fast break in indianapolis - eric · fast break is the fifth in a series of reports that analyze...

by Bryan C. Hassel

A New Approach to Charter Schooling

Fast Breakin IndianapolisFast Break in Indianapolis

PrefaceEducationally, something is happening in Indianapolis that merits national attention. The mayor of Indianapolis,Democrat Bart Peterson, is chartering public schools to expand educational opportunities for Indianapolis students.While charters are a familiar feature in some urban communities, no other mayor in the country has the authorityto charter schools equal to Peterson’s.

But with that authority comes great responsibility. As Bryan C. Hassel shows in this examination of charter school-ing in Indianapolis, Mayor Peterson and his staff have been deliberate in how they have approached the challengeof chartering schools. The mayor’s high quality authorizing strategy is a model worthy of emulation elsewhere.Moreover, in the three short years after the inception of Indiana’s charter law, Hassel is optimistic about theIndianapolis experience. He also, however, identifies some key challenges and lessons for other municipalities seek-ing to replicate this innovative approach to delivering public education.

Indianapolis is truly at the vanguard of educational innovation because they are taking the charter school idea in anew direction. That is why Hassel’s paper is an important resource for educators, policymakers, journalists, and oth-ers with interest in charter schooling in Indianapolis and throughout the nation. For full disclosure, Hassel has beendeeply involved with the design of the Indianapolis charter initiative from the start, serving as a consultant to themayor’s office. Of course, this means he is not a removed, outside observer. However, this report and the databehind it are transparent and we believe that his involvement provides an “inside” perspective that is valuable fordescribing Indianapolis’ unique story. In addition, the Annie E. Casey Foundation has been a leading supporter of theIndianapolis charter initiative, but was not involved at any point in the preparation or production of this study.

Fast Break is the fifth in a series of reports that analyze state and urban experiences with charter schooling. Otherreports examined California, Minnesota, Arizona, and New York City. The 21st Century Schools Project will producesimilar analyses this year about charter schooling in Ohio and Texas.

The 21st Century Schools Project at the Progressive Policy Institute works to develop education policy and fosterinnovation to ensure that America’s public schools are an engine of equal opportunity in the knowledge economy.The Project supports initiatives to strengthen accountability, increase equity, improve teacher quality, and expandchoice and innovation within public education through research, publications and articles, an electronic newsletterand daily weblog, and work with policymakers and practitioners.

The goals of the 21st Century Schools Project are a natural extension of the mission of the Progressive PolicyInstitute, which is to define and promote a new progressive politics for the 21st century. The Institute’s core philos-ophy stems from the belief that America is ill served by an obsolete left-right debate that is out of step with thepowerful forces reshaping our society and economy. The Institute believes in adapting the progressive tradition inAmerican politics to the realities of the Information Age by moving beyond the liberal impulse to defend thebureaucratic status quo and the conservative bid to dismantle government. More information on the project andPPI is available at www.ppionline.org.

Andrew J. RotherhamDirector, 21st Century Schools Project

September 2004

Cover photo courtesy of Corbis

By BrBy BrBy BrBy BrBy Bryan Cyan Cyan Cyan Cyan C..... Hassel Hassel Hassel Hassel Hassel

September 2004

A NeA NeA NeA NeA New w w w w ApprApprApprApprApproach to Charoach to Charoach to Charoach to Charoach to Charter Schoolingter Schoolingter Schoolingter Schoolingter Schooling

Fast Break in Indianapolis 3Fast Break in Indianapolis 3Fast Break in Indianapolis 3Fast Break in Indianapolis 3Fast Break in Indianapolis 3

ContentsContentsContentsContentsContents

ExExExExExecutivecutivecutivecutivecutive Summare Summare Summare Summare Summaryyyyy 5 5 5 5 5

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction 7 7 7 7 7

The Indiana CharThe Indiana CharThe Indiana CharThe Indiana CharThe Indiana Charter Later Later Later Later Lawwwww 9 9 9 9 9

Why New Schools?Why New Schools?Why New Schools?Why New Schools?Why New Schools? 12 12 12 12 12

The IndianaThe IndianaThe IndianaThe IndianaThe Indianapolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charter Schools Experience at ater Schools Experience at ater Schools Experience at ater Schools Experience at ater Schools Experience at aGlanceGlanceGlanceGlanceGlance 14 14 14 14 14

EarlEarlEarlEarlEarly Resultsy Resultsy Resultsy Resultsy Results 16 16 16 16 16

Building a StrBuilding a StrBuilding a StrBuilding a StrBuilding a Strong Fong Fong Fong Fong Foundation foundation foundation foundation foundation for Successor Successor Successor Successor Success 20 20 20 20 20

Lessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So Far 29 29 29 29 29

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations 34 34 34 34 34

ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion 35 35 35 35 35

EndnotesEndnotesEndnotesEndnotesEndnotes 36 36 36 36 36


Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson is the nation’sonly mayor with the authority to issue charters for newpublic schools. He has seized the opportunity to createa new “sector” of public schools within the city thatprovides new options to the children and families thatneed them the most.

As of August 2004, 10 schools chartered by MayorPeterson are open, educating approximately 1,900students. Three more schools have received chartersand will open in 2005 or 2006. Together, these schoolswill enroll nearly 4,500 students by 2008. Students inthe existing schools are a cross section of Indianapolis’population, with high percentages of students of color,students eligible for free and reduced-price lunch, andstudents struggling academically. Mayor Petersoncontinues to seek out additional applicants. As a result,charter schools will become an even more significantpart of the city’s educational landscape over the nextfew years.

Although the city’s charter schools initiative isyoung, the early results are promising:

! Community leadership: Some of the city’s mostprominent community organizations and citizenshave stepped forward to start charter schools.

! Family interest: Families are flocking to sign theirchildren up for the schools’ open admissions lotteries.

! Parent satisfaction: On confidential surveys,parents express a high level of satisfaction withcharter schools and their academic programs—and satisfaction rates are rising.

! Student learning: Students in charter elementaryand middle schools are making impressive progressin reading, math, and language, according to asophisticated “value-added”1 analysis commissionedby the mayor’s office.

With strong philanthropic support from the AnnieE. Casey and Richard M. Fairbanks Foundations, themayor’s office has invested in a set of systems designedto lay the groundwork for a high-quality initiative.These include:

! The “Seed” Initiative, which is recruiting charterschool applicants who promise to use provenschool models in new charter schools inIndianapolis;

! The “Lead” Initiative, in which the mayor’s officeis partnering with Building Excellent Schools, anonprofit organization that supports charterschools, to identify and train excellent leaders fornew charter schools;

! A facilities financing fund, through which theIndianapolis Public Improvement Bond Bank willprovide low-cost financing for charter schools’capital projects;

! A rigorous application process that sets a high barfor charter approval; and

! Numerous partnerships with public and privateorganizations to help the schools succeed.

In addition, the mayor’s office has established acomprehensive accountability system to track schoolperformance. Through a combination of standardizedtesting, site visits by an expert team, confidentialsurveys of parents and staff, and outside review ofschools’ finances, the mayor’s office gathers a broadrange of data about school performance. Through itswebsite and an annual Accountability Report, the mayorthen shares this information widely with parents andthe public.

The initial experience of a mayor-led charterinitiative in Indianapolis yields a number of importantlessons for state policymakers, mayors, and charterschool authorizers:

! The value of a mayor as a charter schoolchampion. Mayors have an array of political,financial, and governmental resources at theirdisposal that make them valuable allies for agrowing charter sector.

! The value of a mayor as a charter schoolauthorizer. Mayors have numerous advantages as

ExExExExExecutivecutivecutivecutivecutive Summare Summare Summare Summare Summaryyyyy

6 www6 www6 www6 www6 www.ppionline.ppionline.ppionline.ppionline.ppionline.org.org.org.org.org

charter school authorizers, such as theiraccountability to the public and their intimateknowledge of the community.

! Challenges of mayoral authorizing. Playing therole of authorizer requires an extraordinarycommitment of time and resources. Further, aselected officials with limited terms, mayors comeand go, creating uncertainty about the future ofany mayor-led charter initiative.

! Challenges of ensuring a strong supply ofcharter applicants. Though initial interest wasstrong in Indianapolis, the supply of qualified newapplicants slowed quickly, as has been the caseelsewhere. The mayor’s office has taken steps toaddress this challenge, but it remains daunting inIndianapolis and elsewhere.

! The importance of partnerships. TheIndianapolis initiative has thrived initially due inpart to how community organizations and leadershave stepped forward to support it by foundingschools, supporting schools, providing funding, andboosting community support for chartering.

!· Quality: the essential ingredient. Thecommitment of the mayor’s office to quality is avital underpinning of the whole effort. Central tothis commitment is transparency—makinginformation about the schools and the mayor’sprocesses open to constant scrutiny by the public.Transparency is what makes it possible for themayor to hold schools accountable while limitingconstraints on their autonomy as charter schools.

These lessons suggest recommendations forstates, mayors, and charter authorizers elsewhere. Morestates should experiment with giving mayorsauthorization power and placing mayors within abroader set of multiple authorizers. More mayorsshould explore charter authorizing and other ways ofsupporting chartering. Authorizers of all kinds shouldfind ways to allocate sufficient resources to the task—or stay out of the authorizing business. And a widerange of actors should become more involved ingenerating a supply of high-quality charter applicantsfor charters.

While much remains to be seen about the charterinitiative in Indianapolis, the groundwork is in place for avital addition to public education in that city—and beyond.


On May 2, 2001, Indiana’s charter schools legislationbecame law, giving the mayor of Indianapolis the powerto issue charters to create and operate new public schools.The next day, Mayor Peterson, who advocated andanticipated passage of the law, announced his process foraccepting charter school applications. In doing so, heseized the opportunity to create a new sector of publicschools that offers fresh options for families, especiallythose who now lack meaningful educational opportunities.Already, the initiative is off to a compelling start. Severalof Indianapolis’ most distinguished social servicesagencies, neighborhood leaders and groups, philanthropists,businesspeople, and civic leaders have stepped forwardto create charter schools, bringing new leadership intopublic education. In the first five schools, parentsatisfaction is high and rising, most students are progressingin reading and math, and expert site visitors have giventhe schools high marks. In addition, five new schoolsopened in August 2004, with three more slated to start in2005 and 2006. By fall 2008, these 13 schools will enrollnearly 4,500 students, and the mayor is likely to authorizeadditional schools between now and then. As a result,the Indianapolis charter school initiative is emerging as asignificant feature on the public school landscape.

Mayor Peterson took office in 2001 determined tosupport and improve Indianapolis’ public schools. Likemost mayors, however, he had no formal role in overseeingpublic education. Years of effort by the school systemand community leaders had made a difference, but muchmore was needed to ensure that the city’s children hadaccess to top-notch schools. Less than one-half of enteringninth graders in the area’s largest school district, the center-city Indianapolis Public Schools (IPS), were going on tofinish high school on time.2 In the earlier grades, far toomany students failed to master the basics. In 2000-2001,only 17 percent of African American sixth graders in IPSpassed the state’s language arts test, and only 25 percentpassed math.3 Passing rates were improving, but not fastenough.4

From Mayor Peterson’s point of view, it was imperativeto act. Eager from the outset to support the 11 schooldistricts within the city, known in Indiana as “corporations,”the mayor began to meet with the school superintendentsregularly. He enthusiastically backed a bond issue to bringvital capital funds to the IPS, and worked with districtleaders to raise philanthropic funds for schools.

But at the same time, the mayor knew that he neededto do more to bring educational opportunities to the city’s

children and families. As a result, immediately after theLegislature passed Indiana’s charter school law, helaunched the nation’s only mayor-sponsored charter schoolinitiative. His goal was to create a system of high-qualitynew public schools, providing excellent new options forchildren and families across Indianapolis. With backingfrom the Annie E. Casey Foundation, he moved quicklyto establish a Charter Schools Office, which beganaccepting applications for new charter schools.

The charter initiative in Indianapolis is still very young.Its first schools completed their second year of operationin spring 2004. Why, then, is it worth investigating at thisstage? First, Indianapolis is nationally unique with its mayoras charter authorizer. This unusual policy and institutionalinnovation alone merits some attention, especially at atime when more and more of the nation’s big-city mayorsare eagerly searching for ways to have a positive impacton public education.

Second, the early results of the Indianapolis charterexperience are compelling. New schools are opening, andparents are flocking to enroll their children. Some of thecity’s most well-respected community organizations andprominent citizens have helped found and operate theschools, some of which are targeting the city’s mostcompelling challenges—such as the need for better highschools and more options in the most economicallydisadvantaged parts of town (see box on page 8). Thoughthe initial schools have enrolled primarily students withacademic challenges, most are showing strong growth onnational standardized tests. Parents are highly satisfiedwith the schools so far, and increasingly so. The schoolsare having an impact beyond their own students andfamilies as well, spurring neighborhood revitalization inareas that need it most.

This report documents how the mayor’s charterinitiative is working in Indianapolis so far, two yearsinto the operation of the city’s first charter schools. Itprovides some background on the genesis andevolution of the state’s charter law, details the reasonswhy Mayor Peterson has adopted the strategy of creatingnew schools, and provides some information aboutthe schools that have received charters and their earlyresults. It also explains the systems the mayor’s officehas established to build quality in the initiative fromthe very start. Lastly, the report shares some initiallessons learned from the experience, includingrecommendations for states and cities interested inpursuing similar initiatives.

IntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroductionIntroduction


A number of Indianapolis’ strongest community organizations and leaders are now operating charter schools.Their motivation is to meet some of the city’s most serious challenges, such as the lack of schooling options indistressed neighborhoods and the need for better secondary schools.

! Indiana Black Expo Indiana Black Expo Indiana Black Expo Indiana Black Expo Indiana Black Expo (IBE), founded in 1971 to educate the community about the achievements of AfricanAmericans in the areas of culture, art, history, and economics, is now the largest and longest-running expositionof its kind in the nation. Building on its long history of serving young people, IBE launched the AndrAndrAndrAndrAndreeeeew J.w J.w J.w J.w J.BrBrBrBrBrooooown Charwn Charwn Charwn Charwn Charter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter School to have a more intensive, day-to-day impact on children.

! Flanner House of IndianaFlanner House of IndianaFlanner House of IndianaFlanner House of IndianaFlanner House of Indianapolispolispolispolispolis, a social services agency founded in the 1890s to help African Americans whomigrated from the rural South acclimate to urban life, converted its private elementary school, Flanner HouseFlanner HouseFlanner HouseFlanner HouseFlanner HouseElementarElementarElementarElementarElementaryyyyy, to charter status in order to open its doors to more low-income children and families.

