MSA699-Final Johannes Cawood (B) PDF

Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS
A Quantitative Analysis of the Perceptions of Traditional School Board Members in Michigan

Towards Charter Schools
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of

Master of Science in Administration
(Concentration in Public Administration)
MSA699 Capstone Project
Johannes Cawood
Project Instructor: Dr. Reginald Carter
Central Michigan University

December, 2015
PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
1. DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM............................................................................................1
Background Information..............................................................................................1
Problem Statement ..............................................................................................................2
Research Objective .............................................................................................................4
Research Questions..4
Assumptions ................................................................................................4
Limitations and Delimitations .........................................................................5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................................6
Introduction..6
History of Charter Schools...6
Current Regulatory Climate ............6
Perceptions of Charter Schools.9
Department of Education Study.12
3. METHODOLOGY17
Study Design 17
Survey .......17
Alignment of Survey..18
Scope and Limitations18
4. DATA ANALYSIS20
Introduction20
Sorting the Data.20
Data Analysis.....21
Perceptions and Decisions.22
Actions Taken Due to Competition...31
Alignment and Comaparison with Ricardelli, Cummins, and Steedman Survey.34
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.44
Results44
Conclusions45
Recomdations.47
REFERENCES CITED .................................................................................................................49
CHAPTER I Definition of the Problem

Background Information
In the United States, there has been a significant change in the nature of the organization
of public schools. While once public elementary and secondary schools were local government
creations of the state and were restricted to a geographic area with a voter population; the states
have created charter schools which are not restricted to a geographic area with a voter population
and are created indirectly. The start of the Charter school movement can be traced to Ray Budde
who while at the University of Massachusetts when he proposed a new way for school districts to
reorganize and eliminate middle layers of administration (Kolderei, 205). The first legislatively
authorized charter school in the United States was The City Academy in St. Paul, Minnesota in
1992(Sautter, 1993).
In the following years since Minnesota created legislation to allow the creation of charter
schools, forty two other states have followed with enrollment in charter schools standing at 2.3
million students (National Center for Education Statistics, 2015) Michigan, like Minnesota was
an early adopter of charter school legislation. In Mach of 1994, voters in Michigan passed
Proposal A which changed the funding of public schools in the state (Dawsey, 2014). There are
currently 301 charter schools now in the State of Michigan (State of Michigan Department of
Education, 2015).
Because of the advent of charter schools and school of choice, changes wer made to the way
schools were funded. Public schools went from a system where they were primarily funded by
local ad valorem taxes to a system where ad valorem taxes were first directed to the state and

then redistributed to the public schools based on enrollment and historical funding levels. The
exception to this was that local schools maintained the right to levy taxes with voter approval for
building construction and renovation. Charter schools in Michigan receive no money from the
state or local governmental units for the use of buildings.
The per pupil funding model created by this legislation now meant that traditional schools could
create schools of choice and that non-profit entities could apply for a charter from an authorizing
body to operate a school. In Michigan, authorizing body is restricted to Public Universities,
community colleges, intermediate school districts, and traditional school districts (MCL
380.502). While advocates of charter schools cite innovation of curriculum and operation in
support of charters, critiques of charter schools cite uneven success rates and the diversion of
state money into private companies that are often contracted to run the school program and
money lost due to rental expenses of buildings and equipment which in some opinions may be
excessive (Dixon, 2014)
Problem Statement
The conflict between Charter and Traditional Schools in Michigan has been a polarizing
factor in Michigan Educational Politics restricting cooperation between the two state entity
groups. At least part of this conflict stems from view that charter schools are diverting resources
away from public schools as parents choose to enroll their children in a charter school rather than
the local traditional public school (State of Michigan Board of Education, 2015)
The charter school debate has centered on the fundamental concept of accountability and
the differences between charter and traditional districts. The first is the way in which charter
schools and traditional schools are held accountable for the fiscal and academic performance of
the school. Traditional public schools have boards that are elected and the voters are expected to

hold school board members accountable for the performance of the school. Charter school boards
on the other hand are appointed by the authorizing body and are responsible for ensuring that the
school is academically and fiscally sound (MCL 380.502). Charter school opponents have
charged that charter schools are not held accountable for poor academic performance. Charter
school proponents however suggest that charter schools are held accountable because the charter
school has clear benchmarks set by the authorizing body which can revoke the charter schools
contract at any time if those performance goals are not met. Furthermore, charter school
advocates say that the competition brought by charter schools means that traditional schools are
held accountable by market forces because dissatisfied parents can easily change from a
traditional school to a charter school. These two competing ideas of accountability highlight the
differences in accountability the state has placed on Charter schools and traditional schools.
Accountability of schools has long been a debated issue. Garn and Cobb looked at three
models of accountability of schools (Garn and Cobb, 2001) They stated that
Those that say charter schools are more accountable evidence the strong
competitive component (market accountability). Compare this form of
accountability with district public schools which have predominantly relied on
bureaucratic and (to an increasing but lesser degree) performance forms of
accountability. Charter schools are bound by a written contract with a sponsoring
agency, and the covenant is simple-achieve specific goals in a set time period,
while attracting and maintain pupil enrollment, in exchange for a blanket waiver
from bureaucratic reporting.
Garn and Cobb noted that this was a theoretical difference. In practice, state charter laws vary. In
the case of Michigan, charter schools are required to adhere to the same rules and regulations as
traditional district schools. While critics would point to the fact that charter schools do not
contribute to the state retirement fund, this is a function of the schools not directly employing

any staff and rather using a third party vendor called an educational service provider (ESP) who
runs the day to day operations and employs the staff.
Differences in accountability structure, competition over resources, and political
posturing have created a hostile environment towards charter schools. In January of 2015, the
Saginaw School board rejected an offer from a charter schools to purchase a building for $3.5
million dollars and to instead use a state grant of $2.5 million dollars to demolish the building.
After months of negotiations and public outcry, the Saginaw School board reversed its action and
sold the building to Francis Reh Charter School (Johnson, 2015). This example highlights the
fundamental question of how do School Board members view charter schools and how has that
impacted their decisions.
Research Objective
The objective of this thesis is to determine the perceptions of charter schools among
current school board members of traditional public school districts. The purpose is to learn if the
presence of charter schools has affected school board members decision making process to
pursue more innovative means of providing education as well as to establish a baseline of
perceptions school board members have towards charter schools.
Research Questions
The research attempts to understand the following question.
How School Board Members perceptions of competitive marketplace pressures are associated
with the presence of a charter school in their district has it impacted their districts decisions?
Assumptions
There are three main assumptions made while conducting this survey.

The first is that the selected list of e-mails will be representative of the population. The
emails that were used were gathered directly from the school districts official website by paid
workers whose work has been checked by the author. Paid workers were directed to find the
websites of all traditional districts in Michigan using a list of schools available from the
Michigan Department of Education and record directly from that website the e-mail addresses of
the board members.
The second assumption is that school board members are knowledgeable about the
existence of charter schools, the existence of charter schools in their district, and have a
perception about charter schools.
The third assumption is that Traditional School Board members are knowledgeable about
the operations of the district at an oversight level.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are limitations to the outreach available to connect directly with Traditional School
Board members who do not have their e-mail address publicly available on their districts
website. A board members e-mail address may not have been made publicly available for one of
two main reasons. Firstly, that the district does not have a website which was found to be the
case in a small minority of cases. The second reason is that the board chose not to disclose the
email addresses of board members. This was much more frequent and there appears that a
distinction between rural and urban schools may be connected to such a decision. To counter
such limits, the number of board members is very large and those who do not respond to the
questioner within 1 week will be contacted a second time.
Another potential limiting factor is that board members may fear that any answers given
could be made public. To counter this, participants were informed that their individual responses

will not be made public and no data will be made publicly available that would be personally
identifiable.

