This article was downloaded by: [Margaet-Mary Sulentic Dowell]On: 16 February 2015, At: 11:49Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Click for updates

Equity & Excellence in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ueee20

Guest Editors’ Introduction: ThePromises of Charter SchoolsMargaret-Mary Sulentic Dowella & Dana L. Bickmorea

a Louisiana State UniversityPublished online: 11 Feb 2015.

To cite this article: Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell & Dana L. Bickmore (2015) Guest Editors’Introduction: The Promises of Charter Schools, Equity & Excellence in Education, 48:1, 1-21, DOI:10.1080/10665684.2015.991161

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10665684.2015.991161

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

EQUITY & EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, 48(1), 1–21, 2015Copyright C© University of Massachusetts Amherst College of EducationISSN: 1066-5684 print / 1547-3457 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10665684.2015.991161

Guest Editors’ Introduction: The Promisesof Charter Schools

Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell and Dana L. BickmoreLouisiana State University

As the guest editors of this issue of Equity & Excellence in Education, we intentionally includedthe language “The Promises of Charter Schools” from the original call for charter research, inthis issue. The word “promise” can invoke visions of possibility and potential, of optimism andconfidence. A promise can suggest hopefulness and is used to inspire confidence. Charter schoolsbegan as a concept that held the promise of social justice—more autonomy for teachers, morechoice for families, more innovative teaching in terms of curriculum and instructional practice,and more equitable educational outcomes for students (Abowitz, 2001; Budde, 1988; Bulkley &Fisler, 2003). Charters have been viewed by some as a means to disrupt the historical institutionaleffects of racism and systematic neglect in public schooling for under-served parents and childrenby creating voice and space for transformational change. Unlike other educational reforms, thecharter school concept had the promise of correcting inequitable outcomes by unsettling theunderlying framework that generates the outcomes, rather than pursuing affirmative remediesthat tinkered around the edges of substantive change (Abowitz, 2001). For readers of Equity &Excellence in Education, we pose the following question to frame this special issue: How is thepromise of charter schooling, as a vehicle for social justice in public education, playing out? Thisquestion is timely and warranted, considering that currently over two million students attend morethan 5,500 charter schools in the United States (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,2012) in a national political context that advocates for the continued, rapid expansion and, insome states and locales, proliferation, of charter schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2009).

Answering the question we posed is problematic on several levels, but most fundamentally,as Brown (2004) stated, because of the “conflicting views of social justice” (p. 79). However,she continued by noting, “the evidence is clear and alarming that various segments of our publicschool populations experience negative and inequitable treatment on a daily basis” (p. 79). Thepersistent achievement gaps experienced between white, middle class students and students ofcolor, those of low socioeconomic status, those whose primary home language is not English, andstudents with special needs, is a politically persistent indicator of the inequity of public schooling(Darling-Hammond, 2010; Ladson-Billing, 2006). Yet, the identification of the achievement gapis only a limited expression of issues of power and marginalization in public schooling, wherelow teacher expectations, inequitable allocation of resources, and limited voice in the decisionsthat affect parents and students occurs in public schooling (Abowitz, 2001; Darling-Hammond,

Address correspondence to Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell, Louisiana State University, 220 Peabody Hall, BatonRouge, LA 70803. E-mail: sdowell@lsu.edu

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

2 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

2010; Delpit, 1995). It is the contestation and problematizing of this kind of marginalizationand subsequent inequities within the debate of charter schools that are being addressed in thisarticle.

As career educators—former traditional public school teachers/administrators and currentuniversity faculty preparing future educators—we outline our view of social justice primarilythrough the lens of the literature on teacher education. As such, the promise of charter schools isreconfiguring how we teach children to “actively address the dynamics of oppression, privilege,and isms” (Sensoy & DiAngelo, 2009, p. 350). How educators teach children is integrallyintertwined with the marginalization and hegemony of the educators themselves, within theculture and contexts of the school. As a goal, social justice teaching and learning acknowledgesoppression and pursues educational practices that provide “full and equal participation of allgroups in a society that is shaped to meet their needs” (Bell, 1997, p. 3). We therefore asked howthe promise of charter schools is changing the school environment not only for students, but foreducators as well.

We also view the promise of charter schools from an institutional lens, through what Young(1990) defines as “empowerment.” Charter schools provide the promise for families, throughchoice, to “have the institutionalized means to participate effectively in the decisions that affect heror his actions and the conditions of actions” (p. 251). It is through this empowerment intersectionof choice and competition that neoliberals suggest charter schools can be a vehicle for social justice(Abowitz, 2001; Burras, 2014; Knopp, 2008; Picard, 2013; Sanders, 2012). But we wonder, howhave charter schools empowered students, teachers, and families/parents, particularly in schoolsthat are comprised of children of color and children from low socioeconomic backgrounds?

Charter schools change how schools are governed, how they are structured, and how theyare managed. However, beyond governance and management, how does the promise promotewhat Cochran-Smith (2004) outlined as the fundamental pillars of social justice for students andeducators: critical self-reflection around unequal socially constructed relationships, and enhancedcapabilities of students, teachers, and local communities to address marginalization through race,class, gender, sexual orientation, and ability? How is the promise of charter schooling addressingequity issues as framed by U.S. historical notions of segregation since the Brown vs. The Boardof Education decision?

As we present an overview of charter schooling, social justice, and equity, it is importantto highlight that charter schools are not a monolithic entity. In fact, because of wide variationsin individual state laws and in other countries, charter schools have the possibility to be morediverse in their organizational structures and curricular/instructional processes than traditionalpublic schools. Charter schooling as an organizational concept is still morphing and developingwith shifts in purpose, governance, and management in continuously changing political and legalcontexts. Contextual variety and continuous change have made research of charter schoolingdifficult and, as a result, research about charter schools is lagging behind the development ofcharter schools as a reform process for enhanced social justice and equity in public schooling(Wohlstetter, Smith, & Farrell, 2013); thus the importance of this issue of Equity & Excellencein Education. In this introduction, we lay the foundation for other articles in the issue thatexamine the intersection of charter schools and social justice, by: (1) defining and tracing theevolution of charter schooling as a mechanism for social justice, (2) outlining tensions relatedto charter schools and social justice, and (3) ending with a description of Louisiana as a state

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 3

that has politically embraced charter schools as the institutional reform model for educationalequity.

DEFINING AND TRACING THE EVOLUTION OF CHARTER SCHOOLSAS A MECHANISM FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE

In demystifying what constitutes a charter school, it is necessary to first define what comprises acharter, and then to provide a portrait of charter schools in the U.S. In addition, we present howcharters are organized and supported.

Defining Charter Schools

A charter is a document detailing how a school will be “organized and managed, what students willbe taught and expected to achieve, and how success will be measured” (Education Commissionof the States, 2010, para. 1). Once a charter is granted by the state, the school enjoys freedomfrom rules and regulations applied to other public schools, as long as the terms of the charter aremet. Common explanations given by founders of charter schools for creating a school include:having an educational vision, gaining more autonomy than traditional schools, and serving aneeds of special populations (Weitzel & Lubienski, 2010). Charter schools are typically reviewedand reauthorized by a state every five years.