! Flanner House has also launched Flanner House Higher Learning CenterFlanner House Higher Learning CenterFlanner House Higher Learning CenterFlanner House Higher Learning CenterFlanner House Higher Learning Center to address the needs of high schooldropouts, thousands of whom live in nearby neighborhoods. By providing a flexible educational setting and childcare for students who are parents, the Higher Learning Center gives former dropouts a shot at high schooldiplomas—and all the economic and other benefits they bring.

! Christel DeHaanChristel DeHaanChristel DeHaanChristel DeHaanChristel DeHaan, a local philanthropist who manages orphanages and schools around the world, is now reachingout to Indianapolis’ children by operating Christel House Christel House Christel House Christel House Christel House AcademAcademAcademAcademAcademyyyyy.

! On the southeast side of Indianapolis, a neighborhood group called Southeast Neighborhood DevelopmentSoutheast Neighborhood DevelopmentSoutheast Neighborhood DevelopmentSoutheast Neighborhood DevelopmentSoutheast Neighborhood Development(SEND) surveyed its residents to identify unmet community needs and discovered that the overwhelming responsewas a desire for more school options. As a result, the neighborhood group founded Southeast NeighborhoodSoutheast NeighborhoodSoutheast NeighborhoodSoutheast NeighborhoodSoutheast NeighborhoodSchool of ExcellenceSchool of ExcellenceSchool of ExcellenceSchool of ExcellenceSchool of Excellence, a school specifically designed to meet the needs of its residents, including a focus on servingstudents for whom English is a second language.

! Goodwill IndustriesGoodwill IndustriesGoodwill IndustriesGoodwill IndustriesGoodwill Industries of Central Indianaof Central Indianaof Central Indianaof Central Indianaof Central Indiana serves nearly 50,000 unemployed or underemployed people eachyear. The organization aims to reduce that number by better preparing today’s youth for future employment,and is thus opening two charter high schools. The IndianaIndianaIndianaIndianaIndianapolis Metrpolis Metrpolis Metrpolis Metrpolis Metropolitan Caropolitan Caropolitan Caropolitan Caropolitan Career eer eer eer eer AcademiesAcademiesAcademiesAcademiesAcademies, will operatein partnership with one of the nation’s premier school model providers, the Big Picture Company, which hasproven highly effective at seeing students through to graduation and college.

! The nationally renowned Knowledge is Power ProgramKnowledge is Power ProgramKnowledge is Power ProgramKnowledge is Power ProgramKnowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and a very strong local school-governing boardare launching a much-needed KIPP IndianaKIPP IndianaKIPP IndianaKIPP IndianaKIPP Indianapolis polis polis polis polis middle school. Demonstrating KIPP’s mission of bringing top-notch education to all children, the school is opening in a community center in an underserved Indianapolisneighborhood. The IndianaIndianaIndianaIndianaIndianapolis Housing polis Housing polis Housing polis Housing polis Housing AgencyAgencyAgencyAgencyAgency provided and rehabilitated the space for the school.

! The local GEO FGEO FGEO FGEO FGEO Foundationoundationoundationoundationoundation opened the technology-centered 21st Centur21st Centur21st Centur21st Centur21st Century Chary Chary Chary Chary Charter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter School in historic UnionStation in the heart of downtown Indianapolis. When the charter law passed, GEO was already developing aprivate school, but then decided to form a charter school instead to offer a free public school to the entireeconomic cross-section of people who live and work downtown.

! A group of citizens and teachers founded the Charles Charles Charles Charles Charles A.A.A.A.A. TindleTindleTindleTindleTindleyyyyy Accelerated High SchoolAccelerated High SchoolAccelerated High SchoolAccelerated High SchoolAccelerated High School, Indiana’s first highschool following the nationally distinguished Accelerated Schools model. In fact, the school is one of the first in thecountry to follow that model. Community leaders expect that the school, which is located in a blighted area thathas seen little development in decades, will play an important role in revitalizing the neighborhood overall. Theschool’s location demonstrates the founders’ commitment to the belief that all students can succeed in a rigorouscollege preparatory high school with a well-designed learning environment and appropriate support.

SOURCE: Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2004 http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/.

SnaSnaSnaSnaSnapshots of Indianapshots of Indianapshots of Indianapshots of Indianapshots of Indianapolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charter Schoolster Schoolster Schoolster Schoolster SchoolsMeeting Compelling Needs in the CommunityMeeting Compelling Needs in the CommunityMeeting Compelling Needs in the CommunityMeeting Compelling Needs in the CommunityMeeting Compelling Needs in the Community


The original enabling legislation of Indiana’scharter schools was enacted in 2001, making it the 38thstate in the country to pass a charter school law. Charterschool advocates quickly ranked the Indiana law amongthe nation’s strongest because it allows for multipleauthorizers and offers charter schools legal and fiscalautonomy.5

A Long StruggleA Long StruggleA Long StruggleA Long StruggleA Long Struggle

Charter school legislation languished for sevenyears before it finally passed. Supporters had repeatedlyintroduced charter legislation with State Sen. TeresaLubbers (R) as the critical sponsor. Yet each year theproposal went down in defeat. The dynamic changedin 1999 when Bart Peterson, then the Democraticmayoral candidate, made charter schools a centralcomponent of his “Peterson Plan” for Indianapolis.His winning campaign helped break the logjam. Aftertaking office, he delivered a speech in September 2000in which he called on the state to enact charter legislation,which he said was vital to the city’s future. The city’s 11school superintendents later joined a press conferencewith Peterson calling for a charter law (though thesuperintendents argued local school boards aloneshould be charter authorizers, and Peterson wantedmayoral control). These events led more HouseDemocrats to back chartering, and the groundworkwas laid for a bipartisan bill. With Lubbers againsponsoring legislation in the Senate, and Rep. GregPorter (D) sponsoring it in the House, the Legislaturefinally passed the charter law in 2001.

ChangChangChangChangChange Over e Over e Over e Over e Over TimeTimeTimeTimeTime

Before too long, however, therewere calls for revisions. Disagreementemerged about how funds should flowto charter schools. The way the lawwas implemented failed to providetimely and adequate funding forcharter schools. So legislators wentback to the drawing board to devise anew funding system. In 2003, statesenators introduced S.B. 501, whichcontained a fix. Charter schools would

be funded as their own separate school districts, with65 percent of their funding coming from the state and35 percent from local property taxes. The law limitedthe total amount of state funding for charter schools,but at a level that allowed for significant growth incharter numbers for two years until the next budget.In addition, charter schools would be able to borrowshort-term funds from state coffers to pay for theiroperations while they were waiting for funds to arrive.Though some charter proponents objected to theprovisions because they protected districts from losingfunding when students transferred to charter schools,most regarded the outcome as the best way to ensurecharter schools’ financial stability.

In addition, S.B. 501 contained a few short-termlimits on the growth in the number of charter schools.Notably, it limited university sponsorship to fiveadditional schools per year until 2005, similar to limitsplaced on the mayor of Indianapolis in the originallaw. It also prohibited universities from charteringadditional schools within Indianapolis until 2005. Thelaw also blocked the mayor of Indianapolis from“banking” unused charters—that is, if he issued fewerthan five charters to schools opening in 2004, he wouldnot be able to carry the remaining charters over into2005. Indiana’s original law allowed the mayor to bankunused charters. Although the new provisions weredue to sunset in 2005, they placed potential constraintson the growth of the charter school movement in theshort term.

See Table 1 for details about Indiana’s charterlegislation as it stood in the summer of 2004.

The Indiana CharThe Indiana CharThe Indiana CharThe Indiana CharThe Indiana Charter Later Later Later Later LawwwwwGenesis and EvolutionGenesis and EvolutionGenesis and EvolutionGenesis and EvolutionGenesis and Evolution

Intent of Indiana’Intent of Indiana’Intent of Indiana’Intent of Indiana’Intent of Indiana’s Chars Chars Chars Chars Charter School Legislationter School Legislationter School Legislationter School Legislationter School Legislation

Indiana’s charter schools legislation is designed to provide innovative andautonomous public education programs to carry out five primary purposes:

1. Serve the different learning styles and needs of public school students;2. Offer public school students appropriate and innovative choices;3. Afford varied opportunities for professional educators;4. Allow public schools freedom and flexibility in exchange for

exceptional levels of accountability; and5. Provide parents, students, community members, and local entities with

an expanded opportunity for involvement in the public school system.

SOURCE: Indiana Code, Title 20, Article 5.5, http://www.ai.org/legislative/ic/code/title20/ar5.5/index.html.


TTTTTable 1:able 1:able 1:able 1:able 1: Indiana Char Indiana Char Indiana Char Indiana Char Indiana Charter School Later School Later School Later School Later School Law Ovw Ovw Ovw Ovw Overerererervievievievieviewwwww

AAAAAPPPPPPPPPPRRRRROOOOOVVVVVAAAAALLLLL PPPPPRRRRROOOOOCCCCCEEEEESSSSSSSSSS

seitirohtuAgniretrahCelbigilEroeergedetaerualaccabraey-ruofareffotahtseitisrevinuetatscilbup,sdraobloohcslacoL

noiraMnihtiwtontub(draobs'ytisrevinuehtfonoitceridehtrednudengissasnosrep.)ylnoytnuoCnoiraMnihtiw(silopanaidnIforoyamehtdna,)ytnuoC

dewollAsloohcSforebmuNraeyrepevifotpu,5002litnU.sdraobloohcslacolybderosnopssloohcsrofdetimilnU

repevifotpU.)tahtretfapihsrosnopsytisrevinudetimilnu(seitisrevinucilbupybderosnops.silopanaidnIforoyamehtybraey

setiSretrahCforebmuN40-3002,gnitarepO

.81

stnacilppAelbigilE

-rof-tonrednugnitarepoebotSRIehtybdenimretedneebsah)a(tahtytitneropuorgynA)b(dnanoitanimretedhcusrofdeilppasahro)noitazinagro)3()c(105asaylekil(sutatstiforp

noputahtnoisivorpaedulcni)noitaroprocnifoselcitra(stnemucodlanoitazinagroesohwetatSanaidnIehtmorfdeviecersdnufnahtrehto(stessagniniamerllanoitulossid

)noitacudEfotnemtrapeDetatSehtotdenruterebtsumhcihwnoitacudEfotnemtrapeDrowenfotnemhsilbatseeriuqeryamsihT.sesopruplanoitacudetiforp-nonrofdesuebtsum

nahtredaorbsiesopruptnerrucesohwsnoitaroproctiforpnongnitsixeybseititneetarapes.noitacude

sloohcSretrahCfosepyT .stratswen,cilbupdetrevnoC

ssecorPslaeppA

retrahCehtotlaeppayamtnacilppaeht,lasoporploohcsretrahcastcejerrosnopsafI)1:otedicednaclenapweivereht,noitacilppaehtgniweiverretfA.lenaPweiveRloohcS

titimbuserotredronilasoporpehtotsegnahccificepsekamtnacilppaehttahtdnemmocer,noitacilppaehtevorppayllanoitidnoc)2;rosnopsrehtonaottitimbusotrorosnopsehtot

elbigilenasahtitahtfoorpsedivorptnacilppaehtecnolanifgnimoceblavorppahcushtiwehttcejerotnoisiceds'rosnopslaitiniehttroppus)3ro;loohcsretrahcehtrofrosnops

.noitacilppa

lacoLfoecnedivElamroFderiuqeRtroppuS

a,royamehtroF.snoisrevnoctroppustsumloohcstastnerapdnasrehcaetfotnecrepytxiS.evorppatsumyticehtfoydobevitalsigelehtfosrebmemehtfoytirojam

retrahCfotneipiceR .rezinagroloohcsretrahC

retrahClaitinIfomreT .silopanaidnInisraeynevesrofdetnarg;sraeyeerhtnahtsseloN

AAAAACCCCCCCCCCOOOOOUUUUUNNNNNTTTTTAAAAABBBBBIIIIILLLLLIIIIITTTTTYYYYY

ytilibatnuoccAcimedacA

dnaPETSIgnidulcni,stsettnemssessaniatrecretsinimdaotderiuqererasloohcsretrahCfoecnediveedivorptsumsloohcS.airetircniatrectsniagadetarebotdna,smaxeEQG

erehw(setarnoitaudarg,setarecnadnetta,stlusertnemssessagnidulcni,tnemevorpmidesaercnidna,)etairporppaerehw(samolpid04eroCfosrebmundesaercni,)etairporppa

.)etairporppaerehw(samolpidsronohcimedacafosrebmun

stropeRlaunnAtimbustsum;rezirohtuaretrahcehtybsnoitarepomargorpfotidualaunnanaogrednutsuM

launnanahsilbuptsum,dna;noitacudefotnemtrapedetatsehtottroperlaunnana.troperecnamrofrep

noitacoveRrofsdnuorG

lanoitacudeteemoteruliaf;retrahcehtnidehsilbatsesnoitidnocehthtiwylpmocoteruliaFteemoteruliaf;swalelbacilppallahtiwylpmocoteruliaf;retrahcehtnidehsilbatseslaog

satsixenoitacoverrofsdnuorgeromroenofidna;selpicnirpgnitnuoccadetpeccayllareneg.etatsybdedivorpssecorpslaeppaoN.retrahcehtnideificeps


SOURCE: “Indiana Charter Law,” The Center for Education Reform, 2004, http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=cLaw; “Indiana State Charter SchoolProfile,” Education Commission of the States, 2003, http://mb2.ecs.org/reports/Report.aspx?id=65; and “Charter Schools in Indianapolis: Frequently AskedQuestions,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, http://www6.indygov.org/mayor/charter/faq.htm. Updates provided by PPI, July 2004.

