NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

VOLUME 26, NUMBER 1, 2008-2009

CAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS MATCH

CHARTER SCHOOL ACHIEVEMENTS?

Shirley Johnson
Sam Houston State University
Steve Busch
University of Houston

ABSTRACT

The focus of this discussion reflects the practical variables that differentiate four very
successful charter schools throughout Texas from most traditional public school systems.
There are seven concepts addressed that describe difference between charter and
traditional public schools. Additionally, concepts are presented that traditional public
schools can implement to improve school culture and climate while addressing student
achievement.

T remendous attention and financial support has been given to

certain charter school organizations that have demonstrated
success in certain cities throughout the nation. These charter
school organizations are touted for their high level of student
achievement coupled with their goal of enabling students to gain
acceptance and attend four year universities. These achievements are
to be acknowledged and put into perspective by asking the question:
Can public schools do the same thing? Are public schools really
equipped to achieve the same results? What do charter schools do
better than traditional public schools?

Our contention from the last several years of working with

both traditional public schools and charter schools affirms that public
schools certainly can learn from charter schools; however, the reverse
can also be true. In that light, the focus of this discussion reflects the
practical variables that differentiate the charter districts of YES
97
98 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

College Preparatory School (YES) in Houston, Texas, Harmony Math

and Science Academies in various locations throughout Texas, IDEA
Public Schools in Donna, Texas and UPLIFT Public Schools in Dallas,
Texas. In initial conversations, it becomes apparent that the Heads of
these charters are not cut from the same cloth as many public school
administrators. The successful charter schools have traditionally been
started by entrepreneurial personalities driven by a vision of
achievement and excellence. Their vision and determination clearly
shape the purpose and function of the charters that they lead and
encourages the use of business models in their administration. As a
result of learning from charter school operations, this discussion will
highlight the practical differences that distinguish these particular
charter districts from traditional public schools.

The Development of Culture and Climate

Part of the success of YES, Harmony, IDEA, and UPLIFT

depends heavily on the carefully constructed culture that drives the
implementation design and every managerial decision. Induction
programs for administrators and teachers begin with understanding
cultural impact and cultural alignment from central headquarters to the
classroom. YES spends considerable dollars focusing perspective
school leaders on the importance of developing and maintaining
culture. YES even insists that the prospective school leaders emerge
from the teacher ranks of the system or work in the system before they
are even considered for a position as a school leader. Other charters
approach the culture issue in a very similar manner. As a consequence,
these charters open new schools with an emphasis on culture and then
design the academic program focusing on strict attention to cultural
alignment. For YES, it is getting students to a four year university with
the mantra of “whatever it takes.”

The development of the school culture and climate is a primary

centerpiece of the effective charter schools and is supported by
research in the field that suggests that the principal’s most effective
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 99

impact on student learning is mediated through the culture and climate

of the school (Hallinger & Heck, 1998; Witziers, B., Bosker, R., &
Kruger, M., 2003). School leaders are taught the importance of
crystallizing their personal educational beliefs and values in order to
sculpt their vision for schooling the traditionally underserved student
population. Most aspects of the school’s organizational design are then
tightly aligned to the vision and influenced by the intended culture. As
with public schools that are aware of the importance of culture, some
directors are far more proficient with this impact than others.

The lesson to be learned from this philosophical position is that

unless the culture and climate are carefully embedded in the
organization, a change of leadership will impact the culture each time
there is a leadership change (Schlechty, 2002; Leithwood, Anderson,
& Wahlstrom, 2004; Jazzar & Algozzine, 2007). The charter schools
mentioned before have been functioning for 12 to 15 years. They
realized that unless the culture and climate is carefully managed and
embedded, a new leader can create undesired changes, the situation
currently plaguing traditional public schools. New leadership behavior
can initiate a series of reactions among the charter employees that
begins to shift the tenets of the culture and create change – some
intended and worthwhile, some not. Charter schools are beginning to
experience these changes as they age but they are far more responsive
than public schools seem to be in understanding this cyclic impact.

