 |
|||
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
Fellowship PaperIn Service of Children: By Janet Begin Hill View Montessori Charter Public School and Kara Kosmes Haverhill Public Schools Massachusetts Charter School Association 2005 Introduction From the time education reform laws first brought charter schools to life in Massachusetts, battles have raged between charter and district. You need to look no further than the headlines in the news over the past several years to see the dissension. A Berkshire Eagle headline read, “Charter School Plan Provokes Hot Debate” (Drohan, 9 January 2003) and the Boston Globe a few weeks later echoed this sentiment with: “Teachers Union Hits Charter School Proposals” (Vaishnav, 22 January 2003). And it is not just the papers; the State House News Service headlined, “Friends and Foes Launch 2003 Battle of the Charter School War” (Tangney, 13 February 2003). Two years later a Metro Daily West headline read: “Charter Schools Blasted on Website” (Breitrose, 25 March 2005). It sounds more like a war than education, and there seems to be no end in sight. Funded by state and local tax dollars, district and charter schools are accountable to the taxpayers and to public school children. Further, charter schools are mandated to share best practices with local districts (Charter School Regulations 603 CMR 1.09 1 d and Charter School Law MGL Chapter 71: Section 89 s). In light of these shared responsibilities, and to ensure that children reap the rewards of a vibrant public school system, it makes sense to build strategies for positive and productive relations between district and charter schools. After all, even negative relationships require time and energy, and the fighting is not without loss. Key players in Haverhill, Massachusetts have, to date, decided to invest their energies in positive relations between Hill View Montessori Charter Public School (HVM) and district schools—to the benefit of each. Up to this point, the charter school has gained more benefits because as a new organization it has less to offer than a more established district. However, just as entrepreneurial companies, once established, have provided important lessons for more experienced companies, there’s no reason to doubt that district schools will gain more benefits in the future. The relationship is in the early stages of what will hopefully be a long lasting partnership. In addition, the relationship benefits from an atmosphere devoid of serious attacks, and the vehement responses to such attacks, that have occurred in other communities. Perhaps this has been the case of a chance meeting of the right minds at the right time, but more likely intentional actions taken have encouraged collaboration. In this paper, we (the authors—Janet Begin, HVM Founder and Trustee of the HVM Board of Trustees, and Kara Kosmes, Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations, Haverhill Public Schools) provide a case for collaboration. We also describe some of the obstacles we faced when HVM came to town, as well as how we worked to build collaborative, productive relationships. Finally, we provide straightforward tips for others to use in building cooperative relationships between charter and district schools. We hope our experience will help public education. It is time for those in charter and district schools to put their differences aside and put their shared commitment to children at the front of their work. The Case for Collaboration Some may argue that it is enough to stop the battles; it is enough for charters and districts to co-exist peacefully. If we settle for such neutrality, however, we’ve missed an opportunity, and we’ve abnegated some of our responsibility as public educators. We feel there are three important reasons to choose collaboration over co-existence, or worse yet, continued fighting. First, charter schools are written into law as part of public education in Massachusetts. Charter schools were introduced in Massachusetts as part of the 1993 education reform laws with the intent to keep public education vibrant. They were introduced to provide options in public education and to spur innovation and improvement in district schools across the Commonwealth. As stated in the General Laws of Massachusetts: The purposes for establishing charter schools are: (1) to stimulate the development of innovative programs within public education; (2) to provide opportunities for innovative learning and assessments; (3) to provide parents and students with greater options in choosing schools within and outside their school districts; (4) to provide teachers with a vehicle for establishing schools with alternative, innovative methods of educational instruction and school structure and management; (5) to encourage performance-based educational programs; (6) to hold teachers and school administrators accountable for students' educational outcomes; and (7) to provide models for replication in other public schools.” (Chapter 71: Section 89 d) Legislators felt that options and innovation coupled with mandated dissemination would provide benefit to all public school children. As public educators, it is our responsibility to uphold these laws and to optimize the educational benefits of our students, but as pointed out in an editorial in the Daily Hampshire Gazette (“In Our Opinion: Schools Must Cooperate,” 28 January 2005), living out the cooperation explicit in these laws is important, but far from easy: Because local schools tend to treat charter schools as competitors rather than as partners, it can't be easy for charter schools to reach out. Some traditional school staff are outright hostile to any ideas emanating from charter schools. Others are friendlier, but few seem to embrace charter schools as sources of important information for their own teaching . . . . It is time for true cooperation among all teachers and school administrators to make the best use of innovations for the benefit of all schoolchildren. Without this cooperation, taxpayers are being deprived of a critical piece of the education reform that our tax dollars support. Second, through collaboration there is the opportunity for creative solutions. When charter schools and district schools cooperate and problem-solve