OOOOOPPPPPEEEEERRRRRAAAAATTTTTIIIIIOOOOONNNNNSSSSS

tsoMmorfreviaWcitamotuAnoitacudEtcirtsiDdnaetatS

seiciloPdna,snoitalugeR,swaL.seY

ymonotuAlageL .seYecnanrevoG .retrahcnideificepS

gninrevoGloohcSretrahCgniteeMnepOottcejbuSydoB

swaL.seY

ebyaMloohcSretrahCaybdetarepOrodeganaM

noitazinagrOtiforP-roF

ebyamsloohcstub,snoitazinagrotiforp-rofotyltceriddetnargebtonyamsretrahC.mehtybdeganam

stnedutSrofnoitatropsnarT

loohcsafI.nalpnoitatropsnartaedulcnitsumlasoporploohcsretrahca,revewoH.oNtontadedivorpebyamyeht,loohcsretrahcaotsecivresnoitatropsnartsedivorptcirtsid

ehsloohcsseriuqerroyamehT.ecivresehtfotsoclautcaehtfotnecrep301nahterom.noitatropsnartedivorpotsrosnops

ecnatsissAseitilicaFyamsilopanaidnIforoyaMehtybderosnopssloohcsretrahC.etatsehtybdedivorpenoN

.knabdnobtnemevorpmicilbuplacolehtmorfgnicnanifseitilicafniatbo

ecnatsissAlacinhceTretrahC'silopanaidnIforoyameht,noitacudEfotnemtrapeDanaidnIehtybdedivorP

.seititnelatnemnrevog-nonsallewsa,eciffO'sloohcS

stnemeriuqeRgnitropeRtsumloohcsretrahCderiuqersloohcscilbuplanoitidartfoesohtotralimisstroperlaunnA

.tidualaicnaniflaunnanaogrednuosla

FFFFFUUUUUNNNNNDDDDDIIIIINNNNNGGGGG

tnuomAstcirtsidloohcsllarofdesusalumrofleveltroppusesabemasehtybdenimretedsignidnuF

.)eviecersloohcslanoitidarttahtgnidnuflipup-repehtfotnecrep001(htaP .loohcsotytilapicinumroetatsmorfssapsdnuF

ymonotuAlacsiF .seYsdnuFpu-tratS .sdnufpu-tratsetatsoN.sdnufpu-tratslaredeF

TTTTTEEEEEAAAAACCCCCHHHHHEEEEERRRRRSSSSS

tcirtsiD/gniniagraBevitcelloCseluRkroW

tub,stnemeergagniniagrabevitcellocybdnuoberasrehcaets'loohcsretrahcnoisrevnocAyamsrehcaets'loohcsretrahcpu-tratsA.stnemeergaehtmorfsreviawkeesyamyeht

krowrolicnuocgninrevogloohcsretrahcehthtiwtinuetarapesasaetaitogen.yltnednepedni

noitacifitreChcaetotesnecilagniniatbofossecorpehtniebrodeifitrecebrehtietsumsrehcaeT

,margorpgnihcaetotnoitisnartehtniesohtroF.margorpgnihcaetotnoitisnartehthguorht.loohcsretrahcatahcaetotgninnigebfosraeyeerhtnihtiwdeniatboebtsumsesnecil

tcirtsiDmorfecnesbAfoevaeLrofrefsnartatnargyamdnasraeyowtotpuforefsnartatnargtsumdraobloohcslacolA

.loohcsretrahcpu-tratsatahcaetotsraeyowtnahtregnolstifeneBtnemeriteR .metsystnemeriters'etatsnietapicitraptsumsloohcsretrahC

SSSSSTTTTTUUUUUDDDDDEEEEENNNNNTTTTTSSSSS

stnedutSelbigilE,tcirtsidlacolehtmorftnedutsyna,snoisrevnocroF.etatsehtnitnedutsyna,spu-tratsroF

.rezinagrodnarosnopsehtneewtebtnemeerganopudeviawebnactahttubtnemllornErofecnereferP .sgnilbisdna,stnedisertcirtsid,noisrevnocotroirpdellornestnedutSstnemeriuqeRtnemllornE .dettimreptoN

foesacni(dohteMnoitceleS)tnemllorne-revo

.yrettolasahcusssecorpnoitceleselbatiuqE

snoisivorPksiR-tA .enoN


Why New Schools?Why New Schools?Why New Schools?Why New Schools?Why New Schools?

The 21st Century Charter School offers multi-age classrooms where students can be with peerswithin a two or three year age range, yet work at their individual instructional levels. The computer-basedA+ Learning System is used as a curriculum guide for academic material. Students can take laptop computershome from the school to work on their lessons via the Internet. Through a partnership with the school’scomputer vendor, a number of families have purchased below-cost refurbished desktop computers fortheir homes. The school uses a unique data tracking and reporting system to show academic growth on acontinuous basis for each child, based on the student’s completion of computer lessons and assessments.This technology provides teachers with continuous information about the areas in which each studentneeds assistance. Weekly progress reports are sent home to parents, documenting lessons completed andscores on assignments in each subject area.

Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories: TTTTTechnologechnologechnologechnologechnology fy fy fy fy for Instructionor Instructionor Instructionor Instructionor Instruction

The 2001 legislation gave the mayor of Indianapolisthe authority to issue charters. But it did not compelhim to do so. Why would a mayor seek to launch asystem of new public schools? Why not take over theexisting schools, the way some mayors have, or focussolely on providing support to school districts?

Here are the principal reasons a mayor might wantto pursue a new schools strategy:

! New, autonomous schools can be moreresponsive to student and family needs. Evena glance at national research on urban schoolingmakes one point clear: We need schools to dothings differently if we are to meet our goals ofbringing all children to a high level of learningproficiency. We cannot keep schooling children inthe same ineffective ways, hoping for the best.New charter schools, freed from many regulationsthat constrain district schools, are expected toimplement educational approaches customized totheir students’ needs and complement existingpublic school offerings. And because they arestarted from scratch, these new schools can eachbuild from the beginning a strong, cohesivemission, learning program, school culture, andprofessional community designed to meet theneeds of the children they serve.

! Many charter schools in other places haveproven immensely effective, especially withthe children who need the most help. Accordingto recent studies released by the Brookings

Institution, the RAND Corporation, and theEvaluation Center at Western Michigan University,among other research institutions, charter schoolsoften do a better job than other public schools ofimproving achievement among the at-risk studentswho tend to seek them out.6 Another recent studyof National Assessment of Educational Progress(NAEP) scores by the American Federation ofTeachers found that, overall, students in charterschools were not performing as well in math andEnglish as their peers in traditional public schools.7(Controlled for students’ race, however, the datashowed no statistically significant differencebetween student performance in charter schoolsand traditional public schools.) But in cities such asBoston, studies have found that charter secondaryschools are among the very best public schools intown—indeed, statewide—at serving primarilypoor and minority children.8 In all likelihood,charter outcomes are even better when authorizerstake care on the front end to approve only high-quality applicants. So a mayor serving as authorizercan increase the chances of success by committingto quality in the application process.

! The charter provides the basis for acommitment to quality. As an authorizer, amayor would have the authority to approve ordeny an application before a founder can open acharter school. In addition, the mayor would enterinto a performance contract with each charterschool, specifying the terms under which the


school will be held accountable. These tools—upfront approval, ongoing oversight of eachschool’s performance contract, and the ability toclose a school for inadequate performance—setcharter schools apart from other reform efforts andput mayors in an unprecedented position to insist onquality.

! New schools can be magnets for leadershipand community support. Cities are full of peoplewho want to contribute to public education—byteaching, volunteering, forming partnerships,donating funds, or becoming otherwise engaged.New schools offer an unprecedented opportunityfor these people to make a difference by gettinginvolved on the ground floor. In order to getstarted, new schools need a great deal of helpfrom the community. This necessity, coupled withthe freedom to create an institution that meets acommunity’s most profound needs, breeds the kindof deep involvement that new schools seemuniquely able to elicit.

! New schools can help “lift all boats.” Thebenefits of new public schools are not limited tothe students who attend them. National researchsponsored by the U.S. Department of Educationhas shown that charter schools are eliciting aresponse from many school districts. Districts haveimplemented new educational programs, made

changes in educational structures in the schoolsthey operate, and created new schools withprograms similar to those shown to be in highdemand in the local charter schools. Districts havealso reacted to charter schools by becoming morecustomer-service oriented, stepping up theirmarketing and public relations efforts, andincreasing the frequency of their communicationwith parents.9

! New schools can be engines for neighborhoodtransformation and economic development.When new schools open in troubledneighborhoods across the country, the impact hasbeen extraordinary. The neighborhoods’ childrenhave access to a new educational option. Youngfamilies are encouraged to move in to takeadvantage of the new school. Creating the schoolbuilding can revitalize blighted facilities or lead toconstruction of new ones. Families and otherneighbors gain community centers where they cantap into education and social services. Asneighborhoods become more attractive to families,businesses become more interested in setting up shopthere. If new schools arise citywide, the potential foreconomic development and revitalization is vast.10

As the following sections detail, all of thesepotential advantages of chartering new schools are infact coming to fruition in Indianapolis.


The IndianaThe IndianaThe IndianaThe IndianaThe Indianapolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charter School Experienceter School Experienceter School Experienceter School Experienceter School Experienceat a Glanceat a Glanceat a Glanceat a Glanceat a Glance

Shortly after passage of Indiana’s charter legislationin May 2001, Mayor Peterson announced his detailedplan for accepting applications for new charter schools.Schools receiving charters could open as early as fall2002. The Annie E. Casey Foundation and the city ofIndianapolis provided start-up funding to launch theinitiative.

The people of Indianapolis have responded tochartering opportunities provided by the mayor’s officeby creating new charter schools and enrolling theirchildren. Ten mayor-sponsored schools have openedas of August 2004, with the capacity to serve morethan 1,900 children in the 2004-2005 school year. Theseschools have pioneered new approaches—usingtechnology in path-breaking ways, forginguncommonly rich connections with their communities,and creating new cultures of high expectations for allchildren. Three additional schools are already scheduledto open in 2005 and 2006 (see Table 2), and the mayorreceives five new charters to grant each year in additionto those he has banked before 2003. The mayor grantscharters a term of seven years, after which he must renewthe charter in order for the school to continue operating.

By 2008, nearly 4,500 children will be enrolled in the13 schools currently chartered (see Table 3). The childrenenrolling in the first schools represented a typical urbanmix of mostly disadvantaged students. Across all fiveschools operating in 2003-2004, 63.4 percent ofstudents were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch;80.9 percent were members of racial minorities; andapproximately 9 percent had been identified as needingspecial education services. As discussed below, thestudents enrolling in charter schools were moreacademically challenged than students in IndianapolisPublic Schools and Indiana as a whole, based on theirlower rates of passing the state assessments in the fallof their enrollment. Altogether, these figures makeclear that mayor-sponsored schools are not skimmingan advantaged set of students from the city’s schooldistricts. On the contrary, they appear to be attractinga preponderance of students who have struggled inexisting schools.

Many of the students who are signing up forIndianapolis charter schools have struggled in theirprevious educational settings. In the first threeschools, which opened in fall 2002, only about one-

SOURCE: Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2004, http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/.

TTTTTable 2:able 2:able 2:able 2:able 2: Schools Schools Schools Schools Schools Authorized bAuthorized bAuthorized bAuthorized bAuthorized by the May the May the May the May the Mayyyyyor of Indianaor of Indianaor of Indianaor of Indianaor of IndianapolispolispolispolispolisSSSSSCCCCCHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLSSSSS AAAAAUUUUUTTTTTHHHHHOOOOORRRRRIIIIIZZZZZEEEEEDDDDD BBBBBYYYYY TTTTTHHHHHEEEEE MMMMMAAAAAYYYYYOOOOORRRRR OOOOOFFFFF IIIIINNNNNDDDDDIIIIIAAAAANNNNNAAAAAPPPPPOOOOOLLLLLIIIIISSSSS OOOOOPPPPPEEEEENNNNNIIIIINNNNNGGGGG YYYYYEEEEEAAAAARRRRR

loohcSretrahCyrutneCts12 2002

ymedacAesuoHletsirhC 2002

loohcSyratnemelEesuoHrennalF 2002

ymedacAnworB.JwerdnA 3002

retneCgninraeLrehgiHesuoHrennalF 3002

loohcSdetareleccAyeldniT.AselrahC 4002

silopanaidnIPPIK 4002

)ESNES(ecnellecxEfoloohcSdoohrobhgieNtsaehtuoS 4002

1#ymedacAreeraCnatiloporteMsilopanaidnI 4002

2#ymedacAreeraCnatiloporteMsilopanaidnI 4002

erauqSniatnuoFtaloohcSretrahCyrutneCts12 5002

1#loohcSretrahCesuohthgiLsilopanaidnI 5002

2#loohcSretrahCesuohthgiLsilopanaidnI 6002


SOURCE: “2004 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, August 2004, p. 57, http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/.* This table shows maximum capacity as of August 2, 2004. The discussion above about each operating school provides actual current enrollment figures. Thistable shows only the schools currently holding charters from the mayor of Indianapolis.** This school’s prekindergarten program, for which no public funds are available, will not operate under the terms of the charter. Students attending the preschoolprogram will be required to enter the charter schools’ lotteries for kindergarten. The Pre-K program will enroll 72 students each year. Lighthouse Academies, Inc.,will open two separate schools, one in 2005 and one in 2006.

TTTTTable 3:able 3:able 3:able 3:able 3: Pr Pr Pr Pr Projected Enrojected Enrojected Enrojected Enrojected Enrollment follment follment follment follment for Schools Charor Schools Charor Schools Charor Schools Charor Schools Chartertertertertered bed bed bed bed by the May the May the May the May the Mayyyyyor of Indianaor of Indianaor of Indianaor of Indianaor of Indianapolispolispolispolispolis*****

half of the third and sixth graders were at or abovegrade level in English shortly after enrolling. At thesame time, just one in three third graders passed thestate math test, and just one in five sixth-gradersscored passing marks in math. Across the board,

these pass rates were lower than Indiana’s statewideaverage and, with the exception of sixth-grade En-glish, lower than the pass rate among students at-tending the Indianapolis Public Schools, the largestarea school district.