The phenomenon of cultural impact has occurred in traditional

public schools for years (Marzanno, Waters, & McNulty, 2003). New
schools initiated by the first principal hire a faculty reflective of their
beliefs and values whether this work is done consciously or not. When
leadership change occurs, subtle and sometimes not so subtle shifts
begin that influence the school’s view of the leader and also the
working relationships within the school. Often the new leader does not
recognize these important shifts and imposes new beliefs and values
without considering the impact on the climate of the school. In most
cases, principals in traditional public schools simply do not have the
100 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

strategies to make important changes in dysfunctional school climates.

The negative results are evident throughout traditional school systems.

The schools impacted by dysfunctional climates, especially in

high schools, are a composite of small teachers groups created by
personal preferences (Lunenburg & Ornstein, 2008) reflecting their
own beliefs and values that co-exist with the larger school community.
If not noticed, these smaller cultures spin in an independent climate
that maybe affected by the larger school culture but very little by that
of the principal. The result is that described by Zaccaoro (2001) and
Sergiovanni (2000) when the principal loses influence because the
informal leader of each affinity group interprets the directives or
discussions by the principal even though the entire group heard the
principal’s initial discussion. This process goes unnoticed by
administrators and is not generally afforded concern until the school
has functioned in a dysfunctional manner for a period of time and the
principal is replaced as a result.

The challenge is to illuminate this phenomenon and conduct

the necessary research to describe the results, develop programs to
enable leaders to manage the phenomenon, and then teach such in
university preparation programs for both charter and traditional public
schools. The charter schools have implemented the right thought
process regarding culture and climate; start each school with clear set
of beliefs and values that positively influence both.

The Concept of Small

Well embedded in the philosophy of these charter schools is

the concept of small schools. Even though the criteria for charter
school formation in most states require a cap on the number of
students that may be maintained in each school, these charter schools
attest to the value of small schools. What occurs as a result of this
philosophical tenet of “small” is: (1) that every student is known well
by a significant adult, a tenet of Ted Sizer’s (2004) Essential Schools;
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 101

(2) that curricula is structured according to the philosophy of the

charter rather than the central headquarters of a charter district; (3) that
extended time is included in the schedule directed toward the needs of
each student; (4) that the budget can be directed toward the academic
program rather than extracurricular programs, i.e. football; and (5) that
student management is much better served in a small environment
where no child is lost in the sheer size of the organization (Pittman &
Haughwout, 1987).

Unfortunately, traditional public schools have efficiently used

funding to create large schools, particularly high schools that are more
cost effective from a facilities standpoint. The justifications that have
driven the design of high schools is no longer appropriate but we
continue to replicate them knowing that they do not effectively serve
students, especially the traditionally underserved. Charter schools have
made the case clearly but we fail to recognize and use their
contribution to build more effective small high schools. It will take an
unusual public school superintendent to publicly advocate for systemic
change that substantially changes this philosophy of educating
students in order to break this practice and stave off the rancor of
parents who believe that by attending a large traditional public high
school their son/daughter will have a better chance to receive a college
scholarship to play a sport.

The More Rigorous Curricula

Currently being instituted in most of these charter schools is

the International Baccalaureate (IB) program that offers a very
rigorous program within the core content areas. It is being used to
replace the state standard aligned scope and sequence in an effort to
provide a more rigorous program. Different from many public schools
is the intentional offering of the IB program to all students. The intent
is not to provide only those students who qualify for the “Gifted and
Talented” program with the rigor of the IB program, but to provide all
students with this same rigor (Office of Innovation and Improvement,
102 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

2008). Charter schools realize the challenge of offering students such a

program but those who take the challenge are committed to “doing
whatever it takes.”

Public schools, on the other hand, often provide either IB or

Advanced Placement (AP) programs for those students who qualify
through gifted and talented matrices or succumb to the pressure of
parents wanting their students out of “regular” classes. Charters tend
to recognize that IB placement is driven by perception of the teachers,
students, family, and parents. Taking these parental perceptions out of
the equation requires the public school and charter administrators to
determine how the traditionally underserved can be brought to speed
both attitudinally and academically in order to handle the rigor. Most
charters struggling with this concept realize that using such programs
must be supported by clearly establishing the culture and climate of
the campus and nurturing the parental view of the charter’s belief and
intention regarding the rigor of such programs as IB (U.S. Department
of Education Office of Innovation and Improvement, 2007).
Traditional public schools have a great deal to learn from charters
regarding this process. The expectations of the charter schools in this
area are clearly different from many public schools. Charters are also
aware that substantial remediation must be initiated for many students
if they are to successfully participate in the rigor of advanced
programming such as IB and the cultures of these charters require
teachers and staff to spend the time needed to support these students.

