Trust me. I know what I’m talking about. School districts, the county BOE and charter schools all think they know best. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the confluence of the three.
Emotions ran high last night, though civility reigned, throughout a fascinating conversation between County Board of Education (CBOE) board members (literally on one side of the circle) and superintendents and trustees from local school districts (on the other) regarding some of the challenges and tensions that have arisen in connection with the CBOE in its role as charter authorizer. The conversation was actually mandated as part of the settlement in the case Alum Rock v. SCCBOE et al. which included a stipulation that the County Board of Education invite governing boards and superintendents of each school district within the County of Santa Clara to a summit on policy and procedure surrounding approval and operation of charter schools in the County of Santa Clara.
The comments by superintendents and district trustees were wide ranging, but the general sense was one of frustration with the CBOE’s pattern of reversing districts’ denials of charter petitions, at times even in contradiction to the recommendations of their own staff, and the urgent need for communication, collaboration and consistency when reviewing charter petitions. To their credit, the slightly embattled CBOE board members heard the concerns graciously and thanked participants for their frank feedback. The salient question, however, is: now what?
School districts seem to be feeling their way independently in building relationships with charter organizations, with varying degrees of success and harmony. Even within boards, there is often not agreement on an approach to charter petitions or on the urgency of developing coherent strategies to address the growing number of charter schools. Given the plethora of individual, district wide and county wide educational philosophies and guiding principles, along with perceived subjectivity of the Charter School law, it is no wonder that the outcomes of charter petitions are not entirely predictable. If ever an area of public education was ripe for collaboration, this is it: collaboration not only between district schools and charter organizations but between district schools and the CBOE. Charter authorizers at the local and county level should be working from the same set of expectations, goals and metrics. We are all responsible for the same children. Standards should not differ depending on the title of the authorizing entity. I would like to see the county and local school districts create their own compact that promotes an agreed upon set of parameters by which to 1) evaluate charter petitions, 2) facilitate meaningful communication between the county and districts with regard to the granting of charters and resulting impact on districts, and, together with the charter organizations, 3) come to agreement on a coherent plan of growth for our county that would provide substantive choice across options that are similarly marketed, measured across common metrics, and serving actual, determined need.
As with most successful collaborations, a foundation of trust must first be put in place. Districts must be able to trust that the CBOE will not capriciously overturn their thoughtful work and recommendations. The CBOE must trust that school districts do not capriciously deny charter petitions because they are “anti-charter”. Charter organizations must trust that they will be welcomed when they approach districts with a request for collaboration on determination of high need and potential for high impact. And districts must trust that charter schools share the same goals of high rigor, strong culture and closing the opportunity gap for the most underserved students. The fact that we still talk about underserved students means that there is room in our system for improvement and anyone working toward that goal should be welcomed to the table.
In her excellent article, What Does It Take to Be an Urban Schools Superintendent, Christina Heitz, managing director of The Broad Academy, a program of The Broad Center for the Management of School Systems (https://medium.com/education-reform/what-does-it-take-to-be-an-urban-schools-superintendent-a-whole-lot-more-than-you-think-1815620d9432), argues that, as “communities throughout the country are rethinking the traditional public school district model, moving from a system that automatically assigns students to their zoned local schools to a “portfolio”-style system that offers a range of school options — neighborhood, magnet, public charter — empowering each family to choose the best fit for their child”, school district leaders must evolve as well. Among other skills, “they need to demonstrate that they can think and act strategically; propel system-wide change; authentically engage employees and communities; and foster and sustain constructive relationships both inside and outside the organization.” [emphasis mine]
School districts cannot afford to operate as if they are the only game in town, and this philosophy should start at the top. Just as our school curricula focus more on group activities and collaboration, our school districts need to build partnerships for greatest success in the new landscape. Similarly, County boards cannot operate as if their actions do not have tangible, direct impacts on school districts. And charter operators are not best served by ignoring the concerns of school districts, whether for quality, neighborhood impact or financial toll. All parties are here to stay and all have a role to play. The adversarial model will not achieve the highest good for the greatest number of students on, on that ground alone, must be replaced.