Charter school: teacher management and resource acquisition in Colombia

ABSTRACT

Charter schools are offered as a solution in school districts where public schools are seen as failing. Although broad reviews of the outcomes of charter schools have tended to find that charter schools do not produce better academic results, this school management model remains a hot topic. However, two aspects of the charter school experience that receive less attention are teacher management and resource acquisition. We address these issues through the study of a charter school program in Bogotá, Colombia, which began in 1999. In this model, the city of Bogotá recruited private schools and other private organizations to manage 25 charter schools that were newly built and well-equipped in marginalized areas

Keyword:
Public-Private Partnership; Educational Finances; Teachers; Colombia

RESUMO

As escolas charter são oferecidas como uma solução em distritos escolares onde as escolas públicas são vistas como malsucedidas. Embora as análises gerais dos resultados das escolas charter tenham tendido a descobrir que as escolas charter não produzem melhores resultados acadêmicos, esse modelo de gestão escolar continua sendo um tema candente. No entanto, dois aspectos da experiência da escola charter que recebem menos atenção são a gestão de professores e a aquisição de recursos. Abordamos essas questões através do estudo de um programa de escolas charter em Bogotá, Colômbia, que começou em 1999. Nesse modelo, a cidade de Bogotá recrutou escolas particulares e outras organizações privadas para administrar 25 escolas charter, que foram construídas e bem equipadas em áreas marginalizadas.

Palavras chave:
Parceria Público-Privada; Financiamento da Educação; Professores; Colômbia

RÉSUMÉ

Les écoles charter sont enviasagées comme solution dans les districts scolaires où on perçoit que les écoles publiques ont échoué. Bien que les analyses des résultats des écoles charter indiquent que celles-ci ne produisent pas de meilleurs résultats académiques, ce modèle de gestion scolaire reste un sujet brûlant. Deux aspects de l’école charter attivent cependant moins d’attention que les autres : la gestion des professeurs et l’acquisition de ressources. Nous aborderons ces questions à travers l’étude d’un programme d’écoles charter, à Bogotá, en Colombie. Dans ce programme daté de 1999, la ville de Bogotá a recruté des écoles privées ainsi que d’autres organisations privées pour gérer 25 écoles charter, qui ont été construites et bien équipées, dans des quartiers marginalisés.

Mots-clés:
Partenariat Public-Privé; Financement de L’Éducation; Enseignants; Colombie

RESUMEN

Las escuelas charter son ofrecidas como una solución en distritos escolares en los cuales las escuelas públicas son consideradas como un fracaso. Aunque los análisis generales de los resultados de las escuelas charter tienden a descubrir que ellas no producen mejores resultados académicos, este modelo de gestión escolar sigue siendo un tema candente. Sin embargo, dos de los aspectos de la experiencia de la escuela charter que reciben menos atención son la gestión de profesores y la adquisición de recursos. Abordamos estos temas a través del estudio de un programa de escuelas charter en Bogotá, Colombia, que comenzó en 1999. En este modelo, la ciudad de Bogotá reclutó a escuelas y otras organizaciones privadas para administrar 25 escuelas charter, que fueron construidas y bien equipadas en áreas marginadas.

Palabras-clave:
Asociación Público-Privada; Profesores; Financiación de la Educación; Colombia

