Bringing To Life the School Choi

and Restructuring Requirements 

Closing Low-performing Schools Them as Charter Schools: The R

nd administrators do

low performance is

ntions? Under the provi

hind Act (NCLB), they

ol fails to meet its state’s

AYP) performance bench

ars, its district must cre

ar, implement – a plan

ne of the following five

public charter school

e school staff, which

l, who are relevant to the

AYP

h an entity, such as a pri

any with a demonstrated

o operate the school as

 school over to the state

mitted under state law

te

uring of a school’s gover

erforming schools are not

the AYP timeline (See

otentially large number of

te in the next few years,

o become more of an

 one they should begin

pth look at the first of the

ned above: namely, that

broader restructuring

policymakers and admin

sely – to close down 

chronically low-performing schools and reopen themas charter schools.ii

The “close-and-reopen” option, as it’s called, has several distinct advantages. It provides an opportunity toenlist the interest and energy of the community inchanging and improving an underachieving school. Itserves as a mechanism for heightening the visibilityand promoting the spread of promising practicesacross the public education system. And it gives lowperforming schools a powerful new tool – the uniqueblend of autonomy and accountability that charterschools embody – for addressing the difficult anddiverse problems they typically face.The close-and-reopen option is not, of course, a “silverbullet.” Implementing it may be difficult politically,and carrying it out effectively may prove costly andtime consuming. Careful consideration must be givento the nature and extent of the state’s role in theprocess, and to ensuring the end result is fundamental and lasting improvement, rather than superficialchange. This paper explores the challenges and potential benefits of the close-and-reopen option, and the role thatstates can and should play in its implementation.Why Should States ConsiderClosing Low-performingSchools and Reopening Themas Charter Schools?Existing research on the effectiveness of the schoolrestructuring options outlined in NCLB is scant, andwhat little there is focuses primarily on reconstitutions of schools and state takeovers of districts andschools. This research shows that reconstitutions andstate takeovers have a mixed record of effectiveness

i On this point, it is important to remember that under the

previously reauthorized version of the Elementary andSecondary Education Act in 1994, which also includedstandards for AYP, over 8,000 schools were identified asneeding improvement. NCLB’s much tougher standardsfor AYP, however, will likely increase this number.

ii While the focus is on the option to close and reopen

schools as public charter schools, much of the materialin this paper also is applicable to the “contractingoption” within NCLB, depending upon a state’s laws.Within the “contracting option,” a district enters into acontract with an entity, such as a private managementcompany with a demonstrated record of effectiveness,to operate the school as a public school.

1 Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening

Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State

What is a Charter School?

Charter schools are semi-autonomous publicschools, typically founded by educators, parents, community groups or private organizations that operate under a written contract,typically for three to five years, with a state,district or other entity. This contract, or charter, details such matters as how the schoolwill be organized and managed, what studentswill be taught and expected to achieve, andhow success will be measured. Underlying thecontract is an explicit exchange of deregulation for accountability, in which states applyless regulation to charter schools and demanda higher level of accountability for results.Charter schools may be closed for failing tosatisfy the terms of their charters.

This paper was written by Todd M. Ziebarth, apolicy analyst with Augenblick, Palaich andAssociates, a Denver-based consulting firm. TheU.S. Department of Education’s Public CharterSchools Program provided funding for this paper.
in significantly improving chronically low-performing

schools.iiiNCLB’s school restructuring requirements, it is fair tosay, are driven primarily by the urgency of the problem rather than the clarity of the solution. A differentapproach – one that warrants the attention of states– is to incorporate into their broader school restructuring initiatives an option that allows the closing andreopening of low-performing schools as public charterschools. In the absence of such an option, mostschools and districts are likely to take a minimalistapproach – either removing a handful of staff at aschool but changing little else, or choosing the “anyother major restructuring option” but defining it inways that don’t fundamentally address the problemsa school is facing. In fact, one of the first states to experience schoolrestructuring under NCLB – Michigan – recentlyreported that 41 of the 69 schools that faced restructuring chose to replace their principal or other staffmembers. The remaining schools chose such strategies as hiring an outside consultant to work closelywith a district to launch an improvement plan at theschool; appointing a governing board composed ofteachers, administrators, parents, and business andcommunity leaders; and using an external reformmodel that includes outside consultants to changehow schools interact with parents or teach students.Not one district chose to close and reopen a school asa public charter school.iv

Closing low-performing schools. Besides the mixed

record of reconstitutions and takeovers, as well as thelikelihood that districts and schools will take a minimalist approach to restructuring, there are other,more positive reasons for states to incorporate theclose-and-reopen option into their restructuringefforts. First and foremost, this option allows policymakers and administrators to close down low-performing schools with chronic and widespread failure –not, it should be noted, as the first strategy out of the

box, but rather the last one after others have failedover a period of several years.

