Accountability among Public and Charter School Principles
Public Policy and Administration – Leadership and Management
Nicole Goodman
Walden University
A00223698

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Theory of Action 5
Implication of the Action Theory on Various Stakeholders in School Management 6
New Jersey Department of Education Policies (NJDOE) 9
NJ Department of Grants Management 10
Decision Making 12
Comparison of Teacher Assessment Policies in Charter Schools and Public Schools 14
Scoring of Teacher Assessment 17
Implications of Teacher Assessment 19
Similarities and Differences between State and Federal Policies in: 21
Staff Certification Requirements 21
Teachers Compensation in Charter Schools and Public Schools 22
Pay Based on Performance 23
Pay Based on Complexity of Subjects 24
Non-Financial Rewards 25
Professional Development on Harassment and Bullying 26
Roles of Authorizers in Charter Schools and Public Schools 28
State Policies Regarding Recruitment, Curriculum Development and Professional Development 30
Parent Accountability in Public Schools and Charter Schools 32
Operational Similarities and Differences 32
Fiscal Responsibilities 34
Academic Expectations and Accountability 35
Similarities and Differences in Academic Accountability between Charter Schools and Public Schools 35
Differences 36
Differences and Similarities of Operation of Charter Schools and Public Schools from Business Perspective 38
Comparison of functions of Executive Board and School Board of Education 38
Testing and Student’s Academic Performance 40
References 43

Introduction
Research that focuses on management policies for public schools and charter schools are considered important in understanding the roles of principles and variations that exist in laws that control the operations of public and charter schools. School principles are pivotal in ensuring public policy is followed and school guidelines are adhered to in management of public and charter schools. However, state and federal laws determine their application. According to Brown (2012), few studies focus on the public policies that govern charter schools and public schools. The distinction of management of public and charter schools has resulted into the need to understand the similarities and differences in accountability among public schools and charter school principles in various activities that take place in these institutions.
This chapter explains various areas of accountability in public schools and charter schools in the US by establishing the similarities and differences in them. The first section explains the principles of the theory of action and its relevance in implementation of school principles in charter schools and public schools. It also illustrates the manner in which administrators can apply the theory of action to manage schools. The second section explains New Jersey department of Education (NJDOE) policies that affect management of charter schools and public schools. This is illustrated in areas of provision of grants to schools and decision making. The third section explains the Assessment strategies for teachers according to NJDOE policies such as professional and academic qualifications. This is followed by the fourth section that explains Federal policies that are applied in teacher certification and teacher compensation in charter schools and public schools. The fifth section explains professional development on anti-bullying that is provided to teachers. The sixth section explains the state policies in the areas of recruitment, curriculum development and professional development. The eighth section explains the role played by fiscal policies in public schools and charter schools. The ninth section explains the similarities and differences in academic accountability in public schools and charter schools. The tenth section explains similarities and differences in operations of charter schools and public schools from a business perspective. The eleventh section explains the role of Executive Board and Board of Directors in charter schools and public schools.
Theory of Action
Theory was formulated by American theorist, Talcott Parsons and is a theory that explains the strategy that can be used to change the management system of an organization from the present management system to the desired management system. The theory identifies the manner in which activities in an organization are dependent on particular actions so that overall improvement is achieved by applying different policies in different departments. According to a study by Brown (2012), the theory is based on identification of the association between activities in an organization and what is considered as a good result. This theory also states that if administrators are involved in effective monitoring of teaching activities in a serious manner, it is possible for teachers to teach with high level of commitment and it is possible for students to achieve high academic performance.
According to the Theory of Action, the main principles that can be important in application of a particular teaching program include the reasons for the development of a program by its protagonists and the manner in which the program operates in terms of its legal requirements, requirements within the institution, and theoretical guidelines for its application. This enables understanding of the manner in which various elements of a program function with respect to one another and the possibility of reaching the intended outcome (Crouch, 2011).
According to Baxter & Nelson (2012), when this theory is applied in understanding the functionality of charter schools, those who support the implementation of charter school program state that there are particular goals that must be achieved by the policy program. For instance, it is believed that charter schools can be more efficient because they are selected in a competing bidding process and the organizations incur lower labor costs compared with public schools. In addition, it is believed that charter schools are able to respond to accountability threats from the regulatory bodies. For instance, most public schools face the threat of being closed down if they do not achieve a particular level of performance in a given time period such as five years. Another logic that supports the application of the theory of action is that the creation of charter schools will result into competition with public schools and this will act as a motivation for public schools to provide competent services that meet learning needs of students. This is because if they do not respond in this manner, they are likely to lose students to charter schools that provide competent teaching and educational needs of learners.
In terms of accessibility to coaching, the theory of action states that if teachers are provided with the relevant coaching and professional development, they will replicate by teaching quality skills and students will demonstrate understanding of the contents of the subjects by performing well in their studies. In addition, it states that if administrators focus their efforts in monitoring and supporting the acquisition of teaching skills that improve students’ performances, they will feel comfortable to be involved in an institution and cooperate with the school administration to provide competent knowledge to learners. Thus in reference to principles of management of charter schools and public schools, the main areas of concern should be taking actions to implement various principles so that particular goals are reached to the benefit of the institutions.
Implication of the Action Theory on Various Stakeholders in School Management
The main implication of action theory on teachers is that it states the actions they need to take so that they achieve the certifications required during teachers’ recruitment in charter schools and public schools. Consequently, they are able to implement these qualifications to improve learning outcomes of students in these schools. According to Denzin & Lincoln (2011), the need to achieve learning targets is a driving factor for teachers to focus their attention in classroom and exhibiting high level of expertise. This involves making on-the spot decisions that ensure students performances are improved. This is because, the managements of both charter schools, and public schools require that students must attain a particular level of academic performance before he or she can be promoted to the next level. It involves planning to implement instructions and the application of knowledge of typical student progress to improve students’ understanding. Based on the targets to be achieved during learning process, teachers are required to create partnerships with students so that they can make informed decisions that raise students’ academic performances.
The implication of theory of action on students is that if targets are set so that students aim at achieving them, they become dedicated to their work so that these targets are achieved. This is because students in public schools and charter schools are required to achieve a particular level of academic performance before they can proceed from one grade to another (Gulosino & Lubienski, 2011). For instance, when particular grades are set so that a student that does not attain that grade cannot be promoted to the next class, the student becomes motivated to work hard so that the target is raised. In the case of public schools and charter schools, it is required that academic standards should be set so that students are motivated to take actions so that academic achievements are improved.
The implication of the theory of action on principals is that it determines actions that they need to take so that students and teachers are managed effectively. Kowal, Hassel & Brayn (2012) state that it involves determining policies and structures of accountability, teacher recruitment, compensation, and management of facilities within an institution, which ensures activities of a learning institution, are enhanced. This is because principals are expected to determine what is not practicable so that learning and academic performances of students is improved and teachers are encouraged to make reasonable decisions that ensure academic achievements of students is improved. Principals are also required to provide feedback that targets cooperation from the board, parents, and teachers so that the institution is built as a whole. Following the guidance of learning goals, principals play an important role in creating coherence within classrooms and actions taken within schools. The decisions they make also affect the manner in which resources are allocated to promote students learning and enhance teacher’s professional development.
Other stakeholders who are affected by the theory of action are school administrators. They are people who take part in formulation of policies regarding the use of school funds and recruitment of teachers in both charter schools and public schools. By learning the principles of Action Theory, school administrators are able to collect data regarding the nature of working environment in classrooms and schools. According to Loedb, Valant & Kasman (2014), this ensures they are able to determine the elements that support strategies that raise student accomplishment of academic goals, communicate the association among the elements in a general and cohesive manner, and implement a strong performance data that ensure decision making is effectively done. Under the guidance of achievement targets, administrators in the central office are able to implement strategies that ensure there is an increase in achievement of students in various areas of interest such as academics, sports, and leadership. This can be achieved under the contribution of teachers, students, parents, and community members in general. They are able to develop human capital that implements the strategy so that improvement is achieved and coherences exist in the schools.