One of the educat ional reforms currently being promoted by a range of international organizations and contemplated in numerous countries around the world is charter schools (CHAKRABARTI; PETERSON, 2009; LAROCQUE, 2008; PATRINOS; BARRERA-OSORIO; GUÁQUETA, 2009).⁹ While traditional public schools - TPS - are established, funded, and operated by a public or government entity - with all TPSs being subject to the same regulations - public charter schools, on the other hand, are funded by the government and operate within a public school district, but have freedom from some regulations (NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS - NAEP, 2008). They frequently operate under an alternative school purpose or mission and are free to form publicprivate partnerships to seek additional sources of funds, beyond those provided by the government. While the charter school concept has been widely applied - and is perhaps famous because of its prevalence - in the United States since the 1990s (BARGHAUS; BOE, 2011), the model of public funding going to schools that are privately managed was earlier implemented in Chile, as part of the reforms enacted in the 1980s, under Pinochet (KRAWCZYK; VEIRA, 2008). More recently, since the 2000s, charter management organizations (CMOs) have become more common, particularly in the United States (FARRELL; WOHLSTETTER; SMITH, 2012). CMOs are private bodies that typically manage a network of schools that have been founded on a common model, purpose, and/or mission.

Frequently, charter schools are offered as a solution in school districts were public schools are seen as failing. They are discussed as being more effective at matching students to schools (that is, matching of student/family needs and interests with that of school mission), ensuring family choice of educational products, improving education quality, and enhancing the efficiency of resource use as a result of a competitive climate (CHUBB; MOE, 1990). Although broad reviews of the outcomes of charter schools have tended to find that charter schools do not produce better academic results (JEYNES, 2012), this school management model remains a hot topic, perhaps because it fits with - and can be promoted within - the current trend of neoliberal education reform. However, two aspects of the charter school experience that receive less attention are teacher management and resource acquisition. These aspects may be neglected because they do not correspond with the supposed benefits of this reform (e.g., school choice, efficiency, improved achievement) that are highlighted in rhetoric by proponents of this model (even if the evidence does not substantiate these claims). Whatever the reason, it is important to investigate teacher management together with more general strategies for resource acquisition since teachers (and the financial commitments their salaries require) together with supplemental resources are key inputs for the functioning of charter schools.

We address these issues through the study of a charter school program in Bogotá, Colombia, which began in 1999. In this model, the city of Bogotá recruited private schools and other private organizations to manage 25 charter schools that were newly built and well-equipped in marginalized areas. In the context of this program, we conducted a case study to understand both teacher management and resource acquisition strategies of the charter schools. By teacher management, we refer to charter school strategies for teacher supervision, evaluation, feedback, and hiring, as well as to the experience of being managed, meaning, for example, teacher working conditions and the extent of teacher autonomy. In terms of resource acquisition, the present study addresses differences in resource provision between public and charter schools, the perception of charter school leaders that additional resources are needed, the avenues through which charter schools and their CMOs acquire those resources, and, finally, the various kinds of additional resources that are actually acquired.

As with charter schools elsewhere, it has been suggested that the Bogotá model is an efficient and successful way of increasing both educational access and outcomes by bringing together the resources of the public and private sectors. Indeed, this model has been featured in prominent fora hosted, for example, by the Brooking Institute and the World Economic Forum and promoted, for example, by influential international organizations such as United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization - UNESCO - and the World Bank (UNESCO, 2007; PATRINOS; BARRERA-OSORIO; GUÁQUETA, 2009). However, despite the attention this policy has received, promotion of the model of charter schools, which in Bogotá became known as Concession Schools (Colegios en Concesión, or CECs, in Spanish) has tended not to focus on such aspects as teacher management and resource acquisition.

Policy context and characteristcs

In 1999, the new mayor and the new Secretary of Education of Bogotá, Colombia, spearheaded the initiation of a charter school program. The idea behind this initiative was to find a rapid way to expand the supply, to increase the quality, and to improve the management of schools in the areas of great demand, which were also the marginalized areas of the city (CASTRO; PÉREZ; ALVAREZ, 2012). By 2003, 25 charter schools were built that would serve approximately 4 percent (or 40,000 students) of Bogotá’s student population (BOGOTÁ, 2013).