together, capacity is strengthened and resources are gained. Leigh Thompson, J. Jay Gerber Distinguished Professor of Dispute Resolution and Organizations in the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University, holds that negotiation is not a “fixed pie” where the “other party’s interests are directly and completely opposed to one’s own interests. . . . Negotiation is not a purely competitive situation” (2005, 75). Further, Iris Bonnet, author of Cooperation and Communication, points out that if people are willing to work together, trust each other and share, they reach integrative deals where everyone is better off than when they are working at odds (2004, 3). In other words, if district and charters work together as a team of public educators, we increase the available options (read: the size of the pie) and are more likely to have a win-win situation than if we work against each other. Third, and most important, collaboration brings direct benefits to children. Imagine charter and district school teachers and administrators sharing innovative practices and building off each other’s successes, strengthening student learning. Imagine both charter and district school families receiving the enthusiastic support of the larger community--at ease and better able to focus on learning. Imagine district and charter schools working together, modeling positive and respectful relations. See Appendix A for specific examples of how collaboration between Haverhill and HVM benefits the city’s children, socially, emotionally, and academically. Appendix A also provides details on what may have resulted if that collaboration did not exist. Collaboration in Urban Contexts--Impossible or Necessary? Haverhill, Massachusetts, currently the twelfth largest school district in Massachusetts, is a moderate-sized city with over 60,000 residents representing diverse cultural, educational, and economic backgrounds. Formerly one of the premier shoe manufacturing centers during the early part of the 1900’s, Haverhill has seen the demise of most of its factories and corresponding workforce, and an increase in residents who work outside of the city. The Haverhill district schools have changed in tandem with these changes. At one time there were nearly 30 small neighborhood schools that served the many neighborhoods of Haverhill. Today, most of these small schools have been closed and replaced by larger, more centralized state-of-the-art facilities (14 school buildings in all). From FY93 to FY99, Haverhill Public Schools saw its school budgets increase by several million dollars each year as a result of the Massachusetts Educational Reform Act of 1993. Four new elementary schools were constructed, and a middle school was totally renovated to handle the ever-increasing influx of new students each year. New programs were added, old programs were expanded, grants were plentiful, and it seemed that Haverhill had finally reestablished the comprehensive, well-rounded curriculum that had been minimized during the 1980’s when Proposition 2 budget cuts were in full swing. FY00 brought about the beginning of three major changes that would throw the schools and the city into a major tailspin, both financially and politically. The first of these was the beginning of the state’s financial crisis, which created a trickle down effect that resulted in minimal, or no, increases in local aid for both city and schools. Haverhill had never been a city that generated additional revenues from tax overrides. Instead, the city and school budgets relied entirely on funding obtained from state aid and local tax receipts. In essence, level funding from the state meant budget cuts due to the fact that to maintain the status quo, fixed costs like salary contracts and escalating health insurance would eat up more of the budget. As school budgets tightened, the city found itself sinking deeper and deeper into debt each year. This was due, in part, to the fact that Haverhill operated the state’s only remaining municipal hospital, a hospital that put additional strain on the city budget (as discussed in Haverhill City Council and School Committee meetings during budget preparation sessions, in Fiscal Years 03, 04, and 05). The hospital was sold in 2001, but there were strict conditions placed on the sale (Fiscal Year Budget, City of Haverhill, 18 July 2003, 5-7). Not only was the city required to address all outstanding debts and deficits, which totaled in excess of 20 million dollars, but it was also mandated to continue to fund the municipal pension plan for hundreds of the hospital’s displaced employees. In dollars and cents, this meant the city faced a devastating 7 million dollar annual debt for the next 20 years (Fiscal Year Budget, City of Haverhill, 18 July 2003, 16). Finally, Haverhill High School, up for re-accreditation in 2000, received notification from the Massachusetts Department of Education that it was being placed on probation--due primarily to the poor condition of its 40-year-old building. Needed repairs totaled 27 million dollars (Knight, Bagge, and Anderson, Architect’s Feasibility Report on Repairs Needed for Haverhill High School, 2001), and a ballot question requesting a debt exclusion to cover this expense failed by an overwhelming margin. The city council, fearing the repercussions of a non-accredited high school, voted to fund the repairs through the already overburdened city budget. While the school department was grateful for this commitment by the council, they knew that it would come at the cost of any hope of additional resources from the city to help the district school budget. The fiscal effect of these three events was devastating. The city was forced to layoff dozens of employees and cut back services--primarily in the areas of public safety. Taxpayers saw their real estate taxes climb to the levy limit and also saw increases in water and other fees. School budget reductions exceeded 20 million dollars over the next four years. More than 200 employees (mostly teachers) were laid off (Fiscal Year Budget, City of Haverhill, 18 July 2003, 18), and many of the programs that were so carefully implemented in the 1990’s were systematically dismantled due to lack of funding. Individual school budgets and some program