New Jersey Department of Education Policies (NJDOE)
Marytza (2012) states that an example of a major function of New Jersey Department of Education is formulation of policies that shapes the education system to comply with the government’s vision for education and strategic plans in each state. In the previous decades, NJ Department of Education has been instrumental in creating initiatives that have ensured reform is achieved in New Jersey schools such as improved development, improvement of curriculum, and improvement of administration of states in testing grades 3 to 8. It has also shaped the strategies of funding charter schools, expansion of schools from early childhood education to secondary education. Another function of New Jersey Department of Education is administering a number of programs and educational services that include licensing of teachers, policies concerning deaf students and promoting the achievement of GED diplomas.
Furthermore, NJ Department of Education is involved in administering federal and state acquisition of grant programs that facilitate the reception of funding for public schools, charter schools, and organizations within the community, educational technology, and education for adults among others. Ni & Arsen (2011) states that NJ Department of Education is involved in creating awareness regarding grant opportunities that can be obtained from other sources such as federal government and private organizations. Furthermore, NJ Department of Education plays an important role in administering aid in compliance with laws regarding state funding. At the beginning of each year, the finance section of the department issues aid from the state to support educational initiatives in each district. The aid is used to foot activities of district schools as well as charter schools. Based on the amount of funding in the budget, the state fund is not used as the main source of funding but the deficit funds can be obtained from community support initiatives.
NJ Department of education is also involved in resolution of disagreements arising under various laws and policies that have impacts on school districts. NJ Department of Education then takes action by contacting the school principal (Phelan et al. 3013). The success in implementation of NJDOE programs is dependent on the extent to which the theory of action is applied. This involves identifying a particular principle such as funding and teacher assessment and identifying the action that needs to be taken in order to achieve that objective. This shows that school administrators have the responsibility to ensure the requirements of NJDOE are implemented in management of school activities.
NJ Department of Grants Management
The NJ Department of Education is involved in planning, acquisition, awarding and managing grant funds in a fair manner for the purpose of accomplishing academic excellence, ensuring teacher effectiveness and accountability in schools. According to Phillips (2011), the office serves the function of supporting an efficient and accountable grant management strategy in compliance with the goals and priorities of the Department. The main activities of NJDOE include working in collaboration with program offices in developing a sub-grant program that complies with the goals and priorities of the department, implementation of subgrant initiatives such as grants management subprograms, managing grant systems a and withstanding tests of audit. There exist various forms of grant opportunities through the NJDOE such as New Jersey Afterschool/Summer Program-Cohort 2. Those who are eligible for this grant include statewide, public, and private institutions. Solak & Ozaskin (2014), states that this is a form of grant that is given to youth serving organizations that enable research essay assignment them to manage activities of youths after school. The programs funded are those that enhance the student’s ability to attend college after school and ensure career objectives of the students’ are met. The funds also serve the purpose of implementing activities aimed at improving students’ abilities in the areas of academic performance, the use of technology and math. The main target population of this fund is students between the ages of 15 to 18 years. In order to use these funds well, school managements need to use the theory of action. This involves identifying the action that needs to be taken so that the funds are used for the benefit of the institutions. For instance, it involves establishing the most important areas where funding needs to be provided in order to achieve overall goals and objectives of the institution.
Another grant provided by NJDOE is Migrant Education Program for Year 3 and 5. The main purpose of this fund is to ensure there is appropriate support to migrant children so that they can achieve their educational needs. Sulentic Dowell & Bach (2012) state that NJDOE has developed a five-year program that ensures the children of migratory workers and fishers get the following benefits: recognition and recruitment in schools, allowing intrastate and interstate transfer of these students, enabling them to get supplemental instructions, and enabling the benefit from health and support services. Selected agencies are allowed to access Discretionary grants so that they can address particular education initiatives. According to Vickers (2014), Federal regulations within states are incorporated into the guidelines that control educational programs at various levels of this grant. The NJDOE creates the guidelines by publishing a Notice of Grant Opportunity (NGO). This enables each applicant have a detailed package focusing on provision of guidance towards the process. The grants are awarded after an application has been made for the award. A workshop is organized where grant parameters and constraints are explained to the applicants. The implication for school administrators is that those who qualify for the grants must attend the workshops so that they can understand the areas where the funds should be used. In addition, public and charter school principals have the duty to comply with NJDOE in management of grants and use of the grants in the areas that have been recommended by NJDOE. They also have the responsibility to cooperate with officials from NJDOE to manage the grants in a manner that is beneficial to the institutions.
Decision Making
During decision-making, the main difference between a charter school and a public school is that teachers in charter schools have more control over the students compared with teachers in public schools. Parents also have the ability to make decisions regarding learning activities of children in charter schools than in public schools. According to Watts (2014), parents have the rights to take their children to transfer their children from one charter school to another charter schools based on their preferences because there are few restrictions to do so compared with public schools. The innovations that take place in public schools are not usually similar to those that take place in charter schools. Public Schools are also more involved in decisions regarding the establishment of charter schools. For instance, a public school under pressure to deliver according to market demands can prevent the construction of charter schools in its surroundings. In order to attract students into their schools, charter schools tend to use attractive marketing strategies to promote a particular type of curriculum that makes it more competitive than a public school. In some cases, these offerings may be traditional compared with those of public schools.
The implication for school administrators is that they are required to make decisions according to the restrictions on decision making in charter schools and public schools.
The distinction in decision-making roles between charter schools and public schools can be observed during strong competition. Brown (2012) states that, when there is a high competition, charter schools encounter pressure from public schools and they are forced to introduce marketing strategies which enable them to reach particular segments of the population so that student enrollment is increased. However, a district regulatory body determines the response taken by district schools. School administrators are required to engage in healthy competition activities that do not undermine their competitors in the areas in which they operate.
A number of public schools allow parents to play an important role in the child’s learning process and increase autonomy of the teacher, but it has been found that there have been mixed outcome in academic performance of children who undergo such programs. Baxter & Nelson (2012) state that, this has prevented most public schools from launching further innovations. Despite inability of some charter schools to meet academic needs of learners, they have been able to create health and safety assurance for learners thus becoming attractive to most parents. The operation of charter schools is also flexible in that the teacher is allowed to report at flexible hours and there is little accountability regarding compliance to the curriculum. This is contrary to a public school where teachers do not have the discretion to report to school at their preferred hours nor do they have the research essay assignment choice to choose the curriculum to be followed by the learners. With respect to the theory of action, it is required that parents’ involvement should be focused on particular interventions measures that improve the performance of students. The actions that need to be taken include allowing consultations with teachers and providing advices to students in areas such as obedience to teachers and proper time management while they are at school.
There is also low academic accountability in charter schools compared with traditional public schools. Due to strict principles involved in management of public schools, some parents have opted to take their children to charter schools due to increased marginalization of learners in public schools. Due to increased marginalization, most learners do not perform according to the expectations of their parents. According to Davis (2013), this makes some parents opt to take their children to charter schools. Another reason why charter schools are less restrictive is that students who have lower levels of discipline are able to learn in charter schools until they complete their education compared with the case of learning in a public school where they face the threat of dismissal. However, school administrators have the responsibility to ensure the main decisions made in the schools are not influenced by decisions of parents despite involvement of parents in decision making regarding learning needs of their children.
Comparison of Teacher Assessment Policies in Charter Schools and Public Schools
According to Anyon (2014), New Jersey Department of Education principles of teacher Assessment, the Assessment process in both charter schools and public schools is composed of two major components: observations in classrooms in terms of the teacher’s practices and student’s growth in terms of academic achievements. The achievements of students is measured in terms of Student Growth Percentiles (SGP) that measures the gains that have been achieved within the 4th to 8th grade in Arts, Math and Science. The achievement is measured by determining the score on statewide assessments. A state standardized assessment is used to compare the variation of students’ achievements from one year to another with students who have gone through the process in the previous years.