In addition to being financed and built by the city - in high poverty, low access areas -, Concession Schools are managed by private entities like other private schools, churches, and “family benefit societies”.¹⁰ During the bidding process, private entities that had a track record of success in managing private schools were sought.¹¹ These private entities - or CMOs - have had to adhere to a number of minimum requirements with regard to curriculum, length of school day, and a school meal. Teachers must also meet the requirements established by law for their positions and be paid based on the national pay scale, though they can be hired on short-term contracts. Finally, students selected must be from the lowest SES (socio-economic status) categories and live near the school, with siblings also being given priority for admission (BONILLA, 2011; VILLA; DUARTE, 2005). An additional feature of CECs to note is that they contain grades 1-11 in one school

Methods

The findings presented in this paper are the product of a larger case study of CEC policy (EDWARDS, 2014). In addition to researching the theory of action - that is, looking at mechanisms of accountability and competition in practice (EDWARDS; DEMATTHEWS; HARTLEY, 2017) - the larger study also focused on the twin issues of teacher management and resource acquisition.

Data collection

Data collection targeted multiple forms of information and occurred over eight months. The first form - documents - included general publications, annual reports, and statistical digests from the Secretary of Education of Bogotá and from the Ministry of Education of Colombia. These documents provided insight into school finance in Bogotá and the emergence of the CEC program in addition to containing valuable statistics on the CEC program. Second, archives were also gathered, for example, from the Bank of the Republic of Colombia, from library holdings in Bogotá, and from the personal collections of key governmental interviewees (more below on interviewees) related to legal statutes (that provided the foundation for the CEC program), CEC financing, and CEC contracts. Third, these sources were complemented by previous literature on and evaluations of the CEC schools.

The fourth and final form of data was interviews (n=39), with these interviews occurring with four types of stakeholders. First, interviews with key officials from the Ministry of Education of Colombia (n=5) and the Secretary of Education of Bogotá (n=5) were extremely valuable for understanding: details of the CEC program (e.g., related to teacher hiring requirements and resource provision); how the program has been managed, monitored, and evaluated over time by the government; and where to find additional information. To give an idea of the valuable perspectives gained from these participants, consider that in-depth interviews were conducted with the Minister and a Vice-Minister of Education for Colombia during 2002-2010, two Secretaries of Education for Bogotá during 1998-2003, the Director of the Colombian Institute for Educational Evaluation, the Director of CEC expansion for the Ministry of Education, the Director of Educational Coverage for Bogotá, and the Director of Evaluation for the Secretary of Education of Bogotá. Second, data from these actors was then complemented with interviews with evaluators, researchers, professors, and staff of international organizations (e.g., the Inter-American Development Bank) who are specialists in Colombian education and who have either previously studied or directly evaluated the CEC program (n=7). This group of stakeholders not only provided additional insights into the program’s details but also helped to triangulate information provided by the first group.

The third group of interviewees came from the leadership of the CMOs that run CEC schools. Three of the nine CMOs operating in Bogotá were included in the sample, with one CMO being interviewed from each of the three kinds of CMOs that manage CEC schools. That is, one CMO interviewed is run by representatives of three high performing private schools together with a representative of a prestigious university in Bogotá, one CMO is run by representatives of a religious order, and, finally, one CMO is a family benefit society, which is an entity setup by private companies and public institutions to provide educational opportunities to their workers. In that each of the three possible kinds of CMOs were included in the sample, the study was able to investigate and record perspectives from the full range of organizational types involved in the management of CMOs.

The fourth group of actors came from the school and community levels. These actors included 11 CEC principals, seven public school principals, and one director of a Local Educational Administration Center (which is the lowest level of administration of the Secretary of Education of Bogotá). Interviewees were included through both purposeful and convenience sampling. On the purposeful side, the study targeted CECs in the southern portion of Bogotá, since there was a concentration of CECs in this area. Specifically, 12 of the 25 CECs were located in this part of the city, which is densely populated, is predominantly home to low socio-economic status families, and has been historically marginalized. Seven of the 12 CECs in the southern portion of Bogotá were successfully interviewed, with each of these being complemented by an interview with the principal of the nearby public school. The additional four CEC principals in the sample were interviewed because of an offer to do so from one CMO that had CECs in this and other areas of the city.