GGGGGRRRRRAAAAADDDDDEEEEESSSSS AAAAATTTTT

CCCCCAAAAAPPPPPAAAAACCCCCIIIIITTTTTYYYYY4002-3002 4002-3002 4002-3002 4002-3002 4002-3002 5002-4002 5002-4002 5002-4002 5002-4002 5002-4002 6002-5002 6002-5002 6002-5002 6002-5002 6002-5002 7002-6002 7002-6002 7002-6002 7002-6002 7002-6002 4102-3102 4102-3102 4102-3102 4102-3102 4102-3102

sloohcsderosnops-royaM:LATOT 9121 7691 3103 0483 7394

loohcSretrahCyrutneCts12 21-K061

)7-KsedarG(681

)8-KsedarG(291

)8-KsedarG(902

)01-KsedarG(042

)21-KsedarG(

ymedacAesuoHletsirhC 21-K623

)5-KsedarG(643

)6-KsedarG(806

)7-KsedarG(027

)8-KsedarG(068

)8-KsedarG(

loohcSyratnemelEesuoHrennalF 7-K091

)5-KsedarG(442

)6-KsedarG(482

)7-KsedarG(003

)7-KsedarG(003

)7-KsedarG(

ymedacAnworB.JwerdnA 8-K814

)5-KsedarG(694

)6-KsedarG(475

)7-KsedarG(256

)8-KsedarG(407

)8-KsedarG(

retneCgninraeLrehgiHesuoHrennalF 21-9521

)21-9sedarG(571

)21-9sedarG(571

)21-9sedarG(571

)21-9sedarG(571

)21-9sedarG(

loohcSdetareleccAyeldniT.AselrahC 21-9 --061

)9-8sedarG(042

)01-8sedarG(023

)11-8sedarG(004

)21-8sedarG(

silopanaidnIPPIK 8-5 --08

)5sedarG(061

)6-5sedarG(042

)7-5sedarG(023

)8-5sedarG(

foloohcSdoohrobhgieNtsaehtuoS)ESNES(ecnellecxE

5-K --061

)3-KsedarG(002

)4-KsedarG(042

)5-KsedarG(042

)5-KsedarG(

reeraCnatiloporteMsilopanaidnI1#ymedacA 21-9

--06

)9edarG(06

)01-9sedarG(09

)11-9sedarG(021

)21-9sedarG(

reeraCnatiloporteMsilopanaidnI2#ymedacA

21-9 --06

)9edarG(06

)01-9sedarG(09

)11-9sedarG(021

)21-9sedarG(

niatnuoFtaloohcSretrahCyrutneCts12erauqS

21-6 -- --002

)9-6sedarG(042

)01-6sedarG(223

)21-6sedarG(

loohcSretrahCesuohthgiLsilopanaidnI1#

**21-KerP -- --062

)5-KsedarG(403

)6-KsedarG(865

)21-KsedarG(

loohcSretrahCesuohthgiLsilopanaidnI2#

**21-KerP -- -- --062

)5-KsedarG(865

)21-KsedarG(


OptionsOptionsOptionsOptionsOptions

The most immediate impact the charter schoolshad on children and families is providing options thatdid not exist before. In the spring of 2004, the Centerof Excellence in Leadership of Learning (CELL) atthe University of Indianapolis surveyed studentsenrolled in the first five charter schools in the city.The survey asked parents to indicate how “powerful”various factors were in their decisions to enroll theirchildren in charter schools. The following factors weredeemed the most powerful, rated by parents as 4.5 orhigher on 1 to 5 scale of importance: high standardsfor achievement; quality academic program; safeenvironment; emphasis on meeting individual studentneeds; clear goals for each student; emphasis onteaching students values; and clear behavior code.

Early ResultsEarly ResultsEarly ResultsEarly ResultsEarly Results

SOURCE: “2004 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, August 2004,p. 14, http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/.

TTTTTable 4able 4able 4able 4able 4::::: Percentage of Students in the First Three Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools(MSCS), Indianapolis Public Schools, and Indiana Who Passed ISTEP+ Tests

At the Beginning of the Fall Semester

Strikingly, charter schools in Indianapolis havelargely focused on middle- and high-school students.Nationally, only about four in 10 charter schools servesecondary students. But in Indianapolis, 11 of the 13approved charter schools will serve middle- and high-school students.11

PPPPPerferferferferformance on the State ormance on the State ormance on the State ormance on the State ormance on the State AssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessmentAssessment

Indiana charter schools administer the state’sIndiana Statewide Testing for Educational ProgressPlus (ISTEP+) examinations in reading, math, andscience each fall and are fully included in the state’saccountability system and the federal No Child LeftBehind Act (NCLB). Because the schools are new andsmall, only one had sufficient data for the state todetermine whether it made Adequate Yearly Progress

EEEEENNNNNGGGGGLLLLLIIIIISSSSSHHHHH MMMMMAAAAATTTTTHHHHHBBBBBOOOOOTTTTTHHHHH

M(M(M(M(M( AAAAATTTTTHHHHH &&&&& EEEEENNNNNGGGGGLLLLLIIIIISSSSSHHHHH)))))SSSSSCCCCCIIIIIEEEEENNNNNCCCCCEEEEE

SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI NININININI SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI NININININI SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI NININININI SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SCSM SPI SPI SPI SPI SPI NININININI

dr3 dr3 dr3 dr3 dr3sredarG sredarG sredarG sredarG sredarG

3002 3002 3002 3002 3002 %55 %26 %47 %24 %56 %17 %63 %25 %36 -- -- --

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 %94 %85 %27 %33 %75 %76 %62 %44 %95 -- -- --

ht5 ht5 ht5 ht5 ht5sredarG sredarG sredarG sredarG sredarG

3002 3002 3002 3002 3002 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- %42 %23 %16

ht6 ht6 ht6 ht6 ht6sredarG sredarG sredarG sredarG sredarG

3002 3002 3002 3002 3002 %25 %34 %96 %33 %44 %27 %92 %13 %26 -- -- --

2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 %05 %04 %96 %22 %23 %76 %22 %52 %95 -- -- --


(AYP) under NCLB in 2003-2004: Christel HouseAcademy.

At the moment, the state tests are of little value indetermining how well charter schools are performingbecause they do not track individual students’ learningover time. Instead, the state currently reports only thepercentage passing the tests in a limited number ofgrades. As a result, ISTEP+ scores are more an indicatorof the starting levels of performance of charter schoolstudents than they are of the value added by charterschools in the long run. This is especially true forschools in their start-up year, whose ISTEP+ resultsreveal only how prepared students are as they begintheir experience at the charter schools. As the statebegins reporting data based on the administration ofthe exams to every student annually, ISTEP+ resultswill become more useful.

Still, the ISTEP+ results for the first three mayor-sponsored charter schools (the ones with more than oneyear of operation) are worth examination. Table 4 showshow these schools fared on the state tests in 2002-2003and 2003-2004, compared with IPS and Indiana as a whole.This table prompts a couple of observations. First, withthe exception of sixth grade English, charter schoolstudents pass the tests at lower rates than students in IPSor Indiana as a whole. Second, across all measures, thepercentage of students in mayor-sponsored charterschools passing the tests rose from 2002-2003 to 2003-2004. Again, these changes do not represent “progress”by individual students, since different groups of studentswere tested in the two school years.

PrPrPrPrProoooogrgrgrgrgress of Students Over ess of Students Over ess of Students Over ess of Students Over ess of Students Over TimeTimeTimeTimeTime12

Since the ISTEP+ provides little informationabout how much individual students are learning incharter schools, Mayor Peterson required the schoolshe chartered to administer nationally normed readingand mathematics tests to their students in both the falland the spring. In 2003-2004, all five schools used theNorthwest Evaluation Association (NWEA) Measuresof Academic Progress (MAP) assessment to fulfill thisrequirement. The resulting data showed how muchprogress students made at charter schools over thecourse of 2003-2004. Researchers at New AmericanSchools conducted this analysis for each grade andsubject (mathematics, language, and reading) tested inthe first five mayor-sponsored charter schools.

On average, students made progress in everyelementary and middle-school grade and subject (ingrades four through eight) on the MAP in 2003-2004.Students at the one secondary school, Flanner HouseHigher Learning Center, did not fare as well, withstudents making progress in only three of the 12subject-grade combinations and actually showingdeclines in test scores between fall and spring in theother nine. While this is an unconventional school, servingstudents who had dropped out and who face numerouschallenges, the results were still disappointing.

The elementary and middle school results weremuch more positive. But how strong were they? TheNAS analysts performed two tests to find out. First,they looked at comparative gains: whether students were

SOURCE: “2004 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, August2004, p. 17, http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/.*This calculation does not include 21st Century Charter School data. Due to technical difficulties, fall 2003 data are not available forthis school.**This information is available only for 21st Century Charter School and thus is not a weighted percentage; 21st Century was the onlyone of the four charter elementary and middle schools to offer sixth and seventh grade classes.

edarGdn2 edarGdn2 edarGdn2 edarGdn2 edarGdn2 edarGdr3 edarGdr3 edarGdr3 edarGdr3 edarGdr3 edarGht4 edarGht4 edarGht4 edarGht4 edarGht4 edarGht5 edarGht5 edarGht5 edarGht5 edarGht5 edarGht6 edarGht6 edarGht6 edarGht6 edarGht6 ** edarGht7 edarGht7 edarGht7 edarGht7 edarGht7 **

gnidaeR gnidaeR gnidaeR gnidaeR gnidaeR %001 * %001 %001 %8.89 %6.48 %4.28

htaM htaM htaM htaM htaM %001 %2.59 %6.69 %8.38 %6.87 %8.85

egaugnaL egaugnaL egaugnaL egaugnaL egaugnaL %5.98 %3.28 %6.18 %5.16 %2.96 %6.07

TTTTTable 5:able 5:able 5:able 5:able 5: Percentage of Mayor-Sponsored Charter Elementary and Middle SchoolStudents Achieving Sufficient Gains to Become Proficient

By the End of Eighth Grade, 2003-2004


“gaining ground on,” “losing ground on,” or “stayingeven with” their peers nationally and in Indiana. Theydid so by comparing the average percentile rank ofeach school’s students at two points in time, and seeingwhether that ranking went up, down, or stayed thesame. For example, suppose a school’s second gradersperformed, on average, at the 24th percentile in readingin the fall of 2003. In the spring, they performed, onaverage, at the 38th percentile. In that case, analystswould say the school’s students gained ground, becausetheir percentile rank rose.

In the four elementary and middle schools,students gained ground in most grades and subjects.Across the four schools, there were 51 different subject-grade combinations (such as second grade math orsixth grade language). In 39 of these combinations (77percent), students gained ground against their peersnationally. Students in 36 of the combinations gainedground against their Indiana peers.

In one second-year school, Christel HouseAcademy, students gained ground in all subjects andgrades. The school had struggled in its first year, losingground and staying even in most grades, so the results

for 2003-2004 were especially remarkable. A first-yearschool, Andrew J. Brown Charter School, gainedground in almost all subjects and grades, while theother two second-year schools, 21st Century CharterSchool and Flanner House Elementary, had mixedresults. In the one high school, Flanner House HigherLearning Center, students lost ground in all subjectsand grades.

The second kind of analysis NAS performedlooked at sufficient gains: Did students make enoughprogress to achieve proficiency by the eighth grade?13

In essence, researchers extrapolated individual students’2003-2004 growth into the future. If they continuedprogressing at that rate, would they be proficient bythe end of the eighth grade? Table 5 shows thepercentage of students across all four charterelementary and middle schools who achieved“sufficient gains” in this sense. The results for earlygrades are promising, with high percentages of studentson track to become proficient. In the later grades, thechallenges are more severe, with a shorter timeline toraise student achievement and, as a result, with lowerpercentages of students on track.

CharCharCharCharChart 1:t 1:t 1:t 1:t 1: P P P P Pererererercentage of Parcentage of Parcentage of Parcentage of Parcentage of Parents Indicating a High Leents Indicating a High Leents Indicating a High Leents Indicating a High Leents Indicating a High Levvvvvel of Satisfaction withel of Satisfaction withel of Satisfaction withel of Satisfaction withel of Satisfaction withChild’Child’Child’Child’Child’s Chars Chars Chars Chars Charter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter School14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Teaching quality

Individualized attention

Curriculum

Computers and other technology

Class size

Academic standards/expectations

Overall

2004

2003

SOURCE: “2004 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, August 2004,http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/; and “2003 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Officeof the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, September 2003, http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/.


These results are preliminary, reflecting theperformance of just five schools in first or secondyear of operation. Overall, they show a great deal ofprogress being made by students in most of the mayor-sponsored charter schools, with the notable exceptionof the single high school, which struggled in its firstyear to raise student performance.

Parent SatisfactionParent SatisfactionParent SatisfactionParent SatisfactionParent Satisfaction

According to a parent survey administeredindependently by the University of Indianapolis in May2003 and 2004 to parents in the first three mayor-sponsored schools, charter school parents are highlysatisfied with their schools. In both years, largepercentages of parents gave their schools top marksfor overall satisfaction and for various academicqualities (see Chart 1). Parent satisfaction rose—substantially in some categories—between 2003 and2004, with overall parent satisfaction increasing from83 percent in 2003 to 88 percent in 2004.

Impact on NeighborhoodsImpact on NeighborhoodsImpact on NeighborhoodsImpact on NeighborhoodsImpact on Neighborhoods

The schools chartered to date have chosen to openin parts of town where families are most in need ofeducational options. One school, SoutheastNeighborhood School of Excellence (SENSE), wasfounded by a community development corporation

dedicated to the revitalization of the Southeastneighborhood. After a community survey revealed thata top priority for residents was more high-qualityschooling options, the organization spearheadeddesigning and planning for the school. In response tothe specific needs of the community—a growing Latinopopulation—the school has incorporated research-based literacy programs that will result in all studentsbecoming literate in both Spanish and English,regardless of their home language. The corporationhas revamped a vacant and obsolete 84,000-squarefoot industrial facility to serve as the school’s home, aswell as the home of another charter school. Thebuilding, located less than one mile from downtownIndianapolis in the center of the Southeastneighborhood, will serve as an anchor for much-needed community revitalization in this part of town.

A second school, the Charles A. Tindley AcceleratedSchool, has renovated a vacant supermarket in aneighborhood known as “the Meadows,” a distressedarea of the city. The Health and Hospital Corporationof Marion County, an independent municipal agency,is also located in the neighborhood. Seeing the potentialfor the school to spark wider communityimprovement, Health and Hospitals provided aguarantee for the school’s loan, enabling the school toobtain facility financing. Like the SENSE school,Tindley’s backers hope the school will serve as a catalystfor revitalization of the neighborhood.

The Christel House Academy, which seeks to educate previously underserved student populations,expects every student to demonstrate mastery in English and mathematics, as well as proficiency in aworld language. Spanish is taught at all levels, beginning in kindergarten. The school has adopted research-based reading approaches. Children’s reading and math skills in second grade and higher are assessedmonthly using an online tool provided by Edison Schools, which aligns with the Indiana State AcademicStandards. Immediate feedback allows teachers and students to monitor mastery of skills and redirectinstructional focus as needed. The school’s focus on developing literacy skills is proving successful for allchildren. One third-grade student started the school year unable to speak a word of English. By the endof the school term, she could communicate in English using complete sentences when asked questionsabout her well being, what she studied in class, and how she likes attending school. The school attributesher success to the increased time spent developing English skills.

Success Stories: Focus on LiteracySuccess Stories: Focus on LiteracySuccess Stories: Focus on LiteracySuccess Stories: Focus on LiteracySuccess Stories: Focus on Literacy


From the outset, Mayor Peterson intended to createa system of high-quality new schools in Indianapolis—one that continues to provide the city’s children withtop-notch options for years to come. Building such asystem is different from simply allowing a handful ofschools to open and seeing what happens. It entailscareful thinking about what will make the new systemsuccessful over the long haul.

The system under development in Indianapolis isdesigned to achieve four critical goals that togetherwill provide a foundation for the long-term successof the initiative:

! Generating a superb pool of charter applicants;

! Granting charters only to the highest-qualityapplicants;

! Leveraging community resources to supportschools; and

! Holding schools accountable for results.

With the financial support of the Annie E. Caseyand Richard M. Fairbanks Foundation, the mayor’s

office has set out to accomplish these goals, each ofwhich is described in turn below.

