as a safe setting for young learners. However, these programs are uncommon in the traditional public school district setting mostly because of the contract and collective bargaining processes of the districts. Charter schools have the ability to add the extra touches that impact students without the political constraints that traditional district schools face.

            While charter schools do not seem like they would pose a significant threat to the financial operations of the public school system in Texas, there are some risks associated with the existence of charter schools. Because most charter schools operate like a business, there is a risk of misappropriation and improper allocation of funds. In addition, misconduct of administrators, teachers, and entities involved with a particular charter school could lead to a negative reputation of charter schools as a whole. However, limiting the number of charter schools based on isolated incidents of illegal activity, inappropriate behavior or misuse of power could prove to be harmful to the education system. Misconduct can develop in any entity, including public school districts.

            Research shows that students from a traditional public school who attend charter schools for a period of two or three years improve more rapidly than students in the traditional public school district (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). Not using a growth based system to measure the amount of growth, a student is able to obtain in the course of a year in the state accountability system is causing charter school to seem deficient (Terry and Alexander 2008, 5). Research from the “Texas Charter Schools: An Assessment in 2005″ produced by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, shows that students who left traditional public schools to attend charter schools performed better on average than they would have if they were still attending the traditional public school (Patterson 2004, 32). Thus, the correlation of charter schools and student achievement is significant, and students will benefit from the removal of the charter school cap in Texas.

            Charter schools provide competition with the mainstream district schools which provides an unwanted positive impact on the district schools. It forces district schools to exhibit more accountability of staff and teachers and puts pressure on them to increase student performance. If the schools are functioning at low levels, parents or guardians will feel the need to remove their child from the district school by applying to a charter school. If lawmakers remove the cap and more options are available to parents and guardians, more choices for education will be accessible to students and parents. In addition, the competition between charter schools and public schools will cause school districts to increase their overall academic performance.

            Patterson asserts the bottom line for charter schools in Texas as follows:

Charter schools are a valuable alternative to traditional public schools (Patterson 2005, 1).

Charters are especially effective with disadvantaged students (Patterson 2005, 1).

Charters challenge traditional public schools to improve student performance (Patterson 2005, 1).

 Charters do a better job with high school students and alternative education programs (Patterson 2005, 1).

 

Conclusion:

The benefits a charter school can provide to the district public schools, parents, students, and the community significantly outweighs any negative impact charters may cause. The Texas legislature should eliminate the cap of 215 charter schools which prevents charter schools to operate in a free market (Terry and Alexander, 2008, 1). The 16,810 or more students on the waiting lists for charter schools prove the demand for charter schools. This demand, viewed in light of the current issues facing traditional public schools, proves that charter schools are working well in improving the quality of education. Many education analysts believe that the quality of a charter school education will increase overtime. Unless this demand meets the supply, tens of thousands of students will remain in an environment that may not promote academic, emotional or social growth. Equally important, these students will not thrive in their current placement and could regress to the extent of becoming an at-risk youth who could potentially drop out of high school, leading to a grim future. This proposed reform of lifting the cap could be an immense opportunity for Texas to become a leader in the charter school movement. The Texas public school system could stop the increase of real estate taxes to invest money in failing districts and make the choice to provide additional educational resources for the children of the state.

            The bureaucracy that places a barrier to student learning and student performance is unconscionable. A simple solution to the education crisis Texas is facing would be to lift the cap while continuing to monitor all educational institutions. It is in the best interests of the child to allow parents and guardians to make the choice of where their child should attend school to get the best free, appropriate public education possible. The main purpose of the charter school legislation in 1995 was to give that choice to Texas citizens. That freedom no longer exists for thousands of citizens in Texas because of the cap on charter schools. Given the overwhelming evidence that charter schools are socioeconomically beneficial, lawmakers in Texas should increase or remove the cap altogether and make charter schools available to all of its citizens in 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

CHARTER SCHOOLS: PASSING OR FAILING?