Data analysis

In accordance with the twin focus of this study, two sets of analytic strategies were employed. First, the various documents, archives, evaluations, and literature gathered were systematically organized and reviewed for information related to CEC policy details (particularly related to teacher management and resource provision and acquisition); we also sought any previously documented findings related to the focus of this study. This information was extracted, thematically grouped, and subsequently compared with the findings from interviews, which were subject to the second set of analytic techniques.

Interviews were transcribed, repeatedly reviewed, and coded, with coded extracts also being grouped according to theme. Over-arching themes related to the purposes of the study, with sub-themes being developed as necessary. Examples of sub-themes include “teacher pay in CECs,” “CEC teachers seek positions in TPSs”, “teacher unemployment,” “CEC supplemental services,” “differences in school administration and support,” “CECs not motivated by profit,” etc. From the coded data, representative quotes were chosen for inclusion in the paper. Pseudonyms are used throughout for quote attribution (e.g., BOGACT1, NATACT1, etc.).

Findings

Techers management

In a number of ways, CEC teachers enjoy a very positive work environment.¹² During data collection, two previous surveys were located that focused on teachers in CECs and TPSs and compared their perspectives along a number of dimensions (SARMIENTO et al., 2015). The survey results were consistent and revealed that CEC teachers participate more often in group planning activities, that they meet more frequently in formal and informal meetings with colleagues and parents, and that they engage more regularly in professional development activities. Teacher meetings at CEC schools focus, for example, on the school’s “vision and mission; definition of curriculum, class material, and evaluation standards; collaboration with other colleagues; or participation in [professional development]” (TERMES et al., 2015, p. 27). Teachers also experience more engagement with their principals, with the latter regularly observing the former, in addition to meeting to discuss goals and problem solving (TERMES et al., 2015). At the same time, though, CEC teachers have less freedom in the selection of teaching methods (though these methods are also seen as less traditional than those employed in TPSs, not surprising in that CECs use computers, laboratories, and library visits more),¹³ as the curriculum and pedagogical approach embraced by CEC schools are set by the CMOs (SARMIENTO et al., 2005; TERMES et al., 2015). Overall, however, while many of the above-mentioned findings arguably reflect aspects of the CEC working environment that teachers appreciate, it must be noted that a tradeoff of working in a CEC is job insecurity.

Indeed, a key feature of CECs is their autonomy in the hiring and management of teachers (VILLA; DUARTE, 2005). Teachers must be legally qualified for their job and CECs are required by law to pay them according to the public school teachers’ pay scale.¹⁴ However, as can be seen in Table 1, CEC teachers are not unionized and are hired under individual contracts - and, therefore, do not hold any kind of job security.¹⁵ Additionally, CECs do not necessarily pay for previous experience (more below) and can offer shorter contracts. Only 13.8 percent of CEC teachers have contracts with a 12-month duration, the rest are contracted for 11 months or less (TERMES et al., 2015). Clearly, then, schools hold the power to replace their teaching faculty annually, a key feature of teacher management dynamics.

Table 1:
Comparison of teachers’ employment conditions in Public and Chater Schools in Bogotá

DIMENSION	PUBLIC SCHOOL	CHARTER
Teacher age (in years)	44.4	35.2
Teacher years of experience	19.3	11.4
Years at scholl	8.3	4
Hours/week spent at school	30,3	42.9
Hours/week spent in class	23.8	31.2
Salary (in multiples of the minimum wage)	83.2 % of teachers earn between 2 and 6 multiples of the minimum wage	66.5% of teachers earn 2 multiples of minimum wage or less
Union membership (in percent)	Yes: 77.1 No: 22.9	Yes: 0.7 No: 99.3

• Source: Adapted from Termes te al. (2015).
• Note: According to the Banco de la República of Colombia (COLOMBIA, n.d.), the minimum wage was approximately USD$300/month ($600,000 Colombian pesos) in 2014, the year of data collection for Termes et al. (2015). The average exchange rate for 2014 was approximately USD$1 = $2,000 Colombian pesos (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016).

