Changing to Charter. Rebecca A. Shore
shall include that an “adequate number of parents or legal guardians with students eligible to attend the proposed school” support it, meaning the proposed budget is solid.
While this requirement exists for all charter schools, conversion charters had to go one step further in that two-thirds “of the voting parents or legal guardians voted to support” filing of the conversion application. The regulation removes all doubt of how this process should work by dictating that “parents or guardians shall have one vote for each of their children enrolled in the school.”16 The law recognizes that not all parents want to offer their opinion but emphasizes that each parent should be given the opportunity to voice those concerns.
In turning to the staff, South Carolina breaks from NAPCS by adding instructional staff to the mix of school-based officials that must be solicited for approval. The broader group of school staff serves as an insurance policy that protects the students. If the majority of the staff is committed to the conversion, then they would, most likely, continue working at the school after the process concluded. This stability protected school culture and offered some familiarity as the winds of change were about to gust.
South Carolina also added an interesting twist to the conversion process that certainly helped with the staff vote but potentially created future budgetary issues. The regulation specifically says that those working at the school before conversion that chose to stay “will remain employees of the local school district with the same compensation and benefits including any future increases.”17 Teachers, who may have been undecided on the actual conversion and worried about compensation or benefits, were granted immediate and future relief.
The school had to create a budget that covered any future increase for these individuals as the district may offer salary or benefit incentives. The larger budget implication faced by school administrators hinged upon the hiring of new teachers who would not be members of the local school district. This could possibly create a dual-salary system within the building that would erode school culture; yet, astute administrators address that issue on the front end to prevent its occurrence.
Once the recommendations have been made and voting has been finalized, the real work for the successful applicants begins; and the duration of that work can depend upon state law and authorizing entities. Some states—both North and South Carolina—require charter applicants to go through a mandatory year of planning. This rationale was rooted in historical figures reflecting earlier struggles of these schools.
For example, earlier approved charters granted in March for an opening less than six months away became viewed as unrealistic with such a short turnaround. Over time, policymakers recognized that not all applicants need that mandatory year and created a process to fast track those applicants. In the case of North Carolina conversion schools, most received motions for “accelerated opening,” and that decision makes sense.18 With already existing facilities, name recognition, students, and faculty, the plausibility of those schools opening quickly is higher than an applicant lacking those aspects.
As shown, attention to the detail of the ever-changing state charter statutes is critical for accessing the most up-to-date requirements and resources. One national resource is the Education Commission of the States (ECS), which was founded in 1967 to share information, tools, and competence across all the states. While the ECS provides basic information on charter schools, the greatest value is their compilation of in-depth “individual state profiles.” These state-specific profiles cover nearly every area imaginable—accountability measures, school finance, teacher status—and includes statutory citations.19
The statutory details from South Carolina’s conversion process are important to understand the story of Orange Grove Elementary School in chapter 9. At the time of Orange Grove’s conversion, it was only the second school in South Carolina to go through that process—ironically within the same district. As the reader can surmise, part II will shift considerably from theory to practice by presenting actual case studies of schools that have successfully converted to charter status. These individual examples cover a cross-section of the country—from California to the Carolinas—and highlight critical leaders, historical steps, and situational distinctives in the quest for individual autonomy within the charter sector. Their stories offer direction and resources for anyone currently considering the conversion process.
NOTES
1. Kerr-Vance Charter Application, pp. 37–38, accessed on October 6, 2019 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/applications/15-16/kerrvance.pdf.
2. Ann Doss Helms, “Christianity is Out, Public Money is in as Charlotte School Makes Rare Conversion,” accessed on October 5, 2019 from https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/education/article197550394.html.
3. NC Education Code, Article 14A, Section 115C, accessed on October 15, 2019 from https://www.ncleg.net/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByArticle/Chapter_115c/Article_14A.pdf.
4. Helms, Christianity Is Out.
5. Kerr-Vance Charter Application, p. 38.
6. Hobgood Academy Charter School Application, p. 36, accessed on September 28, 2019 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/applications/20-21/hobgood.pdf.
7. Ali Rockett, “Robeson County’s Southeastern Academy Reopening Enrollment, Adding more Students,” accessed on October 6, 2019 from https://www.fayobserver.com/article/20130807/News/308079792.
8. Social Coalition for Social Justice complaint letter to the NC Office of Charter Schools, accessed on October 5, 2019 from http://pulse.ncpolicywatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Southeastern-Academy-Complaint.pdf.
9. NC Charter School Application, p. 11 and 23, accessed October 13, 2019 from http://www.ncpublicschools.org/charterschools/applications accessed.
10. Ibid., pp. 11–12.
11. Helms, Christianity is Out.
12. “Minutes of the NC Charter School Advisory Board Meeting on December 17, 2017,” p. 12, accessed on October 19, 2019 at http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/board/minutes12-2017.pdf.
13. “Minutes of the NC Charter School Advisory Board Meeting on January 14, 2019,” pp. 24–25, accessed on October 20, 2019 at http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/charterschools/board/minutes01-2019.pdf.
14. Ibid., p. 12 and 13.
15. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, “Model Charter School Law,” p. 58, accessed October 5, 2019 from https://www.publiccharters.org/about-charter-schools/charter-school-faq.
16. SC State Board of Education Regulation R 43-601, “Procedures and Standards for Review Charter School Applications,” p. 2, accessed on October 5, 2019 from https://ed.sc.gov/scdoe/assets/File/stateboard/documents/601.pdf.
17. Ibid., p. 1.
18. NC Charter School Advisory Board Meeting Minutes (December 2017), p. 12.
19. The Education Commission of the States charter school