Baker, Libby & Wiley (2012), state that all public schools use the state standardized assessment structure but charter schools are able to formulate their strategy of SGPs. SGP Assessment contributes to 10% of teacher’s overall Assessment. SGP score for teachers can only be done if students have enrolled in the teacher’s class for at least 70% of the year. Furthermore, teachers have to set Student Growth Objectives (SGOs) for all students during the beginning of the year and the assessment involves determining whether those objectives have been achieved at the end of the year. According to Butler, Carr, Toma & Zimmer (2013), SGOs are goals that are set by the teacher so that all students can achieve them at the end of the year. The goals should correspond to quality standards required in various tests that are done by the students. Public schools are more advantageous to teachers in goal setting because teachers are allowed to set their own SGOs, while charter schools are more restricted and the teacher’s SGO may be determined by the principal or the Executive Board. The teachers set SGOs in public schools so that they can use their skills and tactics to achieve these objectives. However, in charter schools, the principal may set these goals so that the teacher meets a particular performance required to maintain the competitiveness levels of charter school. Teachers that are involved in teaching non-tested subjects are required to set the goal of the ability to accomplish or exceed the SGO count of 20% of the total Assessment. Teachers who teach tested grades are required to set goals of the ability to exceed SGO count of 20% of the total Assessment.
According to Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff (2012), teacher practice is another area of educator Assessment based on NJ Teacher Assessment Policies. Teacher practice is determined in using a state-approved teacher practice instrument that enables collection of evidence through observing in classrooms. Non-tenured teachers will be observed for the first two years of employment in addition to another two short observations in the third and fourth years. Favero & Meier (2013), state that during observations, a number of observers are made in order to reach a reasonable conclusion. This is applicable to all public schools but charter schools are not restricted to use this Assessment process. There is no restriction on the number of observers in charter schoolteachers compared with public school teachers. In the case of tenured teachers, the Assessment involves three years of short observation, but these observations are not required to be announced. Marder (2012) states that, it is recommended that at least one of the observations should have a pre-occurrence. In this type of Assessment, it is recommended that a number of observers should be involved. The following is a table that summarizes the Assessment processes of teacher in public schools.
Observations Requirements Overview
Teacher Observations Minimum Number of Observations Requirement of Multiple Observers
Non-tenured Years 1-2 3, 2 long and 1 short Necessary
Years 3-4 3, 1 long and 2 short
Tenured 3, all short Necessary
Additional Information:
o Action Plans for corrections: When the first year has been completed, teachers who have been evaluated as having an Ineffective or Partially Effective ratings will be subjected to one more observation using multiple observers.
o Short Observations: This observation will take a minimum of 20 minutes and will involve a post-reference observation.
o Long Observations: This observation will take duration of 40 minutes and will include a post-reference observation.
o Announced and Unannounced: Based on the minimum requirements, teachers will be expected to have at least a single unannounced and another announced observation including a pre-reference observation.
o Teacher’s presence in school for less than 40% of academic year: A minimum of two observations will be applied to observe them.
Table 1. A summary of Observation requirements for teacher based on NJ Teacher Assessment guidelines
Fryer (2011) states that, in both public schools and charter schools, those involved in conducting Assessment tasks will be trained staff in the areas of observation. They are provided with training in observation throughout the duration that they participate in observations. They are also required to take part in ‘refresher’ research essay assignment training and superintendents must ensure that they are trained before they can be assigned the task of Assessment. The implication for school administrators is that they are must observe that teachers comply with qualifications they are required to attain before they are contracted to work in the institutions. Both chartered school and public schools must ensure teachers have the right qualifications in areas such as Math, Art and Sciences before they can be allowed to teach in the institutions. They must also assess the role played by teachers in achievement of SGOs. Furthermore, they must monitor teachers during the first years of teaching so that any areas where teachers are not effective can be known and recommendations for improvement made. Nevertheless, theory of action will be relevant in teacher Assessment because it will determine the most important areas where Assessment need to be done and actions taken to improve the state of academic performance in an institution.
Scoring of Teacher Assessment
According to McGuinn (2012), in a study of Assessment criteria for teachers in public and charter schools found that, scoring during teacher Assessment is a combination of results from practice ratings of teachers and the achievements of students. When the scoring strategies for teacher in public schools are compared with those of charter schools, it is found that similar scoring systems are used in both cases. Miller (2012) conducted a study on scoring criteria for public and charter schools and found that, the achievements of students for all teachers in most public and charter schools are measured using SGOs. Other strategies of assessment used include median SGPs for teacher in the qualifying stage of the 4th grade to 8th grade in Language Arts Literacy and Math. Ravitch (2013) states that scores that range from one to four are used for each teacher. An example of a scoring system for teacher Assessment is weighting of Domains and components. In various elements of each instrument, a number of districts have determined components, standards, and areas where weighting should be applied. An example of a method that is used to weigh different components is illustrated below:
+ + + =

Figure 1. An example of a Scoring Systems based on different domains
For example, if a teacher has a weight of 3.25 in planning, 4.0 in Environment, 3.0 in instruction and 2.0 in professionalism, the score for the teacher will be (3.25 X 0.20) + (4.0 X 0.3) + (3.0 X 0.3) + (2.0 X 0.2) = 3.15.
According to Shermis & Burstein (2013), another scoring method during teacher Assessment in both public schools and charter schools is Student Growth Objective Scoring. Various approaches can be used during this method of scoring based on the approval of the district where a school is located as well as the strategy used by the teacher or the subjects being taught. In this type of scoring, a rating of 1-4 is used. School principals and administrators have the responsibility to ensure they monitor the activities of teachers in the areas of planning, management of learning environment such as student management, provision of instructions to students and exercise professionalism in teaching. If teachers show incompetence in any of the areas, the administrators can take corrective actions by providing them with opportunities such as training to enhance their competence. The strategy for improving performance based on teacher Assessment can best be determined by use of the theory of action. This is where areas of improvement are identified followed by specific actions that need to be taken in order to improve teacher performance in those areas.
Winkler, Scull & Zeehandelaar (2012) in a study of Assessment criteria for teacher in public and charter schools, found that both public schools and charter schools use Student Growth Percentile (SGP) measurement as a method of scoring teacher Assessment. This is where the improvement of a student is measured relative to that of other students who have similar history of scores and the performance of the student is used to rate the teacher’s effectiveness. A growth percentile is created for each student, resulting in a ‘rank’ on the achievement of the student relative to other students. The rank ranges from one to 99. If a student has a lower percentile, this implies Homework Writing Help a lower academic achievement growth while if a student has a higher percentile, it implies a higher academic growth. Zimmer & Guarino (2013), state that, during the process of SPG in the year, performance is weighted at 50% as the standard weight of Teacher Effectiveness Measure (TEM) for teachers of various test subjects. The impact of the SGP is determined using a TEM matrix and decision tables. Qualifying teachers of the 4th to 8th grade in Arts and Math are assigned median SGP (mSGP) score for all students who qualify in a particular subject based on the information provided by the district. For example, in a class where the student with the median score among the students is 51, the teacher is assigned a median SGP of 51. For mSGP to be used n teacher Assessment, the teacher must be assigned to a 4th-8th grade Language Arts course of a 4th to 7th grade Math course for more than a year before the Assessment is done.
Implications of Teacher Assessment
A study by Butler, Carr, Toma & Zimmer (2013) on Assessment of teacher performance resulted into the observation that, there is an association between the results of teacher Assessment and tenure, recognition and professional development of a teacher in a particular area. The implication for administrators and principals is that their approval of teachers to teach in the schools should be based on the Assessment criteria such as the ability of teachers to plan their lessons effectively among other criteria. According to Chetty, Friedman & Rockoff (2012), to maintain tenure, teachers are required to earn ratings of Effective or Highly Effective. While effectiveness is used as a measure to protect the tenure of teachers, public school teachers are less likely to be subjected to any action such as demotion or transfer to another school if they do not meet the performance goals, while charter school teachers may be affected in various ways such as reduction of the amount of salary or demotion.