budgets were reduced nearly 50 percent. Parents were assessed fees for student activities such as athletics, and tuition rates were increased for pre-school and other such programs. Building principals were constantly turning to parents and parent-teacher organizations to help subsidize supplies and other needed items. Haverhill is governed by elected officials consisting of a mayor, nine city councilors, and a seven-member school committee (of which the mayor serves as chairperson). As in many towns, the community can be politically charged. Not all members see eye-to-eye, and there is a tendency of the city council to be critical of the school committee, and vice versa, especially in financially challenging times. However, despite reduced funding, the city and schools managed to limp through Fiscal Years 00 to 04; officials hoped for better times and some increased funding from the state in FY05. In this politically and financially charged context, Hill View Montessori Charter School was scheduled to open. The creation of a charter school meant that Haverhill and the district schools faced a potential annual reduction of 1 million dollars from the district schools budget, as state funds would “follow the student” and cover the tuition of students enrolled in the charter school. To many district leaders, the approval of the charter school could not have come at a worse time. Challenges to Collaboration: Problems or Opportunities? Building successful relationships between charter and district schools requires giving your best effort and negotiating a host of obstacles. In Haverhill we experienced some common roadblocks to cooperation, among them: 1) scarce resources, 2) contentious attitudes, and 3) a lack of investment in broader relationships. Our efforts have helped us overcome some of theses obstacles or have at least mitigated their effects. Roadblock #1: Scarce Resources When education reform laws were first initiated in the early 1990s, the economy was strong and school systems were receiving large increases in state funding. The past few years have been different. The economy is suffering, and Chapter 70 state aid has been consistently cut or level funded. School districts across the state have been required to do with less and many have been forced to cut services. Additionally, charter schools, which receive Chapter 70 aid for the students they support, are often seen as yet another drain on already limited district resources. Naturally, this puts strain on district and charter relations. In Haverhill, where the debt-ridden hospital added to the district’s financial stress, a charter school seemed particularly threatening to local school officials. Former Haverhill Public Schools Superintendent, Dr. Arthur W. Tate aptly expressed this apprehension in an MASCD (Massachusetts Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development) Perspectives article, “Look Who Just Moved into the Neighborhood: A Charter School Comes to Haverhill.” He wrote, “To a school committee and superintendent, a charter school is the specter of their greatest nightmare--a public school sanctioned by the state that will suck away funds at a rate that takes the budget breath away” (Tate, Fitzgerald, and Begin 2004, 14). But the district gained an unexpected benefit once the Hill View Montessori Charter Public School (HVM) secured a building. In the course of searching for a site, HVM realized that some of the schools being closed through the district-consolidation plan might suit their facility needs. Charter and district school representatives decided to get together and see whether the city might lease one of these buildings to HVM. After discussion, the district decided to keep one building under its control rather than surplus it, as was done with the other closed schools; by doing so they allowed HVM to occupy the building sooner than if it had gone through the normal bidding process for a lease, thereby facilitating HVM’s timely opening for students in August 2004. In turn, HVM put a higher priority on this facility than on other options, knowing that the lease money would go directly to the city. In the end, the mayor approved a $50,000 allocation of HVM’s rental income (from a $100,000 total) to the district schools for the 2004-05 school year. As a direct result of this collaboration, funds became available to the town; additional funds were earmarked to serve Haverhill’s district students, and an appropriate facility was secured for the charter school’s operation. Collaboration resulted in a second financial gain, as well, this time to HVM and its students. After HVM rented the vacant school building from the city, founders discovered that utility rates for the city were much lower than the rates they could obtain on their own. This was due to the district’s purchase of electricity, oil, and gas through a regional collaborative, which charter schools are not part of (legislation, Chapter 40, Section E, and Chapter 7, Section 22A, failed to provide for this). The rate difference was significant, so charter and district school representatives entered into a discussion about how we might work together to resolve the problem. A district administrator approached the city auditor and asked about the feasibility of maintaining the utilities under the city’s budget and having HVM reimburse the city directly as these costs were incurred. He agreed, and the city solicitor added an addendum to the charter school’s lease agreement, which was signed by the mayor. This collaboration saved HVM funds, making more money available for the educational needs of the children. A third financial gain resulted from our collaboration on transportation. Under the law, the district school system is required to provide transportation for its resident charter students (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 71 Section 89 ff). In July 2004, the district realized the increased transportation costs had not been included in their budget, and because HVM planned to operate a longer school day and a longer school year than the district schools (necessitating additional busses), the cost was high: nearly $100,000 beyond what the district had budgeted. It was imperative to find a quick solution to the problem, so charter