GenerGenerGenerGenerGenerating a Superb Pating a Superb Pating a Superb Pating a Superb Pating a Superb Pool of ool of ool of ool of ool of ApplicantsApplicantsApplicantsApplicantsApplicants

When the mayor announced his charter initiative,a host of applicants came forward, eager to launchnew public schools. This initial wave of applicants hasgenerated the first set of schools, getting the initiativeoff to a good start. After the first two years, however,the number of applications dropped dramatically. Asin other cities, there appears to have been a backlog ofentrepreneurial school founders ready to respondimmediately when the charter law passed, but not asteady supply. A small number of qualified newapplicants have continued to emerge each year, butnot enough to meet the demand for new charter optionsby both families and the mayor’s office (see Table 6).

Since the mayor set such a high standard forobtaining a charter (described in the next section), healso found it important to be proactive, looking forways to stimulate the supply of excellent schools.Toward that end, the mayor’s office received a $1.6million grant from the Indianapolis-based Richard M.Fairbanks Foundation in 2003 to launch an initiativecalled “Seed and Lead”—a catalyst for the creationof numerous top-notch charter schools during thenext four years.

Seed and Lead has three major components. First, itaims to seed new schools by attracting applicants, fromIndiana and beyond, who propose to use the educationalmodels that have proven to be the most effective.Second, it seeks to recruit and train eight to 10 promising“education entrepreneurs” to be leaders of the next waveof charter schools. Third, it makes Indianapolis a moreattractive place to start a charter school by addressingone of the central challenges facing new schools:affordable facilities financing.

! Seed: Br ing ing the Best Models toSeed: Br ing ing the Best Models toSeed: Br ing ing the Best Models toSeed: Br ing ing the Best Models toSeed: Br ing ing the Best Models toIndianapolisIndianapolisIndianapolisIndianapolisIndianapolis

In the past two decades, a wide range ofeducational models have emerged across the countryand proven successful with students. Some of these

Building a Strong Foundation for SuccessBuilding a Strong Foundation for SuccessBuilding a Strong Foundation for SuccessBuilding a Strong Foundation for SuccessBuilding a Strong Foundation for Success

SOURCE: Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/.* Includes applicants that either submitted a prospectus or were the subject ofan existing design review, in lieu of a prospectus. Not all applicants submitting aprospectus, subject to an existing design review were invited to submit a fullapplication. Not all applicants submitting a full application received approval.** One of the four accepted schools returned its charter without opening.

raeY raeY raeY raeY raeYforebmuN forebmuN forebmuN forebmuN forebmuNsnoitacilppA snoitacilppA snoitacilppA snoitacilppA snoitacilppA

forebmuN forebmuN forebmuN forebmuN forebmuNslavorppA slavorppA slavorppA slavorppA slavorppA

1002 12 **4

2002 21 3

3002 7 3

4002)raeylaitrap(

8 4

TTTTTable 6:able 6:able 6:able 6:able 6: Applications and Applications and Applications and Applications and Applications and ApprApprApprApprApprooooovals* bvals* bvals* bvals* bvals* by they they they they theMaMaMaMaMayyyyyor’or’or’or’or’s Offices Offices Offices Offices Office,,,,, thr thr thr thr through Jough Jough Jough Jough Julululululy 2004y 2004y 2004y 2004y 2004


are single-school success stories; others are multi-school networks already aiming to replicate in manycities. The Seed initiative is designed to identify theseproven models, reach out to the organizationspromoting them, and work with them to makeconnections in Indianapolis as they start new schools.

Several of the schools listed in Table 2 arealready based on proven school models. The CharlesA. Tindley Accelerated High School uses theAccelerated Schools model, operating in more than1,000 schools nationally. The KIPP school inIndianapolis is part of the Knowledge Is PowerProgram, the rapidly growing network of middleschools that are strikingly successful with low-income inner-city students. The two IndianapolisMetropolitan Career Academies are backed by The BigPicture Company, which is replicating the career andcollege preparation successes seen at a cluster of smallhigh schools known as “the Met” in Providence, R.I.

Through Seed, the mayor’s office is activelyengaged in seeking out model developers to startthe next generation of charter schools in Indianapolis.The office conducts careful due diligence onpotential models and their support organizations,including arranging visits by community leadersfrom Indianapolis to model schools. Whenrepresentatives of model schools visit Indianapolis,the mayor’s office arranges for them to meet with awide array of potential partners and supporters,including individuals who may serve on the localfounding boards of schools using the models. Oncethese visits succeed in matching promising modeldevelopers with local supporters, the partnerstogether will file a charter school application basedon the model school design. The application muststill meet the mayor’s exacting standards in order tobe approved. After approval, Seed can providestart-up funding to schools implementing proveneducational models.

In five years, Indianapolis will be a center forthe nation’s most promising school models as aresult of Seed. Students and families will have accessto a range of options offering educationalapproaches that have already demonstrated successin schools across the country.

! Lead: Cultivating the Next Generation ofLead: Cultivating the Next Generation ofLead: Cultivating the Next Generation ofLead: Cultivating the Next Generation ofLead: Cultivating the Next Generation ofSchool LeadersSchool LeadersSchool LeadersSchool LeadersSchool Leaders

Mayor Peterson recognized from the outset of histerm that strong leadership at the school level was

essential to educational success. Indianapolis is full ofpotential entrepreneurial educators and otherindividuals could become excellent school leaders. Butit is a challenge to find those people and equip themfor the complex job of launching a new public schoolthat will be held accountable for results.

To address this challenge, the mayor’s office ispartnering with Building Excellent Schools (BES), anational fellowship program that recruits and trainsleaders to open new charter schools. Based inMassachusetts, the organization has quickly becomethe key source of leaders for that state’s charter schools.With the support of the Walton Family Foundation,BES is now offering the fellowship in a small numberof other communities, including Indianapolis. Startingin summer 2004, candidates who meet the rigorousBES standards will become Indianapolis BuildingExcellent Schools Fellows.

Fellows will take part in a one-year program inwhich they will be paid salaries to plan new schoolsand receive nationally renowned leadership trainingwhile they do so. They will divide their time betweenMassachusetts, where they will participate in cutting-edge classroom training and hands-on work insuccessful charter schools, and Indianapolis, where theywill work on building the plans and partnershipsnecessary to launch new charter schools in the city.When the time is right, the fellows will submit charterapplications to the mayor. The applications will thengo through the mayor’s usual rigorous review process.

It remains to be seen whether this program willbe able to recruit a sufficient number of high-qualityleaders to achieve its goals. As of August 2004, oneoutstanding fellow had entered the program. Newschool leadership programs around the country havestruggled to attract the best and brightest into theirranks, even when working in cities like New York andChicago, which have with thousands of potentialcandidates. This is a challenge, though, that any seriouseffort at new schools creation has to confront.

! Facilities Financing: Making IndianapolisFacilities Financing: Making IndianapolisFacilities Financing: Making IndianapolisFacilities Financing: Making IndianapolisFacilities Financing: Making Indianapolisan an an an an AttractivAttractivAttractivAttractivAttractive Place to Open a Chare Place to Open a Chare Place to Open a Chare Place to Open a Chare Place to Open a CharterterterterterSchoolSchoolSchoolSchoolSchool

Finding an affordable facility is invariably the mostvexing challenge to opening a school after a charter isgranted. Most charter schools across the country,including those in Indianapolis, do not receive capitalfunding for facilities. In a nationwide survey, nearlyone-third of charter schools reported they spent four


to six months securing financing for their facilities.Some charter schools fail to open—or fail to open ontime—because of facilities problems. If they are notaddressed, these challenges can deter promising schoolleaders from opening charter schools in Indianapolis.Thus, a primary goal of the mayor’s initiative is tomake facilities financing available and remove thisbarrier.

In 2002, the mayor successfully petitioned the statelegislature to give the Indianapolis Local PublicImprovement Bond Bank the authority to arrange low-interest financing for charter schools. The Bond Bank’sinvolvement in charter schools facility financingpresents a unique mechanism for charter schools toobtain low-interest financing. The city may attach its“moral authority” to the loan, which is a commitmentby the city to cover a loan on which a school maydefault. The city’s moral authority is tied to its bondrating and thus is a virtual assurance that a charterschool’s loan will be repaid by the city if necessary.This reduced risk to lenders in turn means lowerinterest rates charged to a charter school, hence makingfacilities financing significantly more affordable forschools.

To expand the potential for financing charterschool facilities through the Bond Bank, the mayor’soffice is developing a reserve fund that the Bond Bankcould first use in the event a school defaulted on itsloan. The Bond Bank and the mayor’s office are workingclosely with two national organizations—the Annie E.Casey Foundation and Local Initiatives SupportCorporation—in the hope of arranging a commitmentof $1 million by each organization to such a reservefund. The resulting initiative will not eliminate thefacilities challenge, but it will make affordablefinancing accessible to Indianapolis charter schools.

GrGrGrGrGranting Charanting Charanting Charanting Charanting Charterterterterters Only to the Highest-s Only to the Highest-s Only to the Highest-s Only to the Highest-s Only to the Highest-Quality Quality Quality Quality Quality ApplicantsApplicantsApplicantsApplicantsApplicants

Indiana’s charter schools law presents educators,parents, and others with a tremendous opportunity tocreate new public schools. However, with thisopportunity comes responsibility. In the effort to createcutting-edge schools, the mayor’s office seeks to ensurethat charter schools meet the highest standards ofacademic quality, and must welcome and serve allstudents. To this end, the mayor’s office has designeda comprehensive application review process that drawsfrom the experiences of successful charter schoolsponsors and the research of experts from around thecountry.

The mayor’s office closely scrutinizes charterschool proposals and will grant charters only tononprofit organizations that demonstrate the capacityand plans to establish effective education programs.Applicants must also demonstrate a commitment toovercome typical barriers to schools of choice, suchas access to transportation and information for familiesof all backgrounds. They also must show strong tiesto the local community, including a capable foundingboard of directors. While the application processinvites a diverse range of approaches, it sets a high barfor the approval of charter proposals. Local and nationalobservers have described the mayor’s applicationreview process as “above reproach,” “thorough, highlyfocused and swift,” and “a minor miracle.”15

The application review process is characterizedby extensive community involvement, a high degreeof transparency, and expert evaluation.

! Community involvement: To advise him on theapplication process, the mayor created an

Parental involvement is the cornerstone of Flanner House Elementary, with families playing an integralpart in their children’s education. Parents are asked to sign a covenant at the time of enrollment statingthey will commit to 20 hours of volunteer time per semester. Volunteer parents are in the school daily,tutoring students one-on-one, reading along with students, and organizing field trips and other activities.One hundred percent of parents fulfilled this commitment in the past school year, with some volunteeringmany more hours than requested. One parent contributed his whole vacation to ensuring that theFlanner House Elementary computer system was switched over to a new mainframe. He continues totroubleshoot problems with the new system, saving the school technology costs. The school does not sendquarterly grades home; instead parents are invited to come to school for conferences where teacherspersonally deliver report cards. Nearly all parents attended all four conferences last year, with teachersspeaking by phone with those who could not attend.

Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories: ActivActivActivActivActive Pare Pare Pare Pare Parent Parent Parent Parent Parent Partnerstnerstnerstnerstners


Indianapolis Charter Schools Board, made upof local educators, businesspeople, andcommunity leaders appointed by the mayor(see sidebar). The board reviews all charterapplications and makes recommendations tothe mayor about which ones to approve.

! Transparency: As an elected official, MayorPeterson is in a unique position amongauthorizers because he is directly accountableto the parents of students who attend theschools he charters. Accordingly, the mayorputs all charter applicants through a publicreview process before deciding on charterawards. All meetings related to the reviewprocess, including informal interviews of allapplicants, are open to the public. The mayor’soffice publicizes these meetings by postingpublic notices and issuing press releases. Publichearings and Indianapolis Charter SchoolsBoard meetings are televised on the city’spublic access station, Channel 16—not justonce, but repeatedly. The mayor’s charterschools staff provides televised public reportsto the Charter Schools Board with its detailedfindings on each application and itsrecommendations to the board. The boardquestions each applicant during the televisedpublic hearings, and members of the publicare provided the opportunity through thesehearings to give the board their opinions aboutthe applications before the chartering decisionsare made. During televised public meetings,the board also deliberates and votes on whichproposals to recommend to Mayor Peterson.After the mayor’s approval, proposals go toa committee of the City-County Council,which hears public comment, and then on tothe televised full council meetings forratification. Additionally, applications underconsideration are placed on the mayor’scharter schools website so that anyone mayread detailed information about eachproposed school.

! Expert feedback and evaluation: The mayorhas the ultimate authority over charteringdecisions, and he takes this role very seriously,spending a significant amount of timepersonally reviewing and deliberating on eachproposal. To help in his decisions, Mayor

William ShrWilliam ShrWilliam ShrWilliam ShrWilliam Shreeeeewsberwsberwsberwsberwsberrrrrryyyyy,,,,, Jr Jr Jr Jr Jr.,.,.,.,., chairman chairman chairman chairman chairman. Founder of Shrewsberry& Associates, a minority-owned consulting firm, Mr.Shrewsberry served as deputy mayor of Indianapolis fromJanuary 2000 until June 2001. He previously led severalagencies in Indiana state government.

John E. BainbridgeJohn E. BainbridgeJohn E. BainbridgeJohn E. BainbridgeJohn E. Bainbridge, a retired teacher and principal from theSpeedway School District. Mr. Bainbridge recently completedhis last term on the City-County Council. He served manyyears as an officer and an official for the Indiana AmateurAthletic Union and Indiana Swimming, and held severalpositions in the Marion County Principals Association.

CarCarCarCarCarolololololyn Fayn Fayn Fayn Fayn Fayyyyy, retired English teacher and adjunct faculty atIndiana University/IUPUI. During her nearly 30- year careerin public education, Dr. Fay had the opportunity to serve inmany key educational roles. She created a teacher centerwithin IPS and expanded the center into the Office ofProfessional Development for the entire school district.

DaDaDaDaDavid L.vid L.vid L.vid L.vid L. J J J J Johnsonohnsonohnsonohnsonohnson, partner with the Indianapolis law firmof Baker & Daniels. A member of his firm’s managementcommittee, Mr. Johnson practices general business law,including public finance, project development, and corporatelaw. A Rhodes Scholar, he was also legal counsel to the U.S.Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

KaarKaarKaarKaarKaaren Rodmanen Rodmanen Rodmanen Rodmanen Rodman, retired foreign language teacher, NorthCentral High School. A lifelong teacher, Ms. Rodman wasthe first African American teacher in the WashingtonTownship schools and chaired the minority affairscommittee for the Washington Township EducationAssociation. A Fulbright Scholar, she is also the parent oftwo Broad Ripple High School graduates.