Charter schools in the U.S. are publicly funded schools. There are several major differencesbetween traditional public schools and charter schools. One fundamental difference betweentraditional public schools and charter schools is governance. Traditional public schools are partof a school district system with governing authority and decision-making residing in a locallyelected School Board. Although charter schools also have Boards, they differ from traditionalschools in that the board members are not necessarily elected but are often recruited or invitedto serve by charter founders. Charter school boards can be comprised of a mix of teachers,community members, and parents. Other charter schools are governed by a board operating asa not-for-profit organization or for-profit organization (Bickmore & Sulentic Dowell, 2012). Atpresent, 40 U.S. states allow charter schools and encourage groups interested in creating a charterschool to apply to the state and write a charter (Education Commission of the States, 2010).Table 1 highlights the number of charter schools per state.

Charter schools in the U.S. are distinctive by design: Each of the 40 states that have chartersmandate the charter type and its requirements, leading to a plethora of configurations, designs,and governance. In several settings, charter schools are only authorized by school districts andstate departments of education; other charters are authorized by universities, cities, or nonprofitorganizations, still others are community schools. (See Table 2 for information on each authorizingstate’s establishment of charter schools and types of chartering allowed). Additionally, in somelocales, charter schools function as a result of a neoliberal, whole system reform strategy—asin the case of New Orleans post-Katrina, (Burras, 2014; Knopp, 2008; Picard, 2013; Sanders,2012).

Although types of charters granted by states differ, two main categories have emerged: start-upcharters and conversion or takeover charters. Generally, start-up charters begin with an explicit

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

4 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

TABLE 1Charter School Numbers by State

State Number of Charter Schools

Alabama 0Alaska 28Arizona 520Arkansas 33California 1130Colorado 173Connecticut 22Delaware 21Florida 578Georgia 122Hawaii 19Idaho 35Illinois 99Indiana 62Iowa 8Kansas 15Kentucky 0Louisiana 117Maine 5Maryland 54Massachusetts 67Michigan 232Minnesota 152Mississippi 1Missouri 47Montana 0Nebraska 0Nevada 27New Hampshire 11New Jersey 77New Mexico 78New York 179North Carolina 100North Dakota 0Ohio 327Oklahoma 20Oregon 111Pennsylvania 162Rhode Island 15South Carolina 39South Dakota 0Tennessee 26Texas 550Utah 72Vermont 0Virginia 4Washington 0West Virginia 0Wisconsin 200Wyoming 4

National Center for Educational Statistics, 2014

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 5

purpose or focus, they recruit students, and are considered schools of choice. In juxtaposition,conversion charter schools are typically existing schools that are converted to charters, in mostinstances using the same school facility and enrolling students that previously attended the schoolprior to takeover or conversion (California Charter Schools Association, 2012). Conversion charterschools usually result from extended poor performance of the schools’ students on standardizedmeasures.

Evolution of Charter Schooling

Charter schools in the U.S. were conceived in the 1970s by Ray Budde (1988, 1996), whilehe was a Massachusetts teacher. Later, as an assistant professor in the School of Education atthe University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Budde introduced the term “charter” to describe aninnovative arrangement intended to sponsor the efforts of inventive teachers within a public schoolsystem. According to Budde (1996), the terms charter referred to the configuration where:

teams of teachers could be “chartered” directly by a school board for a period of three to five years. Noone—not the superintendent or the principal or any central office supervisors—would stand betweenthe school board and the teachers when it came to matters of instruction. (p. 72)

Budde’s focus was on innovation and providing teachers with the power to implement suchinnovations to improve student outcomes. Chartering departments or programs within a schoolwere created to allow educators closest to the point of service delivery (teachers) to address issuesthey perceived as challenging, problematic, and in need of change, and to inspire innovativesolutions. In 1996, Budde made no mention of the design of chartering whole schools (1996).Budde’s initial concept of chartering embodied the notion of empowering teachers, portraying aspace where teachers could become the “transformative intellectuals” described by Giroux andMcLaren (1986, p. 213).

Budde’s initial conceptualization of charters envisioned teachers engaging in a form of criticalcitizenship through progressive teaching that included ample opportunities to include the studyof power positioning in schools and society, the impact of language and culture in educationand society, and the role of history in education and society. In such an arena, teachers assumedreal decision-making authority and were empowered to select curriculum and design instruction.Such autonomy benefitted the children entrusted to them, by allowing teachers to address diverseneeds, abilities, learning styles, and interests of their students which, in turn, would empowerstudents. We perceive that Budde’s intent regarding charters is aligned with Nieto’s perspectiveon social justice:

Teaching children well means teaching them the basics . . . But teaching our children well means otherthings as well: It means teaching them to become moral human beings, to care for others and theirenvironment, to be generous, to think beyond their own limited self-interests, to become involvedin civic life. It means teaching them to serve their community, giving of their time and energy andresources. And it means teaching them that living in a democracy is both hard work and a privilegethat can easily be squandered. (2005a, p. 5)

Budde’s concept opened the space for teaching from a social justice perspective and for socialjustice to be both process and goal (Bell, 1997). As a process, empowered teaching is a critical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

6 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

TABLE 2State Charters: Year Established and Type of Charter Allowed

State Charter Year Est. Type of Charter Allowed

Alaska 1995 LEAArizona 1994 LEA, SEA, ICBArkansas 1995 SEACalifornia 1992 LEA, SEAColorado 1993 LEA, ICBConnecticut 1996 LEA, SEADelaware 1995 LEA, SEADC 1996 ICBFlorida 1996 LEA, HEIGeorgia 1996 LEA, SEAHawaii 1994 ICB, HEI, NFP, NEGIdaho 1998 LEA, ICBIllinois 1996 LEA, SEA, ICBIndiana 2001 LEA, ICB, HEI, NEGIowa 2002 LEAKansas 1994 LEALouisiana 1995 LEA, SEA, HEI, NFP, NEGMaine 2011 ICBMaryland 2003 LEA, SEAMassachusetts 1993 SEAMichigan 1993 LEA, HEIMinnesota 1991 LEA, HEI, NFPMississippi 2010 SEAMissouri 1998 LEA, SEA, ICB, HEINevada 1997 LEA, ICB, HEINew Hampshire 1995 LEA, SEANew Jersey 1996 SEANew Mexico 1993 LEA, SEANew York 1998 LEA, SEA, HEINorth Carolina 1996 LEA, SEA, HEIOhio 1997 LEA, SEA, HEI, NFPOklahoma 1999 LEA, HEIOregon 1997 LEA, SEAPennsylvania 1995 LEA, SEARhode Island 1995 SEASouth Carolina 1996 LEA, ICBTennessee 2002 LEA, SEATexas 1995 LEA, SEAUtah 1998 LEA, ICBVirginia 1998 LEAWisconsin 1993 LEA, HEI, NEGWyoming 1995 LEA

LEA = Local Education Agencies; SEA = State Education Agencies; ICB = IndependentCharter Boards; HEI = High Education Institutions; NFP = Not-for-Profit Organizations;NEG = Non-Educational Government.