and district representatives scheduled a meeting. Charter school board and staff members, the district school superintendent, the business manager, the transportation director, and the president of the bus company each gave their perspectives on the situation. HVM representatives explained that the extended day and year were integral to the charter school’s unique program. The district was steadfast; they did not have the money and instead requested that the charter adjust their school year and hours to conform to the existing bus routes. The bus company wanted to help but could not afford to absorb the additional $100,000 cost. In truth, these first few meetings were strained at best, and it began to appear as though the district would have a large budget shortfall. Finally, all members of the group agreed to take a step back to see if there were any areas in which a compromise might help. After meeting with its board, the charter school agreed to ask parents to transport students for the extra two weeks of school (one week in August, one in June), and they also agreed to begin the school day a bit later than originally planned so students could utilize the existing bus routes. The bus company president realized that several of his drivers had routes that finished early; rather than allow these drivers to remain idle, he suggested that he assign them to the charter school after their regular route ended. By doing so, HVM’s day could still end 45 minutes later than the last dismissal time of the other public schools, and the bus drivers would only have to work an additional half-hour each day to finish the HVM bus routes. Further, the district realized significant savings with this plan--their financial obligation was approximately $30,000 (over the district’s original budget), rather than the $100,000 it would have cost without collaboration. The examples above illustrate that through collaboration, district and charter schools can benefit from resource gains. Of course, there are many other ways to collaborate and address scarce resources. For example, HVM and Haverhill share physical education resources (fields) and offer each other slots during professional development training sessions. By collaborating, we have found win-win solutions. Roadblock #2: Contentious Attitudes In districts across the state, many people are not educated about charter schools and even those who are, may not feel safe or supported in advocating for positive relationships between charters and districts. This puts some people in a position where they are unable to openly support cooperation between charters and districts. Additionally, as noted earlier, with the media replete with reports of charter and district fighting and various organizations taking sides in this public education debate, it is even more challenging for people to embrace cooperation and avoid taking sides. Unfortunately, even with education, support, and an environment devoid of contention, some people may still be unable to see the value of cooperation. In Haverhill, we have certainly wrestled with contentious attitudes. For example, in February 2004, the District Parent Council (DPC), a district-wide organization formed to support district schools, hosted a celebration for district school administrators. In a conversation during this function, a district attendee commented that he felt something should be done to get rid of the charter school (DPC Administrator Social, 5 February 2004). In addition, a local government leader stated publicly that he felt charter schools were not worth the expense (Goldstein 2004, 7). Similarly, there are some charter school parents who are disgruntled with district schools and publicly make negative comments about them. Local papers add to the contentious environment with articles highlighting the state charter school debates. In addition, some professional organizations add to the contentious environment. For instance, on page 8 of their paper Beyond Discord: Resolving the Tensions between Charter and Public Schools, A Report of the Mass Charter School Task Force, M.A.S. S., 2005 (accessed 11 January 2006 from http://www.massupt.org), the Massachusetts Association for School Superintendents states that the “Massachusetts experiment with charter schools has created mixed results but widespread controversy.” This type of statement does not support collaboration. We’ve taken action to mitigate the impact of contentious attitudes in Haverhill. For example, when the HVM charter was being written in 2002, the Haverhill School Committee President Tom Behan spoke at a school committee meeting (9 January 2003). Out of a dedication to the city’s children, he expressed his skepticism about whether the charter school enrollment would reflect the diversity of the city. The HVM founders sensed common ground. They were committed to public education as well and felt it was important to make that known, so they later requested a meeting with Mr. Behan. In the meeting, he listened respectfully as the founders made it clear that they wanted HVM to reflect the diversity of Haverhill. The founders felt that Mr. Behan, a former principal of a school with a diverse student body, could provide useful suggestions for reaching out to a variety of students, so they requested his input on their enrollment plan. Subsequently, he not only provided feedback on the school’s enrollment plan, he reviewed and responded to the content of the enrollment session presentations as well. This was the beginning of a partnership that not only strengthened the diversity of HVM’s student body but also enhanced the charter/district relationship; a highly-regarded district educator began supporting HVM’s efforts. Another example of action that changed attitudes in Haverhill occurred as charter school founders worked to educate a variety of people about HVM, including school committee members, the mayor, and city council representatives. When the founders provided some background about HVM at a Haverhill City Council meeting, for example, a councilor asked them what was wrong with the Haverhill district schools, implying that founders had begun HVM because they felt the Haverhill district schools had shortcomings (Haverhill City Council Meeting, City Council