Achieve NJ is an important source of information for teacher’s performance in both public schools and charter schools. Favero & Meier (2013), state that, by understanding the data from various observations and achievements of students, it is possible to focus learning goals towards improving instruction. State-approved teacher practice instruments implemented during observations act as a basis of discussion on teaching. When observations have been made, supervisors can provide more focused feedback that contributes towards identification of areas that need to be developed throughout the year. In order to provide the most relevant feedback, theory of action should be used by implementing actions that ensure SGOs are achieved in the institutions. Marder (2012) states that, Student Growth Objectives (SGOs) act as structures that enable understanding of academic standards, assessment of the knowledge of students and their abilities and focusing instruction to Help students accomplish short and long-term goals. School administrators and principals can cooperate with supervisors to improve the abilities of educators in achieving SGOs. They can also use measures such as Student Growth percentiles (SGPs) results to measure teacher effectiveness during professional development within the institutions.
Similarities and Differences between State and Federal Policies in:
Staff Certification Requirements
There is a difference in licensure requirements between charter schools and public schools. In traditional schools, it is required that teachers should be licensed so that they can teach programs that have been recognized by the states. When the levels of restrictions on teacher certifications are compared between charter schools and public schools, it is found that public schools have a high restriction on teacher certification compared with charter schools (Baxter & Nelson, 2012). Charter schools focus on hiring teachers who are more likely to leave the profession and switch to other schools because they do not have the certification, they are younger and are likely to work as part-time teachers. Despite these differences, both schools comply with the theory of action by ensuring action is taken to meet learning needs of students provided teachers are able to teach particular subjects irrespective of whether they are certified or not.In some cases, teacher turnout is affected by inadequate working conditions in charter schools. School administrators and principals have the responsibility to ensure teachers have the recommended certifications before they are recruited to teach in the institutions.
According to Denzin & Lincoln (2011), there is a difference in collective bargaining rights between charter schools and private school teachers. These rights determine whether charter school is supported or not. Charter schools are in most cases not unionized and there is no collective bargaining for teachers’ salaries. On the other hand, teachers in public schools are more likely to form unions that enable them bargain for salaries (Edwards, 2014). This is advantageous to the management of charter schools because they are given the opportunity to make decisions such as the amount of compensation to be received by each teacher. This is also a point of vulnerability of charter schools because they can create unfair employment without the ability of teachers to raise their voices. Irrespective of the existence of the rights to bargain among charter school and public school teachers, principals and school administrators such as Boards of Directors have the responsibility to ensure teachers are provided with compensation that meets their upkeep and well-being. They are also required to provide benefits to teachers based on technicality of the subjects they teach. When the theory of action is implemented, it can involve
Teachers Compensation in Charter Schools and Public Schools
There have been changes in the policies of both charter schools and public schools with respect to compensation for high quality teachers where the traditional payment structures do not enable satisfaction of competent teachers in various areas of specialization. The fact that charter schools are free from rules and constraints during hiring, compensation and dismissal of teachers, they have a greater opportunity to develop flexible compensation structures for their teachers. On the other hand, when the basic pay of teachers in charter schools and public schools are compared, it is found that public school teachers get higher basic pay compared with their charter counterparts. In determining the pay for their teachers, charter schools do not use a salary schedule as a determinant for the payments of teachers and there may be flexibility in the amount paid based on the level of workload and the complexity of the subjects to be taught. Edwards (2014), states that, in some charter schools, the teacher’s pay is tied to performance based on the students’ test scores, but this is not common in most public schools. In some charter schools, the teacher’s pay is tied to performance based on the students’ test scores. This is because most charter schools are required to comply with a particular level of performance so that they can be allowed to operate. On the other hand, the payment for a teacher in a public school is assured even when the students do not perform to the expected standards provided the teacher has taught the students particular subjects that are required to be taught.
In terms of the base pay that a teacher should be provided apart from bonuses, incentives and other benefits, most public schools have a clear salary schedule that is paid to the teachers based on the level of experience in teaching and the level of qualification in various fields. Only few charter schools use payment schedule. However, most charter schools offer higher basic salaries compared with public schools. According to Kowal, Hassel & Brayn (2012), the highest pain teacher in a charter school earns an average of $ 46,314 lower than that of a public school teacher, which is approximately $ 48,718 per annum. The salaries of teachers also vary based on the level of qualification. For instance, those with degrees but have no experience earn $ 20, 000 per year while those with degrees but have no experience earn $ 34, 000 per year. The main reason why charter school may use salary schedule is to make the payment process convenient. The comparisons of payment schedules above shows that school administrators must play a significant role in ensuring teachers are paid when their salaries are due. School administrators and principals must also ensure teachers with high academic qualifications are provided with salaries which meet their qualifications.
Pay Based on Performance
A number of public schools in the US have tried to pay teachers based on their performance so that teacher accountability can be increased and the quality of teaching can be improved. A number of schools, districts, and states are involved in attempts to create pay-performance programs. It is estimated that only 10% of public schools in the US have implemented payment structures based on performance since 1980. In most public schools in the US, payments for teachers are not based on performance and they are assured of salaries irrespective of the level of performance of students. In most charter schools, there are pay-performance programs have been implemented and when students do not perform well, the teachers’ salaries are reduced by a particular percentage. The main reason why charter schools use pay-performance systems is that it is used as an incentive to make the teacher deliver the teaching needs in an effective manner so that students can perform well. This ensures charter schools perform according to standards so that competition from public schools can be countered.
Most public schools may also use pay-performance program when there is the need to award bonus to a teacher that has work exemplarily well in ensuring high performance. In 2002, it was reported that almost than half (46%) of charter schools in the US used pay-performance program. Performance awards given to charter schoolteachers are a one-time bonus or a significant pay rise if teachers meet a particular performance standard. Charter schools are able to provide performance-based pay to more than 10% of teachers in a school. In some charter schools, payment of bonuses is based on students’ performance. The implication for school principals and administrators of public school and charter schools is that teachers who have contributed to students’ performance should be given a pay rise as well as other benefits such as bonuses. This can act as a motivation for them to provide quality teaching in the future.
Pay Based on Complexity of Subjects
There are particular subjects that are complex and most schools find difficulties in acquiring the qualified teachers to teach these subjects. According to Barkan (2011), the subjects that are considered complex include math, sciences, and special education subjects. In charter schools, a differentiated pay is used to attract teachers who are able to teach complex subjects such as math, sciences, and special education subjects. Almost a third of charter schools provide incentives during recruitment of teachers of complex subjects such as math and sciences. In 2000, it is estimated that 86% of charter schools used incentives to attract teachers of subjects they considered complex. In addition, it was found that 10% of charter schools made one-time bonus payments to teachers who could teach complex subjects. Buras (2011) states that, contrastingly, 41% of public schools used bonus payment to attract teachers who were able to teach complex subjects. Despite few incentives to teachers who teach difficult subjects in public schools, generally they are paid higher salaries compared with teachers who do not teach complex subjects. The general observation that has been made in public schools in the US is that more charter schools are willing to provide bonus payments for difficult subjects compared with public schools. However, the amount of bonuses paid to a charter schoolteacher who teaches hard-to-handle subjects is unstructured and based on negotiation between the teacher and the principal. The implication for school principals and administrators is that they should account for complexity of subjects to teach when determining the salaries to be paid to teachers in charter schools and public schools. This involves providing higher salaries to teachers who teach technical subjects.
Non-Financial Rewards
While there are few studies pertaining to non-financial rewards in schools, the most common strategies that have been used to provide this form of reward include improved working environment, training, and leave policies among other strategies for recruitment and retention in charter schools. In order to motivate teachers in public schools and charter schools, these rewards are provided to teachers who have demonstrated hard work in their areas of specialization to achieve the goals of a learning institution. According to Glass & Welner (2011), when the level of non-financial rewards are compared between public schools and charter schools, it is found that charter schools provide more non-financial rewards such as comfortable working environment, flexible working conditions and training in various skills compared with public schools. The implication for charter school and public school principals is that they should provide non-financial benefits to teachers based on the necessity of the benefits. For instance, they should allow teachers to go for leaves and create offices for teachers and allow teachers to work with flexibility in reporting to classes.