CHAPTER II Literature Review
Introduction
The purpose of this literature review is to provide important historical context regarding
Charter schools and their relationship with traditional school districts. In additions, the literature
review will focus on the market theory of the charter school movement, the political perspectives
that have risen both in support and in opposition to market theory in education, and a review of
the current regulatory climate that allows for the creation of charter schools. Finally, the
literature review will look at the results of other surveys of perceptions about charter schools and
how those perceptions impacted the decision making process.
History of Charter Schools
The genesis of the charter school movement as recognized by Riccardelli, Cummins, and
Steedman, can be traced back to a 1974 presentation by Ray Budde who advocated that
Traditional districts create Charter Schools within their existing district to allow parents a
choice in deciding their childs education (2014). Also according to Riccardelli, Cummins, and
Steedman, this built on existing market theory of education that Milton Friedman put forth
(2014). Since 1992, charter school legislation has expanded to all but 11 states.
Current Regulatory Climate
Current regulation of charter schools can be divided into two categories of Federal
regulation and State regulation. To be all encompassing of the differing regulations that exist, the
scope of this section will be limited to the funding and structural creation of charter schools in
Michigan.

Creation of Charter Schools in Michigan. The legislation governing the creation of
charter schools is Public Act 451 Part 6 A. For all intents and purposes, the following is a
summary of that act.
Section 380.501 defines a public school academy, a charter school, as a public school
recognized under the state constitution of the purposes of carrying out governmental functions of
the state. In addition, this section defines an Authorizing body that is able to issue a contract, a
charter, as a public k through 12 school, an intermediate school, the board of a Community
College, or the governing body of a Sate Public University.
Section 380.502 refers to the organization of the public school academy as a corporation
organized under the nonprofit corporations act. All public schools academies are directed by a
not-for-profit corporation. Additionally, the section places a maximum percentage that
authorizers may charge for providing oversight services of the academy at 3%. This section also
defines management companies which may be either for profit or nonprofit entities that provide
educational services rather than the public school academy directly providing those services.
Section 506a requires that if the academy chooses to provide medical, dental, or vision
benefits to their employees, they must be in compliance with the States Health Benefit Act.
Section 380.507 outlines the powers and responsibilities of the Authorizing body. The
Authorizing body is responsible for establishing selection criteria for choosing proposals to
create a charter school, issuing the charter contract, and developing a system of accountability
that requires the charter school to meet those requirements. To accomplish this, the Authorizing
body is given broad powers to oversee the charter school and to revoke the charter for failing to
show academic progress, comply with applicable law, meet generally acceptable accounting
principles, or violating a term in the contract. However, the decision of an authorizing body to

revoke a charter is not subject to any review by a court or state agency. The section also requires
the Superintendent of Instruction to close any charter school that has for four years been in the
States bottom 5% of performing schools.
Perceptions of Charter Schools
The literature on the perceptions of charters schools can be divided into providers and
end users. A provider would be anyone whose primary function is to provide educational
services such as Teachers, Principals, Superintendents, and the School Board. Conversely, end
users would be those who benefit from those services to include Students, Guardians, and the
Public as a whole. This thesis is more concerned with the perceptions among providers of
educational services and how these perceptions influence decision making.
Teachers.
In a study done by Bomotti, Ginsberg, and Cobb in 1999, they compared the perceptions
of 100 teachers in the charter school and tradition school systems each in a comparative study
conducted by Colorado State University (1999). They compared teachers perceptions of
empowerment, school climate, and working conditions. Their conclusions found that Charter
school teachers in general find more professional freedom within their classroom and experience
more freedom to teach and in general felt more empowered than their Traditional counterparts.
Much of this empowerment seemed to be linked to the smaller class sizes and more involved
parents found at charter schools. Noticeably, there was no statistical difference in the area of
school governance or curriculum content. In the area of School climate, Charter school teachers
scored significantly higher particularly in the area of academic focus. However, in the element of
shared responsibility, both groups of teachers scored similarly with no significant differences.
The authors attributed this to the high degree of commitment on within both groups. Finally, the

authors looked at working conditions and found mirror images. While teachers in Charter school
teachers valued their smaller classrooms and greater academic freedom, they reported lower
satisfaction in regards to support including the facilities, technology, and pay. Conversely,
Traditional school teachers were much more satisfied in this area however reported lower
satisfaction in academic freedom, larger classroom sizes, and uninvolved parents. In aggregate,
despite being mirrored images, both groups reported a similar level of satisfaction.
Principals.
In 2011 Marisa Cannata ran a study on the perceptions of Traditional, Magnet, and
private schools for the National Center on School Choice. The brief included principals from 110
traditional schools, 22 magnet schools, and 15 private schools. Her findings were that principals
perceived little competition from Charter schools a finding that was supported in that she also
found that principals did not change the way they allocated their time based on competition from
charter schools. There was however one exception. Principals at traditional schools who had
been at a school longer either as a teacher or assistant principal were more likely to report a
negative effect on their ability to secure financial resources. There was one limiting factor
however and that was that on average the closest charter school was nine miles away. The author
suggested that a sample where charter schools were more closer to the traditional school may
reveal a greater influence. This limiting factor is not insignifigant as it has been previously
shown that 9 miles is approximately the outer limit most parents are willing to travel for their
childs school.
Superintendents.
In a study conducted by Ricciardelli, Cummins, and Steedman, they surveyed and
conducted interviews with Superintendents in Massachusetts to learn discover how they perceive
10

charter schools have affected competition in their district (2014). Their findings found that 31%
of respondents reported that charter schools have had a major or moderate impact on student
enrollment at their traditional public school. 41% reported that charter schools have had a major
or moderate impact on their districts budget. When looking a saliency of the responses, while on
6% of respondents reported the impact on enrollment as major, 22% reported the impact as being
major as when it applied to the budget. This may be because minor changes in enrollment have a
magnified effect on a school budget as fixed costs cannot be reduced as easily with changes in
enrollment (Liepa, 2014). Their findings also found that the impact Superintendents perceived
was far stronger when district enrollment in charter schools was higher than 2%.
Superintendents also perceived that their districts priorities and credibility was also affected as
enrollment increased though this affect appears more linear than the effect on the districts
budget.
Table 2-1
In response to competitive pressures Superintendents launched a number of initiatives. The
single greatest initiative was the use of marketing at 24%. The second largest response, 23%, was
that no initiatives were launched to compete with charter schools. The second largest response
came mostly from schools where enrollment represented 0% to 2% of the districts enrollment.
Surprisingly, one of the consistently least used initiatives was the design of specialized
programs.
11
Table 2-1
Interview responses.
Riccadelli, Cummins, and Steedman supplemented their survey responses with interviews
with Superintendents to gain a more in depth response to survey answers. While superintendents
recognized that Charter schools do put pressure on the district, many cited other competitive
pressures and opportunities. The researchers broke these into three distinct categories of interdistrict choice, private schools, and regional vocational schools. While this thesis is most focused
on the perceptions of Charter schools, it is important to recognize the entire ecosystem of
competition that charter school legislation has created.
Inter-district choice. Like Michigan, Massachusetts allows traditional districts to open
their schools to the enrollment of persons living outside the district. Not all districts have chosen
to do this. One of the reasons cited for not to participate as a receiving district was to maintain
local autonomy. Of those districts that have choosen to become receiving districts, their main
motivation was financial. One superintendent who was more against charter schools admitted
that they essentially use the charter school model in their school of choice programs to fill empty
seats while another superintendent stated that it actually allowed for the expansion of staff and
program choices.
Private schools. Another source of competition was the private schools available in the
local area. One superintendent reported that he lost many of his brightest and athletic students to
12

these programs though the students who tended to go there were legacy families whose families
had traditionally sent their children to private schools. Also, a superintendent noted that private
schools often have specialized programs that the district does not have. Also noted by one
Superintendent was the changing economic conditions in their district specifically brought about
by the recent economic downturn which saw a flow of students from private schools into the
traditional district.
Technical/Vocational schools. One of the more compelling sources of competition was
the regional vocational or technical centers which exist as a state school which accepts students
from multiple districts. One Superintendent pointed out that the marketing of the vocational
schools was very aggressive and created a similar marketing plan aimed at middle schoolers to
highlight the opportunities at the traditional districts High School. Another Superintendent
complained about a perceived un-fair competitive advantage that vocational schools have over
traditional schools, and incidentally charter schools as well, in that they can be selective in their
enrollment and do not have to make the same accommodations for high cost students that
traditional and charter schools would have to make. One Superintendent went so far as deciding
to stop providing transportation to the regional vocational center.
Department of Education Study
In a study conducted by the Department of Education in 2001, they looked at the effects
Charter schools and legislation had on Traditional districts throughout the United States. The
study found that all schools in the study were affected by the presence of charter schools in the
areas of budget, operations, or educational offerings. Some school leaders found these effects to
be negative and some found these effects to be positive which highlights both the challenges and
opportunities Charter schools and school of choice legislation create from the perspective of
13