Chambers, 27 January 2004). The HVM founders chose to remain positive. They explained that the charter school gave city residents an option that was very different than the current option; they pointed out some of the differences, such as HVM’s use of mixed-age classrooms and Montessori materials. They emphasized that all students don’t learn in the same way and that providing a choice within the community was a positive contribution to the city. Their response helped educate the public about the benefits of a local charter school while at the same time respecting the hard work and positive intentions of the other public schools. It helped to sway the climate from one of contention to one of respect. This and other similar actions evoked positive responses from district school leaders, including school committee member Kerry Fitzgerald, who shared her perspective in an MASCD Perspectives article on which she collaborated: I had heard from school committee members in other communities that there was a lot of animosity when charter schools opened in their cities. Apparently, the people who started those charter schools were often critical of the local school systems. Fortunately, for Haverhill and its children, that was not the case for us. We appreciate the way this was handled and must credit the charter school’s founders. Obviously, these people didn’t want to create a battle and neither did we, so the remaining option was to form a cooperative working relationship. (Tate, Fitzgerald, and Begin 2004, 15) Roadblock #3: Limited Investments in Broader Relationships In financially-strapped districts like Haverhill and new organizations like charter schools, there are few resources to spare -- including time -- and that doesn’t always make it easy to collaborate. As a group of people hoping to open a charter school, the HVM founders were extremely busy. With so much effort required to write a charter and then get the school operational, investing time in a relationship with the district seemed like a hardship. The district, having lost many employees due to budget cuts, was in a similar situation, and resources would have been pressed thinner by any time spent on charter school items. Nonetheless, HVM founders made a deliberate decision to make community relations a high priority, and district officials responded in kind. One example of the investment in relationship and the resulting payoff occurred before HVM’s charter was written. Having made a decision to communicate with the district from the very start, the founders scheduled a meeting with the city mayor, to which the members of the school committee and the superintendent were formally invited. This was the setting where the founders decided to publicly announce their intention to submit a charter application to the state department of education (DOE). They explained their intentions and described the anticipated impact on the district, while the school committee members and the school representative listened carefully and respectfully; those present had many questions, but, in this small venue, support was evident. After this meeting, the founders followed up by providing the district group with brief updates and charter school news, especially in areas that directly impacted the district, such as legislative decisions regarding state reimbursement for charter schools. In turn, the superintendent invited the HVM founders to a school committee meeting where he would discuss the charter school application. At that time, the superintendent suggested the committee submit a letter to the DOE recommending that HVM not be chartered. The founders knew that it would be difficult for the district schools to embrace a school that would receive a portion of Chapter 70 funds, funds anticipated in the district schools’ budget, so they understood why the district would make this recommendation. At the same time, the founders were pleased that the district’s complaint centered on the funding mechanism rather than on the founders’ goal--to provide the city’s children with an option for their education. Additionally, HVM founders were pleased with the subsequent open and considerate dialogue they experienced with the superintendent and school committee. This early investment by both district and charter--in respectful communications and consideration of others’ perspectives--set the foundation for our future collaboration. Another example of the benefits of both charter and district investing time in a relationship was when a charter school founder joined the District Parent Council (DPC). The DPC meets monthly with the superintendent and is open to any parent or community member interested in public education in the district. The HVM founder did not advocate for the charter school in any way, but listened, learned, and offered support to the group. As the charter school grew, members of the DPC learned that their committee member was also a founder of the charter school. She then provided committee members with some background on the charter school. Two years later, the DPC updated their bylaws to reflect their support of all public schools in Haverhill, including the charter school. With this relationship formally in place, DPC meetings now serve as a place where information is shared broadly and where those present learn things that strengthen their individual schools. For example, HVM participants learned of the district school’s comprehensive emergency plan, which calls for school personnel to use radios to connect directly with the bus company and other important city officials. This spurred the charter school to contact district officials and explore the possibility of connecting into this network. Thirdly, the joint authorship of this paper, as well as the previously noted MASCD article (“Look Who Just Moved into the Neighborhood: A Charter School Comes to Haverhill”) represents an investment in charter/district relations. It certainly takes time and energy to collaborate on writing, but in doing this work, we have learned more about each other and have strengthened our relationship. In the process, we have discussed ways we can collaborate in the future, providing increased resources and direct benefit to the city’s students. Certainly, it is a challenge