The Extracurricular Program

Most states support strong extracurricular programs in schools

with sports programs as the primary focal point. Arguably these
programs have been an important part of many individuals’ lives in a
multitude of different ways; however, when constructing the master
schedule, hiring teachers, and creating financial support for the
academic program are affected, then it is time to examine the
philosophy and use of the extracurricular program. The charters have
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 103

been forced to examine the issue of extracurricular activities due to the

funding required for the supplies, personnel, and facilities necessary to
support such expensive programs. They have included sports in the
schools but they are truly an extracurricular/intramural function
operating after school on a fee for service basis in many of the charter
programs. Scheduling is not shaped by the extracurricular programs
such as athletics, band, choir, cheerleaders, etc. and students
understand that academics are foremost; the extracurricular activities
are truly “extra.” Some of the charter programs participate in intra-
school competition in several sports but the charter programs cannot
and do not invest in expensive stadiums, athletic resources or
expensive coaching staffs.

The Scheduling Process

Currently, so many traditional public school programs at the

secondary level begin scheduling with singleton courses designed to
support placement of the athletes, both girls and boys. Then the
schedule is constructed to allow for band, choir, drama and other
elective singleton courses (such as AP Physics, etc.) that are wonderful
for students but also influence the quality of placement for many core
courses. Ahead of the general program courses are considerations for
gifted and AP/IB courses leaving the important core program to fill in
the remainder of the schedule. Such constraints often prohibit schedule
designs that address the needs of many students needing support
and/or remediation to become part of rigorous programs such as
IB/AP.

These charter programs start shaping the schedule with the

important core courses first. Critical activities such as student
advisement and team planning periods quickly follow to provide
continual support for each student. The entire schedule focuses on
course arrangements that support the delivery of instruction and
tutorial programs focused on improved student achievement. Rarely
are these charter school programs focused on courses during the day
104 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

that relate to anything that does not bolster the academic program. The
only variances are usually courses or elective offerings that relate to
the culture of the particular school since each of these charter districts
provide the school leader an opportunity to shape the focus of the
school to either the community or a particular philosophy (i.e.
community service, math, science). Scheduling in these charters is
designed to support the instructional program; scheduling is not driven
by the needs of an overpowering extracurricular program that does not
broadly contribute to student achievement. There are more similarities
among elementary schedules between the charter schools and public
school than in the secondary programs.

The Selection and Maintenance of Students

Most traditional public school employees believe that open

enrollment public charter schools are able to hand select their students
and expel them at will; however, this belief is not true and remains the
basis for supporting ignorance of the laws surrounding charter school
management. These charter schools are required to maintain a lottery
and be classified as an open enrollment charter. They receive students
from many different places in the cities they serve, but the school
leaders tend to recruit from the areas in the immediate vicinity. For
these schools, students must follow the rules established by the charter
and parents must abide by the discipline management process of the
charter. Students who fail to abide by the discipline policy may be
removed but only after the school leader has done everything possible
to maintain the student; much like public schools. Leaver rates for all
of the charters mentioned are watched very closely by both the state
agency and by funders (Texas Education Agency, 2006). For example,
certain funders are very vigilant to ask the difficult questions as to why
leaver rates accelerate at certain grade levels and then challenge the
charter to remedy that situation in order to maintain funding. The
charter’s response to this challenge has created some interesting and
creative solutions.
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 105

These charters design the culture with support of the

traditionally underserved student in mind knowing that most of the
students that enter their program initially will need considerable
remediation. As a charter opens, the school leaders are aware,
especially at the secondary level, that many of their students will come
because they have not been successful in public schools and their
parents are desperate for help. To prepare for these students, the school
leaders test each student upon entry to diagnose academic competency.
Even though the student’s development may not be on grade level,
instruction is maintained at grade level while the student received
remedial immersion and overwhelming emotional support during the
transition. Teachers are trained to recognize the resistance that many
remedial students exhibit and they counter with consistency and
constant parental communication. The teachers in these charter schools
work long hours while students have phone access to teachers in the
evening as well. The goal is maintain every student with whatever it
takes.