Traditional school districts. The study was based on the perceptions of School leaders and
included both quantitative and qualitative gathering of information across five States with
diverse charter legislation. It is important to note that School leaders often referred to District
Superintendents.
Table 2-3
Budget.
Of the district schools that were surveyed just under half reported that Charter schools
had negatively impacted their budget while just under half reported a no effect. A small
percentage, 8%, reported a positive impact on their budget and was related to reduce pressures to
build facilities in areas of increasing enrollment. A significant dimension to if a district school
reported a negative impact on budgeting had to relate to the size of the district. Larger districts
were much less likely to report a negative impact than smaller district schools. Enrollment
trends, which are not related to district size, also predicted whether a district reported a negative
impact on the districts budget. 100% of districts reporting declining enrollment cited charter
schools as negatively impacting the district budget. Only schools who reported increasing
enrollment reported a positive impact on the districts budget.
In response to budgetary pressures, traditional schools were forced to make tough
decisions about the use of resources. 25% of schools reported operating underutilized or closed
14

schools, 16% laid off teachers, and 1 in 10 schools reduced their central offices in response.
Other budget decisions were that 8% increased class sizes. By far the most popular choice in
respects to directly affecting the budget was the increase in marketing and public relations. A full
40% of schools choose to go this route. This is less surprising however given that a successful
marketing campaign should bring in far more revenue than the campaign costs.
Operations.
Of the schools in the study, over 90% reported that they made changes in their district in
regards to operations as a result of pressures from charter schools. The largest change involved
tracking of students. It appears that the first response by traditional schools was to find out why
students were either coming to or leaving the district. This is likely why 63% of schools also
reported an increase in the workload of central office workloads. In addition to increased
tracking, 27% reported changing their central office services to improve quality and speed of
service including expanding bus routes.
Outside the central office, districts made changes to their accountability structures
including increased tracking and comparing of test scores in 70% of districts. Along with
increased accountability, 12% of districts promoted more decentralized decision making. The
study found that In one in five districts in the sample (20 percent), district administrators
described charter schools as a lever for districts to increase accountability for student
achievement in district schools. In addition to laying off teachers, many districts found that the
natural attrition rate allowed them to decrease teaching staff without having to lay teachers off.
Districts responded by increasing administrative roles teachers had to fill or adopted team
teaching models. 6% of schools reported changing their hiring practices to include stakeholders
in the decision making process.
15
Educational Offerings.
As a way to compete with charter schools, nearly half of the schools in the study decided
to increase their educational offerings. According to the study, the most common expansion was
to offer extended day or full day kindergarten. In nearly half of the schools that made changes to
their program, this was the only change made to their offerings. Of the remaining half, most
schools created similar schools that were being offered at charter schools. In this way, the direct
response by districts schools was to compete directly in a category of education once the charter
school had shown a market for such offerings. In four districts, superintendents took advantage
of charter school laws that allow them to create charter schools in collaboration with parents and
business leaders.
Summary.
In summary, all districts reported making changes to their district in response to charter
schools. Some districts reported that these changes were negative including laying off teachers,
closing schools, and increasing class sizes. Other schools made more positive changes aimed at
making their district more attractive to students such as offering new programs, creating new
schools, or expanding existing services. At least one district made a paradigm shift to thinking of
parents as customers. Which path a district took was largely a result of the operating
environment including state charter laws, funding models, and enrollment trends. Based on the
study, their findings suggest that Michigans charter law increases the likely perception that
charter schools negatively impact the districts budget, increases the likelihood that the district
will offer new programs. Michigans charter school laws which allow entities other than district
schools to offer charters also meant that authorizing fees went to entities other than district
16

schools which can reduce the negative impact charter schools have on a district. Enrollment
trends increase the likelihood of districts to conduct staff layoff, operate or close under capacity
schools, change staffing agreements, and increase marketing and communication efforts.
Declining enrollment also meant that district schools were more likely to view charter schools as
a challenge rather than an opportunity. Given Michigans enrollment trends as a state, the charter
laws, and funding model, this study would suggest that the environment would favor a negative
view of charter schools by district leaders with interviewees attributing cutbacks and fiscal
challenges to charter schools.
17
CHAPTER III Methodology

A review of the literature reveals that much study has been committed to the perceptions
of districts schools by district leaders and teachers. However, the term district leader has most
often been used a as a stand in for district superintendent. The researcher could find no studies
related to the perception of charter schools by the school boards. It was unknown if the
perceptions of district boards will mirror that of the superintendent or if they will diverge given
that board members are elected and therefore have a much wider set of constituents outside of
the school itself to include tax payers, businesses, and other social groups. Any divergence may
highlight the differing roles between the two groups. While Superintendents are responsible for
operational decisions, it is the school board who is charged with oversight of the district as well
as for setting district wide policy.
Study Design
This study closely matches the study conducted by Ricciardelli, Cummins, and Steedman
with permission to use their survey as a basis. While Ricciardelli, Cummins, and Steedman used
a mixed methods approach using both quantitative and qualitative methods, this research did not
interview respondents and a quantitative approach was used to closely replicating their use of
Creswells quantitative approach maintaining the integrity of the instrumentation while using a
different population to survey. It should be noted that some qualitative data was collected by the
survey, but this was not used to measure differences between the two surveys.
Survey
According to Creswell, the first steps in designing a survey are identifying the intent of
the survey, why a survey was chosen to collect data, the type of survey, and the data collection
18

tools that will be used (Creswell, 2014). In the case of this survey, the purpose of the survey is to
identify the perceptions of school board members and how they relate to the decisions their
district has made in a competitive marketplace. A survey tool was selected as the most useful
mechanism for gathering data quickly and economically and will be cross-sectional to reflect the
current environment and reduce the introduction of new variables as well as economy of time.
The data collection tool that was used is an internet survey for the collection of data that will
both be cost effective, economic in regard to time, and congruent with the methods of the survey
conducted by Ricciardelli et all.
Alignment of the survey tool
To ensure that the populations are comparable, the demographics will be compared as
well as the answers respondents give.
Scope and Limitations
The scope of this survey is limited to the perceptions of School Board Members of
traditional school board members in Michigan. While thirty one states do have charter school
legislation, it is important to note that there is significant variation among the different states as
to how charter schools are created, how the effect the funding of traditional school districts, and
what formal, if any relationship the charter is required to have with the local district.
Furthermore, as with all web based surveys, there are a number of selection errors that can occur
(Bethlehem, 2010). Specifically, sampling errors may occur as not all schools list the e-mail
addresses of their board members. Finally, there may be issues of over sampling since as much
of the population as possible received a link to the survey. Specifically, there were school
districts in the population which do not have any charter schools in theirss or a neighboring
district that poses a threat of competition. To mitigate this risk of over sampling, respondents
19

were asked if a charter school is in their district and their answers were segregated for the
comparison of the two surveys.
20