to make priorities that reach beyond the immediate and pressing needs of our schools, but it is important to make these connections, even more so when significant changes occur. Such changes are taking place in Haverhill. In June 2005, superintendent of schools, Dr. Arthur Tate, resigned from his position in Haverhill. With this leadership change, our strategies could be tested and our relationships could shift. If the new superintendent or other key players in the charter school, district, or city arrive with pre-conceived attitudes about charters or district schools, extra efforts will be needed. To date, a limited number of people have been involved in the effort to bring about collaboration and open communication between HVM and Haverhill district schools; given the continually shifting political context in the city, broader work and sustained commitments will be required to maintain positive relationships. Eight Tips for Building Collaborative Relations As noted earlier, HVM founders started building a positive relationship with the district in early 2002, before the school’s charter was written. They incorporated a cooperative attitude into the school’s philosophy and program, starting with a few central strategies that have stood the test of time and are evident in many of the city’s charter and district school interactions today. Because these strategies involve “soft skills,” rather than expensive materials or particular structures, they are generally transferable to other public schools. Because they’ve worked for us, we suggest educators use the following eight tips (listed briefly in Appendix B, and detailed here) as an initial framework for building collaborative relationships between charter and district schools. We encourage modification and expansion of these to address local contexts and situations. Tip #1: Lead by example, modeling respect. Maintain your professionalism, and demonstrate your respect for others working for the best interests of the community's children. As charter and district leaders, it is critical that you show respect for one another, and keep in mind that both charter and district leaders are trying to do what is best to support your city’s public school children. When individuals in leadership roles conduct their relationships with respect, they encourage others to do the same, and they certainly provide a positive model for students. The respectful interactions former Haverhill Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Arthur Tate had with HVM founders affected him, and his view of the charter school’s supporters, as he described in MASCD Perspectives: The Hill View charter school founders and trustees were understanding about the school system’s plight, while at the same time being firm in conveying their belief that they were in the process of organizing a public school that would benefit the children of Haverhill. They were knowledgeable, professional, and unapologetic in their support for the Montessori method of instruction. The founders were relentless in their contacts with me to provide updated progress reports and to pursue the possibility of using a vacated school building for operating the charter school. I grew to like and respect the group, and I found myself wishing that the birth of this public school had come with fewer financial penalties that made enthusiastic support difficult, even for an educator. . . . Throughout the period that the charter school founders were preparing, processing, explaining, and defending their application to the state, we crossed paths several times at state board meetings, school committee meetings, town political meetings, and social affairs. On every occasion, we were genuinely cordial and friendly toward one another. Not only was such cordiality pleasant, the most important impact was that it set a good example for others to follow. I certainly expect that all members of the school district will treat anyone involved in the charter school: founder, teacher, student, or parent,with respect and consideration. (Tate, Fitzgerald, and Begin 2004, 14-15) Tip #2: Put yourself in the other person's shoes. Consider the impact of key decisions on other public schools. Meet to communicate high-impact issues early. Focus on an approach similar to productive negotiation strategies where, as experts from Harvard’s Negotiation Project suggest, issues are decided “Öon their merits rather than through a haggling process focused on what each side says it will or won’t do. . . . Look for mutual gains whenever possible, and where your interests conflict, you should insist that the result be based on some fair standards independent of the will of either side” (Fisher and Ury 1991, xvii). Open lines of communication and consideration of others’ perspectives will support collaboration and may allow you to envision plans that increase benefits to the entire public school system. A case in point from Haverhill’s history occurred during the planning stages (a year or so before opening) when it became apparent that children’s education at HVM could be strengthened by adding a kindergarten to the grades 1-8 program. The founders spent many months wrestling over logistics and the impact of such a decision. The simplest way for HVM to implement this change would have been to submit a proposal to the DOE requesting an amendment to the original HVM charter, allowing an additional forty children to the school’s enrollment projections, but HVM considered the entire public arena and was deeply concerned about compounding an already severe financial situation for district schools. HVM founders did not want to harm the cooperative district/charter relationship, yet they needed to make the best decisions for children’s education at HVM. After much deliberation, the founders decided to add a kindergarten by redistributing the projected enrollment and staying within the original enrollment numbers, thereby creating no change in the original financial projections for the district schools. This information was then communicated to the district schools, so they had adequate time to take into account the change in student distribution. By considering the perspectives of both charter and district schools, HVM met its goal of adding a