 

 

 

 

Charter Schools: Passing or Failing
Patti Bonner

Strayer University, Summer 2008

 

Abstract

This study’s objective was to Research of a “choice” school that operates under a performance contract which details specifics as the school’s mission, program, goals, demographics of the students served, methods of assessment, and ways to assess success. Such educational arrangements are known as charter schools, which are publicly funded schools that have greater accountability for academic assessment and fiscal practices, while receiving more independence and experiencing fewer regulations than traditional public schools. Research shows that there is a fair amount of success with this type of contractual education, and that a fair amount of issues accompany the success, such as fluctuating changes in student performance that are immeasurable by test scores. Another issue with the contractual educational facilities that is heating up in recent months is the conflict that arises between this type of learning environment versus the traditional public school system. This paper examines differing authorities in an attempt to determine whether charter schools are achieving their intended missions, or falling short of their goals – the verdict of this author’s research is that the structure is conducive to innovative practices, although the overall end results demonstrated by charter schools does not measure up to their tangible and intangible costs.

 

Charter Schools: Passing or Failing

This study into the report card of charter schools in the United States will attempt to decide whether this mode of education is more or less successful in the quest of education.   The unique research covered in this study represents the most recent journal articles that are related to these public schools that are operated independently of the local school board. Charter schools being unique in that they differ in various degrees from the curriculum and educational philosophy of other schools in the same system, they can also take the form of experimental public schools for mainly primary, but some secondary, education.

Charter schools do not charge tuition and frequently have lottery based admissions. They, therefore, provide an alternative to public schools, oftentimes offering a curriculum that specializes in a certain field– e. g. arts, mathematics, etc. Others simply seek to provide a better and more efficient general education than nearby public schools.

Public school funding in the United States is not a product of intelligent design. Funding programs have grown willy-nilly based on political entrepreneurship, interest group pressure, and intergovernmental competition. Consequently, now that Americans feel the need to educate all children to high standards, no one knows for sure how money is used or how it might be used more effectively (Hill, 2008).

 

These institutions are also exclusive in that some are created and organized by teachers and or parents and or community leaders, in a totally autonomous school environment, while others are state-run charters that are unaffiliated with local school districts and founded by non-profits such as universities and government entities that may appear in clusters across a geographic area.

The term “charter” possibly originated in the 1970s when Ray Budde, a New England university professor, suggested that small groups of teachers be given contracts or “charters” by their local school boards to discover new approaches to education. Albert Shanker, former president of the American Federation of Teachers, then publicized the idea, suggesting that local boards could charter an entire school with union and teacher approval. One of the first charter schools was a well-known institution called the H-B Woodlawn Program, as a part of the educational movements that fueled such innovative education in the 1960s and 1970s, it was established to provide a more individualized and caring environment to students.

As they were originally envisioned, the ideal model of a charter school appeared as a legally and financially autonomous public school – void of tuition, religious affiliation, or discriminatory student admissions. Charter schools were also foreseen to operate much like a private business.   In the business sense of being free from many state laws and district regulations, the charter-school beginnings grew on the premise that they were more accountable for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs that were believed to be enhanced through stipulations such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements.

The charter school movement has roots in a number of other reform ideas, including:

alternative schools site-based management magnet schools public school choice privatization community-parental empowerment

 

In the late 1980s Philadelphia started a number of schools-within-schools and called them “charters. ” Some of them were schools of choice. The idea was further refined in Minnesota where charter schools were developed according to three basic values: opportunity, choice, and responsibility for results.

In 1991 Minnesota passed the first charter school law, with California following suit in 1992. By 1995, 19 states had signed laws allowing for the creation of charter schools, and by 2003 that number increased to 40 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. From 1997 to 2006 the number of charters in the US grew from 693 to 3,977. Perhaps surprisingly, given this growth, previous work has found mixed evidence on the impacts of charter schools on student performance. However, these studies focus almost exclusively on test scores as the outcome of interest. Thus, one potential explanation for this discrepancy is that charter schools affect student performance in ways that cannot be measured by test scores.

The charter school data is gathered at least annually, collected by mostly independent groups, is largely captured by survey. The U. S. Charter Schools Organization is said to statistics that consist of information related to size, scope, demographics (Figure 1), operations, and management of public charter schools (Charter schools data, n. d. ).

