Changing to Charter. Rebecca A. Shore
contracted out services are interrelated—management of student information services and the financial operation. If these contractors make mistakes that result in an authorizer investigation, the governing board remains the responsible party to answer questions or suffer consequences. Ultimately, the authorizer expects this board to vet contractors carefully and to monitor their work regularly.
CMOs are a little more complicated to define as their definition varies greatly due to their organizational construct. Where the definitions converse with unity in terms of organizational control as well as a number of separate charter schools, historically, a CMO holds the charter that has been granted by the authorizer and operates at least three separate schools.
These separate schools need a little further clarification because models differ—the schools could be exact duplicates of grade span and mission (e.g., three K–8 schools that offer classical education), continuation of grade span but divided into separate buildings with separate school numbers for accountability purposes (e.g., one K–5, one 6–8, and one 9–12 school), or a mixture of anything else (e.g., one K–5 arts-focused school, one 9–12 career-ready high school, and one K–12 direct-instruction school). The models depend upon the individual state laws, the capacity of the CMO, and the approval of the authorizer.
Despite the model differences, the CMO controls all school operations, including instructional practices, personnel policies, finances, and operations. CMOs can be nonprofit or for-profit entities, depending upon what state policy will permit to occur.
Often confused with CMOs are schools that fall into the VOS category. VOS entities are contracted, by local charter school boards, to provide a myriad of services to more than three separate schools; however, unlike a CMO, they do not hold the charter from the authorizer. The key, here, is contracted work with more than one school or it would simply be an Independent Charter School.
The VOS services range widely from a singular offering (e.g., professional development for teachers) to the school’s entire operations (e.g., compliance, academics, finances, facilities). The most distinguishing factor between a CMO and VOS is in that possession of the charter. Since the VOS does not hold the charter, they report directly and regularly to the volunteer governing board. The VOS, much like the CMO, can be nonprofit or for-profit organizations based upon state law.
Hybrid Charter Schools are an iteration within the charter space in that they include characteristics of both CMOs and VOSs. As the name implies, Hybrid Charter Schools may include a CMO that holds the charter but contracts services from a VOS or multiple VOSs. Again, these Hybrid organizations may be for-profit or nonprofit. According to research conducted in 2017, only 1 percent of charter school organizations are in this category.5
Conversion Charter Schools
According to the NAPCS, Conversion Charter Schools, the topic of this book, are charter schools authorized by the state or local school district to take over an existing traditional public school often as a result of issues with school quality or poor growth. In other instances that do not include lackluster performance, an existing public school and/or private school could petition an authorizer authority to convert to charter status. The motivations for this self-selected conversion vary and will be discussed in-depth below.
Most states (thirty-nine of the forty-four) with existing charter school laws permit conversions according to the Education Commission of the States (ECS).6 For whatever reason determined by their legislatures, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Washington do not allow for conversions. It is also important to note that while thirty-nine states allow for conversions, each state has its own stipulations and regulations regarding conversion charter schools. As an example, Texas law grants the district an opportunity to charter status creating what is called “a home-rule school district charter,” but that conversion would require a majority vote in an election where “at least 25 percent of a school district’s registered votes participate.”7 As you can image, this mandate acts as a considerable hurdle that is yet to be overcome.
The largest percentage of conversion charter schools is located in the following states: California, Iowa, Maryland, Georgia, Arkansas, and Louisiana. While the primary focus of this book is California, we will include case studies from the Carolinas as well. With the legislatively imposed cap in North Carolina having been lifted nearly a decade ago, that state has seen an increase in its number of conversion schools—particularly the private to charter variety.
Conversion charter schools can be led by the district or managed independently or by a CMO. Three of the conversions detailed in this book include both types, but they are all nonprofit charter schools. Their stories highlight benefits of converting failing traditional schools and founders focused on the ability to tailor instruction/curriculum to better meet the needs of the population and budgeting. With charter school autonomy, curriculum can be based on the mission and vision of the newly formed charter with monies allocated to provide the professional development needed to match those needs. Freedom from bureaucratic regulations allows energy to be directed at the charter school level; and if that focus needs to change, it can do so quickly for programmatic improvement.
These conversion charter schools were converted from traditional public schools in the early 1990s: they are Vaughn Next Century Learning Center, Fenton Center Public Charter School, and Feaster-Edison Charter School. Each conversion school has matured in the past twenty-five years modifying their names and organizational structures; however, each original leader continues to serve a role in the conversion charter school’s existence. More can be learned about the schools and their leadership journeys through specific case studies in the book.
Shifting from this theoretical explanation of a charter school conversion, this book examines motivations for conversion by highlighting real-world examples. This book includes application expectations and what authorizers consider in their review of charter proposals. Ultimately, the intent of this book is to inform.
NOTES
1. National Charter School Resource Center, “What Is a Charter School?” accessed December 31, 2018, from https://charterschoolcenter.ed.gov/what-is-a-charter-school.
2. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “Charter Schools FAQ” accessed December 31, 2018, from https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools/charter-school-faq.
3. California Legislative Information, “Bill No. 406, Approved by Governor September 7, 2018” accessed September 29, 2019, from https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB406.
4. James L. Woodworth, Margaret E. Raymong, Chunping Han, Yohannes Negassi, W. Payton Richardson, and Will Snow, Charter management organizations 2017, (Stanford, CA: CREDO – Center for Research on Education Outcomes), 1.
5. Ibid, 3.
6. Education Commission of the States, “50-State Comparison” accessed January 19, 2019, from http://ecs.force.com/mbdata/mbquestNB2C?rep=CS1702.
7. Texas Education Code, “TEC §§12.021‐12.022” accessed on October 6, 2019, from https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.12.htm.
Chapter 1 discusses the conversion model at the definition level; this chapter digs deeper into the philosophical level with one very important word—why. Excluding charters that were forcibly converted due to poor academic performance, why would an existing public or private school pursue this pathway? What, about this model, is so appealing that school officials