Professional Development on Harassment and Bullying
Due to the increase in cases of bullying in school settings, New Jersey Legislature passed a bill that ensures bullying is prohibited in schools. Cases of bullying are mainly high in public schools due to a high population of students and less concern for the level of discipline of students compared with charter schools where there is a better relationship among students and teachers. In response to this situation, teachers in public schools have been provided with education on methods of maintaining student discipline and prevent bullying. A bill has been passed in New Jersey to achieve this objective. The bill is called Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act of January 2011 (Loedb, Valant & Kasman, 2014). The aim of the act is to strengthen the procedures involved in controlling bullying in terms of reporting and prevention in most public schools in New Jersey. In order to comply with the requirements of this Act, it is required that teachers, educational services professionals and school managements must be provided with training on harassment, intimidation and bullying during the process of discharging their duties of teaching. This training is required for both public school teacher and charter schoolteachers in an effort to control bullying in all schools in New Jersey. However, the greatest focus is on public schools, because they are required to control high cases of bullying observed in these schools. According to Martineau (2013), it is required that professional development should be provided to teachers in this area of school administration.
In terms of professional development of teachers, New Jersey Schools Association requires that teachers in public schools should be provided with professional guidance that equips them with knowledge and skills that enable them control bullying in schools. According to (Marytza, 2012) this is aimed at addressing the bullying menace that has been common in most public schools. During the provision of training, teachers and educational professionals are required to undergo two hours of training during the five-year development of their professions.
The main areas that the program focuses on include the role played by prevention in ensuring possible harmful impacts of harassment, intimidation and bullying. During the training process, school personnel are equipped with skills of working with administrators so that a positive climate is created in the school environment (Morton, 2011). The present suicide prevention program involving teachers is required to incorporate anti-bullying that incorporates the idea about the association between the risk of engaging in suicide and cases of harassment or bullying and ideas on methods of reducing the chances of students committing suicide. Ni & Arsen (2011) state that during the two-hour professional development in the five-year cycle, the main areas where teachers are trained include understanding of the meaning of intimidation, harassment and bullying, behavior characteristics that can contribute to harassment or bullying and the vocabulary used by bully.
They are also equipped with skills that enable them to understand the behaviors of students and take action to correcting unacceptable behaviors. This is achieved by training them in areas of specialized intervention, clinical processes, as well as emotional and learning service learning. They are also required to undergo training on cyber-bullying such as technologies that have the potential to increase the possibilities of bullying and the association between cyber-bullying and bullying at school. Furthermore, they are introduced to methods of reporting bullying in schools and nuances that surround interaction among students that can contribute to an offence (Phelan, Steven, Johnson, Ane & Semrau, Thorsten, 2013). During professional development in prevention of bullying, intimidation and harassment, there are specific topics that teachers must be taught. Suicide prevention programs include, understanding the factors that contribute to HIB and methods of preventing them, methods of warning students who want to commit suicide, reporting responsibilities due to cases of intimidation, harassment, or bullying and methods of accessing structures such as school anti-bullying specialists. The implications for school administrators is that all persons with superintendent roles must undergo training on matters pertaining to school ethics, maintenance of law and order and governance as a component of professional development. This involves training principals on how cases of bullying should be handled and possible cases in the future are prevented.
Roles of Authorizers in Charter Schools and Public Schools
Authorizers are associations that establish whether charter schools are complying with operational quality by conducting oversight on the activities of schools for public interest. The focus of authorizers is to act as legal entities that determine whether a new charter school should be established, sets the standards of practice and oversee the performance of the school to determine whether the school should continue operating or not. The most common types of authorizers are school districts, educational institutions, universities, and mayors. When the impacts of authorizers are compared between charter schools and public schools, it is found that they reduce the impact of autonomy in charter schools by 15 per cent compared with their of 5 per cent in public schools. In some public schools, authorizers have contributed to enhance autonomy of charter schools beyond the limits of the state. According to Solak & Ozaskin (2014), authorizers have also contributed to increased autonomy of charter schools beyond the state’s control in a number of ways. The main areas where authorizers have increased the autonomy of charter schools is in terms of governance and revision of teachers’ contracts. For instance, authorizers have contributed to the autonomy of charter schools in determining the number of people who can sit in the governance boards in the states of California by pacing an individual on the governing board.
The charter type determines the level of autonomy and a number of organizations have been empowered to operate as authorizers. These include boards of education in schools, mayoral offices, special purpose commissions and state boards of education. Authorizers that have the least impact on schools have been state boards. This is because, they make fewer decisions on activities of charter schools compared with other authorizers. The main limitations resulting from district authorizers are that district-authorized schools continue to operate as part of the district in a similar manner as public schools (Richards, 2011). When there is no success in the accomplishment of the goals of these charters, districts have the responsibility to make changes to their authorization restrictions. An example of a measure that can be taken by a district is to protect itself by limiting freedom in particular areas where charter schools have freedom so that possible legal problems are avoided. More advanced schools operate with more autonomy compared with normal schools. The level of autonomy of charter schools with high performance is also high compared with that of schools with lower performance.
Authorization is implemented in various areas of operation such as discipline of students, contracting with other organizations and election of boards. In terms of these operations, most public schools have a higher autonomy compared with charter schools. The most common authorizer for both charter schools and public schools has been district authorizers (Fenn, 2011). When the impacts of authorizers on public schools and charter schools are compared, it is found that it is greater in charter schools because they do not determine whether a public school should operate or not. They also play a role in establishing areas where charter school activities such as procurements and budgeting decisions should be made. This is not the case in public schools, where authorizers do not have an impact on budgeting and procurement activities of the institution. Furthermore, authorizers play a role in scheduling school activities and revision of teachers’ contracts in charter schools but not in public schools. The area where authorizers play the least role is certification of teachers in both charter and public schools.
State Policies Regarding Recruitment, Curriculum Development and Professional Development
There is uniqueness in charter schools based on their ability to use a different curriculum and use the right technology and structure of staffs and the manner in which they schedule their needs (Ricciardelli, Cummins & Steedman (2014). Teachers from public schools are usually able to cope with the situations under their control because they are trained in particular areas; hence they have the competence to solve a number of teaching needs and curriculum requirements. Due to lack of restriction for certification of teachers in charter schools, some teachers are unable to perform their administrative and teaching duties with high efficiency. A policy has been proposed that aims at creating an on-site recruiting, training, and development of skills to equip charter schools with the ability to meet the unique needs of teachers (Sulentic, Dowell & Bach (2012). Consequently, teachers are able to develop their careers in teaching, leadership, and administrative functions. For instance, a teacher intern program has been proposed that will enable teachers achieve their academic aspirations as well as earning salaries while undergoing training in design strategies and visions in accomplishment of educational needs. Success has been achieved since the beginning of this program.
In terms of collective bargaining, a number of charter schools enable teachers to form unions that enable them bargain for salaries, benefits, and working environment (Vickers, 2014). This is not based on the condition that they are held to the same agreement as in the case of other schools. An example of a non-district school operator in the United States is Green Dot that has enabled teachers to form unions. They have advocated for good working conditions and teachers have been satisfied with their jobs and the conditions under which they work. The main areas that the collective bargaining efforts focus on include salary, improved health care, adequate class size and the periods of work. The main aspects of the contract include the ability of teachers to make decisions in the areas of budgeting, stipends, and payments for after school programs.
Other provisions that exist in public schools but not in charter schools include no seniority, no tenure for a teacher and new teachers are not subjected to probation. On the other hand, teachers in charter schools are subject to tenure and cannot be allowed to teach if their tenure is not renewed. Furthermore, teachers in charter schools must be accountable to their seniors such as supervisors or superintendents (Watts, 2014). States are also allowed to remove barriers such as collective bargaining being tied to the district. Consequently, charter schools are able to design the structure in which teachers need to be compensated, trained, and rewarded so that the vision of the school is achieved. Nevertheless, it is recommended that school administrators in both charter schools and public schools must revise the contract of teachers so that they are provided with the benefits such as pay rise, promotions and no-financial rewards based on their experience and accomplishments.