Providing autonomy. A charter school’s autonomy

gives it the flexibility to make changes in a timelymanner to meet the particular needs of its students,specifically regarding budgets, staff, schedules, andcurriculum and instruction. It is important to remember that closing and reopening as a charter schooldoesn’t change the challenges that students oftenbring with them. It does, however, give the new schoolthe flexibility to better deal with these complex needs.For example, there is general agreement that struggling students need to spend more time on task.Toward that end, schools need to put into place longerschool years, school weeks and school days, whilealso improving the quality of the instruction thattakes place during this time. Because a charterschool is freed from the many layers of school scheduling constraints that are found within state rules, district regulations and collective-bargaining agreements, it is often better able to create the types ofschedules that respond to the needs of its students.

Ensuring accountability. A charter school’s contract

outlines the expectations for the school and chargesthe school with the responsibility for meeting theseexpectations. In the context of the close-and-reopenoption,” chartering is less of a “laissez-faire” approachthat some associate with charter schools, and moreof a thoughtful, rigorous approach to identifying thespecific needs at a low-performing school, conductinga thorough process to identify an entity with provenresults in successfully meeting the school’s needs,entering into a charter with this entity to operate theschool, and monitoring the school’s performance relative to the terms of the charter.

2 

eopening 

he State

Schools Be

ncis X.

Assessing

as a School

 at the

al Science

d (2000,

ontrol:

c Stability.

te; Fixing

h-stakes

13).

sortium for

rum on

d.

ance

 Impact of

n Newark.

nce Center;

, R.L.,

2).

n

n Consent

 Judge

ncisco, CA.

Schools

tate Says,”
P

ote

ntial B

e

n

efits of R

e

o

p

e

nin

g a L

o

wp

erformin

g S

c

h

o

ol a

s a C

h

arter S

c

h

o

ol

• New leadership

• New staff

• New mission

• New culture

• New educational approaches

• New schedules (e.g., longer school years,

school weeks and school days)

• New boards of trustees

• New decisionmaking approaches (e.g.,

more decisionmaking authority for teachers and parents).

3 Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening

Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State

v Miron, Gary and Nelson, Christopher (2004). “Student

Achievement in Charter Schools: What We Know and WhyWe Know So Little.” In Katrina E. Bulkley and PriscillaWohlstetter (Eds.), Taking Account of Charter Schools:What’s Happened and What’s Next? (pp. 161-175). NewYork, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University. 

vi Loveless, Tom (2003, October). 2003 Brown Center

Report on American Education. Washington, DC: TheBrookings Institution.

vii Solomon, Lewis C. and Goldschmidt, Pete (2004, March).

Comparison of Traditional Public Schools and CharterSchools on Retention, School Switching and AchievementGrowth. Phoenix, AZ: The Goldwater Institute.

viii Zimmer, Ron, Buddin, Richard, Chau, Derrick, Daley,

Glenn, Gill, Brian, Guarino, Cassandra, Hamilton, Laura,Krop, Cathy, McCaffrey, Dan, Sandler, Melinda, andBrewer, Dominic (2003). Charter School Operations andPerformance: Evidence from California. Santa Monica,CA: RAND.

ix Nelson, F. Howard, Rosenberg, Bella, and Van Meter,

Nancy (2004). Charter School Achievement on the 2003National Assessment of Educational Progress.Washington, DC: American Federation of Teachers.

x Halsband, Robin. (2003, November/December) Charter

Schools Benefit Community Economic Development,”Journal of Housing & Community Development, pp. 34-38.

o

ut C

h

arter S

c

h

o

ols a

n

d Stu

d

e

nt A

c

hie

v

e

m

e

nt

d that existing research on charter schools’ impacts on student achievement

h studies from some states suggesting positive impacts, studies from other states

s, and some providing evidence of both positive and negative impacts.v

s written in 2002, a handful of studies on student achievement in charter schools

re some highlights:

nd that test scores in charter schools lagged behind scores of regular public

s that were studied, but charter schools in those states registered significant gains