CHAPTER IV Data Analysis
Introduction
The survey was conducted over a period of time from December 15th, 2015 to January 4th,
2016. This period of time is allowed for 3 weeks for Board members to respond to the questions
during a traditional break in the school calendar. 327 Board members responded to the invitation
with 3 choosing to decline to participate. 39 respondents were screened out for not finishing any
questions beyond demographics. This left a total of 285 respondents, of which 205 had charter
schools in their district though 5 did not complete the whole survey. Overall, the response rate to
the survey, including those who indicated they did not have a charter in their district, was 20%.
Because of the relatively large number of invitations that were sent, the survey gathered data
from 10% of all school board members in the state from somewhere between 26% and 50% of
all traditional school districts in the state.
Sorting the data
The original survey conducted by Ricciardelli et all utilized online survey tools by
Qualtrics. However, this survey tool was not available to the researcher due to costs associated
with the survey tool. The researcher therefore utilized Survey Monkey which is similar to the
Qualtrics platform, with some notable differences. These differences manifested in options
available to the researcher in the technical design of the data collection. This resulted in three
questions having to be manually sorted and aligned to allow for easy comparison.
The first question that required manual manipulation was question 4 which asks if there is
a charter school district which district residents can access. The question provides for 3 answers
as follows; Yes, No, and a text box other. Many participants clicked no and wrote no, or none
in the text box. For these answers, the no, or none answers in the text box were deleted as they
21

were duplicative. The same strategy was also done on questions 6 and 12 which were both
matrix questions. If the participant wrote anything other than No, N/A, or none the response
was not altered. No material responses were changed. This was done simply to ease calculations
and to better identify patterns in the data.
Data Analysis
The data collected can be broken into two categories. The first category of questions
gather demographic based information. The second category collects information about the
decisions and actions Districts have taken. Questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 collect demographic
information while the remaining questions collect information regarding perceptions and actions
taken by the district. The research of Ricciardelli et all found that these demographics played a
role in how Districts allocated resources to compete with charter schools.
Demographic of Participants
Respondents were given the option to choose Rural, Semi-Rural, and Urban as a multiple
choice question. The question did not provide a definition of the terms given. 278 participants
answered this question. 143 [51%] responded Rural, 105 [37%] as Semi-Rural, and 30 [11%] as
Urban. Only one respondent indicated that their school was Rural also responded that enrollment
in the District was above 10,000. As the table below shows, Respondents of Rural schools tended
to have smaller enrollments while Respondents from Semi-Urban and Urban schools tended to
be larger. It should be noted that this is representative of the respondents and not of the Districts
as there are duplicative answers from 2 or more Board members from the same school
responding. This could not be eliminated as not all respondents provided their district entity.
However trends should be close to that of Districts provided duplicative response rates are
similar across categories.
22

Table 4-1
Respondents who indicated the presence of a charter school (N=278)
<1,500
1501 to 2500
2,501 to 4,000
4,001 to 6,000 6,001 to 10,000
10,000+
Rural
53.8%
29.4%
9.1%
4.2%
2.8%
0.7%
Semi-Urban
Urban
2.9%
6.7%
18.1%
30.0%
22.9%
33.3%
23.8%
20.0%
23.8%
3.3%
8.6%
6.7%
More important however was if the District faced competition with a charter school.
When looking at which Districts are most likely to face competition with a charter school, it was
found that Semi-Urban schools were most likely to have a charter school in their district. This
may indicate that semi-urban environments provide a sweet spot between the price of land and
buildings and population density necessary for a Charter school to gain enrollment. Only 7
Districts choose Other citing Christian and Home Schooling options as well as one respondent
who stated School of Choice is omnipresent. A total of 205 respondents, 70% overall, reported
that there was a charter school in their district.
Table 4-2
Respondents Inidication of if a charter school
was present in their district (N=278)
Yes
No
Rural
88
55
Semi-Urban
92
13
Urban
25
5
Of those who responded that charter schools were in their district, over 67% stated that the effect
was no greater than 2% of their students leaving.
Table 4-3
Respondents Reporting a Charter School in their District (N=205)
Less than 1%
1% to 2%
3% to 4%
5% to 6%
7% to 8%
35.2%
32.4%
14.2%
10.5%
2.3%
More than 9%
5.5%
Perceptions and Decisions

The second category of questions best deal with the perceptions that board members hold
in regards to the impact charter schools have played as well as the actions they have taken in
23

response. The researcher decided to bifurcate the data set based on if the respondent indicated
there was a charter school in their district in respect to how the respondent perceives charter
schools have impacted their school and the reasons why for questions 5 through 9. This data set
consists of 205 respondents. However, for question 10 the researcher decided it was best to look
at all respondents as while some districts may not currently have competition from a charter
school, there exists the possibility of a charter school emerging in the district in the future.
Perceptions of How Charter Schools have Impacted the District.
Of those respondents that stated that there was a charter school in their districts 90.7%
reported some impact on their student enrollment yet 62% reported that this impact was minimal.
The largest impact that respondents reported was how the charter schools affected the
demographics of the student body with 50% of respondents indicating that charter schools have
had a moderate to major impact in this area. 69 respondents provided a written description of the
major and moderate impacts to their district. 17 respondents mentioned the changing
demographics and all 17 mentioned a common theme that charter schools attract the most
talented and affluent students leaving behind poorer students and students with special needs.
Respondents indicated that the budget was the second largest impact on their district with
40% indicating that charter schools had a major or moderate impact on their budget. This also
proved to be vastly more important in their written descriptions. 43 respondents mention the
budget in their response. The common themes mentioned were that per-pupil funding follows the
student and this has had a disproportionate effect on the district. One respondent wrote If we
lose 6 students, we lose the equivalent of a teachers salary, but we still have the other 20
students in the classroom who need a teacher. This theme was strengthened by the majority of
respondents who spoke of the loss of revenue. Michigan has seen a shift in the number of
24

students moving from traditional schools to public schools over the last decade. (Izraeli and
Murphy, 2012)
While many respondents mentioned the loss of revenue, no respondents wrote about the
reduction of expenses with the loss of enrollment. This may indicate that Board members see the
loss of per-pupil funding as a marginal loss of revenue without a corresponding reduction in
expenses. This theme is mirrored in the reposes where 25 respondents who indicated that charter
schools had only a minimal impact on student enrollment; they also indicated charter schools had
a moderate or major impact on the budget with only a few respondents indicating the reciprocal.
One expense was mentioned several times however, and this was the increase expense in
marketing that board members felt they needed to engage in to remain competitive and to protect
their perception in the community. Of those who mentioned marketing, all regarded it as an
expense that provided little value to the student.
Table 4-4
Perceptions on the Impact on Public School Districts by Charter School
Presence (N=205)
No
Minimal Moderate Major
Impact
Impact
Impact
Impact
School Enrollment
9%
62%
22%
7%
District Budget
15%
45%
23%
17%
Access to community
51%
40%
8%
1%
partnerships
Student Demographics
37%
12%
44%
7%
District Priorities
Access to Extra Curriculiar
Activities and/or Recreational
Facilities
Credibility or Reputation of
District
44%
37%
15%
3%
54%
39%
5%
3%
47%
36%
11%
6%
Perceptions of which Students Enroll in Charter Schools.

As stated before, only 205 respondents indicated that a charter school exists in their
district. We can therefore separate the perceptions of those members who currently compete with
25

charter schools and those who do not. Of those schools that do compete directly with charter
schools, very few felt that any of the suggested subgroups of students were Extremely Likely
to join a charter school. This is despite evidence that charter schools are not taking the highest
achieving students (Zimmer et all, 2012) This likely represents a downward skew in perceptions
of the board members that very few want to acknowledge a class of students as likely to join a
charter school. Recognizing this skew, the data was analyzed based on Likely vs. Not Likely
At All.
58% of respondents felt that Special Education students were not likely to join a charter
school. Not far behind was Students Qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch at 42%. This is
congruent with the written responses from the previous question and the theme that charter
schools do not recruit poor or special needs students. More interesting is that there seems to be
two views among Board Members in this respect. Approximately two thirds believe that students
who are poor or with special needs would not be attracted to charter schools, while the other
third seems to hold the opposite opinion. Saliency, or the strength of their response, was much
stronger in those who believe that charter schools would not be attractive. This may represent
two differing perceptions of how attractive charter schools are to these two groups. The first
opinion may be that parents would want to have a larger district which has more resources
available. The other opinion may be that parents may want smaller school which could better
personalize the education experience or grant the parent more access to the administration.
The second theme that is evident is that nearly three quarters of respondents felt that a
charter school was likely to attract Students with High M-Step Scores. This group was
considered most likely to be attracted to a charter school. This is also reinforced by the previous
26

written responses where respondents strongly indicated they felt that charter schools attracted the
most talented and affluent students.
Finally, 64% of respondents acknowledge that ELL students may be likely to attend a
charter school. Several wrote in the text box that they experience competition from charter
schools that specialize in foreign language in their district. This was the second most likely class
of students that respondents felt would be likely to attend a charter school. However, saliency of
their responses was much lower than Students with High M-Step Scores as 50% of
respondents felt students would only minimally be likely to attend.
Table 4-5
Respondents Reporting Charter School Presence By Students Enrolling in Charter
Schools(N=205)
Not Likely At All Minamally Likely Moderatly Likely Extremely Likely
ELL Students
35.8%
51.0%
11.3%
2.0%
Students with High MStep Scores
25.5%
39.2%
29.9%
5.4%
Special Education
Students
58.0%
7.8%
32.2%
2.0%
Students Qualifying
for Free or Reduced
Lunch
42.0%
14.1%
39.0%
4.9%
Other
40.6%
31.9%
17.4%
10.1%
Districts that Do Not Face Charter School Competition.