National Association of Charter School Authorizers (2012).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 7

pedagogical stance that is concerned with learning, teaching, and lived experience (Nieto, 1999).Social justice teaching and learning is participatory and acknowledges and supports the personal(Adams, 1997; Bell, 1997). Intentional social justice education equates to understanding, wherepre-service and in-service teachers and students, as individuals and members of communities,are undergoing a social justice process wherein they can “build upon the questions and concernsthey bring” (Bell & Griffin, 1997, p. 45). According to Hackman (2005), a robust social justiceperspective empowers students by encouraging them to think critically, and includes five keycomponents: content, critical thinking, action and social change, reflection, and awareness ofmulticultural group dynamics. We believe that however fortuitous, Budde’s original notion ofcharters held the promise of social justice in that teachers could structure learning environmentsthat were sensitive to learning needs, include strategic content in their lessons, and sequencestructured activities carefully, with a flexibility that supported each student (Bell & Griffin,1997).

In 1980, Philadelphia experimented with charters aligned with Budde’s conceptualizationby creating the schools-within-schools concept, intended to foster innovation, invention, andimprovement (U.S. Charter Schools, 2010). In addition, some early charter configurations allowedfor greater parental choice by permitting students to attend these “charter schools” outsidetheir home school boundaries. In this second iteration of the purpose of charter schooling,choice became viewed as a positive—children and families exercising power through decision-making about education (Weitzel & Lubienski, 2010). The idea of choice was a means ofdeveloping schooling that provided voice and power to those who, in traditional schooling, hadbeen marginalized (Abowitz, 2001; Weitzel & Lubienski, 2010). Critics of using charter schoolsas a vehicle for family/parent choice, suggested that choice without concomitant parental support,including transportation to charters schools and clear information about school choices, had thepotential for heightened segregation and inequity (Weitzel & Lubienski, 2010). In other words,the question now remains: What happens when access is not denied, but it is implied?

The third wave of charter schools developed in the 1990s when the implementation of charterschooling began to be known as the charter school movement in the U.S. (Finn, Manno, Vanourek,2000). In response to the National Commission on Excellence in Education’s report (1983), ANation at Risk, the rhetoric of schools failing students, particularly minority and poor students,began to intensify and the concept of charter schools as a whole-school improvement program inpublic education gained momentum (Weitzel & Lubienski, 2010). Growth of charter schools in theU.S. since the 1990s was prompted by the public’s deteriorating faith in the adeptness of federalgovernment, along with a shift to private providers delivering traditional government services,and the emergence of accountability frameworks as policy tools (Bracey, 2005). The increaseof these trends signaled a fading confidence in the U.S. Government’s effectiveness (includingschools) (Bracey, 2005), and corresponded with an escalation in the public’s dissatisfactionwith the traditional public school system. Fueled by public sentiment and bolstered by politicalmaneuvering, the perception of U.S. public education plummeted. Terms such as “failing schools”permeated media portrayals of public schools. Schools populated with critical masses of poorchildren, many from families whose first language was not English, bore the brunt of publicscrutiny. Charter schools seemed to hold the promise of school improvement as charters shiftedfrom a within a school concept for revitalization and innovation to a whole school reform strategy.Charters were seen as an alternative to the failing traditional public schools and emerged as areform strategy.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

8 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

Since the mid-1990s there has been tremendous growth in the number of U.S. states approvingcharter school law in the U.S. (Wohlstetter, Smith, & Farrell, 2013). The first federal involvementin charter schools came with the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education(ESEA) Act in 1994, in which federal support for planning, design, and initial implementationof charter schools was codified and supported with federal funds (U.S. Department of Education,2004). Federal policy has continued to encourage the expansion of charters by providing increas-ing funding for the development of charter schools, particularly with grants for charter schoolstart-up (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Current ESEA legislations in section 5201 of theESEA, Subpart 1 Charter School Programs states:

SEC. 5201. PURPOSE.

It is the purpose of this subpart to increase national understanding of the charter schools model by—

1. providing financial assistance for the planning, program design, and initial implementation ofcharter schools;

2. evaluating the effects of such schools, including the effects on students, student academicachievement, staff, and parents;

3. expanding the number of high-quality charter schools available to students across the Nation;and

4. encouraging the States to provide support to charter schools for facilities financing in anamount more nearly commensurate to the amount the States have typically provided fortraditional public schools.

With the passage of the 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, charter schools havebeen used in some cities and states to take over persistently low performing schools (Ziebarth,2010). If a school has not made adequate progress over a period of time, the city or state can opt totake over the school and charter it out to organizations or groups of community members willingto write a charter. The charter board can exercise the option to replace all faculty and staff orhave them reapply for jobs. These takeover or conversion charters usually have greater autonomythan traditional district schools in how they hire and terminate staff, how they budget, configurethe school day and year, and develop the curriculum and instruction implemented. As most lowperforming schools are located in urban areas and have high percentages of poor and minoritystudents, most takeover conversions affect marginalized populations. As such, conversion charterschools have been promoted as a policy lever to improve education for poor and minority students(Garcia, 2010).

In the latest versions of charter schooling, organizations and support groups for people inter-ested in beginning and managing charter schools have formed. Initially this support came in theform of individuals and small collectives outlining how to create, run, and sustain a charter asexemplified by texts from Blakemore (1998) and Nehring (2002). However, the concept of charterschools that originally began with schools within traditional public schools, then moved to smallinnovative “mom and pop” charters, and currently includes a growing number of charter schoolsmanaged by large non-profit education management organizations (EMOs) and for-profit chartermanagement organizations (CMOs) (Miron & Urschel, 2009). For example, Charter SchoolsUSA (CSUSA), established in 1997, is one of the oldest and largest EMO in the U.S. CSUSAschools have grown to serve approximately 50,000 students and operate 60 charter schools in 7states, with 37 of those charter schools clustered in Florida. As an EMO, CSUSA manages every

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 9

aspect of their schools from marketing students to teacher recruitment, curriculum developmentand equipment and textbook acquisition to financial management and oversight, duties typicallyassumed by a school district under the auspices of a school board in traditional public schools.State laws vary with respect to if and how EMOs and CMOs may operate; however in some states,the vast majority of charters are managed by for-profit and non-profit organizations (Miron &Urschel, 2009). Some of these organizations focus on supporting and opening schools that servepoor and minority students such as the Knowledge is Power (KIPP) organization. However Miron,Urschel, Mathis, and Tornquist (2010) have pointed to the disproportionately higher number ofminority, low income, and English Language Learners (ELL) students in schools managed bythese organizations in comparison to the other districts. The promise of empowering parents andteachers through their involvement in decision making at the school local level has faded withthese management companies. The only power extended to parents and teachers is through votingwith their feet, that is, choosing a different school, which, in some locales is limiting, as familiescan experience waiting lists and/or lotteries and may lack transportation.

In summary, although states vary in how charter schools function, the common strands ofautonomy, innovation, competition/choice, and equity still extends through the expressed purposesof the charter school movement. A primary impetus for the early charter school movement asa means to empower was encouraging parental choice—allowing parents the option to chooseschools for their children to attend outside their local school boundaries (Bulkley & Fisler, 2003).An important intent of choice was to allow children in poor performing schools to have an optionto attend higher performing schools (equity), provide competition for existing public schools,and encourage innovation that would allow for socially just instruction and learning (Weitzel &Lubinski, 2010).