It is because of conflicting and diverse initial findings that this research is important to the author’s personal curiosity. On one hand, the appeal of fresh, new approaches to teaching and learning is the stimulus for continued education. On the other hand, a constant vigil over money and test scores to prove the worth of the methodology defeats the main purpose of acting as vehicle for education. The analysis of a sampling of literature is expected to illuminate the more constant and logical explanation of the evidence examined.

Opportunity

In this paper new, longitudinal data from an anonymous large urban school district is used to assess how charter schools affect student discipline, attendance, and retention; these are compared to test score impacts. Using individual fixed-effects analyses shows that schools which begin as charters generate improvements in student behavior and attendance but not test scores. Charters that convert from regular public schools have mixed effects on test scores. While there is evidence of selection into charter schools based on changes in outcomes, these results change little after applying intermittent panel strategies. Finally, there is little evidence that charter schools generate long-term benefits if students return to non-charter schools.

A report prepared by the Center for Education Reform in 2006 states the opportunity posed by charter schools well by saying, “when the charter school concept was born in the days prior to the advent of The No Child Left Behind Act, the bargain was freedom in exchange for accountability” (CER, 2006). As an educational watchdog for learning and teaching communities, the CER felt that charter schools were a chance to try to provide a tailored education to some students through a more micro-managed, yet opportunistic, educational environment and respond to needs expressed by parents, students, and communities (including the teaching community).

According to the National Education Association (NEA), for-profit charter schools rarely outperform traditional public schools, even when the charter receives higher funding. Although the U. S. Department of Education’s findings agree with those of the NEA, their study points out the limitations of such studies and the inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that “study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools” (NEA, 1998).

Choice

Counselor interviews, professional journals, litigation, and the most recent data and statistics on the subject of charter schools is evidence that is examined at the primary and secondary levels of education. Many of the inherent organizational challenges found therein, are to be analyzed for themes that are perpendicular and those that are parallel.   Earlier reviews on the topic has used the words perverse and “spectacle of fear” to describe charter schools in their failing and miserable attempts to reform the contemporary schools under the guise of the 2002 No Child Left Behind ideal (Granger, 2008). In only a few of the sources consulted in this study has this harsh language been used to describe the effects of charter schooling.   The majority of the literary sources have been supportive of the innovation that is placed in those type of schools.

It is the latter positive contributions consulted in this paper, which convinced the writer to theorize that charter schools are one of the fastest growing innovations in education policy because they have a tendency to invoke a positive learning outcome in their students. Broad bipartisan support from governors, state legislators, and past and present secretaries of education contribute to the solidarity of this concept and the general research opinion. In his 1997 State of the Union Address, former President Clinton called for the creation of 3,000 charter schools by the year 2002. In 2002, President Bush called for $200 million to support charter schools. His proposed budget called for another $100 million for a new Credit Enhancement for Charter Schools Facilities Program. Since 1994, the U. S. Department of Education has provided grants to support states’ charter school efforts, starting with $6 million in fiscal year 1995.

Another point of kudos for the charter school system that was evident through this research was the issue of the choice processes that charter students have at their disposal that public schools make available only on a limited and or unobservable basis. Substantiation of these alternatives and support that are more-readily made available to charter school students was noted in a report on the charter school counseling by Stanton-Salazar & Dornbusch (1995) and mentioned in a professional high school journal article entitled, “College Counseling in Charter High Schools: Examining the Opportunities and Challenges”. (Farmer-Hinton & McCullough, 2008). The schools’ staff generally promotes college as a normal and viable postsecondary choice that is communicated through the charter schools counselors’ open relationship with their students.

Responsibility for Results

The mere premise of a charter school is to exhibit results in many major areas. Through the research of this paper, it is evidenced that the charter schools are displaying a great deal of positive results with respect to the subject areas listed in most of their legal charters. The original thesis was that the cost of these results versus the benefit of their results was questionable. During this research, only one professional article was readily available to discuss this particular subject, although there are many legal causes, some are mentioned in this writing, that indicate that this is a huge concern with the public, as well.