Districts where respondents indicated that a charter school was not present in their district
had both similarities and differences with their peer group who had a charter school in their
district. Most notably, the trend to skew towards the lower end was more pronounced with the
response Not Likely At All increasing in every class of students while Moderately Likely
and Extremely Likely fell in every class of students. There were two notable differences and
one interesting similarity. The first is that respondents in this category were much less likely to
see Students with High M-Step Scores as attracted to charter schools. This was the single
largest change with the percentage viewing this category as Not Likely At All increasing by 23
27

percentage points. The next largest change was that these respondents were much less likely to
feel that Students Qualifying for Free or Reduced Lunch would be likely to be attracted to
charter schools with this category changing by nearly 20 percentage points. Finally, there was
one similarity that remained the same and that was in regards to Special Education Students.
Respondents were nearly the same as those who face competition, only with less saliency for
those who thought that charter schools would be attractive.
Table 4-6
Respondents Reporting No Charter School Presence By Students Enrolling in Charter
Schools with difference [%] with Respondents Reporting Charter School Presence(N=73)
Not Likely At All Minamally Likely Moderatly Likely Extremely Likely
ELL Students
50.0%
14.2%
37.8%
-13.1%
10.8%
-0.5%
1.4%
-0.6%
Students with
High M-Step
Scores
48.6%
23.2%
27.0%
-12.2%
24.3%
-5.6%
0.0%
-5.4%
Special
Education
Students
60.8%
2.8%
32.4%
24.6%
6.8%
-25.4%
0.0%
-2.0%
61.6%
19.7%
27.4%
13.3%
8.2%
-30.8%
2.7%
-2.1%
54.1%
13.5%
35.1%
3.3%
5.4%
-12.0%
5.4%
-4.7%
Students
Qualifying for
Free or
Reduced Lunch
Other
Perceptions of Why Parents Choose Charter Schools.

While the previous question asked which category respondents felt would be attracted to
a charter school, the following question asked what specific attributes of a charter school would
be attractive to parents. Again, the researcher segregated the sample into those who currently
have a charter school in their district and those who do not. Also as in previous analysis, the data
was appears to be skewed in the majority of categories.
28

As was found in previous questions, again the perception that charter schools are Elite
was a highly salient response with 28% of respondents indicating that this was a reason parents
would choose Most of the Time. This was the most salient response in this matrix. Overall,
88% of respondents felt that this was a reason parents would choose a charter school at least
sometimes. A Philosophy or Approach to Education and Class Size were also strongly
perceived as reasons why parents would choose to enroll in a charter school at 80% and 81%
respectively although saliency of these reasons was lower. The strongest response was Having a
Choice or Alternative where 91% of respondents indicated that parents would choose this at
least some of the time. The least likely reason respondents felt parents would choose to leave
was the results in the District, however they were slightly more likely to believe that parents may
leave because of achievement results in the Charter School. This may represent the perception
that parents would not leave the District because the District had acceptable achievement results,
but may leave if a charter school had better results.
When comparing respondents who currently have a charter school in their district with
those who do not, only one large deviation occurred. Respondents who do not have a charter
school in their district are much more inclined to believe that the reason why parents would
choose a charter school is the curriculum design. The percentage who felt this was a reason
parents would most likely choose a charter school in this category was 10 percentage points
higher while those who felt this would rarely be a reason dropped by 19 percentage points. This
corresponded with an 11.6 percent drop in the percentage of respondents who felt the perception
that the charter being perceived as elite Most of the Time. It appears that respondents that have
a charter in their district feel that charter schools compete more on a perception of elitism while
those who do not are more likely to believe charters compete on curriculum design.
29
Table 4-7
Respondents Reporting Preceived Reasons Parents Choose to
Enroll Students in a Charter School (N=200)
Most of the
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Time
Class Size
19.0%
41.0%
36.0%
4.0%
School Size
26.5%
43.5%
26.5%
3.5%
Curriculum
Design
43.0%
24.5%
28.0%
4.5%
Achievement
Results in Your
District
47.5%
37.0%
11.0%
4.5%
Achievement
Results in the
Charter District
38.5%
37.5%
20.5%
3.5%
Philosophy or
Approach to
Education
20.0%
42.5%
30.0%
7.5%
Having a
Choice or
Alternative
9.0%
36.5%
42.5%
12.0%
Learning Time
39.0%
48.0%
10.0%
3.0%
41.5%
38.5%
15.0%
5.0%
22.0%
32.5%
17.5%
28.0%
Geographic or
Distance from
Home
Parent
Perception that
Charter is
"Elite"
30
Table 4-8
Respondents
Reporting Preceived Reasons Parents Choose to
Enroll Students in a Charter School by Repondents Reporting No
Charter Presence (N=67)
Most of the
Rarely
Sometimes
Often
Time
Class Size
26.9%
7.9%
41.8%
0.8%
28.4%
-7.6%
3.0%
-1.0%
School Size
32.8%
6.3%
47.8%
4.3%
17.9%
-8.6%
1.5%
-2.0%
Curriculum
Design
23.9%
-19.1%
34.3%
9.8%
26.9%
-1.1%
14.9%
10.4%
Achievement
Results in Your
District
47.8%
0.3%
28.4%
-8.6%
13.4%
2.4%
10.4%
5.9%
Achievement
Results in the
Charter District
40.3%
1.8%
34.3%
-3.2%
13.4%
-7.1%
11.9%
8.4%
Philosophy or
Approach to
Education
25.4%
5.4%
38.8%
-3.7%
22.4%
-7.6%
13.4%
5.9%
Having a
Choice or
Alternative
22.4%
13.4%
34.3%
-2.2%
34.3%
-8.2%
9.0%
-3.0%
Learning Time
35.8%
-3.2%
43.3%
-4.7%
17.9%
7.9%
3.0%
0.0%
Geographic or
Distance from
Home
46.3%
4.8%
29.9%
-8.6%
17.9%
2.9%
6.0%
1.0%
Parent
Perception that
Charter is
"Elite"
25.4%
3.4%
29.9%
-2.6%
28.4%
10.9%
16.4%
-11.6%
31
Actions Taken Due to Competition