Tensions Related to Charter Schools and Social Justice

Several tensions exist within and around charter schooling in the U.S. with respect to equity andsocially just practices within and among schools. A central tenet of charter schooling as a policylever to improve schooling for marginalized students is the autonomy charter schools have beenawarded from local, state, and federal policies and mandates. As outlined by Finn, Manno, andVanourek (2000) charter schools are:

independent public school of choice. Freed from rules but accountable for results. A charter schoolis a new species, a hybrid with important similarities to traditional public schools, some of the prizedattributes of private schools—and crucial differences from both. (pp. 14–15)

This vision of independence and autonomy could frame charter schools as both distanced and dif-ferent from the perception of failing public schools, setting up what may have been the beginningof a dichotomous view of charters as “good” and traditional schools as “bad.” Finn, Manno, andVanourek (2000) further delineated the difference between traditional public schools and charterschools in five key aspects further promoting charters as having preferred characteristics:

• They can be created by almost anyone.• They are exempt from most state and local regulations, essentially autonomous in their

operations.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

10 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

• They are attended by youngsters whose families choose them.• They are staffed by educators who are also there by choice.• They are liable to be closed for not producing satisfactory results. (Finn, Manno, &

Vanourek, 2000, p. 15)

This sense of good and bad and preferred status for charter schools underscores a tension that existsbetween proponents of traditional public schools and those of charter schools. For proponentsof traditional schooling, there is something inherently unjust in two sets of rules that governhow organizations meet the needs of all students and, particularly, marginalized students. Thereis a perceived advantage to charter schools over traditional public schools in teacher efforts toindividualize for educational needs when not exempt from such regulations. For instance in thestate of Louisiana, all elementary schools must assess kindergarten through third grade studentsusing the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next (DIBELS Next) assessment(Louisiana Department of Education, 2014a). According to the state website:

• DIBELS Next must be administered to kindergarten, first, second, and third graders threetimes per year during official benchmark assessment periods. All children who were enrolledduring the scheduled benchmark assessment period must be assessed with DIBELS Next,except:

• Students who are deaf or who are visually impaired and read with braille, for whom theDepartment of Education has recommended alternateassessmentsandprovidedassessment-guidelines.

• Students with severe cognitive disabilities, who were assessed with DIBELS Next duringkindergarten and for whom DIBELS Next has been found to be inappropriate.

The law and state mandate for a required early reading assessment do not apply to charter schools.While it makes pedagogical sense to exempt children who are deaf or exhibit severe cognitive

issues from an assessment, such as DIBELS, that relies on children listening to words andarticulating responses about word parts that can be recorded. The tension lies in why kindergartenthrough third grade elementary children, who are not deaf, blind, or cognitively impaired, andwho are enrolled in charter schools are exempt? Essentially, such an exemption equates to charterschool personnel being allowed more options in term of how they decide to assess children andmore opportunities in the resultant instructional choices that are derived from an assessment.As Knopp (2008) stated, “creativity, individual attention, and curricular relevance are the rootsof good education” (para. 8). We, as former public school educators and researchers, questionthe efficacy and equity of charter schools being allowed more freedom and allowed exemptionsfrom mandates for students, parents, and educators. Wouldn’t social justice be served if allstudents—not just students in charter schools—were exposed to teachers that were grantedcurricular freedom?

The policy purpose for granting greater autonomy to charter schools is to stimulate innovationand competition to improve student outcomes (Weitzel & Lubinski, 2010; Wohlstetter, Smith,& Farrell, 2013). This is particularly true for those advocating that charter schools are a criticalpolicy mechanism for improving schooling for poor and minority students and reducing theachievement gap (Buras, 2014; Garcia, 2010; Weitzel & Lubinski, 2010; Ziebarth, 2010). Themajority of charter schools and students who attend charter schools are located in urban areas

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 11

with high concentrations of poor students and students of color (National Center for EducationalStatistics, 2014). A major tension surrounding charter schools is evaluating how effective charterschools are in providing poor, minority, and marginalized students with the ability to criticallyreflect on their own socially constructed identities and take action to improve their opportunitieswithin the broader community. The success of charter schools, by state law, is almost exclusivelymeasured by reducing the achievement gap as determined by state accountability scores (Garcia,2010). As with all high-stakes standardized testing, we contend that one score as an evaluation tooldenies social justice. Other outcomes might be appropriate for children who will live their entirelives in the twenty-first century. These outputs might include democratic citizenship and socialresponsibility, as well as critical self-reflection around unequal socially constructed relationshipsand enhanced capabilities of students, teachers, and local communities to address marginalizationthrough race, class, gender, sexual orientation, and ability. That being said, the current researchsuggests that charter schools are no more successful than traditional schools in comparable localsas measure by the narrow matrixes of state accountability (Center for Research on EducationOutcomes [CREDO], 2009, 2013; Miron, Coryn, Mackety, 2007). For instance, in an analysisof student outcomes as assessed by student report card data in New York’s 16 districts withcharter schools, Silverman (2013) established that societal issues, such as family income level(poverty), and systems-based issues, like student suspension data and lack of attendance, hadconsistently strong impacts on student performance, irrespective of school type—traditional orcharter.

In the U.S., since the Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, issues of equity and socialjustice have centered on eliminating separate but equal schooling. Charter schools pose a newtwist to notions of segregation, creating yet another tension within the education community. Asschools of choice, charter schools give parents the option of sending their children to schools thatpromote segregation through their mission to educate by gender, religion, or special educationclassification. As an example, the Louisiana Key Academy in Louisiana recruits and servesonly students with dyslexia. The fact that these schools are publicly funded raises questions ofhistorical notions of segregation. Additionally, there is a growing body of evidence to suggestthat charter schools in various locales, even without stated missions that separate learners, havehigher concentrations of children of color, low-income students, English Language Learners(ELL), and students with exceptionalities, than surrounding traditional school districts (Garcia,2010; Miron, Urschel, Mathis, & Tornquist, 2010). Yet, in other areas of the country, empiricalevidence indicates charters have lower numbers of special education and ELL students thansurrounding traditional public schools, raising questions of inequitable admission and disciplinepolicies (Garcia, 2010). The underlying question is whether family/parental choice and charterautonomy trump historical notions of desegregation as a means to achieve socially just educationaland societal outcomes.

The final tension we outline surrounding charter schooling is associated with the marketi-zation and privatization of public schooling with respect to social justice. The lack of a clearadvantage to charter schools in improving student academic achievement and questions ofsegregation suggest the possibility of other reasons for their current political favor (Knopp,2008). Sanders (2012) questioned the purpose of charter schools—driven by mission and, there-fore, essentially grounded in equity and access?; or, driven by profit that creates a market-driven environment where families and children are reduced to consumer status? In the latter,public education as a collective effort evaporates. Nieto (2005a) suggested that the marketi-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

12 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

zation of public education, in general, and charter schools, specifically, is deleterious to themarginalized.

public education is increasingly characterized by a mean-spirited and hostile discourse, one withlittle respect for teachers and the young people they teach. These are times where the most commonbuzzwords in education are borrowed shamelessly from the business world: the school is defined asa “market,” while students and families are viewed as “consumers” and teachers as “producers.” Inthis discourse, “accountability” is proposed as the arbiter of excellence, teacher tests are the answerto “quality control,” and high-stakes tests are the final judge of student learning. Paradoxically, thevery word “public” (whether referring to schools, housing, libraries, or other spaces) is suspect, while“privatization” is proposed as the solution to the many problems of public institutions. As a result,public schools are challenged by countless privatization schemes, including vouchers, tuition taxcredits, “choice,” and charter schools, even though such alternatives invariably benefit students whoalready enjoy economic and other privileges while they further disadvantage those who have the least.(Nieto, 2005a, p. 27)

