Discussing How Economics, Racial Inclusion, Social Equity, and Executive Power Influence School Reforms

From a moral perspective, the variables of economics, racial inclusion, and social equity, speak to core American inalienable rights whereby all men are created equal.  These rights include life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  Truly, we the people could not be true to our democratic principles unless we use Executive power and legislative mandates to maintain these principles and ensure opportunity gaps are mitigated. 

From an educational perspective, the variables of economics, racial inclusion, and social equity are undeniable factors that can mitigate efforts to promote learning for all.  Beginning in 2009, Race to the Top competitive grants exercised the Executive branch’s power and encouraged legislative mandates be brought to bear to promote social justice and equity in quality goals.  The Great Recession provided the need and opportunity because, at the time, diverse states were not exhibiting the same effort toward achieving social justice or equity in quality goals.  This increased the need for the federal Department of Education to utilize its funding streams to influence implementation of mandates designed to ensure the learning for all mission. 

Executive power can be maximized through the federal Department of Education.  Beginning ten years after the initial 1959 questioning of federal aid to public schools, Berke, Bailey, Campbell, and Sacks (1971) conducted an eighteen-month study of the pattern of how federal aid to education was allocated.  As a result, the authors reported the “story in general is grossly disappointing” (p. 52).  Major findings were:

“(1) in most urbanized areas, there is a crisis in educational finance, yet school districts in rural areas received more federal aid per pupil; (2) there was no compensatory relationship between federal aid and assessed property valuation; (3) because of the impact of Title I, districts with lower income and higher proportions of nonwhite pupils received more aid than those with lower proportions; (4) amounts of aid received varied markedly and erratically in individual school districts; (5) the failure to concentrate funds on most needy students has resulted in fragmented programs or new equipment; and (6) amounts of aid are too small in view of the existing problems” (p. 53).

            During the ensuing four decades, education has become increasingly politicized while the findings identified by Berke et al (1971) remain pervasive.  Based on ignored or politicized conditions, the lack of equity in quality continues.  This results in the continued inability of public education to close the achievement gap and increase the quality of equitable education, especially when compared to other industrialized nations. 

In the United States, two main philosophies have emerged:  One group advocates that federal aid for public schools should be increased.  They argue that since current funding systems for schools, such as dependency on local property taxes, do not provide just and equitable compensation for public schools.  Federal Aid, they contend, would provide the equity in quality required for effective schools.

By contrast, opponents to Federal Aid for public schools, led by the Cato Institute, advocate for the privatization of schools with funding coming from sources outside of the tax base.  The Cato Institute “argues that schools cannot cater to their constituents when government institutions run and fund them” (Fitzpatrick, 2010).

Clarity over the role of Federal Aid in public education is more important than ever.  Since the premise of equity in quality is grounded in civil rights and social justice, the role of the Federal government in assuring this policy should be clear.  Therefore, the focus of any debate should be less on “whether” and more on “how” to optimize the role of Federal Aid to optimize reform of public education in pursuit of social justice and equity in quality goals.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. April 30, 2018) Discussing how economics, racial inclusion, social equity, and executive
             power influence school reform [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Berke, J.L., Bailey, Campbell, and Sacks, (1971) Federal Aid to Public Education: who

Benefits?  http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED051441.pdf

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth for

those who are behind. New York: Foundation Press.

Will Teacher Accountability Initiatives Improve Student Learning?

 Educational practices are now very different compared to a generation ago.  During the last decade of the twentieth century the standards-based movement and education reform efforts utilized the diverse research that followed the publication of “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” (1983) to advance educational reform.  Undoubtedly, accountability now provides the single greatest variable to planning for effective and sustained educational reform efforts.  Depending on its acceptance of the concept of multiple levels of accountability, a struggling school’s staff might willingly utilize data to adjust or remain mired in the inertia of ineffective systemic and personal practices. 
      Ideally, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on results of accountability measures allow data to guide instructional decisions.  However, effective monitoring and analysis of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process.  The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here”(Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141).  Without a clear and focused mission of learning being guided by strong instructional leadership, the interdependent implementation of all seven of the correlates of Effective Schools Research, progress is adversely impacted.