The previous battery of questions detailed what perceptions board members held. In this
selection of questions, the researcher attempts to identify the specific actions taken by Districts
due to the presence of charter schools or the possibility of charter schools moving to the district.
In the following questions, the sample of respondents with charter schools in their district has
reduced to 200.
Collection of Parent Surveys
One response to competition is to determine why parents would send their child to a
different school. This could involve simple exit surveys to more complex market research. The
first question asked was Does your district collect data from parents about their reasons for
choosing charter schools? Because the question assumes that the district has a charter school in
their district which parents can access, only responses from respondents who indicated the
presence of a charter school were analyzed. In total, 200 respondents met these criteria. The
majority of respondents indicated that their district did not collect data from parents.
Table 4-9
Respondents indicating Data collection of
why Parents choose Charter Schools
(N=200)
Not Yet,
but in the
Yes
works
No
Charter
Schools
32.5%
10.0%
57.5%
Present
In reviewing why a district would not collect data, there emerged at least two
possibilities. The first possibility being that these schools did not face heavy competition from
charter schools. 71% of respondents who indicated that they did not collect data had lost 3% or
32

less of their population. While many respondents indicated that the loss of students was
disproportionately adverse to their budget, a loss of 2% or less may be manageable enough not to
increase workloads on staff to track students or hire professional demographers or marketers to
determine why parents choose to send their students elsewhere. However, there still remained
nearly 30% of respondents who experience a loss of 3% or more. Respondents were not asked,
but could have chosen to write a longer answer in the text box. Only two did, but their answers
were complimentary that they have tried and been unsuccessful, or could not obtain the data
from the charter school which matches the second possibility that the data may not be easily
obtained.
Table 4-10
Respondents Reporting a Charter School in their District which Reported not Collecting Exit
Data(N=115)
Less than 1%
1% to 2%
3% to 4%
5% to 6%
7% to 8%
More than 9%
39.1%
32.2%
11.3%
8.7%
1.7%
7.0%
Of those who do currently collect information from parents the most recurring theme was
that these schools conducted a survey, exit interview, or a phone call was made. By far, the most
common method of outreach was a survey followed by a phone call. However, all responses
indicating how the district determines who is leaving involve students who were previously
enrolled and are leaving the district. None of the respondents indicated the hiring of external help
to identify students who were never part of the district.
Programs or Initiatives.
The next matrix question probed respondents to identify any actions that they undertook
in response to the presence of charter schools. Only respondents who indicated that a charter
school was within their district will be analyzed as few respondents who did not have a charter
school in their district answered this question. The question asks respondents to identify areas
where they have made changes to their district to compete with charter schools. 50.5% of
33

respondents indicated they had not taken any action due to charter schools. This left a remaining
99 respondents who indicated the presence of a charter school in their district and took actions
because of the schools presence. The most common practice was the launching of marketing
materials. This represents 81% of these respondents. Of respondents who indicated making
changes, 35.4% only increased their marketing efforts. In total, 68% of respondents who
indicated the presence of a charter school in their district did nothing or only increased their
advertising efforts. However, the remaining respondents indicated a large number of changes
with nearly all of the respondents indicating their district had made multiple changes. The most
often response for this group were changes in curriculum at 79.7%. AP and IB programs were
the most often mentioned with technology integration also being a major theme among this
group. Other strong responses included Capital improvements and Design of new programs at
59.2% and 54.7% respectively. Nearly 72% of these improvements were in addition to increased
marketing campaigns.
Table 4-11
Initiatives Respondents Reported because of presence of Charter School (N=200)
New
Curriculum
and
Instruction
Initiatives
Launching of
Change of
Marketing
Pace for
Modification
Modifications to
Capital
Materials or
Design of Initiatives
of School
Work
Improvements
Startegic
Specialized
We
Hours of
Conditions for to Buildings or
Communications
Programs
already
Operation
Staff
Infrastructure
about District
Planned
Programs
to Do
Overall
25.5%
7.0%
40.5%
5.5%
19.0%
17.5%
7.0%
Respondents
who indicated
making
changes
(N=99)
51.5%
14.1%
81.8%
11.1%
38.4%
35.4%
14.1%
Changes
other than or
in addition to
marketing
(N=64)
79.7%
21.9%
71.9%
17.2%
59.4%
54.7%
21.9%
None
50.5%
34
Alignment and Comparison with Ricciardelli, Cummins, Steadman Study

The survey by Ricciardelli, Cummins, and Steadman (RCS Survey) focused only on
those schools that indicated that they have a charter school in their district while this research has
expanded the data analysis to also compare those who do not have a charter school in their
district in respects to the perceptions as to why a parent would enroll in a charter school. In this
section, the researcher focuses only on those respondents who indicated they had a charter school
in their district and completed the survey to compare the population and findings. The first
comparable item is demographics. The largest difference appears to be in populations with
charter schools. The percentage of responses where the district did not have a charter school was
much larger in this survey than in the RCS Survey. This may indicate selection bias or that as a
whole charter schools have not penetrated the State of Michigan to the same extent as in
Massachusetts. According to Dan Fishman, rural areas are underserved by charter schools due to
the density of the population base. (2014)
Table 4-12
Comaparison of This Survey and RCS Survey
RCS Survey
Number of
Respondents
69 - 61 with charter school option
Sample Size (N) 61
Urban
5 out of 51
This survey
285 - 205 with chater school option 200 complete surveys
200
24 out of 200
When comparing the size of schools, it was found that respondents in this survey were
more evenly distributed in regards to size with a flatter distribution and fatter tails in a
distribution curve.
35

Table 4-13
Survey Respondents of Student Enrollment
RCS Survey
Enrollment of
Districts
less than 1,500
1,501 to 2,500
2,501 to 4,000
4,001 to 6,000
6,001 to 10,000
10,000 or more
N: total
This Survey
Difference
[%]
[%]
8
15
22
12
3
1
61
13%
25%
36%
20%
5%
2%
47
47
36
32
28
10
200
24%
24%
18%
16%
14%
5%
10%
-1%
-18%
-4%
9%
3%
Despite the differences in distribution patterns based on size, the distribution based on the
percentage of students enrolling in charter schools is similar with only single digit differences in
percentage with only one transition point between near the 3% enrollment range.
Table 4-14
Survey Respondents by Charter School Enrollment
RCS Survey
N
[%]
% of Students in Charter School
22
36%
less than 1%
17
28%
1% to 2%
12
20%
3% to 4%
5
8%
5% to 6%
1
2%
7% to 8%
9% or more
4
7%
N: total
61
This Survey
N
70
69
27
21
4
9
Difference
[%]
35%
35%
14%
11%
2%
5%
-1%
7%
-6%
2%
0%
-2%
200
Comparison and Contrast of Perceptions.

Based on the demographic data, the respondents represent similar district characteristics.
However, the samples are not the same. The RCS Survey was of Superintendents, while the
respondents in this survey were Education Board Members. Differences between the findings
may represent differences between the two classes of respondents, or environmental differences
such as financial, social, or legal differences.
What was notable was there appeared to be a shift in saliency between the two groups. In
6 out of the seven groups, there was a rightward shift of more than 10% points with respondents
36

in this survey reporting a larger impact from the presence of charter schools. Of particular note
was the shift in how respondents indicated charter schools have impacted student demographics.
What is clear is that respondents in this survey perceived charter schools as having a much
stronger effect on their student body makeup more than Superintendents did in Massachusetts.
Also clear is that concerns about charter schools targeting the most affluent and talented students
from the public school was a recurring theme in this survey. It is unknown if these perceptions
are actual or just perceptual.
37
Table 4-15
Perceptions on the Impact on Public School Districts by Charter School Presence (N=205) RCS Survey (N=61)
Minimal
Moderate
No Impact
Impact
Impact
School Enrollment
RCS Survey
26%
43%
25%
District Budget
Access to community
partnerships
Student Demographics
District Priorities
Major Impact
6%
This Survey
9%
62%
22%
7%
Difference
-17%
19%
-3%
1%
RCS Survey
24%
31%
23%
22%
This Survey
15%
45%
23%
17%
Difference
-9%
14%
0%
-5%
RCS Survey
69%
25%
3%
3%
This Survey
51%
40%
8%
1%
Difference
-18%
15%
5%
-2%
RCS Survey
45%
37%
7%
10%
This Survey
37%
12%
44%
7%
Difference
-8%
-25%
37%
-3%
RCS Survey
55%
25%
13%
6%
This Survey
44%
37%
15%
3%
Difference
-11%
12%
2%
-3%
Access to Extra
Curriculiar Activities
and/or Recreational
Facilities
RCS Survey
67%
26%
4%
1%
This Survey
54%
39%
5%
3%
Difference
-13%
13%
1%
2%
Credibility or
Reputation of District
RCS Survey
47%
26%
15%
12%
This Survey
47%
36%
11%
6%
Difference
0%
10%
-4%
-6%
One of the findings of the RCS Survey was that there as a connection between the
number of students enrolling in charter schools, and the impact this had on respondents views of
how this effected perceptions of how charter schools have impacted their district. When
comparing the results of the RCS survey with this survey, the researcher found that the same
trends occurred, however the effect was more gradual and in the case of District Priorities
linear than the findings of the RCS Survey. In addition, the perceptions of impact on District
38