There is an important consideration when drafting or revising the legislation for a charter school, however, that addresses “whether to include an appeals process for organizers whose initial proposals are rejected” (The Charter School Roadmap, 1998). Many of these are shown in a report (Table 1) that tracks the variables of applicants within established guidelines.

Many states have seen the concept of charter schools in their state supreme courts on mostly monetary issues, but a unique case of the governing authority over a charter school application for its charter was heard in Beaufort County Board of Education v. Lighthouse Charter School Committee, et al. (1999).   This case went a long way towards resolving many of the issues surrounding charter schools in the state of South Carolina. “The Court’s decision made it clear that a local school board has the authority, under the S. C. Charter Schools Act of 1996, to require a charter school applicant to comply with the Act’s provisions before a charter is approved and, once the local board makes a decision concerning a charter school applicant, the local board’s decision must be upheld by the State Department of Education if that decision is supported by substantial evidence on the record” (Duff, White & Turner, LLC, 1999).

Presidential mandates are indicative of the popularity of charter-school types with the constituents and the general public at large. “In the end, school improvement is accomplished through the hard work of school staff, with administrative and parent support” (NEA, 1998) – stated exactly as a common knowledge and belief to the author of this research.

The results of the literature consulted and cited in this paper have been found to emphasize the original theory that the overall benefits produced by charter schools are almost equal to, if they don’t exceed, the cost that is incurred. The fact that this paradigm exists is not believed to be intentional, but rather more of an undefined direction for charter schools and an existing incompetence at truly managing a budget.

Previous research, although truly controversial, was not found to reveal a huge imbalance of the overall end results as opposed to the cost of such at present.   Charter schools were found financially unaccountable, whereby their products outweigh the sum of their tangible and intangible costs, by only one professional review. The research of this independent review was even concluded with the following, “recent three initiatives – an R&D intermediary, using charters as the point of the lance, and creation of a level playing field for competition – could set off a wave of innovation and escalating school performance. This, in turn, could tell Americans what they need to spend for effective schools” (Hill, 2008).

This lack of professional review to the contrary is not believed to be a limitation, yet an indication that the concept of the charter schools is a sound one that is being refined into a more efficient and effective educational environment. Therefore, the conclusion of this research is found to be that the charter schools are passing on their score card – marginally, at present, but they are expected to become better stewards of their funds and expenses in the future, thus increasing their passing score.

 

References

Charter School Closures: An Opportunity for Accountability. (2006, February). Center for Education Reform.

Charter schools data. (n. d. ). USCharterSchools. org. Retrieved July 21, 2008, from http://www. uscharterschools. org

The Charter School Roadmap. (1998, September). Department of Education. Retrieved August 30, 2008, from http://www. ed. gov/pubs/Roadmap/index. html .

Duff, White & Turner, LLC. (1999). S. C. Supreme Court Decision On Charter Schools. FindLaw. Retrieved August 29, 2008, from http://library. findlaw. com/1999/Jul/1/126674. html .

Farmer-Hinton, R. , & McCullough, R. (2008, April). College Counseling in Charter High Schools: Examining the Opportunities and Challenges. High School Journal, 91(4), 77-90. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Granger, D. (2008, May). No Child Left Behind and the Spectacle of Failing Schools: The Mythology of Contemporary School Reform. Educational Studies, 43(3), 206-228. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Hill, P. (2008, April). Spending Money When It Is Not Clear What Works. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 83(2), 238-258. Retrieved July 27, 2008, from Academic Search Premier database.

Imberman, S. A. (2007).   Achievement and Behavior in Charter Schools: Drawing a More Complete Picture.

National Education Association (1998, July). “For-Profit Management of Public Schools”. CorpWatch.