  As suggested, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on disaggregated accountability data should provide the impetus for discussing improvement of instruction as grounded in the seven correlates of Effective Schools:

·         Safe and Orderly Environment

·         Clear and Focused Mission

·         Climate of High Expectations for Success

·         Opportunity to Learn & Student Time on Task

·         Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

·         Positive Home-School Relations

·         Strong Instructional Leadership

Based on empirical evidence grounded in research and documented best practices, when seeking school improvement it is prudent to implement the correlates for Effective Schools.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62).  Given the interdependency of the seven correlates, an effective, strong school leader approaches the correlates with the view of implementing them all at once. 

Accountability requirements within legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) and IDEA (2004) created the impetus for sustained change efforts of schools.  However, poor communication during the implementation of more stringent accountability requirements often resulted in the fear of failure becoming the single most powerful force of change working within an educational community.  Too often, this fear of failure paralyzed leadership around the trailing indicators for change (assessments) rather than mobilizing them to trust implementation of interdependent leading indicators (correlates of Effective Schools Research).  This situation exacerbates the tail wagging the dog. 

Rather than promoting success of new initiatives through the question, “are we doing the right thing?” fear of failure resulted in ineffective “Learn or Else” approaches that resulted in further implementation of fragmented policies based on the persistent question, “are we doing it right?”  A positive aspect of NCLB and IDEA accountability requirements was the emergence of professional learning communities (PLC), which addressed the need to develop a systemic culture of continuous improvement promoting learning (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008).  Marzano and Waters (2009) believe, a PLC “suggests a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth-promoting way; operating as a collective enterprise” (p. 56). 

Ineffective school leaders disrupt productive PLC processes by failing to invite teacher leaders to become agents of change.  Instead, these ineffective school leaders dwell in the problems by instilling culture fearful of failure.  Schools that spend a lot of time talking about teaching to the test are examples of systems locked into the inertia of problem-driven cultures. 

Staff perception is a very important variable in the success of any initiative.  Depending upon a leader’s selected approach to implementation of accountability measures, the perceived consequences implied within the approach has the power to create either a positive or a negative reaction.  Therefore, the effective leader needs to provide a clear vision that strikes a positive emotional chord with staff (Reason, 2010). 

Lezotte and Snyder (2011) reinforce the most significant feature common to world-class schools “was their continual effort toward becoming “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67).  A consistent exhibition of vision toward a clear mission, commitment to learning for all, and shared responsibility for success certainly appears to be minimal requirements to promote an effective school culture.  Development of an inclusive, inviting culture requires an emotionally intelligent leader willing to embrace collaboration rather than reliance upon fear or intimidation as the impetus to change.  An obvious result of an inclusive, inviting, approach is improved organizational culture resulting from greater consistency and reduced staff turnover (Austin & Harkins, 2008).  

During the twelve years of NCLB implementation, diverse stakeholders have critiqued the role of teachers in educational reform.  Regardless of philosophical debates, it has become clear that to some substantial level, teachers are accountable for student results.  With increased accountability comes various schemes intended to optimize results. 

Boulding (1989) identified three kinds of motivating power: stick power, carrot power, and hug power, which are further described whereby stick power is the power derived from threats, carrot power is the power derived from provision of incentives, and hug power is the result of two or more individuals joining together based on a shared vision and values.  Apparently, the joy of good teaching, the opportunity to shape young minds, or helping to change destinies is not enough incentive to promote great teaching. 

The Brazosport case study (Davenport & Anderson, 2002) exemplified “hug power” as an effective form of motivation.  Brazosport achieved "learning for all" and accomplished reform.  A good set of processes joined with the right motivation to create sustained success.  

As cited by Marzano and Waters (2009), a Borman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown study (2003) regarding the implementation of comprehensive school reform (CSR) models, found “the effect size for comprehensive interventions rose over time and suggest that it might take longer than a decade for the effects of a CSR model to stabilize.  CSR models are focused on individual schools” (p. 114).  Marzano and Waters rationalized a similar timeline could be anticipated for district-wide initiatives, including nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction.  Perhaps it is time to evaluate whether teachers believe educating children is a sufficiently cherished aspiration and defined as a non-negotiable goal. 