Numerous public schools across the nation who are classified

as Title I schools and serve the traditionally underserved populations
have demonstrated exemplary student performance as well. In all of
those cases, it is the culture and climate of that school that supports the
belief that all students can and will learn (Johnson & Uline, 2005). It is
important to pursue those factors and variables that make those
schools different so that others may learn. Our suspicion and
experience pushes us to examine the leadership experience of the
principal in creating the culture and climate that encourages these
crucial beliefs about student performance. The common aspects that
Johnson and Asera (1999) found are clearly those tenets that underpin
these charter schools (they are listed in the conclusion).

The Matter of Finances

Most charter schools function with attention to tight budgetary

decisions. They are also saddled with the difficulty of finding
106 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

buildings and/or property that will accommodate a school concept

without the same state funding percentages as public schools. Even
though provided with funding from the state agencies, every head of
high functioning charters finds funding from other sources to
supplement. Some of the charters that function with high profile
funding sources such as the Gates foundation and the Dell Foundation
are required to justify expenditures in direct relationship to student
achievement and the value add of each teacher. These charters must
undergo in depth questioning regarding the use of funding in
relationship to performance.

Some superintendents of public schools actively seek

additional funding to maintain performance. Most grant initiatives in
public schools are generated by central administrators that are hired to
write grants and usually focus on particular areas such as science,
math or other popular instructional targets. Most charter heads seek
funding to provide important supporting functions such as: (a)
professional development for incoming personnel, (b) continued
professional development for both teachers and administrators, (c)
software and/or programs to support instructional delivery; (d) and,
facilities construction and/or property purchases. Charter schools such
as YES, Harmony and others have even been given money to support
sophisticated strategic planning from organizations that usually
provide services to the private business sector. These heads are in
constant search of supplemental funding to extend the growth of the
charter and the opportunities afforded their students.

In Conclusion

So we return to the question, can traditional public schools do

what successful charter schools have been able to do? The answer is
clearly yes if there is a demonstrated willingness to consider several
important concepts which have been repeatedly documented for
several years (Johnson, 2005). To be successful, schools must:
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 107

• Deliver rigorous instruction aligned to standards.

• Provide leadership that results in continuous instructional
improvement by spending substantial time in classrooms
working with teachers on instructional issues.
• Design instruction to ensure every student’s success.
• Engage parents and community.
• Create a culture in which individuals feel valued.
• Possess the same ambitious academic goals pursued by
excellent schools that serve affluent students.
• Place strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy skills
integrated throughout a rich, full curriculum.
• Expect that their students can and will excel.
• Enable educators to feel supported by their leaders as they
work to improve instruction.
• Support improvement of instruction through continuous
teacher collaboration.
• Use data to focus teacher collaboration on student work.
• Enable students to acquire substantial evidence of their ability
to succeed academically.
• Create opportunities for learning to become fun and exciting
for students and to be celebrated often.
• Becomes a place where everyone (students, teachers, parents,
community members) feels like they belong.

Rhetorically, traditional public school educators know all of

this important information. For some of them, however, it often gets
lost as the application of the concepts are planned and implemented. In
defense of traditional public schools, there are several factors that
obscure the implementation of these ideas.

Familiarity Breeds Blindness

108 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

The old adage of living in the forest often precludes being able
to see the trees. In the case of education, we become comfortable with
status quo school cultures and find excuses to explain away slipping
performance and failure to respond to whirling global demands.
Familiarity allows educators to maintain the usual, fail to see and
understand what has eroded instructional effectiveness and label
variables outside of our control as the culprit for lagging student
achievement. The result creates a serious blindness to the real
problems and prohibits effective change of mental models.

Systemic Misunderstanding

The afore mentioned concepts are often viewed as isolated

components that can be “added on” to a system. They are not
strategically woven into existing cultural systems within schools
which create stand alone processes that often fail because they are not
linked with complimentary systemic components (Schlechty, 2002).
Such views contribute to systemic fragmentation that leave many
administrators wondering why the addition of one or two of the
concepts did not produce the results achieved in other public schools
or charters.