 

Table 1

State-by-State Analysis of Charter School Laws

Appeals and Approval

 

State

# of Schools/Students

Application

Appeals & Approval

School Limit

Student Limit

Eligible Operators

Sponsors

Appeals

Alaska

30 (limits are defined geographically)

None

Anyone; law does not specify

Local school board; subject to state school board approval

None

Arizona

25 SEA per year 25 charter board per year; no limit on local board-sponsored schools

None

Public body, private person or private organization

Local school board, state board of education or state charter school board

May apply to other sponsor

Arkansas

None

None

Existing public school

State board with approval of local board

None; SEA may request hearing but cannot overturn a decision

California

250 charter schools for the 1998-99 school year with an additional 100 charter schools per school year thereafter

None

Existing public schools; new start-ups; no private or home-based schools allowed

Local school board, county board of education, state board of education

May apply to other sponsor

Colorado

None

None

Anyone; no private or home schools

Local school board

None

Connecticut

24 schools (distinction between local and state and number in congressional district removed in 1997)

No state school can enroll more than 250 students or 25% of the district enrollment, whichever is less

Anyone; no private or home schools

Local or state school board

None

Delaware

No statewide limit, but limited five schools per year for the first three years

None; must serve at least 200 students (waiver for at-risk)

Any person, university, college or nonreligious, nonhome-based, nonsectarian entity

LEA or SEA (local board only for conversions)

None

District of Columbia

For FY97, 10 schools per board, for total of 20 schools per year

None

Anyone; no home schools

D. C Board or Education; Public Charter School Board

None

Florida

Limits defined according to district student enrollment; district may request cap waiver from State Board of Education

None

Anyone; no private or home schools; private schools may disband and reincorporate as charter school

LEA, state universities developmental research schools in consultation with local board

Appeal to SEA; District makes final decision

Georgia

None

None

Local school, private organization, or state or local public entity. No private or home schools.

SEA with LEA approval.

The state board may still grant a charter if the local school board does not approve of the application.

Hawaii

25

None

Existing public school

SEA

None

 

Idaho

Not more that 60 schools in the first five years; not more that 12 schools per year; not more than 2 schools within an educational classification region; not more that 1 school per district in a year. If fewer than 12 applications, the unused allotments shall be assigned to a statewide pool for other requesting districts with distribution to be determined by random drawing.

None

Any person. No private or home school; for profits cannot operate charter schools.

Local School Board

Appeal to a hearing officer selected by the start superintendent of public instruction. if the decision is not reversed, an appeal to the state board of education with sponsorship of the school under the state board of education.

Illinois

45 with distribution based on population

None

Teachers, administrators, local school councils, colleges or universities, public community colleges, corporations or other entities; no private or home schools

LEA with SEA review for compliance with law

Appeal to state board; recommendation is nonbinding

Kansas

15

None

Anyone; no private or home schools

LEA with SEA review for adherence to state laws, rules and regulations

None

Louisiana

42 (no more than 20 prior to February 1, 1998)

None

Three or more certified teachers alone or partnership with 10 or more citizens, public service organization, business or corporation, college or university, or faculty and staff of any city or parish or any LEA; no private of home schools

LEA or SEA depending on type of charter

 

None

Massachusetts

50 (13 of which must be Horace Mann conversion schools)

No more that 25% of the total number of students attending public schools in the state

A business, two or more teachers, 10 or more parents or others; no private or home schools

State secretary of education (Horace Mann schools also must be approved by local district and local collective bargaining agent)

None

Michigan

None; state university can sponsor 150 through 1999

None

Any person or entity

Local school board, intermediate school board, community college or state public university

None

Minnesota

None

None

One or more licensed teachers; no home schools

LEA, community colleges, state university, technical and private colleges; SEA must approve all schools

If local board denies application, and at least two members vote to sponsor, state may choose to sponsor

Mississippi

Six (one in each congressional district)

None

Existing public schools

SEA with approval by LEA in district where the charter is located

None

Nevada

21 (allocated based on county population); unlimited number serving at-risk students

None

At least three licensed teachers alone or in partnership with: 10 or more members of general public, organization devoted to serving the general public, private business or college or university; no private or home schools

LEA after receiving permission from SEA to solicit applications; charter also must be approved by SEA