Kozol (2007) further delineated the marketization of U.S. public education when he responded toa comment by an analyst from Montgomery Securities, which was a San Francisco-based bank:

The education industry, according to these analysts, “represents, in our opinion, the final frontier ofa number of sectors once under public control” that have either voluntarily opened or, they note inpointed terms, have “been forced” to open up to private enterprise. Indeed, they write, “the educationindustry represents the largest market opportunity” since health-care services were privatized duringthe 1970s. . . . From the point of view of private profit, one of these analysts enthusiastically observes,“The K–12 market is the Big Enchilada.” (p. 7)

Knopp (2008) echoed Kozol’s (2007) and Nieto’s (2005a) sentiment when she characterizedcharter schools as being the extreme end of the corporate marketization of our schools. Ac-cordingly, corporate invasion of public schools threatens the poor, the underserved, those whosefirst language isn’t English and those whose home culture is not reflected in education (Knopp,2008; Kozol, 2007; Nieto, 2005a, 2005b). Like Knopp (2008) and others, we speculate why suchinvestors like Montgomery Securities and entrepreneurs such as the Walton Family Foundation,the Eli Broad Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation would be so willing toinvest so heavily in charter school if there wasn’t such a promise of return of investment andprofit. The inclusion of for-profit CMOs in the charter sector, particularly in urban areas, furtherindicates the increased commodification of children and education, without the evidence of theinnovation and higher student achievement that was promised.

While touted as promising change for the betterment of children and public education in theU.S., charter schools as an educational reform strategy appear to be more aligned with profitingfrom those least able to resist. We posit that the shift in what constituted a charter school, coupledwith the increase in standardized testing and the commodification and privatization of education,limit the promise of charter schools as social justice-inspired entities. Nieto (2005a) addressedthe difficulty for teachers and those who prepare teachers in an education world who are underassault from business tactics and privatization. She claimed that the marketization of educationmeans “less attention than ever is being paid to education as a way to express the human spiritand create a better world” (Nieto, 2005a, p. 27).

There are ongoing tensions that surround charter schooling that, from our positioning, suggestthe promise of charter schools is waning and this educational experiment has the potential to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 13

reduce rather than expand educational outcomes for those most vulnerable in the U.S. In an era ofreform of public education, wherein public schools, university schools of education, and publicschool teachers have sustained increased public scrutiny, support for charter expansion is clearlyfavored politically. It is also clear that the charter school movement is growing, particularly insome locales. We outline the Louisiana context because of its prominence in the charter schoolmovement and as a touch stone for why understanding charter schools is important in the socialjustice discussion in the U.S.

Louisiana as a Test Case

Louisiana is a state often touted as a model of educational reform (Barrios, 2013; Jindal, 2013;McGaughy, 2013). In Louisiana, charter schools gained political favor as a reform maneuverfor reorganization, especially post-Katrina (Buras, 2014; Dingerson, Miner, Peterson, & Walters2008; Isaacson, 2007, Knopp, 2008; Picard, 2013). From the original authorization of 28 charterschools in Louisiana in 2005, a total of 121 charter schools were authorized through the 2014school year, serving over 60,000 students, illustrating the expansion within the state (LouisianaDepartment of Education, 2014b). The Louisiana Department of Education website claims:“Charter schools are independent public schools that are free to be more innovative and are heldaccountable for improved student achievement” (Louisiana Department of Education, 2014b) andlists the following tenets of charters in Louisiana:

Autonomy: Charter school leaders and boards are free to make decisions about staffing, curriculumdevelopment and other factors to meet the needs of their students.

Accountability: Charter schools are held to high academic, financial, and organizational standards.Charter schools are closed if performance is consistently low.

Choice: Parents select the school their child attends. Teachers and principals choose schools that fitthem best. (Louisiana Department of Education, 2014b)

Louisiana charter school legislation is distinctive. Louisiana’s state school district, the Recov-ery School District (RSD), was first instituted by the 1995 legislation to manage failing schoolstaken over by the state. Although charters schools can and do open as start-up, the foundationof the Louisiana reform model is based on state takeover of failing schools and the re-openingof those schools as charter schools overseen by the RSD. The RSD manages schools directly orthrough contracts with charter school boards and organizations. The current practice by the RSDis to charter out takeover schools as quickly as possible. In addition, the state manages four charterschools directly through the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (BESE). Most otherstates’ legislation provides for fewer options and, until recent legislation in Tennessee, no otherstate had a state agency that runs and manages schools directly.

The centerpiece of the Louisiana reform model is the Greater New Orleans Metroplex where 81of the 121 charter schools are located (Sims & Vaughan, 2014). Advocates for the effectivenessof the Louisiana reform model base the success of these charters almost exclusively on thechange in student academic achievement from pre- to post-Katrina as measured by the state’sstandardized accountability test (Isaacson, 2007; Jindal, 2013). Although, student achievementgauged by the annual state standardized test has increased post-Katrina and has made some

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

14 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

gains on state averages, the schools managed by the RSD still rank 61 of 71 in the state (CowanInstitute for Public Education Initiatives, 2014). However, multiple questions arise and continuethe discussion concerning the actual improvement in student outcomes as a result of this reformmodel and how the model actually achieves socially just and equitable practices (Cowen Institutefor Public Education Initiative, 2014; Institute on Race and Poverty at University of MinnesotaLaw School, 2010; Picard, 2013; Sims & Vaughn, 2014). We provide a backdrop of the politicalmaneuvering that resulted in the Louisiana charter school model in order to expose the tensionsand issues surrounding charter schooling in the state, which also reflect similar national issuespreviously outlined.

The mass takeover of the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) schools after Hurricane Katrinawas the result of political engineering (Buras, 2014; Institute on Race and Poverty at Universityof Minnesota Law School, 2010; Isaacson, 2007). As reported by Picard (2013), in November of2005, approximately three months after Hurricane Katrina and the failure of levees had decimatedthe city, Act 35 of the Louisiana legislature radically changed the demarcation of a failing schoolin Louisiana. Act 35 raised the bar from a school performance score (SPS) [SPS is primarilybased on the state’s accountability test results] cut-off of 60 for takeover to just below the stateaverage of 87.4. Moving the bar 17 points resulted in 107 of 128 public schools in New Orleansbeing designated as failing schools and the newly-developed statewide RSD wrested control fromOPSB and transformed the majority of those schools to charter schools (Picard, 2013). Prior toAct 35, just 13 schools carried the label of “failing.” Currently, there are just 20 schools underthe auspices of the OPSB; 6 schools are directly run by the OPSB, and 14 schools are charteredby OPSB. According to Buras (2014) and Picard (2013), for New Orleans, the educational voidcreated by Hurricane Katrina and the subsequent devastation caused by levee failure in 2005allowed pro-charter politicians an unparalleled opportunity to restructure a large school districtthrough forced privatization, at the expense of a loss of cultural identity in neighborhood schools,and resulted in no school choice for neighborhoods and communities of children. What wasconsidered a “success” and what constituted a “failure” was politically created, media framed,and engineered to rationalize converting public schools into charter schools, and later to justifykeeping them as charter schools (Buras, 2014; Picard, 2013; Sanders, 2012).