Not Understanding the Cyclic Nature of Schools

There is a cyclic nature to schools that must be understood,

particularly at the secondary level. When new, schools begin with a
culture that can last as long as the principal is present or the founding
teachers maintain the culture. The culture within a building has more
life span than the length of a principal’s contract. Teachers hold tightly
to the culture because it offers comfort and security in the work
environment. As a result, when administrators change, the culture of
the school shifts minimally. To complicate matters, there is not just
one culture in a building. It is a complex matrix of overlapping
relationships that solidify through affinities. In order to implement the
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 109

previously listed concepts, a principal must carefully diagnosis the

affinity groups within the larger culture and determine effective
strategies to create a critical mass of support in order to systemically
implement those ideas. Too often the cultural issues are ignored by
principals and the resiliency of the building culture and the affinity
groups survive the intended efforts to improve the school. Frustrated,
principals frequently move on and the cyclic nature of the building
maintains. The cycles can spin for decades creating very difficult
obstacles for principals as they attempt to improve student
performance and the campus culture.

Unwillingness to Break the Mold

Then very simply, the superintendents and school boards are

not willing to change the current philosophy of traditional school
districts. The urgency and the logic do not seem to be present and the
districts maintain their current practices. Sometimes it can be a
principal who is mired in a comfortable situation and is opposed to
disrupting the building with change of any kind.

Finally

The successful charter schools are not bound by all of the same
regulations as traditional public schools; however, for practical
purposes they function in much the same way as do traditional public
schools. The charter schools that perform at acceptable and less levels
of performance cannot necessarily contribute to the body of
knowledge regarding performance because their student performance
is very similar to many urban or inner city schools and less than many
rural and suburban schools in Texas (Texas Education Agency, 2006).

It is the contributing work of the successful charters that should

be illuminated as exemplary of prudent practice. It will take conviction
110 NATIONAL FORUM OF EDUCATIONAL ADMINISTRATION AND SUPERVISION JOURNAL

and planning to steer many public schools to recognize and embrace

the strategies used by the successful charter schools.

REFERENCES

Johnson, J. (2005). Characteristics of schools that close achievement

gaps. Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. Ohio
Department of Education.
http://www.ode.state.oh.us/achievement_gaps
Johnson, J., & Uline, C. (Eds.) (1999). Hope for urban education: A
study of nine high-performing, high-poverty, urban
elementary schools. U.S. Department of Education – Office of
the Undersecretary.
http://www.aypf.org/publications/rmaa/pdfs/UrbanSchools.pdf.
Johnson, J., & Uline, C. (2005). Preparing educational leaders to close
achievement gaps. Theory into practice, 44(1), 45-52.
Leithwood, K., Louis, K., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. (2004).
Executive summary: How leadership influences student
learning. The Wallace Foundation.
Lunenburg, F., & Ornstein, A. (2008). Educational administration
(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Corporation.
Malakian, A. (2008). Small-company failures may cause big
migraines. United States Banker, 118(7), 2-38.
Marzano, R., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. (2005). School leadership
that works: From research to practice. Aurora, CO:
McREAL.
Office of Innovation and Improvement. (2008, August). Moving
mountains: Chartering to improve student achievement. The
Education Innovator, VI(8).
http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2008/0821.html
Pittman, R. B., & Haughwout, P. (1987, Winter). Influence of high
school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 9(4), 337-343.
Schlechty, P. (2002). Working on the work. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
 Shirley Johnson & Steven Busch 111

Sizer, T. (2004). Horace’s Compromise: The dilemma of the

American high school. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Sergiovanni, T. J. (2001). The principalship: A reflective practice
perspective (4th ed.). Needham Heights, Maryland: Allyn and
Bacon.
Texas Center for Educational Research. (2005). Texas open-
enrollment charter schools:2003-04 evaluation. Austin, TX:
TCER.
Texas Education Agency. (2006). Texas open-enrollment charter
schools: Sixth year evaluation. Austin, TX: Author.
U.S. Department of Education Office of Innovation and
Improvement. (2007). K–8 charter schools closing the
achievement gap. Jessup, MD: Education Publications
Center.
http://www.ed.gov/admins/comm/choice/charterk-8/report.pdf.
Witziers, B., Bosker, R., & Kruger, M., (2003). Educational leadership
and student achievement: The elusive search for an association.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), 398-423.
Zaccaro, S. (2001). The nature of executive leadership: A conceptual
and empirical analysis of success. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.