Parent Accountability in Public Schools and Charter Schools
Public schools do not have the obligation to meet an annual academic performance or involvement of parents in their activities. Smith, Wohlstetter, Kuzin & De Pedro, (2011) state that, in charter schools, there is a particular level of parents’ involvement and accountability such as making a choice regarding the school that a student should attend based on their satisfaction.
For instance, there are few conditions for retention of a child in a charter school if the parent wishes to transfer the child to another school based on preference of the parent. According to Miller (2012), a parent in a charter school can also hold a teacher accountable for unsatisfactory academic performance of a child. This is not the case in public schools, where parents cannot complain to any teacher for unsatisfactory academic performance of their children. Irrespective of involvement of parents in academic affairs of their children or not both public schools and charter school principals and administrators have the responsibility to ensure students are provided with quality teaching and perform well in various disciplines.
Operational Similarities and Differences
According to Barkan (2011), the operations of charter schools and public schools are similar in the manner in which facilities such as repair of furniture and maintenance of buildings or prevention of floods from entering into buildings. Another operational activity that is common in both charter schools and public schools is facility audit. This is where classrooms, offices, stores, and amenities within the schools are inspected to determine if they are in good operating conditions. Before the operations of buildings starts, the buildings must be commissioned to establish whether they are in good working conditions. Buras (2011) states that the operational activities in maintenance of classrooms include: regular painting if the paint is worn out, replacement of roofs on buildings if there are leakages and cleaning the bushes and removing debris around classrooms. If they are not in good working conditions, actions are taken by school administrators to restore them to their working conditions. Custodians have been employed by most charter and public schools to monitor most operational activities. Their roles include maintenance of inventory, records, and preparation of work reports. Furthermore, they play a role in reporting any equipment that are not in better working conditions to school administrators so that actions can be take to repair them.
Another operation that is common in most charter schools and public schools are projects that are aimed at improving the general infrastructures of a school. According to Glass & Welner (2011), the school administrations are responsible for coming up with budgets that ensure the projects are successful by accounting for labor costs and the extent of the maintenance task such as a repair or an overhaul. There are also a number of scheduling activities, which take place in both charter schools and public schools. This involves making arrangements on the strategy to follow during a particular task or activity and procurement of resources that will enable accomplishment of those tasks. According to a study by Molnar, A. (2013) on operational activities of schools, a number of district and charter schools also require that annual reports should be provided from various departments. These include reports from academic department, finance department and maintenance departments that provide information about areas of expenditures and whether goals of these departments have been achieved. Another operational activity that district schools and charter schools must involve in is maintaining customer relations. This is where the school maintains better relations with the, local communities, parents, and suppliers of products and services that enable smooth running of the school. This is achieved by maintaining communication, work relations and soliciting feedbacks. In summation, it is the role of school superintendents and Boards of Directors to monitor the operations of schools to ensure they are compliant with the school traditions, missions, values and visions.
Fiscal Responsibilities
In terms of financial accountability between public schools and charter schools, it is found that state superintendents do monitoring of public schools so that the federal aid can be used in appropriate manner and act as a replacement or a surplus to the available funds. According to Ricciardelli, Cummins & Steedman (2014), school boards are responsible for conducting school audits in public schools and the school district clerk is responsible for filing financial statements each year and providing it to the state superintendent. The school district report of each school must incorporate the amount of money received and the manner in which it was spent. On the other hand, charter schools obtain their funds from the states where they operate and the amount of tax paid is determined by the level of school enrollment. Since the funds for school management are provided by the local state, they are required to provide an account of the areas where they have spent the funds and they are subject to regular audits. The implications of fiscal responsibilities for school principals and administrators is that they are required to ensure the schools comply with taxation requirements and ensure prudent expenditure of funds of the institutions.
When the salaries of teachers in public schools are compared with that of charter schools, it is found that teachers in public schools receive higher compensation compared with those in charter schools. Richards (2011), state that, the compensations for teachers in public schools mainly come from the federal government while that of charter schools may come from sponsoring organizations. However, charter schools may also get compensations from the federal government in addition to that provided by sponsors. The compensations of the board of charter schools are higher when compared with that of public schools. This leads to the increased budgets of charter schools compared with that of public schools. Irrespective of the amount of compensation for teachers, school administrators must ensure that teachers are paid their salaries when it is due without delay.
Academic Expectations and Accountability
In terms of establishing teacher work rules, charter schools enabled teachers to come up with their individual work rules more often than public schools where there are predetermined rules that determine how a teacher should conduct lessons (Baxter & Nelson, 2012). Another area where charter schools have been free compared with public schools is during procurement of learning materials and staff dismissal policies. Most charter schools are flexible on the penalties to teachers such as dismissal of teachers compared with public schools.
Similarities and Differences in Academic Accountability between Charter Schools and Public Schools
Balfanz et al. (2012) state that, academic accountability includes items such as curriculum used by a school, testing procedures and reporting regulations, certification of teachers and accreditation of schools. It also includes performance of a school with respect to regulatory standards.
According to Black (2012), the main similarity between charter schools and public schools is that students in both schools must take the same tests and achieve the targets set by the state. In addition, both schools similar standards of assessments are applicable in accordance with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policies. Bifulco & Buerger (2012) state that, this policy requires that states must determine challenging areas in academics and apply high quality, annual assessments that targets grade 3 to 8. There should be at least one assessment in high school in English language, Arts, and Math so that the performance of the state can be determined. Both charter school and public school students take the same assessment in a particular state. In addition, both charter schools and public schools are required to create a nationwide system of accountability that establishes the progress that a school has made to provide teaching to the students in reading and math. This implies that both charter schools and public schools administrators and Boards of Directors must create programs that contribute to efficient accomplishment of academic goals by students so that academic standards that need to be met are actually achieved. Davis (2013) states that during statewide reporting or school performance, charter schools have a 5-year extension before providing the results to the district board. This is not the case for public schools; reports of academic performance of schools are sent to the district boards on yearly basis.
Differences
According to Mead & Green (2012), the main difference between academic accountability of charter schools and public schools is that public schools that do not perform according to the requirements set by authorizers can be closed down after a particular period of operation. A number of states have formulated policies for closure of charter schools that do not meet particular academic performance standards. Rothwell (2012) states that, in Ohio, the laws have been made because authorizers have not been strict in providing charters to these schools or due to the failure of authorizers to close down schools that do not meet particular academic performance standards. Charter schools that do not comply with state requirements of accountability, health safety, and compliance with civil rights rules are assessed after every 3 to 4 years and when it has been determined that the school has performed well, the charter is renewed. Buddin (2012), states that, this is not the case for a public school where there is no renewal of a charter but the school can be held accountable for academic health and safety compliance. In addition, any person who has a bachelor’s degree, and has demonstrated proficiency in particular subjects that should be taught in the school can provide the teaching license of a charter school. The instructional license of a charter school can also be issued to any person who has a teaching license to teach a particular subject recognized by the state, provided the person has completed a major subject, and passed content knowledge exam in the subject.
According to Watson et al. (2011), another difference is that some charter schools are required to meet a high academic achievements compared with most public schools. The performance framework incorporates academic framework such as indicators of readiness for college, academic goals specific to a school’s objectives and organizational structure that complies with state and federal laws. Irrespective of academic standards that need to be achieved by either charter schools or public schools, principals and administrators have the responsibilities to ensure they create opportunities for achievement of these performances. They should also create a culture of high achievement among learners. More specifically, they are required to ensure schools meet the NJDOE recommendations for academic accountability such as meeting the minimum school performance. For instance, Balfanz et al. (2012), states that in New Jersey, the Office of Charter Schools that has the authority to provide charters set the academic goal of charter schools to the level of ‘exceeds standards’ score for public schools in the state. In order for a charter school to be considered to have met standards for charter schools, they must meet the minimum score for traditional schools in New Jersey.