CEC principals and leadership were open about the fact that they value the ability to manage teachers with more flexibility than TPS principals possess. One main way they use this flexibility is to include more stringent requirements of the teachers they hire. For example, one CMO requires teachers to be licensed in education and to have two years of experience (BOGACT10), while another requires a bachelor’s degree (licenciatura) in addition to a post-graduate degree (or the teacher must at least be currently working towards a post-graduate degree) (BOGACT8), and a third, for its part, requires both a bachelor’s a master’s degree and two years experience (BOGFG3). In comparative perspective, each of these CECs requires more than the TPSs in Bogotá, considering that, as a minimum, teachers can begin to work in public schools (up to grade eight) with only a high school degree, though teaching in high school (grades 10 and 11) and beyond requires that the teacher has graduated from a teacher training or technical college or has obtained a bachelor’s degree.

CECs also have high expectations around teachers’ work in practice. Some CECs, for example, offer (and require teacher participation in) continual professional development (BOGACT10). Beyond this, however, CECs generally approach the work of teachers from a valueadded perspective, meaning that they not only expect teachers to carry out their responsibilities but they also expect the execution of these responsibilities to produce positive and measurable results, particularly when it comes to student achievement. The below quote from a CEC principal captures well the CEC approach to teacher management:

We demand a lot from them [teachers]. First, an added value of CECs is that we strive to train the teachers, not just to recruit them. Once they are hired, they are continuously trained. For example, in this school, the students arrive at 7:30 in the morning, but the teachers arrive at 6:45. All of the teachers have training from 6:45 to 7:30 in the morning, everyday. [The training deals with] pedagogy, education management, pedagogical modeling, values, and human development, because if the teachers themselves are well trained, the work they do will be better. (BOGACT10)

As a result of such demands (as well as others, discussed below), CEC teachers, on average, spend over 12 hours more each week at school than their TPS counterparts, as highlighted in Table 1.

In addition to longer work days, CEC teachers are also less well-compensated for their time. While the majority of TPS teachers (83.2 percent) earn two times the minimum wage or more (i.e., over USD$600/month), the majority of CEC teachers (66.5 percent) earn two times the minimum wage or less (TERMES et al., 2015). Moreover, though three (of the nine) CMOs do pay salaries that reflect the middle range of what TPS teachers earn - meaning that these CMOs pay between USD$600-1200/month, or between two and four times the minimum wage - two points need to be made: First, CECs avoid hiring (or paying) teachers salaries at the top end of the pay scale, except in rare cases; second, even for those teachers who work in relatively well-paying CECs, the school day is significantly longer (8.5 hours rather than 5-6 hours in duration, as is the case in TPSs). Moreover, since CEC shifts run from 7am-3:30pm, it makes it difficult for those CEC teachers who wish to find additional work to do so (because the second shift of TPSs runs from 1pm-6pm), unless they work the night shift in a TPS from 6-10pm or search for other work. In practical terms, then, CEC teachers tend to work more hours per shift and have lower income earning potential. A CEC principal explained these dynamics well:

We take as the basis [for payment] the regulations for traditional public schools and we add - we’re a bit higher... [But,] the big problem is that the teachers in the district [i.e., teachers in traditional public schools] earn a little less but work for half the amount of time. The district schools have three shifts, one in the morning that is normally from 6:00-6:30 to 11:30-12:30, one from 12:30-1:00 to 6:00, and one from 6:00-10:00. These are the three shifts they have in the district. A teacher could earn 100,000 pesos less than ours, or 50 or 60 dollars less, but they work from 6:30-12:30. Here, they have to work from 7:00 in the morning ...until 4:00 in the afternoon or until 3:00, because it is just one shift. (BOGACT1)