kindergarten, but it spared the district from an additional decrease in funding. Further, because HVM founders provided updates regularly to school committee members, the news regarding the addition of a kindergarten did not come as a surprise to the district. Collaboration served all involved. Tip #3: Pursue positive public relations. Educate everybody about what you are doing, keeping in mind that there should be no need to criticize someone else's school to validate your own. If you need to stand apart and voice divergent views, do so respectfully. Charter school leaders must market their schools to ensure adequate enrollment in a context of educational options and school choice. Districts, too, need to help the public understand the good things they are doing. Negative communication will only contribute to a contentious environment, and in such an environment, it’s students who lose out. It is important to be vigilant about this positive communication. In Haverhill, for example, at the city council meeting noted earlier in this paper (in “Roadblock #2: Contentious Attitudes”), acrimonious questioning threatened to impede productive relations. However, by refusing to follow the lead of the original question and by recasting it instead, HVM founders kept the communication positive, providing an opening for future collaboration. Tip #4: Build bridges. Make connections with others who support public education, whether that education is district or charter. Think broadly when building bridges and forming networks. Include not only educators, but also other organizations and service providers in the city--such children's services agencies, historical societies, environmental groups, and civil rights groups. Inform these groups about what you are doing and arrange to collaborate on a project. The individuals in such organizations can convey positive attitudes about charter and district schools, attitudes that can become part of the fabric of your town or city. In Haverhill, HVM joined the Greater Haverhill Chamber of Commerce shortly after the school was granted a charter. HVM leaders participated actively in the chamber by attending monthly socials and helping with the Chamber’s membership drive. In addition, HVM’s Executive Director joined the chamber’s Business Education Partnership Committee and served on the scholarship subcommittee. Each year the chamber hosts a Golden Apple Luncheon where businesses and organizations are recognized for making significant contributions to education, and selected graduating students are given scholarships. The HVM Executive Director was asked to present the scholarships, and when the event’s scheduled speaker was unable to attend, the chamber accepted HVM’s offer to have their student chorus sing at the luncheon. That year, local service clubs were being recognized and were in attendance, as were representatives from many local businesses and the district schools. It was a wonderful opportunity to showcase HVM. By partnering with the chamber, HVM gained the recognition of many important community members. Further, chamber affiliation enhanced HVM’s standing in the community--a key step in forming positive relations with other city organizations. Tip # 5: Demonstrate commitment to public education. Understand and support the various public education efforts in your city. Have a positive impact on education outside of your own school by becoming a member of a group supporting another school, such as a charter or district school committee or site council. Be aware of the course of public education in your community by attending or keeping informed about school committee and charter school board meetings. By understanding and showing commitment to larger public education efforts, you will earn the respect of other public educators, build important relationships, and provide support for further collaboration. In Haverhill, a charter school trustee joined a district school site council and shared her experience as well as a parent survey that was used at HVM. Similarly, the Haverhill Public Schools Assistant Superintendent of Finance and Operations joined HVM’s finance committee. Having worked in a large public school district, she shares a wealth of knowledge about school finances. Members of both the district and the charter school have stepped outside their particular circles in public education, and as a result, new relationships are being formed that will support future cooperative endeavors. Tip #6: Consider all public educators as partners. Extend invitations to other public educators, and make all parties feel welcome in common endeavors. Keep the focus on win-win activities, such as jointly written grants. Encourage others to attend school events and meetings, and to visit your school. By extending invitations and opportunities to other educators and making them feel comfortable, you provide the foundation for new and productive partnerships. As noted earlier, in Haverhill, the DPC meetings were open to all and although a specific invitation was not given, an HVM founder decided to attend. Subsequently, a DPC member made the HVM founder feel welcome by e-mailing the following message: You must understand that parents are already concerned about the major cuts we have made and will be making, and the money we are spending on the charter school feels like insult on top of injury. I can’t tell you how many people are leaving the district because of the cuts we have already made and I know more who have their houses on the market. The city and the state budget problems have been disastrous for Haverhill. However, if you can put up with the silent censure I suspect you are getting for the next year or so, I believe things will be different. We certainly want you (and your school) to be part of the DPC. The DPC can help make your school and parents feel part of the school district instead of separate. I hope you and other parents from the charter school will attend DPC meetings and get to know about the issues, big and small, that many parents are interested in discussing. (Tate, Fitzgerald, and Begin 2004, 16) That welcome and encouragement served to strengthen an emerging partnership between district and charter supporters. Tip #7: Support problem solving efforts. Work