Differences and Similarities of Operation of Charter Schools and Public Schools from Business Perspective
In terms of management of schools from business perspectives, the management of Charter Schools does not have the right to own facilities acquired from another company from which the facilities are leased. However, both public and charter schools have the responsibilities to maintain the facilities in their working conditions so that they are not destroyed. According to Smith, Wohlstetter, Kuzin & De Pedro (2011), both charter schools and public schools have the responsibility to ensure the revenues, expenditures of the school are documented, and profitability from school activities established. Both schools have the responsibility to conduct their activities with more focus on reducing costs of operation and maximizing revenues. Buras (2011) states that, charter schools are accountable for management of facilities such as computers, textbooks and furniture but public schools cannot be held accountable in case of loss of such facilities. However, both charter schools and public school superintendents and Board of Directors have the responsibility to ensure that worn out facilities such as buildings are replaced so that activities of the institutions can continue.
Comparison of functions of Executive Board and School Board of Education
According to Glass & Welner (2011) in a study of the functions of school Executive Boards, the overall function of Executive Board and School Board of Education in both charter schools and public schools is to provide direction of success for the schools in various areas such as academic excellence, financial accountability, supervision of school activities, fundraising and leadership. Both Boards of charter schools and public schools are responsible for creation of educational model that is approved by the district and implements most aspects of progressive heritage with the national expectations. Molnar (2013), states that, they also create opportunities for students to develop skills in various disciplines and provide guidance on strategies in which particular activities need to be performed according to the vision and mission of an institution. The Executive Board is also responsible for broadening, procurement, and refining key resources required enhancing academic enterprise. They assess the qualification of academic staff to determine whether they meet or exceed the qualifications of the positions to which they are assigned. They determine the training required achieving a particular objective in learning and management of a school and they develop suitable recruitment criteria for various positions in the institution. In order to achieve the above overall functions, the Boards of Directors play various specific roles such as policy making in the areas of operations in a learning institution that comply with the vision of the institution. In both charter schools and public schools, the role of Boards of Directors is aimed at achieving academic performance of the institution.
Another role of Board of Directors is provision of leadership. This is achieved by assessing the values of the community and translating these values into educational activities of the institution. Barkan (2011), states that, they mobilize school community in creation of a vision and attainment of school objectives that match the interests of the local community. The school Boards of Directors also contribute to budgeting in both charter schools and public schools. They negotiate with labor unions, oversights of procurement of food, technology, maintenance of facilities and generation of revenues by conducting capital campaigns, bonds, and tax levies. Irrespective of the differences in roles of Boards of Directors, those in both charter schools and public schools must ensure they come up with policies that are beneficial to the institutions they manage. These benefits include efficient policies that enhance academic performance and utilization of resources within the institutions.
Testing and Student’s Academic Performance
In terms of grading, it has been found that the grading of charter schools range from A to F in a similar manner as that of public schools. On the other hand, it has been observed that the average performance of public schools is higher than that of charter schools where the average score in most public schools is B+ while that in charter schools is C+ (Brown, 2012). High performance in charter schools have been associated with the ability to make use of the available resources in an effective manner compared with charter schools. In addition, teacher in public schools have higher academic qualifications and are more likely to provide competent teachings compared with those in charter schools. Thus, high academic performance of students in public schools is associated with quality teaching compared with that of charter schools.
There is also a variation in grading systems used by various states such as autonomy in grading in charter schools compared with public schools where standard-grading criteria is used. The grading system varies from one state to another with some states such as Arizona, California, and Texas having the highest number of autonomous schools (Crouch, 2011). In states where schools have a high level of autonomy, it has been established that a high percentage of these schools are charter schools. Most investors involved in setting up charter schools have been motivated by the idea that they will enjoy autonomy when they start operating. However, principals and administrators have the responsibility to ensure school testing procedures are in compliance with guidelines of various districts and that students are provided with examinations that have been approved by the districts that govern school activities in a particular state.
Summary of the Chapter
The literature review provides an adequate understanding of similarities and differences in principles of operation of public schools and charter schools in various categories. The main categories that have been identified include teacher recruitment, training, and role of authorizers in accreditation of charter schools and public schools. The main similarities that have been found in teacher recruitment in both public schools and charter schools is that teacher in either case must have the competence to teach particular subject in both public schools and charter schools.
This paper has also shown that there are various level of compensation for teachers in public schools and charter schools but this is dependent on factors such as level of experience, complexity of subjects and level of academic qualification. It has also explained the role of Board of directors in making policies that affect daily activities of a business. In terms of teacher Assessment and scoring, the main policies that have been investigated are those of New Jersey Department of Education.
This paper has shown that different policies apply when evaluating teacher in public schools and charter schools. Similarities and differences in operational activities in charter schools and public schools have also been investigated. Consequently, the literature review provides a guideline on the direction that the methodology of this study needs to focus. Thus, the methodology of this study will be a qualitative study of similarities and differences of policies of accountability in public schools and charter schools and any impact on academic performance. The main areas of policy that will be investigated include teacher certification and recruitment, teacher compensation, professional development, teacher Assessment, and roles of authorizers in school certification. In addition, the methodology will involve an investigation of, curriculum development, roles of executive boards and boards of education, state assessments, operational and performance accountability of public schools and charter schools from a procedural perspective.
References
Anyon, J. (2014). Radical possibilities: Public policy, urban education, and a new social
movement. Routledge. http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781136202216sample501182.pdf
Baker, B. D., Libby, K., & Wiley, K. (2012). Spending by the Major Charter Management
Organizations: Comparing Charter School and Local Public District Financial Resources
in New York, Ohio, and Texas. National Education Policy Center. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED531789.pdf
Balfanz, R., Bridgeland, J. M., Bruce, M., & Fox, J. H. (2012). Building a Grad Nation:
Progress and Challenge in Ending the High School Dropout Epidemic. Annual Update,
2012. Civic Enterprises. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED530320.pdf
Barkan, J. (2011). Got dough? How billionaires rule our schools. Dissent, 58(1), 49-57. http://www.educatorsforademocraticunion.com/uploads/1/1/8/5/11852082/howbillionairesruleour_schools_2011.pdf
Bifulco, R., & Buerger, C. (2012). The Influence of Finance and Accountability Policies on
Charter School Locations. Working Paper, Syracuse University. http://vvww.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP209.pdf
Black, D. W. (2012). Civil Rights, Charter Schools, and Lessons to Be Learned.Fla. L. Rev., 64,
1723. http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1070&context=flr
Brown, K. (2012).A Brighter Future: The Impact of Charter School Attendance on Student
Achievement in Little Rock. Economics Undergraduate Honors Theses. Paper 2. http://scholarworks.uark.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=econuht
Buras, K. (2011). Race, charter schools, and conscious capitalism: On the spatial politics of
whiteness as property (and the unconscionable assault on black New Orleans). Harvard
Educational Review, 81(2), 296-331. http://pv.gae2.org/issues/UnconscionableAssaultonBlackNewOrleans.pdf
Butler, J. S., Carr, D. A., Toma, E. F., & Zimmer, R. (2013). Choice in a world of new school
types. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), 785-806. http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/docs/pdf/faculty/JPAMresubmitversion21313.pdf
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., & Rockoff, J. E. (2012). Great teaching. Education Next, 12(3), 58-
68. http://educationnext.org/files/ednext20123Friedman.pdf
Crouch, E. (2011). St. Louis public schools to offer plan for charters. St. Louis Post Dispatch.
Retrieved October 28, 2011, from http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/education/article_27cc2eb3-d6f9-5aa4-9f4c-e70e2bc20c4e.html
Baxter, P., & Nelson, E. (2012). Mastering change: When charter schools and school districts
embrace strategic partnership. In R. Lake & B. Gross, Hopes, Fears, & Reality (pp. 23-
31). National Charter School Resource Center. Retrieved from: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528667.pdf
Buddin, R. (2012). The impact of charter schools on public and private school enrollments.
Cato Institute Policy Analysis, (707). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED534734.pdf
Glass, G. V., & Welner, K. G. (2011). Online K-12 Schooling in the US: Uncertain Private
Ventures in Need of Public Regulation. National Education Policy Center. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526345.pdf
Davis, T. (2013). Charter School Competition, Organization, and Achievement in Traditional
Public Schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(88) Retrieved [date], from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1279
Denzin, N. & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research in N. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), The Sage handbook of qualitative rearch (pp.