JJJJJose Rosarioose Rosarioose Rosarioose Rosarioose Rosario, director, Center for Urban and MulticulturalEducation and professor of education at Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis. A lifelong educator andresearcher, Dr. Rosario specializes in urban education, at-risk students, multicultural education and curriculum, andinstruction.

LLLLLynne ynne ynne ynne ynne WWWWWeisenbacheisenbacheisenbacheisenbacheisenbach, dean, University of Indianapolis Schoolof Education. An expert in special education, Dr. Weisenbachhas served as dean since 1993 and previously chaired theUniversity’s Department of Teacher Education. She was alsoan elementary school and special education teacher, and isthe mother of a recent Perry Meridian High School graduate.

The IndianaThe IndianaThe IndianaThe IndianaThe Indianapolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charpolis Charter Schools Boarter Schools Boarter Schools Boarter Schools Boarter Schools Boarddddd


Peterson draws upon the reviews andrecommendations of the Charter Schools Board.The mayor’s charter schools staff also conductsdetailed reviews, including evaluations by nationalcharter school experts knowledgeable about a rangeof educational approaches and experienced inworking with a diverse group of charter schools.Because charter school failures elsewhere havelargely stemmed from financial and managementproblems, the mayor’s office also hires anorganization that specializes in evaluating nonprofitbusiness plans to review the applicants’ governancestructures and financial plans.

! Continuous feedback for improvement: Thevarious other experts engaged in the review processprovide useful critiques of each application, whichserve to strengthen applicants’ plans for theirschools. Based on these analyses, the mayor’s staffprovides detailed feedback to each charter schoolapplicant group. Additionally, applicants notselected to receive a charter are invited to meetwith the staff to discuss areas in which they maywork to improve future proposals.

! Rigor: The mayor has the authority to grant fivenew charters each year, but he has not issued thatmany in a single year, despite numerousapplications. The fall of 2004 will mark the firstyear in which five charter schools will open atonce. Although the mayor is eager to expand publicschool options in Indianapolis, he is committed todoing so by granting charters only to demonstrablyqualified applicants.

Leveraging Community Resources toLeveraging Community Resources toLeveraging Community Resources toLeveraging Community Resources toLeveraging Community Resources toSupporSupporSupporSupporSupport Sct Sct Sct Sct Schoolshoolshoolshoolshools

In a conventional school district, the central officeprovides a range of services to schools, such asemploying and assigning teachers, transporting students,ordering books and supplies, providing and maintainingfacilities, offering professional development, andsupplying services like special education. For charterschools in Indianapolis, there is no central office. Themayor’s office decides which schools receive charters,and then holds them accountable for results—but theydo not provide the full panoply of district-like services.

The schools, however, still need the support thatthe conventional district arrangement offers, but in acontext that honors their independence and autonomy.Toward that end, the mayor’s office has sought to serveas a catalyst for support, leveraging the resources ofthe community to help charter schools obtain thesupport they need. This section highlights just a fewexamples of this catalytic role.

! Addressing special education cooperatively. Tohelp schools meet their obligations to servestudents with special needs, the mayor’s officeplayed a critical role in helping the schools formthe nation’s third charter school special educationcooperative—a collaborative effort among theschools to share resources and provide servicesto special education students more efficiently andeffectively. Through the work on the collaborative,the mayor’s office has enjoyed a strong relationshipwith the Indiana Department of Education’s

The Flanner House Higher Learning Center serves students who previously have dropped out of highschool. The mission of Flanner House Higher Learning Center is to provide an alternative learning schoolenvironment, adaptable to diverse learning styles and lifestyle circumstances, to enable students to obtainnot only an academic high-school diploma but also the skills they will need to succeed in higher education,in a career setting, and in life. The Higher Learning Center is open from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. daily, with flexiblescheduling so that students can participate in school while still working and/or honoring other commitments,such as obligations to their families. The school’s sponsoring organization, Flanner House of Indianapolis, isa long-standing community-based organization. It is uniquely positioned to connect students with services—such as childcare, emergency food, transportation, and shelter assistance—in order to remove barriers that, inthe past, have kept the students from returning to or completing school. Nine students, including many whowere out of school for more than one year, were able to graduate with high-school diplomas during theschool’s first year. One began attending college in January, and four more plan to enroll in college in the fall.

Success Stories: Reaching Out to DropoutsSuccess Stories: Reaching Out to DropoutsSuccess Stories: Reaching Out to DropoutsSuccess Stories: Reaching Out to DropoutsSuccess Stories: Reaching Out to Dropouts


Division of Exceptional Learners. At the requestof the mayor’s office, the division performs anevaluation in the first year and identifies ways toimprove each school’s special education services.The mayor’s office, in partnership with Ball StateUniversity, has since helped the schools to mergethe cooperative with a larger, statewide charterschool special education cooperative. Anexperienced educator and special educationadministrator has been hired by the cooperativeto serve as the special education director for allof the member schools. The schools also sharelicensed teachers with one another to meet theneeds of their special education students. Specialeducation students receive services at their schoolsites and, in most cases, in their regularly assignedclassrooms, so they can benefit from their schools’specific educational programs.

! Producing a television show to highlightpublic school options. Each year, the mayor’soffice produces a television show featuring thenew charter schools and school choice optionswithin the IPS. The show is hosted by the eveningnews anchor from a major local network and airsrepeatedly on the local public access channel.

! Tapping the public library to connect studentswith books. The Indianapolis-Marion CountyPublic Library (IMCPL) and the mayor’s officetogether devised an extensive long-term plan toconnect each charter school with the public librarysystem. Working with the schools, library staffprepared and delivered 3,000-book libraries basedon each individual school’s curriculum andeducational profile. Ultimately, each school willhave a catalog of library materials linked to thelarger IMCPL database, and thus charter schoolstudents will have the entire IMCPL system’sresources at their fingertips.

! Working with the Charter Schools Associationof Indiana to generate high-quality data aboutcharter school performance. Since its creation,the Charter School Association of Indianarecognized the importance of collecting consistent,high-quality data on student performance inIndiana’s charter schools. Seventeen of the 18charter schools in Indiana administered theNWEA’s MAP assessment in the fall of 2003 and

spring of 2004 to measure student academic growthduring the course of the year. Adoption of NWEAallows the mayor-sponsored schools to participatein the Charter School Association of Indiana’sresearch and data collection program to evaluatehow all of the state’s charter schools are doing—and tap into philanthropic resources available forthe assessment. In addition, this program providesmuch-needed data to schools and teachers as theyseek to improve student performance.

! Partnership with the University ofIndianapolis, Center for Excellence inLeadership of Learning. With the support ofthe mayor’s office, the Center for Excellence inLeadership of Learning (CELL) created aNetwork of Schools, linking charter schools, IPS,and Catholic schools in shared professionaldevelopment. Schools involved participate in anintensive Summer Institute, hold periodiccollaborative training sessions, and have accessto school improvement coaches on an ongoingbasis. The mayor’s office also worked with CELLto secure an $11.3 million grant from the Billand Melinda Gates Foundation to assist in thedevelopment of at least 10 new small highschools and convert five existing large highschools into smaller, more effective schools.The f irst planning grants were recentlydistributed to nine organizations creating onedozen new, small high schools. Among themwere six mayor-sponsored charter schools, andtwo schools currently under development arelikely to apply to the mayor for charters. Inaddition, three new high schools are underdevelopment within the IPS, and one grant wentto the Catholic Archdiocese to conduct afeasibility study for a new high school. The grantfrom the Gates Foundation also enables CELLto develop a Network of Effective SmallSchools of Indianapolis to support theseinstitutions through sharing current research andextensive, ongoing coaching and professionaldevelopment.

More efforts like these are planned for thefuture. Altogether, these initiatives have providedimportant assistance to Indianapolis’ charter schools,augmenting their capacities while preserving theirautonomy.


Holding ScHolding ScHolding ScHolding ScHolding Schools hools hools hools hools Accountable fAccountable fAccountable fAccountable fAccountable for Resultsor Resultsor Resultsor Resultsor Results

Charters are granted on a basic trade-off ofautonomy for accountability. With the support of theAnnie E. Casey Foundation, the mayor’s office hasdeveloped a model accountability system through whichthe schools and the mayor’s office establish expectations,monitor progress, report to the public, and makeinformed decisions about the future of the schools.16

Setting ExpectationsSetting ExpectationsSetting ExpectationsSetting ExpectationsSetting Expectations

Many charter authorizers have not set clearexpectations for schools. When the time comes to makedecisions about charter renewal, they found that they donot have the data necessary to make a judgment, or criteriaagainst which to compare schools’ results.

The mayor’s office responded to this challengeby creating the Charter School PerformanceFramework, which provides a foundation of commonevaluation elements for all of the mayor’s charterschools. The content of this performance frameworkserves as a floor rather than a ceiling for schoolperformance and continuous improvement. Eachschool is required to enrich this basic accountabilityplan with additional measures to assess anddemonstrate achievement of its specific mission.

! Common MeasurCommon MeasurCommon MeasurCommon MeasurCommon Measures:es:es:es:es: The CharThe CharThe CharThe CharThe Charter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter Schoolter SchoolPerformance FrameworkPerformance FrameworkPerformance FrameworkPerformance FrameworkPerformance Framework

The Charter School Performance Framework isdivided into four sections focusing on the followingcritical questions:

1. Is the educational program a success?

2. Is the organization effective and well run?

3. Is the school meeting its operational and accessobligations?

4. Is the school providing the appropriate conditionsfor success?

When measuring a given school’s performance,the school leadership and the mayor’s office willexamine several subquestions in relation to each ofthe four core questions. The first three focal areas(academic performance, organizational viability, andoperations/access) and their respective sub-questions

will be rated on a four-point scale (“Does Not MeetStandard,” “Approaching Standard,” “Meets Standard,”and “Exceeds Standard”).17

In making renewal and revocation decisions, themayor’s office will focus first on each school’sobjectively measurable performance outcomes fromthe first three questions in the framework. Findings inresponse to the fourth question in the performanceframework will inform the mayor’s office regardingwhether the school is on the right path to meet theoutcomes of the first three questions. More important,well before the renewal decision in each school’s seventhyear, school self-assessments and external reviews ofschool academics, finances, and other reportingrequirements organized under this framework will providesolid data that should inform parents’ decisions aboutsending their children to the charter school, as well aseach school’s continuous improvement efforts.

! Unique Measures: Goals Established by theUnique Measures: Goals Established by theUnique Measures: Goals Established by theUnique Measures: Goals Established by theUnique Measures: Goals Established by theSchoolSchoolSchoolSchoolSchool

While the mayor’s performance framework ismeant to form the foundation of each school’saccountability plan, individual schools will developcustomized goals and measures to assess the fulfillmentof its mission. The school accountability plans buildon the goals and contractual obligations described ineach school’s charter agreement and are meant to guideeach school’s progress through its first seven-yearcharter. The mayor’s office has developed a CharterSchool Accountability Handbook to give charter operatorsdetailed guidance and assistance in building high-qualityaccountability plans that are useful for the schoolleadership, as well as the mayor’s office.18

Gathering the DataGathering the DataGathering the DataGathering the DataGathering the Data

The mayor’s office collects data in a wide rangeof ways to determine how schools are progressing inall areas of performance outlined in the performanceframework. The following key steps are used forgathering data and overseeing school progress in themayor’s charter school accountability system:

! Annual testing. Each school must conduct annualstandardized tests of reading and mathematics forevery student. To meet state requirements, schoolsare required to administer ISTEP+ every fall tostudents in grades three through 10 (as these testsbecome available in all grades). To supplement


the critical state tests, the mayor’s office has anadditional requirement that students be tested inthe fall and spring on a nationally normedassessment in order to collect comparable,longitudinal data to measure individual studentgrowth during the course of the school year. Thisconsistent year-to-year testing will allow the mayor’soffice to assess the value added within each school.This is particularly important to assess becausemany of the charter school students enroll withsubstantial academic deficits. Thus, analysis oflearning growth will be critical in the mayor’sassessment of school progress and achievement.

! Site visits. Each mayor-sponsored school is subjectto periodic site visits by independent teams ofexperts throughout the seven-year term of thecharter: twice in the first year of a school’soperation, and at least annually thereafter. The sitevisits give reviewers the opportunity to see inperson what lies behind the test scores and reportsthat typically form the core of school oversightacross all areas of the performance framework.Team members talk with board members, students,teachers, administrators, and parents; visitclassrooms; and review particular documents andmaterials. Reviewers provide verbal reports to theschools at the end of their visits, and providewritten comments citing commendations and areasfor improvement. The University of Indianapolis’CELL developed the site visit process andprotocol, and also implemented the site visits forthe mayor’s office in the initiative’s first two years.In addition to CELL’s accountability expert, othersite visit team members included experiencedpublic school teachers and administrators.

! Surveys. The mayor’s office administers surveysin the spring of each school year to gatherinformation from parents and staff. Survey itemsaccommodate the mayor’s performance framework.Each school may also identify additional surveyitems that align with the school’s unique purposesand goals. The survey protocol and process weredeveloped by CELL. To maintain third-partyobjectivity, CELL also administered the 2003 and2004 surveys, collected the data, and analyzed theresults.19

! Governance and financial reviews. The mayor’soffice has developed a Charter School GovernanceHandbook and a Charter School Guidebook withinformation and guidelines to help schools maintaincompliance with their charters and all applicablelaws, and take proactive steps to engage in effectiveschool governance.20 The Governance Handbookoutlines governance-related information that theschools are required to submit or maintainthroughout the school year. Recently the mayor’soffice provided each of the schools with acompliance binder to organize all governance andcompliance-related items. Each school regularlyadds or updates documents in the binder—theseupdates are collected during monthly governancereview visits to each school. These reviewsprovide a non-intrusive avenue for the mayor’soffice to remain informed about new developmentsin each school’s board oversight, schoolmanagement, and staffing. The mayor’s office alsomonitors the schools’ financial and organizationalhealth through quarterly financial statements. Inthe future, an advisory group of individuals, suchas city financial staff and/or external financial

Andrew J. Brown Academy is a partnership between Indiana Black Expo (a 33-year-old old culturalorganization) and National Heritage Academies (a national operator of charter schools). The academy’s aimis to shape students who believe in and practice positive moral values and who strive to become intelligent,responsible contributors to society at large. Time is spent daily teaching and modeling what it means totreat others with respect. Instruction in values is supplemented by extracurricular activities. Studentsdiscuss values on a monthly one-hour talk show on Radio One 1310 A.M. The show is sponsored by amember of the school’s board of directors, and features a different topic each month where radio listenersare able to call in and ask questions. Topics that have been featured include the importance of parentalinvolvement in children’s education and whether children should be allowed to vote. Throughout theschool year, students collect non-perishable food items to support local food pantries. Students also makecards for sick children at Riley Hospital for Children.

Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories:Success Stories: A FA FA FA FA Focus on Commocus on Commocus on Commocus on Commocus on Community and unity and unity and unity and unity and VVVVValuesaluesaluesaluesalues


advisors, will assist the mayor’s charter schoolsstaff in reviewing the schools’ financial statements.An independent accounting firm also reviewsschools’ finances quarterly using analysis softwaredesigned specifically to evaluate mayor-sponsoredcharter schools.21

! Mid-charter reviews. In the fourth year of eachschool’s charter term, the mayor’s office willprepare a comprehensive review of the school’sperformance to that point. This begins with athorough self-review of the school’s performancefor the first three years of operation, examiningall areas covered in the performance frameworkand any additional measures of success developedby the school. This school self-assessment will becombined with a third-party, multi-day onsitereview to corroborate and augment the school’sself-evaluation. The mayor’s office will produce asubsequent public report on the school’sperformance to date. This report will be informedby data collected by the mayor’s office, includingthe annual site visits, parent and staff surveys,governance and financial reviews, test scores, andother information about schools’ progress towardthe goals outlined in their accountability plans.

Using the DataUsing the DataUsing the DataUsing the DataUsing the Data

All of these assessments will inform parents andthe greater public as to how the mayor-sponsoredcharter schools are doing. These assessments will alsoprovide critical information for both the mayor’s office(in making high-stakes judgments about schoolperformance) and the schools themselves (in enhancingtheir programs over time). More specifically, datacollected as part of the charter school accountabilitysystem will serve the following broad purposes:

! Informing the public. Annually, the mayor’soffice produces an accountability report on thecharter initiative as a whole. The report providesinformation about how each school is performing,

including test score analysis, site visit and surveyresults, and an analysis of how the school isspending its public dollars. Information about schoolperformance is posted to the mayor’s charter schoolwebsite so that families and community memberscan access up-to-date information about each school.

! Informing the mayor’s office. Ultimately, charterrenewal decisions will be informed by all of thedata collected by the mayor’s office in the first sixyears of the school’s charter term. In the sixth year,the school must submit a renewal petition thatarticulates why the school should maintain itscharter. The mayor’s office will consider thisrenewal petition in conjunction with the mid-charter review, the site visit reports, governancereviews, survey results, other government reports,academic testing performance, and financial auditsto decide whether a school should maintain itscharter beyond year seven.

! Informing the schools. This data also providesschools with information they can use to improvetheir academic programs and organizationalprocesses. For example, site visits have generateduseful critiques about the primary areas that schoolsneeded to target for improvement, as well as theprimary areas in which they excelled. The onsitereviewers have met with school leaders at the endof their visits to point out their general observationsabout how the school was running.

The System in PracticeThe System in PracticeThe System in PracticeThe System in PracticeThe System in Practice

As with the entire Indianapolis initiative, theaccountability systems described above have only justbegun to be implemented. No school has yet reachedthe mid-term review, where it will face a high-stakesexternal review of all of its operations. And, of course,no school has reached the end of its charter. So itremains to be seen how all of these systems will cometogether to inform renewal decisions by the mayorabout charter schools.


The Indianapolis charter school initiative is still inits early stages, but already some clear lessons can belearned from the city’s experience. These lessons maybe especially useful to state policymakers, charter schoolauthorizers and policy advocates, and mayors acrossthe country. In thinking about lessons for other places,it is important not to regard the elements of theIndianapolis initiative as an inextricably linked package.Other cities and states could look to components ofthe Indianapolis experience for ideas, including: theidea of mayor as authorizer, the broader idea of mayoras charter school champion (even without charteringauthority), and the mayor’s systems for accountabilityand generation of charter applications (which couldbe of interest to any type of authorizer).

The The The The The VVVVValue of a Mayor as a Charalue of a Mayor as a Charalue of a Mayor as a Charalue of a Mayor as a Charalue of a Mayor as a Charter Scter Scter Scter Scter SchoolhoolhoolhoolhoolChampionChampionChampionChampionChampion

For a charter system to thrive in a city it needssupport, and a mayor is in a particularly strong positionto provide that backing—even if the mayor is not thecharter authorizer. Some of the most striking aspectsof the Indianapolis initiative—such as the effort togenerate a supply of quality applicants and to developa facilities financing program—could be pursued byany mayor, not just an authorizing mayor. In fact, theseroles might be more natural for a non-authorizingmayor to play. Mayors are in a special position to serveas charter school champions for a number of reasons:

! Ability to mobilize the city’s resources.Although city government is often on the outsideof public education, it has numerous resourcesthat can be immensely valuable to schools. And amayor is in a unique position to mobilize thoseresources. In Indianapolis, the mayor’s involvementhas created a facilities financing program withinthe city’s bond bank; encouraged the parksdepartment to collaborate with schools onprograms; helped the schools gain access to thepublic library’s extensive collection and services;used public access television to inform the publicabout the charter initiative; raised money fromphilanthropic and private entities; and generated

many other connections, large and small, to benefitcharter schools. Other possibilities for mobilizingthe city’s resources could include: making surpluscity buildings available to charter schools; co-location of city services with charter schools; linkingcharter schools with city youth developmentprograms (such as mentoring); and providing low-cost housing for charter school teachers.

! Opportunity to serve as advocate. Charterschools face a multitude of obstacles toopening—and as they grow, new obstacles oftenemerge. To reach their potential, charter schoolsneed advocates. Mayor Peterson has been apowerful supporter of charter schools in Indiana.To start, he played a critical role in advocating forIndiana’s charter schools legislation. When questionsemerged about the level of funding charters wouldreceive during their first semester, Mayor Petersonagain was an aggressive advocate for the schools.When facilities emerged as a central challenge, hesuccessfully petitioned the Legislature to allowthe Indianapolis Public Improvement Bond Bankto finance charter schools. When the system forfunding charter schools was in question, he testifiedand otherwise worked diligently to forge a solutionthat was workable for both charter schools andschool districts. He has also worked hard to raiseprivate funds for charter schools. While thesespecific instances of advocacy have been important,the mayor’s broader backing of the charter sectoris also worth noting. By lending his high-profileendorsement to the work of charter schools, themayor gives the movement a stamp of approvalthat helps schools attract families, funding, andcommunity support.

! Ability to leverage outside resources. A mayoris also uniquely able to bring entities outside ofgovernment together to support schools. InIndianapolis, the mayor’s office has beeninstrumental in raising private funds in support ofthe charter initiative, partnering with a universityto bring excellent programs and support to theschools, getting the business community involved

Lessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So FarLessons Learned So Far


by providing board members and other help, andencouraging strong local community organizationsto launch new schools.

! Regulatory assistance. Opening a new charterschool requires operators to navigate a series ofregulatory hurdles. The mayor’s office has been astrong advocate for its charter schools with variouslocal and state agencies and has taken steps tohelp schools work through a complex field ofrequirements.

The The The The The VVVVValue of a Mayor as alue of a Mayor as alue of a Mayor as alue of a Mayor as alue of a Mayor as AuthorAuthorAuthorAuthorAuthorizizizizizererererer

Nationwide, state legislatures are grappling withthe question of which entities should be given theauthority to grant charters and oversee charter schools.Candidates include local and state boards of education,universities and community colleges, nonprofit agencies,mayors and municipalities, and special-purposeorganizations created with charter school authorizingas their sole mission.

As noted above, the mayor of Indianapolis is thenation’s only mayor with chartering authority.22 Theearly experience in Indianapolis suggests that there aresome distinct advantages to having a city’s mayor serveas an authorizer, or at least as one of the authorizersavailable in the city:

! Visibility and transparency. When a city’s mayoracts, the city’s media, leadership, and citizens tendto notice. For example, when Mayor Petersonreleased the first accountability report in 2003, therelease was covered by television stations, the dailynewspaper, and the local business paper. The mayormet with the newspaper’s editorial board, and stafffrom his charter schools office appeared ontelevision talk shows. This kind of attention bringsa much higher level of visibility to a mayor-sponsored charter sector. Among other benefits,visibility significantly strengthens schoolaccountability. Schools know that the media willcover a mayor’s release of school performancedata and that the public will know about theirschools’ performance. As a result, mayor-sponsored charter schools face inherently strongincentives to improve their schools—without anyinfringement by the mayor’s office on the schools’autonomy. Transparency highlights schools’challenges, but leaves it in the schools’ hands tofind solutions.

! Authorizer accountability. Charter schools willbe of better quality and held to higher levels ofaccountability if the authorizer is also heldaccountable for its performance. As an officialelected by the people of the city, a mayor is directlyaccountable to citizens for the performance ofcity government. This accountability creates astrong incentive for a mayor to make good decisionsas a charter authorizer. Issuing charters to low-quality schools or acting in other ways that arecontrary to the public interest undermines thesupport for a mayor among the public and civicleaders. This kind of accountability is difficult toreplicate in entities that are more removed fromthe citizenry.

! Knowledge of the community. A mayor’s officeis, typically, well connected with a city’sneighborhoods and knowledgeable about theorganizations and individuals active in the city’slife. A mayor is also attuned to the city’s challenges.When presented with a charter application, a mayoris thus uniquely capable of sizing up the proposal,judging the applicant’s capability, and determiningwhether the application addresses a compellingneed. Authorizers with statewide reach are unlikelyto have such direct knowledge about local needsand actors.

! Sustainability. Charter schools are very popularwith families. It is a great advantage to high-qualitycharter schools to have renewal decisions madeby a public official directly accountable to thepeople being served by a charter school. It wouldbe difficult for any mayor to close a charter schoolin his or her community where parents are happyand for which there is a wealth of data detailingthe school’s success. The more removed thechartering authority is from the people beingserved, the greater the danger that rash andimprudent decisions could be made.

ChallengChallengChallengChallengChallenges of Mayores of Mayores of Mayores of Mayores of Mayoral al al al al AuthorAuthorAuthorAuthorAuthorizingizingizingizingizing

Having the mayor as authorizer also presents sometough challenges. First, playing the role of authorizerwell requires an extraordinary commitment of timeand energy by the mayor. In Indianapolis, the mayorhas been able to hire staff and consultants to carryout the day-to-day work of the office. When it comestime to make difficult decisions, though, the mayor


himself has had to devote the time necessary to decidewell. With each application decision-cycle, for example,come lengthy meetings involving the mayor and topaides. The stakes surrounding decisions such as whetherto approve a particular charter are high—bothsubstantively and politically—and so the mayor findsthis kind of personal involvement essential.

Second, the mayor’s office in most cities has toapproach authorizing with very little, if any, expertisein education or in overseeing schools. All of the systemsand initiatives described in the previous pages have tobe created from scratch. While a mayor’s office candraw on the practices of other authorizers, as MayorPeterson did, the design and implementation challengeis still significant. No doubt, starting from scratch withoutthe accumulated baggage that afflicts many districts’systems has its advantages: A mayor’s office can buildfrom the start an oversight system that holds autonomousschools accountable. But no one should underestimatethe magnitude of the task, which involves:

! Crafting an application process that insists on ahigh standard of quality while still allowing asignificant number of schools to open;

! Generating a pool of charter applicants preparedto meet those high standards;

! Designing an accountability system that givesparents, the public, the schools, and the mayorgood information about school performance,while respecting school autonomy;

! Mobilizing local political, business, community, andphilanthropic support for the charter idea; and

! Advocating and furthering the cause of charteringand charter schools at the state level.

With that list in mind, it is not terribly surprisingthat more mayors have not actively sought charteringauthority. While chartering provides a potentiallyvaluable lever for mayors in education, the lever comeswith significant obligations.

Finally, how sustainable is mayoral authorizing overtime, as individual mayors come and go? InIndianapolis, for example, will Mayor Peterson’ssuccessor share his interest in chartering? If not, whatwill happen to charter schools as an initiative in thecity? It is difficult to imagine a new mayor closing theexisting charter schools, but a less enthusiastic mayor

could easily impose a moratorium on new schools,and change the regulatory regime unfavorably for theexisting charters. Turnover in leadership is not uniquelychallenging for mayors; it can cause difficulties for anykind of authorizer. How this question will play out inIndianapolis, of course, remains to be seen. MayorPeterson, however, who began his second four-yearterm in early 2004, continues to build partnerships withnew charter stakeholders, and develop and strengthenthe infrastructure necessary to ensure the future ofcharter schooling in Indianapolis.

The ImporThe ImporThe ImporThe ImporThe Importance of Financial and Humantance of Financial and Humantance of Financial and Humantance of Financial and Humantance of Financial and HumanResourcesResourcesResourcesResourcesResources

One advantage the mayor’s office in Indianapolishas is access to considerable philanthropic resourcesfor the design and implementation job. In addition tocity funds for the basic staffing of the office, the mayor’soffice has enjoyed support nationally (from the AnnieE. Casey Foundation) and locally (from the RichardM. Fairbanks Foundation). Too many authorizersnationally take up the responsibility of sponsorshipwithout the necessary resources. As a result, they areforced to use inadequate systems, or, in the case ofpre-existing educational organizations like states anddistricts, fall back on conventional approaches tooversight. The infusion of philanthropic funds in theearly years of the Indianapolis initiative helped themayor’s office avoid these pitfalls. Financial resourcesprimarily go to pay for human resources—skilledleadership for the charter schools office, expertconsulting from national experts, and expert assistancefrom local organizations and individuals with site visits,surveys, and financial reviews.

Dilemmas of Meeting the Supply ChallengeDilemmas of Meeting the Supply ChallengeDilemmas of Meeting the Supply ChallengeDilemmas of Meeting the Supply ChallengeDilemmas of Meeting the Supply Challenge

Like many cities, Indianapolis has struggled tosupply enough top-quality charter schools to meetparental demand. Some first-rate local entrepreneurshave emerged to start schools, but this supply is notendless. As described above, the mayor’s office hasresponded to this challenge with an aggressivecampaign to recruit operators or proven school modelsto open schools in Indianapolis. This initiative hasachieved some successes, but it has not been withoutdifficulties. First, leaders of the proven models stillhave the challenge of recruiting school leaders to headthe schools they start in Indianapolis. Second, activerecruitment of school-starters can put the mayor’s office


in a tenuous position. Having encouraged applicantswho promise to use proven educational models, themayor must then review those applications anddetermine if they meet his high standard for approval.If they do not, he must reject the applications of groupswho, only weeks before, his office was actively courting.Although this situation is not ideal, it is the inevitableresult of the confluence of various factors: the mayor’scommitment to scaling-up the initiative, his insistenceon high-quality standards for approval, and the dearthof local applicants who meet those standards.