Effective Schools Research proves the mission of learning for all is possible regardless of misguided initiatives and unintended consequences.  Educational leaders and the community must commit to the mission.  However, as accountability increasingly focuses upon teachers in relation to student results, other motivators will be promoted rather than seeking to do the right thing, for the right reason, and doing it in the right way.   

In a February 11, 2011 article, Bybee paraphrased Diane Ravitch's claim that, "President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have formed an alliance with billionaire 'school reformers' whose agenda is to downgrade U.S. public education and blame its shortcomings on 'bad teachers'" (para 1).  While Ravitch’s description of the pursuit of teacher accountability as an effort to downgrade the US public education system is unsubstantiated, it is true that corporate reformers led by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edith Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family foundation, advocate that merit pay is a vital incentive or reward for better-performing teachers.  However, a Vanderbilt University study (2010) clearly demonstrated merit pay failed to produce higher standardized testing results. 

Nevertheless, pay for performance is becoming a popular concept for the teaching profession.  In Florida, all new teachers are annual contract teachers and forty percent of their salary will be based on student gains in learning.  Whether this carrot approach proves effective will be unknown until analysis of initial accountability data after 2014. 

Improving the quality of teachers has become a pressing issue in educational reform efforts.  The focus to improve the quality of teachers is obvious when considering Race to the Top (RTT) initiatives for supporting funded states that successfully identified and implemented plans for “recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most” (USDE, 2010).  

As noted by Crowe (2011), teacher education elements of the RTT funding application were favorable to states adopting accountability measures establishing or expanding teacher preparation programs successfully producing effective teachers.  RTT required the funded states to:

·         “Link student achievement and student growth data to the teachers of these students

·         Tie this information to the in-state programs that prepare teachers

·         Publicly report the data on program effectiveness for each preparation program in the state

·         Expand teacher education programs and teacher credentialing options that are successful at producing graduates who are effective teachers” (para. 6).

Obtaining change in the overall quality of teacher education in the United States is behind RTT efforts to combine a carrot-and-stick approach.  Incentives will continue to be offered to programs that embark on serious reform efforts while stronger accountability measures will push the programs toward the desired direction.  However, is an extrinsically or intrinsically motivated teacher the better educator?  If the former, what values will be instilled as part of that teacher’s presentation of the affective domain of learning? 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 5, 2013) Will teacher accountability initiatives improve student learning?  [Web log post]

                Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bybee, R. (Feb 11, 2011) Race to the bottom: Ravitch says ‘school reformers’ scapecoat

                teachers, ignore poverty.  Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6939/obama_sides_with_corporate_attack_on_teachers_instead_of_new_war_on_po/

Crowe, E. (March 1, 2011) Race to the top and teacher preparation: Analyzing state strategies for ensuring real 

                 accountability and fostering program innovation. Center for American  Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/03/01/9329/race-to-the-top-and-teacher-preparation/

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

                APQC

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

                work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution

                Tree Press

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others.

                Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

How the Common Core Standards can be a Part of the Solution to Educational Reform

The publication of “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” (1983) renewed interest in education reform efforts.  The result was most states adopting some form of content-based learning standards by the end of the 20^th century.  During this period, business leaders, such as Bill Gates of Microsoft, Craig Barrett of Intel and Louis V. Gerstner, Jr. of IBM, began suggesting the key educational issue should be identifying the sort of student needed to emerge from a high school education.  As a result, in 1996 state governors and business leaders created Achieve, Inc.  As a bipartisan, non-profit organization its mission was to help states raise academic standards, improve assessments and strengthen accountability to prepare all young people for postsecondary education, work and citizenship.  Initially, five states developed the American Diploma Project (ADP).  By developing a series of rigorous standards identifying the skills and knowledge expected of any student receiving a high school diploma, these five states and Achieve, Inc., formed a basis for educational reform that eventually became the Common Core Standards Initiative.  By 2009, thirty states had aligned their learning standards with those previously explicated by the American Diploma Project (ADP).  The rationale for the ADP, and subsequently the Common Core State Standards, is communities will be better positioned to compete successfully in the global economy when American students are fully prepared for the future.

As with every federally backed initiative since the ESEA (1965) and PL 94-142 (1975), it is difficult to argue with a well-scripted rationale.  Pragmatically, not too many politicians wanted to raise their hand in objection to NCLB, (2001).  After all, who wanted to go on record as being the person willing to leave a child behind?

