The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the utility of an involvement and talent development framework in assessing the success of charter schools and their students. Focus group interviews were conducted with parent/guardians and teachers in four charter schools in Ohio. Teachers and parents mentioned the involvement of students, teachers, and parents and the growth in students’cognitive and affective talents as important indicators of school and student success. The study concludes that new approaches to the assessment of charter schools and their students need to reflect insiders’ perceptions of the importance of measuring involvement and talent development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Astin, A. W.
(1984). Achieving educational excellence. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
2.
Astin, A. W.
(1993a). Assessment for excellence. Phoenix: Oryx Press.
3.
Astin, A. W.
(1993b). What matters in college?San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
4.
Educational Research Service
. (2001). No child left behind: A special reprint of President George W. Bush’s education plan, with relevant discussion questions education leaders should ask. Arlington, VA: Author.
5.
Evans, E. P.
, Stallions, M. E., Damianos, F., & Orfely, B. J. (1999). Charter schools: Education or revolution?Education Forum, 64, 20-24.
6.
Finn, C. E.
, Manno, B. V., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
Garn, G.
, & Cobb, C. (2001). A framework for understanding charter school accountability. Education & Urban Society, 33(2), 113-128.
8.
Hassel, B.
(1999). Charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
9.
Hess, F.
(2001). Whaddaya mean you want to close my school? The politics of regulatory accountability in charter schooling. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 141-156.
10.
Jackson, K.
(2000). Parents’ choice. American School Board Journal, 187(3), 47-48.
11.
Jelinek, D.
(2001, April). Charter school accountability initiative evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
12.
Lasley, T.
, Ridenour, C., Talbert-Johnson, C., & Raisch, C. (1999). Charters: A value added opportunity for urban teachers?Education and Urban Society, 31, 499-511.
13.
Legislative Office of Education Oversight
. (2001). Community schools in Ohio: Second-year implementation report. Columbus, OH: Author.
14.
Manno, B. V.
, Finn, C. E., Bierlein, L. A., & Vanourek, G. (1998). How charter schools are different: Lessons and implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan, 79, 488-498.
15.
Meier, D.
(2000). Will standards save public education?Boston: Beacon.
16.
Nathan, J.
(1996). Possibilities, problems, and progress: Early lessons from the charter movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 78, 18-23.
17.
Ohio Community Schools Center
. (2001, July 11). Ohio charter school lawsuit: Overview ofthe amended brief. (Available from the Ohio Community Schools Center, 21 East State Street, Suite 1120, Columbus, OH 43215)
18.
Opfer, V.
(2001). Charter schools and the panoptic effect of accountability. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 201-215.
19.
Pascarella, E. T.
, & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college affects students. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20.
Renzulli, J. S.
(1994). Teachers as talent scouts. Educational Leadership, 52(4), 75-81.
21.
U.S. Department of Education
. (2001). Title IV—Promoting informed parental choice and innovative programs. Retrieved October 25, 2001, from http://edworkforce.house.gov/issues/107th/education/nclb/hr1text/t4_.pdf
22.
Vornberg, J. A.
(1999). Establishing charter schools: A policy study of Texas’ first year charter schools. Planning & Changing, 30(2), 112-122.
23.
Wells, A. S.
(1998). Charter school reform in California: Does it meet objectives?Phi Delta Kappan, 80(4), 305-312.
24.
Wells, A.
, Lopez, A., Scott, J., & Holme, J. (1999). Charter schools as postmodern paradox: Rethinking social stratification in an age of deregulated school choice. Harvard Educational Review, 69(2), 172-202.