0 to 2002 relative to regular public schools. It also found that conversion charter

oduced average test scores despite serving students with demographics that are

ow scores. Finally, it found that compared to regular public schools and to char

th similar socioeconomic characteristics, charters operated by educational man

(EMOs) have much lower test scores. Gains made from 2000 to 2002 in

however, have been significantly higher than those of both regular public schools

i

ols in Arizona found that charter school students, on average, began with lower

aditional public school counterparts and showed overall annual achievement

oints higher than their noncharter peers. Plus, charter school students who com

urpassed traditional public school students on reading tests.vii

ols in California generally found comparable achievement scores for charter

entional public schools. But it did find significant differences in achievement

of charter schools. Students in classroom-based conversion charter schools have

mparable to those of similar students in conventional public schools, while class

arter schools have slightly higher test scores on average. In contrast, students in

chools that deliver at least some of their instruction outside the classroom have

es than do similar students in conventional public schools.viii

ol performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) found

ools scored slightly lower than the average public schools. When the NAEP data

rs such as race, however, the difference between charter schools and traditional

igible.ix

 The close-and-reopen

rtunity to re-engage the

 variety of ways. At one

nistrators may ask capa

 to operate some of the

eopened as charter

ountry, an increasing num

ons are starting charter

d their current services

and provide one-stop shopping to their target population.x Short of that, policymakers and administrators

may require the reopened school to work with community organizations, local governments, communityfoundations and local businesses as partners in theprovision of services to the school’s parents and students. At a minimum, policymakers and administrators may recruit people from these entities to serve asmembers on new schools’ boards of trustees.
Spreading promising practices. Another potential benefit of the close-and-reopen option is that it provides a

mechanism to spread promising practices within thepublic education system. For example, policymakersand administrators can recruit as school operatorsthe entities that have successfully served a population of students similar to the population of studentsin a school that is to be closed and reopened as acharter school. In this effort, they can reach out tonational charter school networks (both nonprofit andfor profit), national school reform models, and traditional public schools, charter public schools and private schools within the community and the state. Thekey isn’t finding a model that has been successful ingeneral, but rather finding a model that has been successful with a similar group of students in much thesame circumstances that face the low-performingschool in question.xi

Instead of attempting to add another layer of schoolreform on top of a low-performing school that isalready wobbling under the multiple reforms thathave been piled on it over the years, the close-andreopen option allows the reopened school to implement such promising practices from a clean slate aswell as with a new school community that is unitedbehind the value of such practices.What are the Challenges forStates in Closing andReopening Low-performingSchools as Charter Schools?Along with the potential benefits of the close-andreopen option, policymakers and administrators mustconsider several concerns and challenges involved inimplementing it. 

Making real changes. One concern that both charter

supporters and opponents have about the close-andreopen option is that renaming the school – SunnyElementary School becoming Sunny ElementaryCharter School, for example – will wind up being theextent of school restructuring. Thus, if states and districts implement this option, one challenge is toensure they make real changes in schools, instead ofmerely adding a word to a school’s nameplate.

Impacting teaching and learning. Some have voiced

concern that governance changes are sometimes disconnected from teaching and learning changes.Therefore, another challenge for states and districtsthat implement this option is to ensure changes inthe group of people in charge of the school are connected to improvements in the teaching and learningexperiences at the school.

Matching problems and solutions. Another concern is

the potential to mismatch a problem – a low-performing school – and a solution – closing and reopeningthe school as a charter school. In this context, thechallenge facing state and district leaders is determining when the particular problems at a low-performing school will be alleviated by the closeand-reopen option. In some cases, it will; in others, itwon’t. The trick for state and district leaders is recognizing the difference – a topic that is addressed in thenext section.

Finding school operators. Some state and district

leaders interested in this option also are concernedthat may not be enough high-quality school operators.These operators must not only be familiar with theparticular problems facing chronically low-performingschools but also must have a track record of successin solving such problems. Thus, state and district leaders are faced with the challenge of determining wherenew, high-quality school operators will come from.