Priorities or Decisions and Credibility / Reputation were not as strongly perceived as in the
RSC Survey.
Table 4-16
Reported Moderate or Major Impact (N=205) RCS Survey (N=61)
RCS Survey
33%
District
Priorities
10%
This Survey
31%
15%
13%
Difference
-2%
5%
-2%
RCS Survey
85%
35%
53%
This Survey
54%
24%
20%
Difference
-31%
-11%
-33%
RCS Survey
80%
75%
75%
This Survey
79%
36%
50%
Difference
-1%
-39%
-25%
District Budget
0% - 2%
3% - 6%
7% - 9%
Credibility or
Reputation
15%
The final comparison with the RCS Survey had to do with reported initiatives
respondents indicated their district had taken in response to charter schools. Again the
respondents between the two surveys showed similarities in trends but a difference in saliency.
Three notable differences occurred. The first was in respect to Curriculum and Instruction
initiatives. While RCS Survey respondents indicated their strongest response when enrollment
loss was between 3% and 6%, respondents in this survey continued a more linear trajectory
having the strongest response at the 7% to 9%+ loss range. The second difference was in respect
to Marketing / Strategic Communications. Respondents in this survey exhibited the same
trend, but had a much stronger response than RCS Survey respondents at the 7% to 9%+ loss
range. The final difference was in respect to Capital Improvements to Buildings or
Infrastructure where respondents to this survey experienced a mirror image of the trend across
the different loss ranges.
39

Table 4-17
Initiatives reported by Enrollment Percentage (N=205) RCS Survey (N=61)
Curriculum and Marketing /
Instruction
Strategic
RCS Survey
17%
37%
0% - 2%
3% - 6%
7% - 9%
Capital
Design of
Improvements Specialized
33%
27%
This Survey
21%
34%
20%
14%
Difference
4%
-3%
-13%
-13%
RCS Survey
75%
48%
58%
27%
This Survey
26%
56%
14%
22%
Difference
-49%
8%
-44%
-5%
RCS Survey
17%
15%
8%
20%
This Survey
43%
36%
21%
29%
Difference
26%
21%
13%
9%
The final comparison between the two survey results compares the RSC Survey results
found when they compared perceptions of if high achieving students would be likely to leave the
district to perceptions of how charter schools have impacted the budget. Despite both samples
sharing a significant amount of commonality in respect to the percentage of loss of students,
respondents in this survey cluster around minimally likely and minimal impact. However, the
trend line remains the same between the two surveys. Both exhibit the same low counts on polar
extremes such as Minimal Impact and Extremely Likely and vice versa. There appears in the
data in regards to this survey a bulge of nearly 48% of respondents who indicated that the effect
of charter schools only are minimally or moderately affected their budget and only minimally or
moderately are likely to attract high achieving students. This may indicate that charter schools
are impacted less charter schools and charter schools are less likely to attract high achieving
students. Alternatively, this may be selection bias or implicit bias to select moderate of minimum
40

responses.
Matrix 4-1
RCS Survey (N=60)

Perception of Likely Students With Advanced MCAS
Scores To Enroll in Charter Schools
Report of Charter School Impact on Not Likely

District Budget
at All
Minimally
Likely
Moderately Extremely
Likely
Likely
Total
(N)
No Impact
13
Minimal Impact
16
Moderate Impact
16
Major Impact
10
15
Total (N)
13
16
23
60
Matrix 4-2
This Survey (N=203)

Perception of Likely Students With Advanced M-Step
Report of Charter School Impact on Not Likely

District Budget
at All
Minimally
Likely
Likely
Likely
Total
(N)
No Impact
13
16
31
Minimal Impact
29
36
22
91
Moderate Impact
18
21
46
Major Impact
10
16
35
Total (N)
51
80
61
11
203
A final comparison of the results was another matrix which compared the perception of
the likelihood of advanced students to enroll in a charter school versus initiatives undertaken by
the district in response to a charter school presence. To enhance any trends, the researcher added
the percentage of districts that had done no initiatives due to charter school presence. The trend
41

that emerged in both groups was that as the perceived likelihood that advanced students may
enroll in a charter increased the likelihood of the respondent indicating that one or more
initiatives had been undertaken with the exception of Extremely Likely. This again could be
due to reporting bias. To better understand if this was a reporting bias, the average number of
initiatives per respondent was compared between the two surveys. Two findings emerged. The
first is that the average number of initiatives reported per respondent was much higher in this
survey than the RCS Survey. Furthermore, the trend between perceptions of advanced students
enrolling and the average number of initiatives per respondent increased significantly eliminating
most of the difference.
Matrix 4-3
RCS Survey (N=60)

Perception of Likely Students With Advanced MCAS
Not Likely
at All
Minimally
Likely
Likely
Likely
Total
(N)
New Curriculum & Instruction Initiatives

Modification to School Hours of Operation
Launching of Marketing Materials or Strategic Communications
Modification to Work Conditions
Capital Improvements to Buildings or Infrastructure
Design of Specialized Programs
Change of Pace for Already planned Initiatives
None
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
3
0
3
0
0
2
0
5
1
1
9
1
3
3
4
6
8
2
15
1
8
10
2
6
12
3
27
2
11
15
6
22
Total Responses
Percentage not influenced by Charters
5
100%
12
42%
16
38%
21
29%
54
41%
Initiatives in part Influenced by the Presence of a Charter
42

Matrix 4-4
This Survey (N=203)
New Curriculum & Instruction Initiatives

Modification to School Hours of Operation
Launching of Marketing Materials or Strategic Communications
Perception of Likely Students With Advanced M-Step

Not Likely Minimally
Moderately Extremely Total
at All
Likely
Likely
Likely
(N)
8
16
22
5
51
0
6
7
1
14
13
30
17
5
65
Modification to Work Conditions
11
Capital Improvements to Buildings or Infrastructure
12
12
34
Design of Specialized Programs

Change of Pace for Already planned Initiatives
None
5
1
34
11
6
38
14
5
22
5
2
6
35
14
100
Total Responses
Percentage not influenced by Charters
51
67%
80
48%
61
36%
11
55%
203
49%
Initiatives in part Influenced by the Presence of a Charter
Table 4-18
Perception of Likely of Advanced Students to Enroll in a Charter
compared with Average number of Initiatives reported per
Respondent
RCS Survey
This Survey
Not Likely at Minimally

All
Likely
Likely
Likely
0.00
1.00
1.38
3.50
0.67
2.08
2.19
3.33
Average
1.41
2.10
43

CHAPTER V SUMMARY
The objective of this research was to determine the perceptions of charter schools among
current school board members of traditional public school districts for the purpose to learn if the
presence of charter schools has affected school board members decision making process. The
research attempted to understand the following question.
How School Board Members perceptions of competitive marketplace pressures are associated
with the presence of a charter school in their district has it impacted their districts decisions?
To do this, board members were surveyed electronically to determine their perceptions of

about charter schools and initiatives and actions they instigated in response to the presence of
charter schools. To have a comparable base line, a similar study conducted by Ricciardelli,
Cummins and Steedman was used as a template. With their permission, their survey was
modified for terminology and quantitatively compared to determine similarities and differences.
Results
The number of respondents who fit the criteria for comparison was over 3 times larger
with this survey having 205 respondents which fit the criteria versus 61 in the RCS Survey. The
demographics of the two surveys were similar in key areas of district size and the amount of
competition the respondents reported with only minor variations in demographic reporting.
Perceptions of how respondents perceived the effect of charter schools on their district however
appears to be a tendency for respondents in this survey to migrate toward minimum impact
versus no impact on the majority of attributes a charter school may impact overall as highlighted
in table 4-15 and a tendency to migrate from moderate impact to minimal or no impact when
44