None

New Hampshire

Five prior to 1/1/97; 10 per year through 1999; law defines geographical limitations

School districts may impose limits

Nonprofit organizations, two or more certified teachers, 10 or more parents; no nonpublic or home schools

LEA with state then granting or denying proposed contract

SEA which may then approve and grant charter

New Jersey

135 (12. 95-12/97) Minimum of three schools allocated to each county

No more than 500 students or 25% of student body of school district, whichever is less

Teachers and/or parents of public school children; higher education institutions and/or private entities may join teachers and parents; no private or home schools

Commissioner and local board or state superintendent in state-operated school district; commissioner has final authority

SEA within 30 days or

New Mexico

Five

None

Existing public schools

SEA

None

North Carolina

100 (five per district per year)

Charter must enroll 65 students and have at least three teachers (can request waiver in application with compelling reason)

Anyone; no home schools

SEA, LEA or state university; final approval by SEA

SEA which may approve charter

Ohio

20 start-ups in Lucas County; unlimited conversions in all school districts statewide; unlimited in “Big Eight” school districts

Schools must have minimum of 25 students

Anyone; no home schools

City, local, exempted village or joint vocational board of education; statewide SEA for Big Eight districts only; Lucas County Education Service Center and the University of Toledo in Lucas County only

None

Pennsylvania

None

None

Individual; one or more teachers who will teach at proposed school; parents or guardians of students who will attend school; any nonsectarian university or museum; any nonprofit, corporation, association, partnership or combination thereof; no private or home schools

LEA, two or more local boards may grant regional charter beginning in 1999-2000 school year

State Charter School Appeal Board (with 2% or 1,000 district resident signatures whichever is less after 7/1/99)

Rhode Island

20 (no more than 2 per district or four in districts with over 20,000 students)

No more than 6% of state’s school-age population

Existing public schools, groups of public school personnel or public school districts; no private or home schools

State board of regents with approval from commissioner of elementary and secondary education or LEA

None

South Carolina

None

None

Anyone; no home schools

LEA

SEA

Texas

120 SEA approved; unlimited local sponsored and at-risk

None

Public or private higher education institutions, nonprofit organizations, government entities, groups of parents or teachers; no home schools

LEA; SEA for open-enrollment charters

None

Utah

8 for a three year pilot program

None

An individual or group of individuals, including teachers and parents or guardians of students who will attend the school, or a not-for-profit legal entity organized under the laws of the state. No private or home schools.

State board of education. The local board will review the application and may offer suggestions or recommendations to which the state board shall give due consideration.  

None (final action subject to judicial review).

Virginia

The total number of schools shall not exceed ten percent of the school division’s total number of school, or two charter schools, whichever is greater.   Local school boards are authorized to limit the number of charter schools.

None

Any person, group or organization. No private or home schools.

Local school district.

None

Wisconsin

20 (10 districts may sponsor up to two schools each)

None

Anyone, but petition must be signed by 10% of teachers employed by district or 50% of teachers employed at one school; no private or home schools.

LEA applies to state superintendent for approval to sponsor; schools apply to local board; mayor can sponsor in Milwaukee

None (except in Milwaukee)

Wyoming

None

None

Anyone, but petition must be signed by 10% of the district’s teachers or 50% of the teachers in a school, and by 10% of parents of pupils in districts or 50% of parents of students in school; no private or home schools.

LEA

None

Appendix Table C. The Charter School Roadmap, September 1998.

 

Figure Captions

Figure 1.   Figure 1. Demographics of Profiled Charter Schools.   Data from Charter schools data, (n. d. ).

 

Figure 1. Demographics of Profiled Charter Schools

School and Location

Year First Chartered and Authorizer

Grades

Enrollment

Student Ethnicity

English Learners

Subsidized Meals

Special Needs

Per Pupil Spending

Distinctive Programs and Features

The Arts and Technology
Academy Public Charter School
Washington, D. C.

1998 Special charter school board

Pre-K-6

615

98% Afr. Am.
2% Other

0%

97%

7%

$8,650

Basic skills plus arts Extended day/year Mosaica national management affiliation

BASIS School, Inc. Tucson, Ariz.