together to devise creative solutions. Brainstorm collectively and share expertise in an effort to solve problems. As you think and learn together, pooling resources, the possibilities for benefit expand. Moreover, helping others solve problems builds common commitments and encourages further cooperation. One example of creative problem solving in Haverhill came as HVM was looking for someone to serve student meals. Representatives from the district and charter schools came together to solve this problem and realized that the district needed field placements for their high school special education students, and serving HVM meals would provide new opportunities for them. A need was filled for charter and district, and neither had to expend additional resources. Tip #8: Focus on benefits for children. We're all involved in education for the same reason--to benefit the children in our communities. Working together can extend benefits and provide models of productive and respectful relationships. The alternative is to keep the focus on fighting, a choice Haverhill School Committee member Kerry Fitzgerald discourages: A public dispute between a charter school and the school district takes the focus off education, allows political motivations to reign, and hurts everyone involved. It makes the individuals involved appear narrow-minded and mean-spirited, it can hurt the way people perceive the school district and the charter school, and it sets up an adversarial relationship between two groups that ultimately want what’s best for children. For these reasons, I advocate for taking up the debate with legislators while committing energies locally toward building productive relations with those in the city who demonstrate commitment to children and their learning. (Tate, Fitzgerald, and Begin 2004, 16) Conclusion In 1993, Massachusetts legislators passed charter school laws that they hoped would invigorate public education--through options, innovation, and sharing. These laws, in describing the purpose for charter schools, use phrases such as “to provide . . . options,” “to stimulate,” “to encourage,” and “to provide models” (Charter School Law MGL Chapter 71: Section 89 d). Terms like these paint a vision in which public schools (charter and district together) are analogous to effective sports teams. Nancy Katz, author of “Sports Teams as a Model for Workplace Teams: Lessons and Liabilities,” describes sports teams as useful models for workplace teams. She sees both as contexts where the “goal is to tap the benefits of both cooperation and competition. This means teammates help one another and are invested in one another’s success but also push one another to perform at their best by striving to outdo one another” (Katz 2001, 57). We know that instead of playing to strengths, many district and charter schools have entered a fierce competition and have thrown civil conversation and cooperation aside. In Haverhill, we also have faced challenging obstacles as we have worked to build positive relationships between charter and district schools. But we have also employed certain strategies to facilitate collaboration, and, to date, we have achieved a record of success. Even in districts where relationships are strained, we believe these strategies will help build stronger public education networks, netting positive results for children and schools. Our children are counting on us. Note: Parts of this article first appeared in the May/June 2004 issue of MASCD Perspectives, a publication of Massachusetts Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. This article is available on the MASCD Web site, www.mascd.org.
About the Authors Janet Begin is a founder and trustee of the Hill View Montessori Charter Public School in Haverhill. She worked for 12 years in the high technology industry before becoming a Massachusetts certified teacher in 1999. She earned a BS in Computer Science from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, an MS in Computer Engineering from Boston University, and an M.Ed. in Elementary Education from Lesley University. Janet can be reached at jcbegin@comcast.net Kara M. Kosmes is the Assistant Superintendent of Business for the Haverhill Public Schools, where she has held various administrative positions since 1997. Prior to that, she worked in the field of Public Accounting for 16 years and holds a license to practice as an IRS Enrolled Agent. She earned a B.S. in Accounting from Merrimack College, and an MBA from Southern New Hampshire University. Kara can be reached at kkosmes@haverhill-ps.org
Appendix A Samples of Impact on Students, Based on the Nature of the District/Charter Relationships Note: The scenarios described under “Collaborative” (Relationships) are what actually took place in Haverhill. The scenarios described under “Neutral” and “Contentious” (Relationships) are fictitious but are based on what the authors have seen and heard from community members in other settings.
Situation #1 - A charter school kindergarten student misses the bus transfer at a district school.
Situation #2 : The charter school has a unique math program.
Situation #3 - Charter and district school students attend the charter school ribbon cutting ceremony.
Appendix B Eight Tips for Promoting Cooperation
References Bonnet, Iris. July 2004. The Payoff of Trust. Negotiation: A Newsletter from Harvard Business School Publishing and the Program on Negotiation at Harvard Law School. Article Reprint No. N0407D. Fisher & Ury. 1991. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement without Giving In. NYC, NY: Penguin Books. Goldstein, Meredith. August 29, 2004. New Choice School Opens in Haverhill with City’s Support. Boston Globe. Katz, Nancy. 2001. Sports Teams as a Model for Workplace Teams: Lessons and Liabilities. Academy of Management Executive, 15(3), 56-67. Tate, Arthur, Kerry Fitzgerald, and Janet Begin. May/June 2004. Look Who Just Moved into the Neighborhood: A Charter School Comes to Haverhill. MASCD Perspectives, 14-19. Thompson, L. L. 2005. Win-win Negotiation: Expanding the Pie. In Third Edition, The Mind and Heart of the Negotiator. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
| © 2005 Massachusetts Charter Public School Association | design by SolsticeSun Design | |
