Charter School Innovations Replicated in Public Schools

You asked what the experience is in Connecticut or in other states in applying programs and practices found successful in charter schools to regular public schools.

It appears that charter schools have so far had only a limited effect on the regular public schools in their districts. Although several studies have looked at whether and how regular public schools respond to charter schools and whether they have implemented successful charter school programs, most recent research shows a mixed picture. Some school districts have adopted certain successful charter programs and practices at one or two regular district-run schools but charters have not yet produced any broad systemic changes. In Connecticut, program sharing is limited and appears to be largely confined to professional development activities for teachers, according to Mark Linabury of the State Department of Education (SDE).

There appear to be several reasons why charters have not had a bigger impact. These include their relative newness; their unique governance styles and small size, which are hard to replicate in the large urban districts where they are often located; and district resistance and management constraints.

Mark Linabury of the State Department of Education told us of several examples of charter school/school district collaboration in Connecticut. All of the examples he mentioned involved teacher professional development and were undertaken under the auspices of a one-year federal grant in 2002-03 to charter schools that disseminate innovative programs to regular public schools or other charters.

Bridge Academy, a grade 9-12 charter school in Bridgeport, has a college preparatory curriculum designed to overcome inner-city problems. The school’s program includes parental involvement, mentoring by professionals from Bridgeport’s business community, the arts, and a small enrollment. Bridge Academy teachers have trained Bridgeport and Stratford teachers to use its successful college planning program. Bridgeport later adopted many aspects of Bridge Academy’s program, including block scheduling.

Common Ground is a New Haven charter high school offering grades 9-12. The school has an interdisciplinary, team-taught program with an ecological focus. Common Ground provided outreach and support to Barnard Elementary School, also in New Haven, to train Barnard’s teachers in its environmentally focused program. Barnard is now an interdistrict magnet school with an environmental theme.

Explorations Charter School in Winsted offers grades 10-12. The school uses an experience-based program that involves career exploration and adventure education in addition to academic work. Students are encouraged to earn community college credit in high school. The school enforces strict attendance, admissions, and academic contracts. Teachers from Explorations have trained Torrington teachers in its innovative “Adventure Program. ”

Integrated Day School is a PK-8 school in Norwich. It uses a developmental approach to teaching. Among other things, the program features individual research, parental involvement, multi-age groupings,

and an extended schedule. The school’s teachers are working with Norwich teachers on a professional development center, which they hope to eventually expand statewide.

Several studies have looked at the effect charter schools have on regular public schools in the same districts. The results of those studies have been mixed and are summarized below.

A 2000 study by the Manhattan Institute’s Center for Civic Innovation looked at Springfield and Worcester, Massachusetts; Jersey City and Trenton, New Jersey; and Washington, D. C. The study found that charter school competition has not led to systemic changes in any district operations or educational programs, although some of the districts made some changes in educational programming in response to specific charter school programs.

For example, Springfield started both a Montessori-style school and one that makes extensive use of laptop computers after these approaches were used in local charter school programs. Several Springfield schools started Saturday programs like those at a charter school. In Trenton, two elementary schools switched from K-6 to K-8 grade configurations in response to parents’ concerns about safety in public middle schools. And widespread parental demand for charter school-style before- and after-school programs lead the Worcester school district to open talks with teachers’ unions to institute such programs at district-run schools.

The Manhattan Institute study found that school leaders in the districts studied do not think charter schools are very innovative in terms of curricula. They also note that school leaders mention that traditional public schools are more constrained by state rules and collective bargaining agreements than charter schools. These constraints, which do not apply to charters, limit districts’ flexibility to adopt charter-style programs. (“Does Charter School Competition Improve Traditional Public Schools?” Paul Teske, Mark Scneider, Jack Buckley, and Sara Clark, Center for Civic Innovation, Manhattan Institute, Civic Report #10, June 2000. )

Researchers for this study found that charter schools had an impact in the districts studied. The study looked at 49 school districts in five states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Michigan. As a result of charter school competition, researchers found that most of the districts they studied implemented new educational programs, made changes in school structures, or created new specialty schools with programs similar to those in local charter schools. Among the new programs instituted in existing schools were:

1. all-day or extended-day kindergarten,

2. music and art classes,

3. programs for gifted students or at-risk students,

4. after-school programs, and

Districts also started new specialty schools, such as “back to basics” schools and schools with options for students at the high and low ends of the academic spectrum. Some districts also made changes in school structure to incorporate multi-age classrooms and block scheduling in response to charter schools (“Challenge and Opportunity: The Impact of Charter Schools on School Districts,” John Ericson & Debra Silverman, et. al. , RPP International for the U. S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, June 2001).

One question this study addressed is whether charter schools cause changes in the public school system. The study’s authors did not do their own primary research but rather looked at other charter schools studies. They found the research findings on charter schools’ effect on the regular system to be mixed, with several studies finding little evidence of district change in response to competition from charters.

The authors concluded that, overall, it appears that many, but not all, districts that had multiple charter schools are responding to them in some manner but that many of their responses are piecemeal or intermediate. These authors, like others, also emphasize that charter schools, though not always innovative in their curricula, look different from district-run public schools in certain ways, including in their management and organization. (“A Decade of Charter Schools: From Theory to Practice,” Katrina Bulkley and Jennifer Fisler, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, April 2002. “A Decade of Charter Schools: From Theory to Practice,” Katrina Bulkley and Jennifer Fisler, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, April 2002. )

An Education Week colloquy on charter schools with Michael Goldstein of the MATCH Charter School in Boston and Andy Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute stressed that experience with charter schools and their effects varies from place to place and school to school. In fact, Rotherham noted, “this variation. . . is key to the policy rationale behind charters. ”

Rotherham said that, although research shows that charter schools’ effectiveness is mixed, this should not be surprising because, when all is said and done a charter school is a school and “it takes hard work and discipline to create an excellent school. ” Thus, like regular public schools, charter schools vary in quality, degree of innovation, success, and in their effect on regular schools.

In response to an e-mailed question about how much sharing occurs between regular and charter schools, Goldstein commented: “There's some charter sharing but not a lot. ” He mentioned that his school helps its local district high school by tutoring about 100 of its students and by disseminating a new tutoring model that some other traditional public schools are now using. Goldstein thinks that many school leaders would like to implement charter school-style programs but financial and institutional constraints limit their ability to implement such programs as longer school days and parent involvement contracts. (Education Week, chat transcript on “Charter Schools: Policy and Practice” with Andy Rotherham of the Progressive Policy Institute in Washington and Michael Goldstein of the MATCH Charter School in Boston, November 18, 2004. )

SDE’s Linabury listed several barriers to replicating innovative charter school programs in regular district-run schools including:

2. the fact that charter schools provide a small intimate environment, which is hard to replicate in the urban districts where many charters are located;

3. that the charter school governance model, which includes autonomy and collaborative decisionmaking, is hard to transplant to a large, bureaucratic, urban district;

4. that charter school programs often involve longer hours and new programs, which can be hard to implement in regular districts; and


February 3, 2005		2005-R-0096
CHARTER SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS

By: Judith Lohman, Chief Analyst