With regard to teacher compensation, evidence indicates that CECs have been unwilling to pay teachers according to the rank they achieved in the public teacher pay scale. In practice, CECs may offer to pay teachers only a portion of what they should receive, according to their rank and years of service. A professor from the national university who has researched CECs explains the under-payment of teachers by CECs:

At that time there were 14 levels on the salary scale, and teachers moved up according to seniority, education level, professional development, etc. Therefore, if I needed to work and I was in category 13, in this category today, I would earn 2 million pesos annually. The highest category, 14, would earn approximately 2.5 million pesos. This would be 1,000 dollars or so. So, if I went to a CEC and I wanted to work, they would ask me for records of my previous work and which pay level I was at. If I had been in category 13, they would have to pay 2.2 million pesos, but they cannot pay you that much, so they tell you, ‘Bring me the certification for level 8 and I’ll pay you the salary for that level.” Meaning, they would pay you half. (NATACT2)

This finding has been corroborated by Garcia, Torres, and Zuluaga (2014) and Termes et al. (2015, p. 26), the latter of whom quote a representative of the Secretary of Education of Bogotá: “Teachers in public schools are paid according to their teaching ranks. However, […] all CECs hired teachers in the 7th category [the lowest one]. […] There is a cost economy at the expense of labor and professional rights of teachers. CEC teachers’ rights… are not recognized”. A CEC principal commented as well: “The CECs, in spite of officially being a public school, do not dignify the labor of teachers. How do they not? By not paying either the amount of money or the number of payments that the public sector pays” (BOGACT1) - with one consequence being that many CEC teachers (those on contracts of fewer than 12 months) do not receive pay during the summer or winter breaks.

The willingness of teachers to work in these conditions may seem surprising at first. However, it becomes more understandable when one considers the lack of teaching positions vis-a-vis teacher demand in Bogotá. Teachers are willing to work in CECs because there are limited alterative options. When asked if it was difficult to find teachers at the time that his CEC opened, a principal responded, “No, because the unemployment here is barbarian, at all levels” (BOGACT16). Another principal responded that it is easy to find teachers “because there is a lot of demand for these jobs” (BOGACT3), although it is easier in certain areas for teachers to find positions, such as English and math. To put these statements in context, consider that, in 2015, 300,000 teachers submitted applications to fill 24,250 positions in Colombia (OSORIO, 2015).

Given the longer hours, lesser pay, and lack of job security, it is not surprising that many teachers who begin their careers in CECs move into TPS jobs as they become available (BONILLA, 2011). Those who do stay in CECs either cannot find employment elsewhere or are committed to the mission/model of the CEC schools. As has been found,

The strong and majoritarian negative opinion of the bad employment conditions is combined with a certain positive valuation of the CEC in aspects such as pedagogical planning and training opportunities. In many cases, especially in religious schools, teachers considered themselves profoundly attached to the ethos of the CEC. (TERMES et al., 2015, p. 27)

To that end, and interestingly, CEC principals consider that hiring such teachers leads to a more efficient use of resources. In other words, in spite of the comparatively lower pay for teachers, CEC principals benefit because these same teachers tend to do more (and sometimes are more committed) for a lower price. In the words of a CEC principal:

The teachers here are characterized by that, doing more than what is asked, having greater commitment to students’ learning process. Therefore, I see that there is a more efficient manner of resource management, there is greater commitment of the teachers, there is better organization of the school environment, and there is a greater sense of humane treatment to the students. (BOGACT11)

As the next section explains, teacher salaries are only one area of focus for CECs when trying to maximize resources.