The ImporThe ImporThe ImporThe ImporThe Importance of Ptance of Ptance of Ptance of Ptance of Pararararartnertnertnertnertnershipsshipsshipsshipsships

In creating a citywide charter school initiative, it isimpossible to underestimate the importance ofcommunity leaders and organizations stepping forwardto play critical roles. In Indianapolis, these roles haveincluded:

! Founding schools. First and foremost, respectedcommunity organizations have spearheaded effortsto start individual schools. In the first cohort ofschools, these included Flanner House (a 100-year-old social service agency), the GEO Foundation(a prominent parent education and advocacyorganization), and Christel House (which operateschildren’s homes worldwide from its Indianapolisbase). The second cohort included a high schoolcreated by Flanner House and a school initiatedby Indiana Black Expo, an organization thatshowcases the achievements of African Americans.Subsequent cohorts will include schools launchedby Southeast Neighborhood Development (aneighborhood-based community developmentcorporation), a second school initiated by theGEO Foundation, and Goodwill Industries (whichhelps people find work and provides educationalopportunities for them to enhance theiremployability). These schools’ affiliations with well-established organizations provide them witheverything from a foundation of communitysupport to practical help with operationalconcerns, such as bookkeeping and facilities.

! Supporting schools. As independent entities nottied to any school district, charter schools oftenlook to community partners to provide theservices and connections they need to succeed.Partnerships formed with community institutionsto support charter schools in Indianapolis are too

numerous to list. The section of this reportentitled “Leveraging Community Resources”discusses some of the more prominentpartnerships.

! Creating an environment supportive of charterschools. Partnerships also help more generally,by creating a climate in which charter schools arean accepted and supported part of the local publiceducation landscape. Charter schooling iscontroversial everywhere, but communitypartnerships allow people across the communityto see charter schools in action, rather than as someabstract political concept. As a result of positiveexperiences in working with charter schools,partners in Indianapolis have become allies inefforts to keep the environment strong for charterschools in the state.

QualityQualityQualityQualityQuality::::: The Essential IngrThe Essential IngrThe Essential IngrThe Essential IngrThe Essential Ingredientedientedientedientedient

In this age of accountability in education, no onehas patience for any school initiative that is notrigorously focused on quality—parents demand it;policymakers expect it; and funders and communitypartners want to see it.

Time and again, the importance of the mayor’scommitment to quality has been highlighted inIndianapolis. It is vital to be able to express the mayor’sbottom-line commitment to educational excellencewhen seeking funds from private philanthropists;recruiting individuals to serve on charter boards;speaking with state legislators, city councilors, or themedia about charter schools; or talking with parentsabout the value of charter schools. It is equally vitalto be able to back up that commitment with tangibleevidence: the rigorous application process, the thoroughperformance contract each school signs, and the wide-scale sharing of information about schools, both goodand bad.

While “holding schools accountable for results”has become a mantra in today’s educational circles, ithas proven challenging to enforce accountability withoutsmothering educators in regulations and constraints.The early lesson from Indianapolis is that the solutionto that dilemma is transparency—making the full gamutof data about each school fully and widely availableto parents and the public.

The centerpieces of transparency in Indianapolishave been the accountability report published by themayor’s office—which presents detailed, unvarnished


school performance information about every mayor-sponsored charter school annually—and the mayor’scharter school website, which provides even more data.As a result of this transparency, school operators knowtheir progress will be measured and publicly reported.They know that everyone, from parents andprospective parents to funders and legislators, willknow how their institutions are performing. As aconsequence, the schools act regularly to improve theirperformance. Not because they were told what to doby the mayor’s office, or required to do so by some

policy or regulation, but because they know they haveto take steps to boost their performance in advanceof the next cycle of reporting.

Transparency makes accountability possiblewithout micromanagement. The result is a system inwhich innovation and creativity can thrive, schools canrespond to the needs of children and families, andeveryone will know how schools are performing andprogressing from year to year. Any kind of charterauthorizer can benefit from examining how the mayor’soffice handled these issues.


These early lessons learned suggest a number ofrecommendations that may be helpful to other statesand cities contemplating ways to create strong sectorsof new schools within their own borders.

1. More states should experiment with mayors-as-authorizers. Nationally, state legislators havecontinued to tinker with authorizing structures.Lawmakers in Colorado, Idaho, and Utah recentlycreated special-purpose entities to serve as charterauthorizers. Legislation was enacted in Ohioempowering nonprofits that meet certain criteriato become authorizers. And yet in no state exceptIndiana have mayor been tappeds authorizers.While the Indianapolis experience does not in anyway prove that mayors will always make goodauthorizers, it does prove that mayors can makegood authorizers. States are missing out on anopportunity by not tapping this potential resource.

2. States should include mayors among multipleauthorizers. Simply granting authorizing authorityto mayors does not ensure that they will use itwell, or even that they will use it at all. Some mayors,for example, oppose charter schools. In stateswhere legislators are considering mayoralauthorization, therefore, mayors and entities otherthan local school boards should be empowered toauthorize charters.

3. More mayors should explore charter authorizingand other ways of supporting chartering.Mayors everywhere are looking for ways to havean impact on public education. In some high-profilecities, they have actually been given control oflarge city districts. In most places, mayors work

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

around the edges, with no formal authority. Servingas a charter authorizer provides a way for mayorsto become directly involved in education withouttaking over the school system, which is oftenpolitically impossible or undesirable. Even withoutauthorizing power, mayors can provide vitalbacking for the charter sector in their cities.

4. Authorizers should find ways to allocatesufficient resources to the task. MayorPeterson’s experience shows the importance ofhaving sufficient resources to do the job ofauthorizing. Too often, state policymakers expectauthorizers to take on the job of schoolsponsorship without any revenue. The result ofthis expectation is that authorizing is oftenshoehorned into an existing structure and addedto someone’s already full plate. The kind ofdeliberative planning and execution seen inIndianapolis is not feasible in that context.Prospective authorizers without access to a fundingstream under state policy, and unwilling to allocatethe internal resources for the process to functionproperly, should not take on this role.

5. A range of actors needs to contribute togenerating a better supply of new schools forthe future. In Indianapolis, the mayor’s office hastaken on that role. But as noted in this report, doingso creates an awkward situation. While authorizershave a role to play in supply-generation, ideally, awider range of organizations would take on thatchallenge, such as private resource centers for newschools, charter school associations, new schoolincubators, colleges and universities, andcommunity-based organizations.


ConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusionConclusion

As this report has described, the young Indianapolischarter school initiative can already claim a number ofsuccesses:

! Many community leaders have stepped forward tospearhead the creation of charter schools, bringingnew energy and resources into public education.

! Parents have flocked to the new schools, lining upon waiting lists and noting increasing satisfactionwith their children’s experiences.

! Students in most charter schools are making steadyprogress in reading, language, and math, and inmany cases outpacing Indiana and national normsfor growth.

! The mayor has established a comprehensiveaccountability system for the schools, with highexpectations and transparent sharing of data aboutthe schools with the public.

As is the case elsewhere, the charter sector inIndianapolis will ultimately be judged by its effects on

students, families, neighborhoods, and the city as awhole, and those long-term effects remain to be seen.Though the elementary and middle schools are makinggood progress, they are still young. The one high schoolopen in 2003-2004 struggled in its first year, and facessignificant challenges as it enters its second year. Inaddition, the initiative’s growth in 2004-2005 (doublingfrom five schools to 10) represents a much fasterexpansion than in the initiative’s first two years, whichcould tax the mayor’s systems.

As of the spring of 2004, mayor-sponsored charterschools in Indianapolis represents a small fraction ofthe city’s students—less than 1 percent. But just theschools already chartered will double that fraction by2005 and triple it by 2008. If all goes as planned, morehigh-quality applicants will receive charters in thecoming years. The result should be a large, vibrantsector of newly formed public schools. If successful,these schools will provide excellent educations forthe children who attend them, forge new models thatcan serve as examples for other schools, demonstrateeffective accountability in public education, and exerta wide, positive impact on public schooling inIndianapolis.


EndnotesEndnotesEndnotesEndnotesEndnotes

1 The “value added” is measured as the degree to which the school strengthens the learning of its students.2 Swanson, Christopher B., “Who Graduates? Who Doesn’t? A Statistical Portrait of Public High School Graduation, Classof 2001,” The Urban Institute Education Policy Center, February 2004, http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410934. According tothis study, only 30.6 percent of students entering the ninth grade in Indianapolis Public Schools will complete high schoolwith a regular diploma in four years, given the conditions prevailing in Indiana during the 2000-2001 school year. Theestimated national average is 68 percent.3 “ISTEP Results,” Indiana Department of Education, 2004, http://www.doe.state.in.us/istep/welcome.html.4 Ibid.5 The Center for Education Reform (CER) rates and ranks the nation’s state charter school laws on the basis of ten differentcriteria (including number of schools, number of chartering authorities, start-ups, autonomy, and exemption from collectivebargaining agreements). This national organization, an advocate for school choice, interprets a law as being strong when itencourages applicants and charter operations and does not impose heavy administrative burdens, stifle creativity, or requireand charter schools to follow most existing education rules and regulations. The Indiana law is strong for the followingreasons, according to CER’s ranking criteria: It allows state university sponsorship statewide and the mayor of Indianapolisto charter schools; allows for the legal autonomy charters need in terms of hiring, district rules, and union contracts; and,allows for an unlimited number of charter schools to open in the state. See “Charter School Laws Across the States: RankingScorecard and Legislative Profiles,” The Center for Education Reform, February 2004, http://www.edreform.com/_upload/charter_school_laws.pdf6 “Brown Center Report on American Education 2003,” Brookings Institution, 2003, http://www.brookings.edu/gs/brown/bc_report/2003/2003report.htm; “Charter School Operations and Performance: Evidence from California,” RAND, 2003, http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1700/index.html; and “Strengthening Pennsylvania’s Charter School Reform: Findings fromthe Statewide Evaluation,” Western Michigan University Evaluation Center, 2002, http://www.wmich.edu/~evalctr/charter/pa_5year/executive_summary_pa_cs_eval.pdf.7 Nelson, F. Howard, Bella Rosenberg, and Nancy Van Meter, “Charter School Achievement on the 2003 National Assessmentof Educational Progress,” American Federation of Teachers, 2004.8 Schworm, Peter, “Urban Charter Schools Score a Win,” Boston Globe, May 10, 2004.9 RPP International, “Challenge and Opportunity: The Impact of Charter Schools on School Districts, A Report of theNational Study of Charter Schools,” Office of Educational Research and Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, June 2001.10 Halsband, Robin, “Charter Schools Benefit Economic Community Development,” Journal of Housing and CommunityDevelopment, November 2003, http://www.lisc.org/resources/assets/asset_upload_file232_6704.pdf.11 Source for national charter school grade-level configurations: SRI International, “A Decade of Public CharterSchools, Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: 2000-2001 Evaluation Report,” U.S. Department ofEducation, http://www.sri.com/policy/cep/choice/yr2.pdf. National figures were from the 2000-2001 school year, duringwhich SRI reports that 1,988 charter schools operated nationally.12 All data in this section derived from: “2004 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Office ofthe Mayor, City of Indianapolis, August 2004, http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/.13 This analysis was not possible for Flanner House Higher Learning Center because the Northwest Evaluation Associationdoes not publish proficiency levels for ninth to 12th grade.14 In spring 2003, the University of Indianapolis administered surveys to all charter school parents. Chart 1 indicates thepercentage of parents across all three charter schools who indicated that they were “very satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied”with various features of their children’s charter schools. Response rates at the five schools ranged from 50 percent to 76percent of parents in 2004. Response rates at the three schools in 2003 ranged from 43 percent to 78 percent.15 Sources of these three quotations, respectively: Mary Kay Shields, President, National Charter Schools Institute, Letter toMayor Bart Peterson, December 11, 2001; Jeanne Allen, President, Center for Education Reform, Letter to Mayor BartPeterson, December 10, 2001; Andrea Neal,“Mayor Peterson Has Reason to Boast,” Indianapolis Star, December 26, 2001.16 This description of the mayor’s office’s accountability system is adapted from “2004 Accountability Report on Mayor-Sponsored Charter Schools,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, August 2004, Supplemental Report #7, http://www.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/.17 For a detailed description of the Framework, see http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/pdf/accountability_handbook.pdf.


18 The Accountability Handbook is online at http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/pdf/accountability_handbook.pdf.19 Survey instruments and the results of the 2003 surveys available in “2003 Accountability Report on Mayor-SponsoredCharter Schools,” Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, September 2003, http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/.20 For a detailed description of governance oversight established by the mayor’s office, refer to the Governance Handbook,available online at http://www.indygov.org/mayor/charter/pdf/governance_handbook.pdf.21 Ibid.22 Although Indianapolis is the only city in which the mayor is a charter authorizer, there are some other examples of mayoraland municipal involvement in authorizing. Wisconsin legislation authorizes Milwaukee’s Common Council to issue charters.The mayor of Washington, D.C. plays a role in the appointment of the D.C. Public Charter School Board, which one of thatcity’s charter school authorizers. And in cities where the mayor exerts control over the school district, and the school district isa charter authorizer (such as Chicago and New York City), the mayor can play an indirect role in authorizing. But none of theseexamples match the mayor’s direct role in Indianapolis.

About the AuthorBryan C. Hassel is co-director of Public Impact. He consults nationally on charter schools and the reform of exist-ing public schools. In the charter school arena, he is a recognized expert on state charter school policies, account-ability and oversight systems, and facilities financing. Other areas of education reform in which he has workedextensively include school district restructuring, comprehensive school reform, and teaching quality. PresidentGeorge W. Bush appointed him to serve on the national Commission on Excellence in Special Education, which pro-duced its report in July 2002. In addition to numerous articles, monographs, and how-to guides for practitioners, heis the author of The Charter School Challenge: Avoiding the Pitfalls, Fulfilling the Promise and co-editor of Learningfrom School Choice, published by the Brookings Institution Press in 1999 and 1998. He is also the co-author of PickyParent Guide: Choose Your Child's School with Confidence, published in May 2004.

AcknowledgementsThe author would like to thank the many people who provided assistance with the preparation of this report.Renée Rybak, Andrew Rotherham, and Sara Mead from the Progressive Policy Institute provided valuable editingand feedback throughout. The office of Mayor Bart Peterson made available reams of data on student achieve-ment, parent satisfaction, and other topics covered in this report. Gathering that information, in turn, required thegreat effort and cooperation of staff at charter schools in Indianapolis, who were very forthcoming with informa-tion. Representatives of the mayor’s office, especially David Harris, also reviewed earlier drafts of the report forfactual accuracy. Michelle Godard Terrell and Sejal Doshi conducted research for the report. Numerous individu-als, including Adam Lowe and Margaret Lin, reviewed drafts of the document and provided immensely helpfulcommentary on its contents.

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20003(202) 547-0001 q Fax: (202) 544-5014

www.ppionline.org

fast break in indianapolis - eric · fast break is the fifth in a series of reports that analyze...

Documents