This “success” included the replacement of senior teachers, a large number who were careerblack educational professionals, who formed an important core of New Orleans’s black middleclass, and who were raised in the city’s culture. This group of professionals were replacedwith new and nontraditionally- (alternatively-)prepared white teachers with little connection tolocal culture; limited understanding of New Orleans, its neighborhoods, history, culture, and itschildren (Buras, 2014); and little motivation to stay beyond a two-year contract (Buras, 2014;Picard, 2013). According to Buras (2014), in New Orleans post-Katrina, educational reform wasless about the educational needs and social justice of racially oppressed communities, and wasmore about the forced privatization of the school system. Sanders (2012) claimed that the charterschool concept was hijacked in New Orleans as these charter schools did not follow best practicesor sound research, and did not promote equity and excellence. Darling-Hammond (1994) warnedof the dangers of high concentrations of untrained, novice teachers with little expertise in teaching;this mirrors the case of most charter schools in urban New Orleans, which hired novice teacherswith little training and a lack of connection to the neighborhoods and culture of the city (Tan,2014). According to Tan (2014) the educational reforms of the past decade have not addressedthe inequitable distribution of excellent teachers in New Orleans. In fact, poor children are more

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 15

likely to encounter novice and less than effective teachers. Constant turnover in New Orleansschools continues to mean instability for students who can least afford to that instability.

In New Orleans post-Katrina, the promise of choice offered by charters became no choice at all.As of the 2014–2015 school year, New Orleans is the first all-charter school system in the country(Maxwell, 2014). Thirty different providers operate in the two different school districts (OPSDand RSD) that govern schools in Orleans Parish (county). This educational experiment, althoughtouted by politicians as improving the school system as measured by state standardized testing,appears to have exasperated issues of segregation (Institute on Race and Poverty at Universityof Minnesota Law School, 2010; Sims & Vaughn, 2014). A recent report by the University ofMinnesota Law School’s Institute on Race and Poverty (2010) reported post-Katrina rebuildingof the public school system in New Orleans resulted in a five “tiered” system of public schools.The inequity of such a system is that students throughout the city do not receive the samequality of education. Further the report verified that reforms such as the almost entirely chartersystem re-established a tiered system that actually was in place pre-Katrina, further segregatingstudents by race and economic status (Institute on Race and Poverty at University of MinnesotaLaw School, 2010). According to Sims and Vaughn (2014), there were wide variations in thepercentage of students among New Orleans Metro charter schools with respect to race, free andreduced-fee lunch rates, ELL students, and students with disabilities, suggesting that the newsystem has made little headway with respect to equity, with some indications of retraction togreater segregation. Further, Sims and Vaughn (2014) indicated that, currently, there are onlytwo New Orleans charter schools that are demographically representative of the city’s youthpopulation. The report also indicates that little innovative teaching and curriculum are present inthese charters. The authors found that, “the variation in school design is largely limited to high-stakes standards-based teaching and strict discipline policies” (p. 29), certainly not the kind ofteaching and learning outlined by Darling-Hammond (2010) and other advocates of empoweringsocially just teaching and learning practices.

Finally, there are issues of power and equity for families in Greater New Orleans related tothe charter reform that appeared post-Katrina. These issues are still surfacing. As with localteachers, families/parents had little voice in the passing and implementation of Act 35 post-Katrina (Balch-Gonzalez, Cook, & Richards, 2010). Many families, particularly poor families,had not returned to Louisiana post-Katrina at the time the legislation passed and began to beimplemented. Due to devastation as a result of Hurricane Katrina and subsequent levee failures,an estimated total of 236,970 people left Louisiana in a 12-month period between July 2005 andJune 2006. Approximately 100,000 people have moved to Louisiana since then (Internal RevenueService, 2009–2010; Thoren, 2014). The closing of neighborhood schools and implementationof school choice without parental input and supports in the form of general information aboutchanges in schools, and coordinated communication across schools, created parental frustrationand marginalization from the inception of the reform until now (Institute on Race and Povertyat University of Minnesota Law School, 2010). As Balch-Gonzalez, Cook, and Richards (2010)noted in their study of community invovlment in the chartering process

A fragmented system like New Orleans presented many barriers to this kind of parent and communityinvolvement. Parents are often seen as individual consumers who have no collective common interestbeyond the choice of schools their own children attend and no role as decision makers. . . . In thisenvironment, parents struggle to be heard. (p. 34)

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

16 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

Currently in New Orleans, the promise of charter schools is unfulfilled with respect to is-sues associated with social justice—critical reflection, power, marginalization, equity. If NewOrleans is the precursor to the future of schooling in the U.S., particularly in urban settings,it behooves researchers and the readers of this journal to understand how charter schools op-erate and are changing the educational landscape. The articles presented in this issue providefurther understanding of the relationship between perspectives of social justice and charterschooling.

CONTENT OF SPECIAL THEMED ISSUE

This special themed issue contains eight articles that focus on theoretical perspectives and schol-arly research that examine the many aspects of charter schools, viewed from a social justiceperspective. These articles extend the body of literature on charters by adding to the limitedstudies that examine what happens inside charters schools, documenting resistance to charterschools, policy implications, and how charter schools might deny social justice. We were particu-larly interested in scholarly work that highlighted the complex intersectional issues that charterspresent, reflecting broader institutional structures and social systems. In the U.S., the research isstill inconclusive as to the effectiveness of charter schools in relationship to student outcomesand issues of equity (Garcia, 2010; Wohlstetter, Smith, & Farrell, 2013). More research regardingwhat happens inside charter schools is warranted.

The eight articles address some aspects of a charter school. From admission practices to cybercharters to a historical record in California and Canada, researchers whose work is presented inthis issue of Equity & Excellence in Education are extending understanding of charter schools,particularly how they impact issues of social justice.

In “What Does Charter School Mean to You? A Look at Louisiana’s Charter Enrollment byCharter Type” Jandel Crutchfield examines the intersection of race, socioeconomic status, andcharter type/admission practices in Louisiana charter schools using publicly available LouisianaDepartment of Education data to compile a sample of charter school demographic information.It is a comprehensive view of one state’s charter growth and an interesting commentary of onestate’s charter type and admission practices as they relate to social justice themes of race andsocioeconomic status. Findings suggest that there are significant differences in African Americanstudent enrollment and enrollment of low-income students or students that qualify for free andreduced-fee lunch in Louisiana charter schools. Crutchfield’s findings mirror those of Sims andVaughn (2014) in terms of whom urban charter schools serve.