Resource provision and use

Between 1999 and 2003, 25 CECs were newly constructed by the Secretary of Education of Bogotá specifically for this program, in marginalized areas with insufficient capacity to serve the student population. The schools were designed to accommodate 800-1200 students in 24 classrooms with “top-quality infrastructure” (VILLA; DUARTE, 2005, p. 114). CECs are, thus, intentionally well-resourced, with each containing such features as a recreation room, a science laboratory, two art rooms, three technology rooms, a library, and multi-purpose fields, all “fully equipped” (VILLA; DUARTE, 2005, p. 114). The average cost of constructing each school was $2.5 million, including the purchase of the land, construction, and school furniture and equipment (VILLA; DUARTE, 2005). According to Villa and Duarte (2005), not only should the quality of the building and its facilities be a source of pride to the children and the community, and not only should these schools raise expectations about the learning experience, but they should also be centers of social development for their communities.

CECs also receive a set amount of per pupil funding each year, though this amount has changed over time and has been the source of much frustration on the part of CEC leaders. At the program’s beginning, CECs were awarded an average of USD$545 per student per year, with this amount rising to USD$945 by 2014 as a result of inflation (TERMES et al., 2015). The original amount was based on a basket of education services deemed to be necessary and which entailed staff costs (including wages and benefits), educational materials, infrastructure maintenance, school administration, security services, hygiene facilities, and a daily snack (VILLA; DUARTE, 2005). For public schools, researchers have claimed various figures for cost per pupil. At the time of the program’s initiation, these figures ranged from about USD$430 ($1,000,000 pesos per year) (BARRERA-OSORIO, 2006) to about USD$599 ($1,259,490 Colombian pesos) (IREGUI; MELO; RAMOS, 2006).¹⁶ By 2013, estimates for per pupil funding in public schools rose to approximately USD$1720 ($3,181,060 pesos), with the large increase here also due to high rates of inflation (PÉREZ, 2015).¹⁷

However, one must be cautious in interpreting the above figures, particularly when it comes to estimates for per student costs in public schools, as it is not always clear what expenses are included in researchers’ calculations. Moreover, TPSs and CECs have school days of differing lengths (5 hours vs. 8.5 hours), thus making comparisons difficult, in addition to the fact that the Secretary of Education of Bogotá has both specific (e.g., transportation) and system-wide costs that CECs do not incur. In the words of one interviewee who implemented the CEC program in Bogotá and then nationally:

Here, in [the Secretary of Education of Bogotá], nobody knows the cost of a student in the official system. One day, they come out with one figure and the following day they say no, that it’s half as much, and the following day they come out with another figure. Nobody has been able to know how much it costs. (NATACT6)

Thus, just as it is common in the United States (BAKER; LIBBY; WILEY, 2012), there is a lack of clarity in Colombia when it comes to identifying and comparing costs across charter schools and TPSs. Following from the above - in addition to being outside the scope of the present study - it is simply not possible to make definitive claims related to per pupil funding across CECs and TPSs, nor related to relative efficiency with which those resources are used.

However, in what is perhaps the most useful financial analysis to date, the Secretary of Education of Bogotá (2013) estimated differences in how resources are spent, using as the point of comparison a recent “40*40” initiative being implemented in a portion of public schools in Bogotá where students are in class for 40 hours a week, with a student-teacher ratio of 40. In comparing six kinds of costs (human resources, maintenance, learning materials, administration, transport, and nutritional support), the analysis found that “public 40*40” schools cost USD$2,091 per student annually, as opposed to USD$1071 for CECs. What is interesting here, though, is how resources are allocated: 55 percent of the difference derives from “public 40*40” schools spending more on human resources, that is, teacher salaries, a finding which accords with the profile of CEC teachers presented above (i.e., since CEC teachers tend to have fewer years of experience and/or are placed in salary categories below their earned rank). Other areas of note are transportation (accounting for 7.7 percent of the difference, since CECs do not receive government funding for this), learning resources (with these public schools spending 21.43 percent more), and nutritional support (an expense that accounts for 13 percent of the difference).