If the rationale of most federal initiatives is logical and sensible, then what causes the educational inertia perpetuating failure?  Some may argue politics are to blame.  Others feel justified in their complaints with the bureaucracy interfering with change.  However, what if the political and bureaucratic shortcut requesting “alignment” was actually the source of the problem?  Politically, it is too often diplomatically prudent to help decision-makers feel better by suggesting, “you already created a great structure, all you really need to do is some rearrangement.”  From a budgetary perspective, it is cost efficient to tell an assessment publisher to adapt its pool of test items created for the previous learning standards and align items with the Common Core State Standards.  Promoting “alignment” with what is proven to be ineffective rather than honestly seeking effective, sustained change, may be the epitome of Einstein’s quote, “We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”

Tying adoption of the Common Core State Standards to the Obama administration’s Race to the Top competition was political genius.  By the middle of 2010, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 funds were being exhausted.  Therefore, thirty-nine states facing massive educational budget shortfalls by 2011, did in less than 100 days what was unattainable for the previous 100 years.  Yes, throughout the United States, states adopted common standards for English and mathematics guiding learning each year from Kindergarten through High School.  In most cases, enlightenment was not the impetus.  Indeed, the need for a piece of the 3.4 billion dollars being offered to state education departments winning the September 2010 Race to the Top competition accomplished what logic, reason, or the best interests of all children could not do previously.  Currently, forty-five states and the District of Columbia have adopted the Common Core State Standards.

Bureaucratically, the educational assessment machine that is Pearson will make breaking the current inertia of failing to monitor and adjust based on student data very difficult.  Alignment is synonymous with profits.  Any assessment company will charge much less for alignment rather than a complete overhaul.  Yet, it still charges for a “new assessment” although most items are from the previous test item bank. 

High expectations explicated as learning standards are a good thing.  Ensuring every state promotes high expectations within its learning standards is a good thing too as the United States must compete in a global economy.  So, could the problem once again be poor implementation? 

In a recent Los Angeles Times editorial (April 22, 2013) the dilemma facing implementation of the Common Core State Standards was well explicated:

Experts are divided over the value of the new curriculum standards, which might or might not lead students to the deeper reading, reasoning and writing skills that were intended.  But on this much they agree: The curriculum will fail if it isn’t carefully implemented with meaningful tests that are aligned with what the students are supposed to learn.  Legislators and education leaders should be putting more emphasis on helping teachers get ready for common core and giving them a significant voice in how it is implemented.  And if the state can’t get the right elements in place to do that by 2014, it would be better off delaying the new curriculum a couple of years and doing it right, rather than allowing common core to become yet another educational flash in the pan that never lives up to its promise.

High expectations explicated as learning standards are part of the variables called leading indicators for success.  Subsequently, test results produce a trailing indicator-exhibiting either student success or failure.  Effective implementation is what comes between the high expectations and the test results. 

A mission of promoting learning for all requires a district to either create a vertically aligned, curriculum-based system or modify a purchased system to make it appropriate for the district’s needs.  An effective system would be able to monitor and adjust established “nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction” (Marzano & Waters, 2009, p. 23).

The increased expectations for monitoring and adjusting in real time would be nearly impossible without a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  The Kennewick School District case study provides an actual example of the value of a technology-based student information and instructional management system.  Research by Fielding, Kerr, and Rosier (2007) documented how the achievement gap between economically poor and disadvantaged students and their non-disadvantaged counterparts could be closed by a four-step Targeted Accelerated Growth (TAG) loop process.  The TAG loop process includes the following steps:

(1)   discovering through the administration of diagnostic assessment the 
      sub-skill deficiency,

(2) providing increased direct instructional time,

(3) focused teaching to the deficient sub-skill, and

(4) retesting to assure that learning has actually occurred (Fielding et al, 2007, 
      p. 19). 

The TAG loop process is a process not a linear model.  With any process, change resulting from the interpretation of reliable data is crucial for success based on application of correct micro-adjustments.  It would seem diagnostic testing and professional development for the teaching staff optimizes effectiveness in efficiently using data to implement proportional micro-adjustments in instructional time.  Therefore, with an efficient and effective student information and instructional management system, how to utilize data to effectively and efficiently diagnose and implement needed change becomes possible.    