In “Charter School Barriers: Do Enrollment Requirements Limit Student Access to CharterSchools?” Spencer C. Weiler and Linda R. Vogel investigate the potential of the charter schoolmovement to positively influence traditional public education and specifically focus on the abilityof charter school officials to provide all interested students access to their curriculum. The aimof this study was to document potential registration and enrollment barriers incorporated intothe practices of Colorado’s charter schools. Through an investigation that included two socialjustice issues, access and opportunity, and the use of two data collectors who represented differingethnicities, study findings revealed that four issues acted as potential barriers to enrollment inColorado charter schools: registration and enrollment, use of the lottery system, ability to payfees, and family commitment.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 17

Suzanne Eckes explores haven or niche charter schools and integration–segregation aspects ofcharter schools as they pertain to social justice in her article, “Haven Charter Schools: Separateby Design and Legally Questionable.” Despite widespread concern regarding student body segre-gation, some charter school leaders use recruitment strategies that result in increased segregation,often with the stated purpose of providing greater educational opportunities for marginalizedgroups of students. In this provocative article, the author questions issues of inclusion by look-ing at the enrollment in charter school that seek to provide equal educational opportunities formarginalized groups, as a potential barrier to the notion of schools meeting the diverse needs ofall students.

In “Cyber Charter Schools and Students With Dis/Abilities: Rebooting the IDEA to AddressEquity, Access, and Compliance,” Kathleen M. Collins, Preston C. Green, III, Steven L. Nelson,and Santosh Madahar examine the issue of equity, access, and cyber charter schools from theperspective of Disability Studies in Education (DSE). Positioning inclusion and educational accessas social justice concerns, the authors assert the importance of making visible the social justiceimplications of the current laws that impact cyber charter schools and students with disabilities.Analysis suggests several changes in the IDEA and state level legislation are in order for cybercharter schools to be an equitable option for students with disabilities.

Few studies have examined the experiences of teachers in charter schools, including workingconditions. At the center of her article “Becoming Unionized in a Charter School: TeacherExperiences and the Promise of Choice,” Elizabeth Montano investigates what happened whenthe teachers in this study used the very autonomy they were promised as charter school educatorsas a motivator towards unionization. In this study, choice existed only for the management of theschool. Although charter schools were founded as places where autonomy and innovation wouldflourish, teachers’ rights were left out of the discussion in charter school reform.

In “What Happened to Charter Schools in Canada?” Michael Mindzak’s investigation focuseson the 20 years of charter schools’ existence in Canada. Charter schools were implemented in theprovince of Alberta in 1994, where only a handful of charter schools remain. The ideas of schoolchoice and charter schooling have largely disappeared as educational policy issues for Canadians.Although reasons for this decline are complex, the importance of historical, cultural, regional,and political dimensions of education in Canada are highlighted. School choice, generally, andcharter schools, specifically, remain essentially a non-issue for Canadians today. In opposition toneoconservative and neoliberal efforts, Canadians have largely continued to support their publicsystems of schooling and the quest for more equitable education. The strength in Mindzak’s pieceis the juxtaposition of charters in Canada to the U.S., and what we saw as a thoughtful pieceabout “failed policy.”

In “The Impact of Structural Barriers and Facilitators on Early Childhood Literacy Programsin Elementary Charter Schools,” Denise Ross, Glen Pinder, and D’Jaris Coles-White question therole charter school structure plays in early childhood literacy programming. More specifically,they are interested in recognizing the effects that start-up or turnaround charter school transitionscould have on reading programs for the low-income communities who attend the schools. Toprovide preliminary implications for improving the implementation of early childhood readingprograms, Ross, Pinder, and Coles-White suggest planning around and incorporating some of thelargest structural barriers that occur during the initial start-up or transition phases.

In “Critical Race Theory and the Proliferation of U.S. Charter Schools,” Thandeka K. Chap-man and Jamel K. Donnor utilize critical race theory to analyze charter school research. They

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

18 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

offer multiple challenges to marketplace theory as an educational reform strategy on which char-ter schools are based. They propose that profits made from charter schools are a reason thatpolicymakers continue to promote charter schools, despite the lack of evidence of the positiveoutcomes of charter schools. Ultimately, they argue that multiple stakeholders need to collaborateto support schools that meet the concerns of all students and to work toward equitable educationfor all.

As guest editors of this issue and scholars who have researched issues surrounding whathappens inside charter schools in Louisiana, we have come to know the various configurations thatcomprise charter schools, the many differences among state laws regarding chartering authority,and the political issues that surround charter schools. The social justice issue of access ties thesepieces together. Montano’s article is unique in that it presents the concept of choice, a chartertenet, and what occurred when teachers tried to exercise choice.

The free market system—the marketization of schools—applied to education, appears atpresent not to work as a lever for expansion of social justice in charter schools in the U.S. Issuesof access, competition, and choice seem to have stimulated segregation not socially just practiceswithin the charter market. Although one of the promises of charter schooling is equity, there is noclear evidence that this market-driven reform has fulfilled this promise. The issues surroundingcharter schools are vast and research has not kept pace with the rhetoric of charter reforms. Forthese reasons, this issue of Equity & Excellence in Education is timely and much needed. Weinvite you to peruse this issue and read these articles that examine aspects of charter schools inthe U.S. and in Canada.

REFERENCES

Abowitz, K. K. (2001). Charter schooling and social justice. Educational Theory, 51(2), 127–258.Adams, M. (1997). Pedagogical frameworks for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Giffin (Eds.),

Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 30–43). New York, NY: Routledge.Balch-Gonzalez, M., Cook, D. A., & Richards, E. (2010). Community organizing for reform at scale: Balancing demands

and support. Voices in Urban Education, 28(Summer), 33–42.Barrios, L. (2013, March 10). [Letter to the Editor]. Education reform is an illusion. The Times-Picayune,

p. B8.Bell, M. A. (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Giffin (Eds.),

Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 3–15). New York, NY: Routledge.Bell, M. A., & Griffin, P. (1997). Designing social justice education courses. In M. Adams, L. A. Bell, & P. Giffin (Eds.),

Teaching for diversity and social justice (pp. 44–60). New York, NY: Routledge.Bickmore, D., & Sulentic Dowell, M-M. (2012). Teaching in Louisiana charter schools. In M. Richardson (Ed.), Teaching

in Louisiana (pp. 187–196). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.Blakemore, C. (1998). A public school of your own. Golden, CO: Adams-Pomery.Bracey, G. (2005). Charter schools’ performance and accountability: A disconnect. Tempe, AZ: Education Policy

Research Unit.Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).Brown, K. M. (2004). Leadership for social justice and equity: Weaving a transformative framework and pedagogy.

Educational Administration Quarterly, 40(1), 77–108.Budde, R. (1988). Education by charter: Restructuring school districts. Key to long-term continuing improvement in

American education. Andover, MA: The Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast &Islands.

Budde, R. (1996). The evolution of the charter concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 78(1), 72–73.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 19

Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17(3), 317–342.Buras, K. (2014). Charter schools, race, and urban space: Where the market meets grassroots resistance. New York, NY:

Routledge.California Charter Schools Association. (2012). School conversion. Retreived from http://www.calcharters.org/

starting/conversion/Center for Research on Educational Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA:

Stanford Univerity.Center for Research on Education Outocmes. (2013). National charter school Study. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univerity.Cochran-Smith, M. (2004). Walking the road: Race, diversity, and social justice in teacher education. New York: NY:

College Press.Cowen Intitute for Public Education Intitiatives. (2014). NOLA by the numbers: School performance scores. New Orleans,

LA: Tulane University.Darling-Hammond, L. (1994). Who will speak for the children/How “Teach for America” hurts urban schools and

children. Phi Delta Kappan, 76(1), 21–33.Darling-Hammond, L. (2010). Teacher education and the American future. Journal of Teacher Education, 61(1–2), 35–47.Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York, NY: New Press.Dingerson, L., Miner, B., Peterson, B., & Walters, S. (Eds.). (2008). Keeping the promise? The debate over charter

schools. Milwaukee, WI: Rethinking Schools.Education Commission of the States. (2010). Charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/issue.asp?

issueid = 20Finn, C., Manno, B., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University

Press.Garcia, D. R. (2010). Charter schools challenging traditional notions of segregation. In C. A. Lubienski & P. C. Weitzel

(Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 33–50). Cambridge, MA:Harvard Education Press.