1-20). Los Angeles, CA: Sage. http://uk.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/40425_Chapter1.pdf
Edwards, D.B., (2014). Accountability and Competition for Charter Schools? Theory versus
Reality in Concession Schools in Bogotá, Colombia. Educational Administration and
International Education School of Education, Drexel University. http://www.periglobal.org/sites/periglobal.org/files/Accountability%20and%20Competition%20for%20Charter%20Schools_0.pdf
Favero, N., & Meier, K. J. (2013). Evaluating urban public schools: Parents, teachers, and state
assessments. Public Administration Review, 73(3), 401-412.
Fenn, D. (2011). Jennifer Schnidman Medbery, founder of Drop the Chalk. Inc. Retrieved
October 28, 2011, from http://www.inc.com/30under30/2011/ pro!le-jennifer-schnidman-
medbery-founder-of-drop-the-chalk.html
Fryer, R. G. (2011). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City
public schools (No. w16850). National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850.pdf
Gray, N.L., (2012). School Choice and Achievement: The Ohio Charter School Experience.
Cato Journal, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Fall 2012). http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/2012/12/v32n3-6.pdf
Gulosino, C. & Lubienski, C. (2011). Strategic responses to competition in segregated urban
areas: Patterns in school locations in metropolitan Detroit. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 19(13). Available at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/829. Date accessed:
21 Jun. 2011.
Karp, S. (2013). The problems with the common core. Rethinking schools, 28(2), 10-17. http://common-elements.com/sites/default/files/downloads/events/Rethinking%20Schools-092013-The%20Problems%20with%20the%20Common%20Core%20-%20Google%20Docs.pdf
Linick, M. A. (2014) Measuring Competition: Inconsistent definitions, inconsistent results.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22 (16). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1032018.pdf
Kowal, J., Hassel, E.A., & Brayn, C.H., (2012).Teacher Compensation in Charter and Private
Schools Snapshots and Lessons for District Public Schools. Center for American
Progress. https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/issues/2007/02/pdf/teacher_compensation.pdf
Loedb, S., Valant, J., & Kasman, M., (2014). Increasing Choice in the Market for Schools:
Recent Reforms and their Effects on Student Achievements. National Tax Journal,
March 2011, 64 (1), 141–164. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/A06-Loeb.pdf
Marder, M. (2012). Failure of US public secondary schools in mathematics.AASA Journal of
Scholarship and Practice, 9(1), 8-25. https://uteach.utexas.edu/sites/default/files/BrokenEducation2011.pdf
Martineau, M.D. (2013). Competitive Effects of Charter Schools in Utah. University of Utah,
Department of Economics. http://content.lib.utah.edu/utils/getfile/collection/etd3/id/2276/filename/2303.pdf
Marytza A. G. (2012): Moving Beyond the Rhetoric: Charter School Reform and
Accountability, The Journal of Educational Research, 105:3, 210-219. http://www.gare.cree-inter.net/sites/default/files/Moving%20beyond%20the%20Rhetoric%20Charter%20School%20Reform%20and%20Accountability.pdf
McGuinn, P. (2012). The State of Teacher Assessment Reform: State Education Agency Capacity
and the Implementation of New Teacher-Assessment Systems. Center for American
Progress. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539744.pdf
Mead, J. F., & Green III, P. C. (2012). Chartering Equity: Using Charter School Legislation and
Policy to Advance Equal Educational Opportunity. National Education Policy Center. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529628.pdf
Miller, R. (2012). Teacher Absence as a Leading Indicator of Student Achievement: New
National Data Offer Opportunity to Examine Cost of Teacher Absence Relative to
Learning Loss. Center for American Progress. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536902.pdf
Molnar, A. (2013). School commercialism: From democratic ideal to market commodity.
Routledge. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.6568&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Morton, N. (2011). IDEA, PSJA districts launch teacher boot camp. The Monitor. Retrieved
October 28, 2011, from http://www.themonitor.com/articles/ launch-53575-pharr-
boot.html
Ni, Y., & Arsen, D. (2011). School Choice Participation Rates: Which Districts are Pressured?
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19 (29) Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/777
Phelan, Steven E.; Johnson, Ane T.; and Semrau, Thorsten (2013) “Entrepreneurial Orientation
in Public Schools: The View from New Jersey,” New England Journal of
Entrepreneurship: Vol. 16: No. 1, Article 4. http://digitalcommons.sacredheart.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=neje
Phillips, V. (2011). Learning from each other. The School Administrator, 7(68) 10–14.
Retrieved October 28, 2011, from http://www.aasa.org/SchoolAdministratorArticle.aspx?id=19602
Ravitch, D. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to
America’s public schools. Vintage. http://www.lwvglc.org/documents/reign_of_error.pdf
Richards, E. (2011). Hines, Darling vow new rules on empty MPS buildings.
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved October 28, 2011, from
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/112943139.html Woodall, M. (2011, January
20). 70,000 empty seats in Philadelphia school district classrooms. Philadelphia Inquirer.
Retrieved October 28, 2011, from http://articles.philly.com/2011-01-20/news/27038709_1_empty-seatscharter-schools-facilities-plan
Ricciardelli, B.A., Cummins, C., & Steedman, P., (2014). Superintendents’ Perceptions of
Charter Schools in the Context of a Competitive Educational Marketplace: Charter
Schools, their Impact on Traditional Public Districts and the Role of District Leadership.
Lynch School of Education. Retrieved from: https://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:101699/datastream/PDF/view
Rothwell, J. (2012). Housing costs, zoning, and access to high-scoring schools. Washington:
Brookings Institution. http://www.nyctecenter.org/content/userfiles/files/0419_school_inequality_rothwell.pdf
Shermis, M. D., & Burstein, J. (2013). Handbook of automated essay Assessment: Current
applications and new directions. Routledge. http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781136334801_sample_493113.pdf
Smith, J., Wohlstetter, P., Kuzin, C. A., & De Pedro, K. (2011). Parent Involvement in Urban
Charter Schools: New Strategies for Increasing Participation. School Community
Journal, 21(1), 71-94. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ932201.pdf
Solak, E., & Ozaskin, A., (2014). The notion of Charter Schools and Its Feasibility in Turkey.
Participatory Educational Research (PER) Vol. 2(2), pp. 1-13, August 2015. http://www.partedres.com/archieve/issue_2_2/1-per_15-08_volume_2_issue_2_page_1_13.pdf
Sulentic Dowell, M., & Bach, J. (2012). A Comparative Case Study of Service-Learning in
Teacher Education: Rethinking Benefits and Challenges of Partners and Placements.
PRISM: A Journal of Regional Engagement, 1 (2). Retrieved from: http://encompass.eku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1053&context=prism
Vickers, J.R., (2014). A Comparison of Charter Public and Traditional Public School Principals:
Who they are and how they function. Educational Leadership Thesis, Research and
Technology Western Michigan University. http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1267&context=dissertations
Watson, J., Murin, A., Vashaw, L., Gemin, B., & Rapp, C. (2011). Keeping Pace with K-12
Online Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice, 2011. Evergreen Education
Group. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535912.pdf
Watts, C.B., (2014). Home Based Education in North Carolina, USA A Case Study of Policy,
Coordination, and Social Acceptance. International and Comparative Education. http://www.edu.su.se/polopoly_fs/1.173647.1396620632!/menu/standard/file/Chelsey%20Watts%20April%202014.pdf
Winkler, A. M., Scull, J., & Zeehandelaar, D. (2012). How Strong Are US Teacher Unions? A
State-by-State Comparison. Thomas B. Fordham Institute. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537563.pdf
Zimmer, R. W., & Guarino, C. M. (2013). Is there empirical evidence that charter schools “push
out” low-performing students? Educational Assessment and Policy Analysis, 0162373713498465. http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/docs/pdf/faculty/Zimmer_and_Guarino_Charter_School_Push_OutPaper_NEW.pdf

Published by

Essays

View all posts