Before implementing the principle of monitor and adjust effectively, leaders must identify the problem and then lead continuous improvement systems and processes.  To lead continuous improvement systems and processes, the effective educational leader evaluates the Five Ts of Continuous Improvement: Theories, Teams, Tools, Time, and Technology.  The effective educational leader then ensures appropriate performance criteria are established.

A school or district’s continuous improvement goals for a given academic year must succinctly indicate implementation steps for each improvement goal.  The current framework utilized for continuous school improvement encourages no more than three goal statements per year.  Given the complexity of the school system, too many goals adversely impact the level of human energy devoted to the initiative.  Displaying a limited number of continuous improvement goals allows followers and stakeholders to monitor growth through well-explicated action plan.  Therefore, anything more than three continuous improvement goals will be visually overwhelming and thereby perceived as unmanageable.  

The Re-Inventing Schools Coalition (RISC) system frequently monitors student performance and ensures alignment between the “intended curriculum”…,“implemented curriculum”…, and the “attained curriculum” (DeLorenzo et al, 2008, p. 64).  Based on research and best practices, implementation of the correlates for Effective Schools is therefore prudent when seeking school improvement.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62). 

The result of frequent monitoring and analysis means data guides instructional decisions.  However, effective use of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process.  The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here” Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141).  Without interdependent implementation of all the correlates of Effective Schools Research, any progress is adversely impacted.

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (May 6, 2013) How the common core standards can be a part of the solution to

educational reform.  [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

                APQC

Delorenzo, R. A., Battino, W., Schreiber, R. M., Carrio, B. G. (2008). Delivering on the promise:

                The education revolution. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree. ISBN-13: 9781934009420

Fielding, L., Kerr, N., & Rosier, P. (2007). Annual growth for all students, catch-up growth

             for those who are behind. New York: Foundation Press.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District Leadership That Works. Bloomington, In: Solution

                Tree Press

A Coherent Network of Assessments is a Key to Learning for All

With the emphasis on accountability demanded by Race to the Top (RTT) current assessment systems need to change.  This change will need to begin with annual testing.  Thereafter, classroom assessment will need to follow. 

In an Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC) report, Herman (2010) detailed how a better assessment network needs to begin with the conception of assessment not as a single test but as a coherent system of measures. Coherent systems must be composed of valid measures of learning and be horizontally, developmentally, and vertically aligned to serve classroom, school, and district improvement (p. 1)

A sole multiple choice test, administered in an hour or two, cannot cover the full range of year-long standards representing what students should know and be able to do.  In contrast, a system composed of multiple assessments can illuminate a broader, deeper perspective of student knowledge and skills. A second assessment for example, cannot only assess more content knowledge, but, if designed to measure applied knowledge, can evaluate different types of skills (p.2).

An assessment system comprised of multiple types of measures can provide a more thorough picture of student learning. Such systems also can be more responsive to the diverse decision-making needs for those who need data to support improvement—teachers, administrators parents, students. A solitary, end-of-year test simply cannot provide sufficient formative information to guide teaching and learning throughout the year (pp. 2-3).

Coherent assessment systems are comprised of component measures that each reflect significant learning goals and provide accurate information for intended purposes.  Drawing from the KnowingWhat Students Know National Research Council conception (National Research Council [NRC], 2001), coherence starts with a clear specification of the goal(s) to be measured.  Next, assessment tasks are specially designed or selected to reflect the learning goal(s).  Finally, an appropriate interpretation framework is applied to student responses to reach valid conclusions about student learning—for example, a score of “proficient” on a state test or an inference about the source of a student’s misunderstandings in teachers’ formative practice (Herman, 2010, p. 3).