Giroux, H., & McLaren, P. (1986). Teacher education and the politics of engagement: The case for democratic schooling.Harvard Educational Review, 213–239. Boston, MA: Harvard Education, Publishing Group.

Hackman, H. W. (2005). Five essential components for social justice education. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(2),103–109. doi: 10.1080/10665680590935034

Institute on Race and Poverty at University of Minnesota Law School. (2010). The State of public schoolsin post Katrina New Orleans: The challenge of creating equal opportunity. Minneapolis, MN: Insti-tute on Race and Poverty at University of Minnesota Law School. Retrieved from http://www.irpumn.org/uls/resources/projects/NEW ORLEANS FULL REPORT.pdf.

Internal Revenue Service. (2009–2010). SOI tax stats—county-to-county migration data files. Retrieved fromhttp://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Migration-Data

Isaacson, W. (2007, September 17). The greatest education lab: How Katrina opened the way for an influx of schoolreform. Time, 170(12), 47–49.

Jindal, B. (2013, September 15). Louisiana is leading the way in education. The Times-Picayune, p. E1–E4.Knopp, S. (2008). Charter schools and the attack on public education. International Socialist Review, 62. Retrieved from

http://www.isreview.org/issues/62/feat-charterschools.shtmlKozol, J. (2007, August). The big enchilada. Harper’s Magazine, 7–9.Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achievement in US schools.

Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12.Louisiana Department of Education. (2014a). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills Next. Retrieved from

http://www.louisianabelieves.com/assessment/dibels-nextLouisiana Department of Education. (2014b). Retrieved from http://www.louisianabelieves.com/schools/charter-schoolsMaxwell, L. A. (2014). New Orleans’ Recovery School District is officially an all-charter system. Newsweek.

Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/District Dossier/2014/05/new orleans recovery district .html?cmp=ENL-EU-NEWS3

McGaughy, L. (2013, March10). House majority leader Eric Cantor visits St. Mary’s academy. The Times-Picayune,p. B3.

Miron, G., Coryn, C. L., & Mackety, D. (2007). Evaluating the impact of chater schools on student achievement:A longitundinal look at the great lakes states. Tempe, AZ and Boulder, CO: Educational Policy Research Unit;Education and the Public Interest.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

20 SULENTIC DOWELL AND BICKMORE

Miron, G., & Urschel, J. (2009). Profiles of non -profit educational managment organizations: 2008–2009. Tempe, AZand Boulder, CO: Education Policy Center; Commercialism in Education; Education and Public Intererest. Retrievedfrom http://epicpolicy.org/publication/profiles-nonprofit-emos-2008-09

Miron, G., Urschel, J., Mathis, W., & Tornquist, E. (2010). Schools without diversity: Education management organi-zations, charter schools, and the demographic stratification of the American school system. Boulder, CO: Educationand the Public Interest Center.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2012). The public charter school dashboard. Retrieved fromhttp://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/students/year/2012

National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2012). Principles Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing.Retrieved from http://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Principles.Standards.2012pub.pdf

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2014). Table 216.30 —Number and percentage distribution of public elemen-tary and secondary students and schools, by traditional or charter school status and selected characteristics: Selectedyears, 1999-2000 through 2011-12. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13 216.30.asp

National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. TheElementary School Journal, 84(2), 113–130. doi: 10.2307/1001303

Nehring, J. (2002). Upstart startup. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Nieto, S. (1999). The light in their eyes. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Nieto, S. (2005a). Schools for a new majority: The role of teacher education in hard times. The New Educator, 1(1),

27–43.Nieto, S. (2005b). Social justice in hard times: Celebrating the vision of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Multicultural

Perspectives, 7(1), 3–7.Picard, N. (2013, April 13). Louisiana’s great education giveaway. Louisiana Voice. Retrieved from

http: // louisianavoice .com/2013 /04 /26 /guest -column-metairie-attorney-dissects-the-post-katrina-politicalization-patronage-of-louisiana-public-education/

Sanders, R. (2012). New Orleans charter schools: What is the problem? Retrieved from http://naacpms.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Charter-Schools-What-is-the problem.pdf

Sensoy, O., & DiAngelo, R. (2009). Developing soical justice literacy: An open letter to our faculty colleagues. Phi DeltaKappan, 90(5), 345–352.

Silverman, R. (2013). Making waves or treading water? An analysis of charter schools in New York State. UrbanEducation, 48, 257–288.

Sims, P., & Vaughn, D. (2014). The state of public education in New Orleans: 2014 report. New Orleans, LA: The CowanInstitute for Public Initiatives.

Tan, S. (2014, April 13). Low-income kids less likely to get effective teachers. The Time Picayune, p. A6.Thoren, T. (2014, February 4). New Orleans’ Katrina recovery slows as most of Louisiana loses population to rest of

country. The Lens. Retrieved from http://thelensnola.org/2014/02/04/new-orleans-katrina-recovery-slows-as-most-of-louisiana-loses-population-to-rest-of-country/

U.S. Charter Schools. (2010). History. Retrieved February 10, 2010, from http://www.uscharterschools.org/pub/uscs docs/o/history.htm

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July). Charter schools program, title V, part B, non-regulatory guidance. Wash-ington, DC: Author. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/cspguidance03.pdf

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, July). Charter Schools Program, Title V, Part B, Non-Regulatory Guidance.U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Department of Education race to the top fund—Excecutive summary:

Notice of proposed priorities requirments defintions and selection criteria. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf

Weitzel, P. C., & Lubienski, C. A. (2010). Grading charter schools: Access, innovation, and competition. In C.A. Lubienski & P. C. Weitzel (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications(pp. 15–32). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective.Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Ziebarth, T. (2010). Bringing to life the school choice and restructuring requirements of NCLB. Closing

low-performing schols and reopeneing them as charter schools—The role of the state. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/54/25/5425.pdf

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015

GUEST EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION 21

Margaret-Mary Sulentic Dowell is Associate Professor of literacy and urban educationat Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge. Sulentic Dowell’s research agenda is focused onliteracy in urban settings, specifically the complexities of literacy leadership—especially incharter schools—providing access to literature, writing, and the arts, and service-learning as apathway to preparing pre-service teachers to teach literacy authentically in urban environs.

Dana L. Bickmore is Assistant Professor of educational leadership at Louisiana State Uni-versity, Baton Rouge. Bickmore’s research focus is the principal as instructional leader in middlegrades and charter school contexts, with specific interests in the principal’s role in the inductionand professional development of school personnel.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Mar

gaet

-Mar

y Su

lent

ic D

owel

l] a

t 11:

49 1

6 Fe

brua

ry 2

015