Navigating politics. The politics of implementing the

close-and-reopen option may prove challenging.Often, when a district closes a school that is under

ulating the 

NCLB: The 

ission of 

4 

eopening 

he State
om the school’s parents

on, not only is a state or

eople have known it, but

harter school in its place.

reasingly familiar to poli

known quantity to many

may exacerbate the

they feel. 

olitical equation are the

he unions that represent

er assumes that in the

new school operator will

scratch in staffing the

utonomy to hire and fire

t the term of the charter.

he new school operator

erate outside of existing

ents in the district.

teachers at the existing

school and, if their appli

ch, may be granted a

 don’t run the new

ply for jobs at the new

e new school operator to

ant to hire them.

tunities, it is apparent

ts handle parent, stu

agement well, the closing

will be a challenging

rly, the process may be a

A final concern of some

reopen option may be

o successfully implement.

ment required of the

sing and reopening to be

icant. Authorizer staff

activities, including

nity in the process,

tor, negotiating a charter

rations for opening the

new school, monitoring the reopened school againstperformance benchmarks established in the charter,and periodically meeting with the new school operator to keep the effort on track.Second, it is unclear in some situations how the stateand district will fund the school once it is reopened asa charter school. The basic question is: By going“charter,” will a school get less money than it did as atraditional public school? In figuring out the answer tothis question, state and district leaders need to examine several issues, including:

•

 Will the new school get the same amount of

operating dollars as it did before?

•

 Will it receive resources to cover facility costs?

•

 Will it get access to bond levies as a charter

school?

•

 Will it receive the same amount of federal, state

and local dollars as before?

•

 If there are any gaps between what the school

received as a traditional school and what it willreceive as a charter school, will the state and/ordistrict make up the difference?

State Policy Options forClosing and Reopening Lowperforming Schools as CharterSchoolsAs the above discussion makes clear, the close-andreopen option represents a bold undertaking.Because of the dramatic nature of this option, stateleaders should play a part in the process only if theysee potential power in it. Assuming that they do, thereare a variety of roles that states may play, includingthe following four that are discussed in this section:

5 Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening

Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State
•

 Establish guiding criteria and processes for the

close-and-reopen option 

•

 Create a request for qualifications (RFQ) or

request for proposals (RFP) process

•

 Provide additional resources to school operators

•

 Implement the close-and-reopen option

themselves.

Establish guiding criteria and processes 

There are two major types of charter schools acrossthe country – conversion charter schools and start-upcharter schools. In the conversion model, an existingpublic school converts itself to a charter school. Inthese cases, state law typically requires that a majority of a school’s teachers and parents vote in favor ofthe conversion. For start-up charter schools, schooloperators – e.g., parents, teachers or communityorganizations – essentially start the school fromscratch.Some policymakers and administrators have talkedabout implementing the close-and-reopen optionthrough the processes already in place for conversioncharter schools. While this approach may work insome situations, it is likely to be problematic in others. Put bluntly, if the leadership and more than amajority of the staff at a low-performing school arepart of the problem at that particular school, policymakers and administrators probably don’t want themmaking the decision about whether to convert to acharter school nor do they want them as part of thenew school.Therefore, one of the most important roles for thestate is to establish a new set of criteria and processes to guide the closing and reopening of low-performing schools as charter schools. As the first part of this effort, the state should createcriteria for when the particular problems at a low-performing school match the specific solution of closing

and reopening it as a charter school. Some possiblecriteria are:

•

 Several years of widespread low-performance

•

 Little, if any, improvement in performance from

year to year

•

 Low rates of attendance for students and 

teachers

•

 Low quality of leadership

•

 Sub-par teaching staff

•

 Little capacity in the school community for strategic reflection and action

•

 Disengaged students

•

 Low level of parental and community involvement

•

 Dilapidated school facility.

These criteria may exist at a low-performing school inany number of ways. One scenario is all the above criteria exist. In essence, the school has completelymelted down and is in total chaos. In this situation,the close-and-reopen option allows the district orstate to wipe the slate clean (except for the existingstudent population) and essentially start over bybringing in an outside entity to operate the school.Obviously, it is critical for the district or state toinvolve students, parents and community members inthis process from an early stage.A second scenario is a school has disengaged students, parents and community members, a sub-parteaching staff and a crumbling facility, but also has anew, high-quality leader who is constrained in puttinginto place the necessary staff, educational programs,parental involvement efforts and facility improvementplans by a mountain of state, district and collectivebargaining regulations. In this case, the close-andreopen option provides a less constrainedenvironment for the school leader to assemble ateam and a strategy to turn around the school, whilestill being held accountable for performance.