enrollment loss are 3% or more as highlighted in table 4-16. This migration effect can again be
seen when comparing matrix 4-1 and 4-2 even though the trend remains the same in both
surveys. This difference in saliency of effect and perceptions was one of the most remarkable
differences found between the two groups. The other difference between the two surveys was the
number of initiatives respondents indicated when they believed that advanced students were
likely to leave their district. Overall, respondents in this survey were much more likely to report
a greater number of initiatives in this regard as seen in Table 4-18.
An exception to the two migration trends was student demographics which were shifted
from minimal impact to moderate impact. There was a large shift in this category from minimum
impact to moderate impact.
Conclusions
Of those respondents in this survey that stated that there was a charter school in their
districts 90.7% reported some impact on their student enrollment yet 62% reported that
this impact was minimal.
The largest impact that respondents in this survey reported was how the charter schools
affected the demographics of the student body with 50% of respondents indicating that
charter schools have had a moderate to major impact in this area.
Respondents in this survey indicated that the budget was the second largest impact on
their district with 40% indicating that charter schools had a major or moderate impact on
their budget. This also proved to be vastly more important in their written descriptions.
Respondents in this survey indicated that semi-urban and urban schools were the most
likely to see completion from charter schools
45
Over half of respondents in this survey are not collecting data as to how why students are
going to charter schools despite reporting competition from charter schools. 71% percent
of these respondents indicated that their loss to charter schools is less than 3%
There appears to be two different thoughts among respondents about the likelihood of
Special needs students and poorer students to enroll in a charter school among
respondents in this survey
Respondents in this survey who did not perceive competition from a charter school were
less likely to perceive special needs students and poorer students to enroll in a charter
school but there still appeared to be two differing thoughts among respondents in this
class.
28% of respondents in this survey who reported competing with charter schools thought
that parents choose charter schools Most of the Time because the charter is perceived
as Elite. However, respondents who do not report competing with a charter school
perceive this with less saliency.
50% of respondents who face competition in this survey indicating a charter school
presence made no initiatives due to charter school presence. Another 18% only increased
their marketing efforts. However overall, respondents in this survey are more likely to
create initiatives than those of the comparable survey
Respondents in this survey who stated competition with charter schools tended to report
impacts on their district caused by charter schools towards the center of the 4 point scale.
46

Recommendations for Traditional School Board Members
Board members need to understand what charter schools are, how they are funded, and
how they are structured in order to compete in the educational market place both to
counter current competition and to disincentive future competition as well as to foster
collaborative relationships.
Board members should be aware of the specific missions that charter schools in their
district have to both compete and collaborate with charter schools.
Board members should be aware of their bias towards the loss of advanced students to
charter schools and compete for all students.
Recommendations for Public School Academy Board Members
Board members should encourage the administration to reach out to the traditional
districts in their area to introduce the school, its mission, and to investigate possible
collaborations such as purchasing services from the traditional district as well as creating
joint learning experiences for the student populations of both schools.
Board Members should reach out to traditional board members to exchange information,
share ideas, and explain the public nature of public school academies.
Recommendations for ISDs and the State
ISDs play a critical role in providing information to all public schools and should work
to foster a competitive and collaborative environment between both traditional public
schools and charter schools. ISDs can be a channel for information about the movements
of students within the district for both public school academies and traditional districts.
ISDs should reinforce to public school boards that traditional districts and charter
districts are both creations of the State meant to serve the public. A possible conceptual
47

analogy could be to consider traditional districts as similar to universities and public
school academies as similar to public community colleges.
Recommendations for Future Research
Future research involving School board members should take mitigating steps against
central tendency bias.
48

References
Bethlehem, J. (2010, June 18). Selection Bias in Web Surveys. Retrieved from
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x/abstract
Bomotti, S., Ginsberg, R., & Cobb, B. (1999, July 22). ERIC - Teachers in Charter and
Traditional Schools: A Comparative Study., Education Policy Analysis Archives, 1999.
Retrieved November 1, 2015, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ598401
Cannata, M. (2011, April). ERIC - How Do Principals Respond to Charter School Competition?
Research Brief, National Center on School Choice, Vanderbilt University (NJ1), 2011Apr. Retrieved November 1, 2015, from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED543580
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Dawsey, C. P. (2014, April 29). A brief history of Proposal A, or how we got here. Bridge
Magazine. Retrieved from http://bridgemi.com/2014/04/a-brief-history-of-proposal-a-orhow-we-got-here/
Department of Education. (2001, June). Challenge and Opportunity: The Impact of Charter
Schools on School Districts. Retrieved November 07, 2015, from
http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/summary.html
Dixon, J. (2014, June 22). Michigan's biggest charter operator charges big rents: 14 schools pay
$1M. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved September 19, 2015, from
http://www.freep.com/article/20140622/NEWS06/306220106
Fishman, D. (2015, Summer). Retrieved February 5, 2016, from http://educationnext.org/schoolreform-rural-america/
49

Garn, G., & Cobb, C. D. (2001). A Framework for Understanding Charter School
Accountability. Education and Urban Society, 113-128. Retrieved September 19, 2015,
from http://eus.sagepub.com.cmich.idm.oclc.org/content/33/2/113
Izraeili, O., & Murphy, K. (2012). An Analysis of Michigan Charter Schools: Enrollment,
Revenues, and Expenditures. Journal of Education Finance, 37(3), 3rd ser. Retrieved
February 5, 2016.
Johnson, B. (2015, January 28). Saginaw school board turns down Francis Reh charter school
purchase offer, votes to demolish instead.
Http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2015/01/saginaw_school_board_turns_do
w.html. Retrieved September 27, 2015.
Kolderie, T. (2005). Ray Budde and the origins of the Charter Concept. Education Evolving.
Retrieved from http://edsource.org/wp-content/uploads/Ray-Budde-Origins-OfChartering.pdf
Liepa, R. (Producer). (2014, July 23). Livonia Public Schools Board of Education Regular
Meeting [Video file]. In Youtube. Retrieved November 7, 2015, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0upZ3opxlKw
MCL 380.502, The Revised School Code (Excerpt) Public Act 451 of 1976Am. 2011, Act 277,
Eff. Mar. 28, 2012
National Center for Education Statistics. (2015, April). Charter School Enrollment. Retrieved
September 18, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgb.asp
Ricciardelli, B., Cummins, C., & Steedman, P. (2014). Superintendents' Perceptions of Charter
Schools in the Context of a Competitive Educational Marketplace: Charter Schools, their
Impact on Traditional Public Districts and the Role of District Leadership (Unpublished
50

master's thesis). Boston College. Retrieved November 14, 2015, from
http://dlib.bc.edu/islandora/object/bc-ir:101699
Sautter, C. R. (1993). Charter Schools: A New Breed of Public Schools. Retrieved September 18,
2015, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED361905.pdf
State of Michigan Board of Education (Director). (2015, March 10). State Board of Education
Superintendent Interview: Randy Liepa [Video file]. Retrieved September 27, 2015, from
http://mistreamnet.org/videos/3341/state-board-of-education-superintendent-interviewrandy-liepa
State of Michigan Department of Education. (2015, October 2). Schools/Facilities by Public
School Academy District. Retrieved November 21, 2015, from
http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/PSAs_297270_7.pdf
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T. R., & Witte, J. (n.d.). Charter Schools in
Eight States: Effects on Achievement, Attainment, Integration, and Competition:
Summary. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e530832010-001
51

MSA699-Final Johannes Cawood (B) PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MSA699-Final Johannes Cawood (B) PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Running Head: PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

A Quantitative Analysis of the Perceptions of Traditional School Board Members in Michigan

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of Requirements for the Degree of

MSA699 Capstone Project

Project Instructor: Dr. Reginald Carter

Central Michigan University

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

CHAPTER I Definition of the Problem

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

CHAPTER III Methodology

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

4,001 to 6,000 6,001 to 10,000

Perceptions and Decisions

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

Perceptions of which Students Enroll in Charter Schools.

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

Districts that Do Not Face Charter School Competition.

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

Perceptions of Why Parents Choose Charter Schools.

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

Actions Taken Due to Competition

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

Alignment and Comparison with Ricciardelli, Cummins, Steadman Study

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

Comparison and Contrast of Perceptions.

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

PERCEPTIONS OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BY TRADITIONAL DISTRICTS

RCS Survey (N=60)

Report of Charter School Impact on Not Likely

This Survey (N=203)

Report of Charter School Impact on Not Likely