Furthermore, Herman (2010) notes this creates “a more fragile base for classroom teaching and learning, the emphasis on a system of assessments by the addition of through-course exams to complement end-of-year assessments is very promising” (p.6).  How does this promote coherence?  Herman (2010) notes that using “through-course exams—more extended, performance-oriented assessments conducted during the course of instruction—provide rich opportunities to assess students’ thinking and reasoning as well as their ability to apply and communicate their knowledge and skills in solving complex problems.  Performance assessments also provide useful models of effective teaching while supporting authentic instruction and student learning" (p. 6).  Coherence in assessment networks could create data-based accountability systems that “support educational improvement, better education for all students, so that every student is prepared for college and success in life” (p.7).  Learning for all must be the goal.  A coherent, data-based accountability system is a correlate of Effective Schools.  Therefore, it becomes inherent upon true educators to embrace this concept. 

References:

Herman, J. L. (2010). Coherence: Key to Next Generation Assessment Success (AACC Report).

            Los Angeles, CA: University of California.

What Are Charter Schools?

President Obama has called upon states to encourage the expansion of charter schools. The Obama administration believes a network of innovative and high-achieving charter schools can be an important part of a state's school reform effort. The consideration of each state's application for federal "Race to the Top" funds is clearly linked to that state's acceptance and promotion of charter schools. Therefore, as the Department of Education begins accepting state applications for the federal government's largest one-time investment in K-12 public school reform, a better understanding of charter schools is apropos. By the end of the year, the department will be distributing grants from the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund. Additionally, $1.5 billion in Title I School Improvement Program funds will be made available to improve teaching and learning for all children.
Charter schools are part of the public education system. They are not allowed to charge tuition. They provide an alternative to other public schools. When enrollment in a charter school is over subscribed, admission is frequently allocated by lottery-based admissions. Charter schools can be primary or secondary schools and receive public money. Charter school funding is dictated by the state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502–511 also authorize funding grants for charter schools. Additionally, charter schools, like other public schools, may receive funding from private donors or foundations. A charter school funding study (2008) in all 40 charter states and the District of Columbia found that charter students are funded on average at 61 cents compared to every dollar for their district peers, with charter funding averaging $6,585 per pupil compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools. While some proponents believe this funding difference is mitigated through efficient budgeting and accountability, lower teacher and administrative salaries at charter schools compared to conventional district public schools are usually evident.
In exchange for additional accountability for producing academic results, as established by each school's charter, a charter school is not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools. Two principles guide charter schools:
First, through waivers from many of the procedural requirements of district public schools, a charter school will operate as autonomous public schools. Autonomy can be critically important for creating a school culture that maximizes student motivation by emphasizing high expectations, academic rigor, discipline, and relationships with caring adults.
Second, charter schools must be accountable for student achievement. To date, of the over 5000 charter schools founded in the United States, 12.5% have closed due to academic, financial, managerial problems, consolidation, or district interference.
The rules and structure of charter schools depend on each state's authorizing legislation and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter. The school's charter is a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and explicates how success is measured. The length of time whereby charters are granted may vary by state but most are granted for 3–5 years. Charter schools are held accountable to their "sponsor." A sponsor may be either a local school board, state education agency, university, corporation, or other entity. The accountability is intended to produce and prove positive academic results while adhering to the charter (contract).
While stronger accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, initial research by the United States Department of Education (1997) suggests that, in practice, charter schools were not held to higher standards of accountability compared to traditional public schools. However, by comparison, "underperforming public schools" closed due to students' poor academic results are much less compared to charter schools and are often allowed to remain open, perhaps with new leadership or restructuring, or perhaps with no change at all. Proponents of charter schools assert that charter schools are not given the opportunities to restructure often and are simply closed down when students perform poorly on academic assessments.
On June 8, 2010; U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan emphasized the need for additional effective education entrepreneurs to join the work of reforming America's lowest performing public schools, noting states must be open to charter schools. Each state's pursuit of federal "Race to the Top" funds are clearly linked to its openess toward charter schools. The stakes are too high for states financially and for students academically to restrict choice and innovation.

"States that do not have public charter laws or put artificial caps on the
growth of charter schools will jeopardize their applications under the Race
to the Top Fund... To be clear, this administration is not looking to open
unregulated and unaccountable schools. We want real autonomy for charters
combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance
standards...I am advocating for using whatever models work for students, and
particularly where improvements have stagnated for years... We cannot
continue to do that same thing and expect different results. We cannot let
another generation of children be deprived of their civil right to a quality
education." (Duncan, 2010)