6 

eopening 

he State
as unstable, ineffective

p of high-quality teachers

e closely connected to the

individuals, the close

 mechanism for organiz

connections between

s process, they can bring

leaders, teachers and

, all toward the common

hievement.

y. Another role for the

s to ensure districts and

n in a way that truly pro

th the autonomy and

success, instead of just

nameplate. In essence,

 certifying that a given

nd reopened under a dif

e should establish such a

atute, state board of

tment of education regu

ear the various

ted to the school, espe

affing, scheduling, and

 also should delineate

accountable for, as well

ocess will work. For

quire that a school’s

operational and fiscal

ctives for the time period

o may require a reopened

orts to the district and

ur times a year – that

oward meeting the per

es contained in the 

g what autonomy and

t the reopened school,

address the timeline for

hool. Obviously, there is

no ideal time to close and reopen a school, and thereare trade-offs within any particular approach. Oneoption is for states to simply follow the timelineincluded within NCLB. In this option, if a school failsto meet its state’s AYP performance benchmarks forfive consecutive years, its district must create a planto restructure the school. If a school fails to makeAYP for a sixth consecutive year, the district mustimplement the restructuring plan no later than thebeginning of the school year following the year inwhich the district developed the restructuring plan.The smoothness of this process will be particularlydependent on when the state releases its annual categorization of schools in relation to AYP.While this timeline provides the district with over ayear to create the plan to close and reopen theschool, it essentially allows a “lame duck” group ofleaders and teachers to operate the school during theyear of planning, which may create a number of problems and tensions between the old and new groups ofschool operators.An alternative approach is to use a modified timeline:If a school fails to make AYP for five years in a row,the district must still spend about one year creating aplan to close and reopen the school. If a school failsfor a sixth consecutive year, though, the district allowsthe new school operator to take a planning year aswell, instead of requiring the operator to reopen theschool that year. If states want to include such achange in their restructuring timeline, the authorassumes they will need to ask the federal governmentfor permission to deviate from the timeline articulated in NCLB.This option gives the new school operator more timeto plan the reopening of the school; hire new leadersand staff; provide professional development to newleaders and staff; engage students, parents and community members in the process; and make the necessary capital improvements to the school building. Onedrawback of this approach is figuring out what happens to students during the new school operator’s

7 Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening

Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State
planning year. In some districts, there may not be

enough seats in nearby schools for these students,and therefore this approach is unrealistic. In a largedistrict with many schools, though, there is still achallenge in moving students from school to school insuch a short period of time.

NCLB sanctions. Another issue that states should clarify in a new process is the restructured school’s relationship to NCLB’s sanctions. According to federal

regulations, a district must continue to implement therestructuring plan, as well as offer public schoolchoice and supplemental education services to theschool’s students until the school makes AYP for twoconsecutive years. But what if a restructured school continues to fail tomake AYP? This situation presents policymakers witha dilemma. If the school must achieve immediateresults to avoid additional sanctions, it will be difficultto attract organizations, school leaders and faculty tothe restructured school. Most will likely say: “We needat least a few years to install our program andachieve results.” But if the clock essentially restartsupon restructuring, with no consequences (beyondchoice and supplemental services) for poor performance for several years, the sense of urgency createdby NCLB may dissipate.One state, New York, has addressed this dilemmathrough its restructuring guidance, which states thatwhen a restructured school fails to make AYP for twoconsecutive years within three years of first implementing its restructuring plan, the district must develop a revised restructuring plan. The revised plan mustbe formally approved by the local school board byJune 30 of the school year prior to the school year inwhich the revised plan must be implemented.xii

District accountability. One final issue that states

should address is how to hold districts accountablefor properly implementing the close-and-reopenoption. The two major questions are: How shouldstates monitor districts’ implementation of these

processes? What should a state do if a district isn’tcarrying out its obligations according to state law?In answer to the first question, states can review thecharters for the reopened schools to ensure they contain the autonomy and accountability requirementsspelled out in the state’s new process, both beforethe district and the school operator sign it, and whenany changes are made to the charter throughout thelife of the contract. In addition, as a parallel to therequirement that reopened schools must submit periodic reports to the district and the state, the state canrequire districts to submit periodic reports to the stateabout the progress of implementation as well asrequire that the new school operator and the districtmeet with a state oversight committee of policymakers and administrators upon submission of thereports.As for the second question, if a district isn’t carryingout its obligations according to state law, the statecan work with the district to make the necessarychanges. If that fails to work, the state can take overthe monitoring of the school from the district, asdetailed later in this paper.