1998 State

5-12

246

74% White 12% Hispanic
4% Afr. Am.
10% Asian Am.

1%

Not applicable

1%

$5,339

European academic tradition 12 of 30 courses qualify as Advanced Placement Only Arizona school to have scores above the 90th percentile on math SAT 9 in all grades

Community of Peace Academy St. Paul, Minn.

1995 Local district

K-12

546

70% Hmong
20% Afr. Am.
10% Hispanic, Eritrian, White, Vietnamese, & Am. Indian

75%

80%

10%

$10,355

Non-violent community focus and award-winning character education program High levels of support for English language learners Looping to build relationships and support

KIPP Academy Houston Houston, Texas

1994 State

5-8

346

77% Hispanic
21% Afr. Am.
2% Asian Am. & White

8%

86%

5%

$8,670

KIPP, Inc. national college prep program Extended day/year 85% of students enter college; 94% are first-generation college students

Oglethorpe Charter School Savannah, Ga.

1998 Local district

6-8

319

51% White
38% Afr. Am.
4% Asian Am.
3% Hispanic
4% Other

0%

20%

5%

$6,000

Parent contract to donate 20 hours a year Core Knowledge curriculum Character education focus

Ralph A. Gates Elementary School
Lake Forest, Calif. (Los Angeles Basin)

1999 Local district

K-6

850

72% Hispanic
22% White
2% Asian Am.
2% Filipino
1% Afr. Am.
1% Multi-racial

44%

63%

5%

$5,367

School facility houses two-way Spanish-English immersion charter program for 43% of students Multiple language programs during and after school for students and parents Regrouping across classes and grades for reading and math

Roxbury Preparatory Charter School Boston, Mass.

1999 State

6-8

180

80% Afr. Am.
20% Hispanic

0%

56%

7%

$12,910

66% of students enter below grade level; 100% continue in college prep high schools Mandated homework support, Saturday school, summer school for poor grades Curriculum developed by staff based on student performance on school comprehensive exams

The School of Arts and Sciences Tallahassee, Fla.

1999 Local district

K-8

226

62% White
22% Afr. Am.
6% Hispanic
3% Asian Am.
7% Multi-racial

2%

19%

22%

$5,750

Multi-age classrooms, looping Developmental, project-based approach No grades; student portfolios

 

 

 

 

In an era where the mediums of communication are constantly changing, where does a small business owner go in order to maximize their advertising expenditures and turn it into revenue?

There are traditional mediums such as television, radio, newspaper, and the yellow pages. There is an emerging medium that many of you may have heard of, it is called the internet! The internet is a medium that is in fact less time consuming and less costly than most traditional methods.

TV Advertise

This type of business enterprise may not be terribly costly, but it may eat up a lot of time. Before going ahead and having the commercial produced, it would be best to call the local television station and ask what their going rate is to advertise your driving school.

Radio

It all depends on your municipality and the size of the market you wish to reach to advertise your driving school. If your goal is to only solicit your local area, the cost will be greatly reduced.

Internet

This medium is the fastest growing industry in the history of mankind. Surprisingly, many forms of promoting your business are not as costly as you would think. All of the methods mentioned below are not described in detail simply because this is an article, not a book!

• Priority Listings – There are umpteen websites on the internet that will give your business a priority listing for a fee. Be sure that the site you choose has relevant users to your industry, otherwise you may be paying for a priority listing on a site that does not have the clientele you are looking for.

• Website Development – A quality website that can be navigated easily is a great advertising tool. The key to marketing with a website is to make sure that the site can be found. This can be done through SEO (Search Engine Optimization) strategies, PPC (Pay per click) advertising, and directory submissions.

• Social Networking – Sites such as Facebook and twitter are used for more than just socializing. Many successful companies have used these tools to generate quite large followings of potential prospects using these methods.

• Free Classifieds – This form of marketing is quick and effective. Make sure to find a classified site that is relevant in your municipality. A well written ad can generate a lot of inquiries for your business.