Create an RFQ or RFP process 

As mentioned earlier, one of the challenges withinthis option is determining where new, high-qualityschool operators will come from. To meet this challenge, states should deliberately cultivate a supply ofnew school operators for schools that will be closedand reopened as charter schools, potentially througha request for qualifications (RFQ) or a request for proposals (RFP) process.In implementing these processes, states should specify the types of problems that need to be tackled atthe schools identified for restructuring as well as thetypes of knowledge, resources and skills that thestate feels are necessary to address the problems inthese schools. The state-selected operators must not

4 ,

EAs.

8 

eopening 

he State
lenges within chronically

lso must have a track

 such challenges.

s to develop a list of new

ns specific information

ach, as well as detailed

ach operator has

of students. If a district

decides to implement the close-and-reopen option,but is struggling to find an entity to operate theschool, it may choose an operator from the stateapproved list of school operators, keeping in mind theimportance of matching the particular problems at anindividual school with the specific approach offeredby an operator.

9 Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening

Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State

xiii Mitchell, Nancy (2004, August 6). “Group May Apply to

Operate Cole,” Rocky Mountain News.

the Close-and-Reopen Option

ntability system, if a school is rated “unsatisfactory” for three years in a row, it

ool. On August 6, 2004, the state announced that Cole Middle School in Denver

 to become a charter school under this policy. That set in motion the following

e Colorado Department of Education must issue an RFP to various groups that

erating the new charter school.

e state must form a seven-member committee – a member of the Denver school

o parents from Cole, a teacher and a principal from other middle schools rated

 accountability system, and a business representative – to evaluate proposals and

s to the Colorado State Board of Education.

4, applications are due from those interested in operating a new charter school at

he seven-member committee submits its recommendations to the state board of

passes its pick on to the Denver school board.

the Denver school board negotiates a three-year contract with the new charter

anning is completed and Cole is ready to reopen as a charter school in August

rces to school 

success for this option,

ding additional resources

an and execute their

to provide such resources,

es to use for these pur

to make a new appropria

rocess. Another idea is for

states to craft their next proposal for the federal publiccharter schools grant program to emphasize the closeand-reopen option as a major part of the state’s strategy for increasing the number of high-quality charterschools in the state.States also must decide at what point to award suchfunds. One option is to give the funds to potentialschool operators in districts with a large number ofchronically low-performing schools before the district
has selected such operators to run certain schools.

This option allows the state to have a set of potentialschool operators at the ready once a district decidesto close and reopen a school as a charter school.

A second option is to wait and award these resourcesafter a district has selected the operator for a particular school. This option allows an operator’s planningactivities to focus on a particular school’s set of challenges and ensures state dollars are only provided togroups that definitely open a charter school.

California’s Federal Grant Proposal

As part of its recent grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Public Charter Schools Program, theCalifornia Department of Education (CDE) is emphasizing the development of high-quality charter schools forstudents assigned to Title 1, Part A, schools through a combination of weighted scoring and set-asides. For example, CDE will create a set-aside of up to 20% of its local assistance funds for local education agencies (LEAs) converting schools to charter status. Anticipating that some of California’s traditional publicschools will fail to achieve their NCLB goals, CDE will give a scoring preference to Title 1, Part A, schools pursuing chartering as a means of improvement if the applicants contract with a neighboring LEA (not the districtin which the school is located) or an educational management organization (EMO) to provide educationalrestructuring and management assistance. LEAs and EMOs must have a track record of success (as definedby CDE) in operating California public schools serving the same student population as the grant applicantschool to be eligible for consideration.CDE also is creating a set-aside of up to 20% of its local assistance funds for applicants developing innovative,community-based start-up charter schools, and a set-aside of up to 50% of its local assistance funds for applicants developing start-up schools based on existing, replicable models.xiv

10 

eopening 

he State

California’s

Program

Implement the close-and-reopen option

themselves 

In states interested in the close-and-reopen option,some districts may implement it as a catalyst for making necessary changes in chronically low-performingschools. In addition, some districts may be interestedin doing so, but may lack the capacity to do it. Butother districts are likely to view the option as intrusiveand unnecessary, and therefore won’t pay it muchattention. In addition, districts that choose to implement this option may fail to carry out their obligationsaccording to whatever new process is created by thestate. In these situations, states may choose to implement the close-and-reopen option themselves.While the specifics of each situation will dictate theway in which the state should implement this option,

there are two broad approaches for states to consider.First, the state can create a provision within itsaccountability system that allows a state entity (i.e.,the state board of education or the state departmentof education) to close and reopen a chronically lowperforming school as a charter school – eitherbecause a district has failed to turn around the performance of the school or because a district hasasked the state to take over the school as allowedwithin NCLB. In this case, the state becomes the entitythat oversees the closing and reopening process, aswell as the entity that monitors the performance ofthe school once it is reopened.As a variant of this approach, if a state is interested inimplementing this option but doesn’t have the organizational capacity to effectively close, reopen and monitor schools, it should consider either turning to an
r – such as a state char

niversity or college – to

ative authorizers don’t

onsider creating them for

can create a provision

em that allows it to turn

nd monitoring of a chron

to an alternative authoriz

 approach, it also should

orizers submit periodic

e progress of implemen

 the new school operator

r meet with a state over

kers and administrators

rts.

ConclusionGiven that there is no silver bullet for addressing thedifficult challenges posed by chronically low-performing schools, the author suggests that states incorporate the option of closing and reopening theseschools as charter schools into their broader schoolrestructuring efforts. When implemented selectivelyand wisely, it has the potential to be a powerful toolfor school improvement. Conversely, if this option isimplemented in a haphazard way, it has the potentialto lead nowhere fast. The ultimate challenge for policymakers and administrators, then, is to provide thenecessary support to reopened schools so that theirstudents are more successful than before. The bottom line: Create something better for students attending the most persistently struggling schools in thiscountry. A sound implementation of the close-andreopen option is one plausible way for policymakersand administrators to do just that.

xv Louisiana Department of Education. (August 9, 2004)

Seventy-Five Schools Must Offer Choice, Press Release.

11 Closing Low-performing Schools and Reopening

Them as Charter Schools: The Role of the State

very School District

ntability system, Louisiana created a recovery school district in 2003. According to

ol district may assume jurisdiction over a chronically low-performing school if any

exist:

s to present a plan to reconstitute the failed school to the state board of education.

esents a reconstitution plan that is unacceptable to the state board.

ls at any time to comply with the terms of the reconstitution plan approved by the

beled an academically unacceptable school for four consecutive years.

strict has jurisdiction over a chronically low-performing school, it may turn the

.

 the first school through this process. Pierre A. Capdau Middle School in Orleans

e state as of July 1, 2004, and will be operated by the University of New Orleans

he state’s recovery school district beginning in 2004-05.xv
NCLB Status Action Required by NCLB

School doesn’t make

AYP for two years in

a row.

In the following school year:

•

 School must develop an improvement plan

•

 Local education agency must provide technical assistance and

•

 Students must be offered the option of transferring to a higher performing school.

School doesn’t make

AYP for three years

in a row.

In addition to earlier measures, the local education agency must offer supplementalservices to low-income students.

School doesn’t make

AYP for four years in

a row.

In addition to the earlier measures, the local education agency must do one or more ofthe following:

•

 Replace school staff responsible for school not meeting AYP

•

 Implement new curriculum

•

 Decrease management authority at the school level

•

 Appoint outside expert to advise the school

•

 Extend the school day or year or

•

 Change the school’s internal organizational structure.

School doesn’t make

AYP for five years in

a row.

In addition to earlier measures, the local education agency must prepare a plan torestructure the school in one of the following ways:

•

 Reopen the school as a public charter school

•

 Replace all or most of the school staff, which may include the principal, who are

relevant to the school’s failure to make AYP

•

 Enter into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company with

a demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the school as a public school 

•

 Turn the operation of the school over to the state education agency, if permitted

under state law and agreed to by the state

•

 Any other major restructuring of a school’s governance arrangement.

School doesn’t make

AYP for six years in a

row.

In addition to earlier measures, the local education agency must implement the restructuring plan at the school.

The Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Timeline xvi

Appendix A

n of the

s a non

elps state

of this

cally,

of the

 Copies

 Ask for

pe

12 

eopening 

he State

m the New

 (June

Not Make

School

Helping State Leaders Shape Education Policy

700 Broadway, Suite 1200

Denver, CO 80203-3460

www.ecs.org