THE NECESSITY OF GARNERING ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

The figures presented above cannot be interpreted to mean that CECs provide fewer resources to their students; rather, these figures simply show how government-provided funding is invested. To this picture, one must add the various other resources that CECs garner and the ways that they are able to do so. To be sure, CEC principals and leadership dedicate significant time and energy in order to acquire additional resources, as they believe the amount they receive per pupil to be insufficient to cover their costs. On the one hand, this assertion is due to the fact that the cost of certain inputs rose faster than the per pupil funding rate. The key example here is teacher salaries, the legal pay scale for which increased more rapidly than inflation (with inflation determining the rate of adjustment of CEC funding) (TERMES et al., 2015). On the other hand, CECs have viewed the acquisition of additional resources as necessary because they are unwilling to compromise on services that they see as essential, examples of which are discussed later in the paper. Thus, while the Secretary of Education of Bogotá asserts that “the basket of educational services established was just enough to have a school like they imagined” (NATACT6) particularly if managed well, the CECs, for their part, claim: “we lose money because of the manner in which we want to do education” (BOGACT1).

Interestingly, feelings of unjustness were present in both CEC and TPS principals. While the former were frustrated with what they perceived (and experienced) as inadequate funding, the latter were frustrated with the fact that CECs were provided with new and well-equipped facilities, thereby affording CECs an advantage that was out of reach for TPS principals. On both sides, feelings that the other benefits from unfair resource provision are spurred on by a context in which TPS costs per pupil are unknown.

Additional CEC resources

As noted previously, the CECs were brand new at the time of their opening and were replete with modern equipment. To these initial inputs, CEC principals and the CMOs that oversee them have added a range of other resources. Chart 1 summarizes the various resource types - along with examples of each - that were identified in this study. As can be seen, CECs offer donations to students and families in the form of uniforms and food assistance, as well as additional meals (beyond the one that is required according to CEC contracts) for students while at school.

Other resources relate to student health and supplemental medical services. More specifically, these include psychologists, social workers, nurses, dental check-ups, and eye exams. A CEC principal speaks to this point while also including commentary on what TPSs offer:

So, here there are [several] lines of work. [...] The first, giving them proper nutrition, the second, offering complementary medical and dental services to those [services] that they already have, so we have a dental office, medical insurance, a nurse which is very difficult to find today in public schools, we have a social worker and a psychologist. Public schools normally have either social workers or psychologists, who at times act as an advisor. (BOGACT1)

Thus, as noted, TPSs do offer some of the same supplementary services as CECs, such as psychologists and social workers. The difference, however, is the ratio of students per specialist, as the director of the local-level office of the Secretary of Education of Bogotá explained:

The public schools also have a social worker or an advisor. What happens is that we do not have these positions in the same numbers that they have, we have one advisor for every 600 students. They have an advisor for every 350 or 400, but in the secretary of education, we do have contracted social workers. (BOGACT18)

Relatedly, some CECs have “super rooms” for students with learning disabilities, in addition to offering multiple forms of engagement for students and their families in the afternoons and on the weekends. In the quote below, a CEC principal describes these various resources

Many parents know the support that we have for children with learning difficulties. So, we have a super room, we have clubs to keep the children busy all the time with things that help them. Just right now, you are listening to the band, we have many clubs, and our desire to occupy the kids’ free time, so they are not in the street which would be unsafe. (BOGACT3)

After-school programs and weekend activities revolve around such topics as good use of free time, math and English practice, reading, and technology use. Some CECs also work with community leaders to implement programs in the community, such as trash cleanup. In other CECs, the principals and teachers make a point to contact parents in the afternoons and on the weekends, particularly in those cases in which students are struggling. However, beyond the traditional strategy of house visits, it was found that CECs have also focused on working with parents and students together, for example, around reading-writing support, as one CEC principal shared:

We do a lot of workshops for parents. […] We arrived at the conclusion that we have to impact parents, change the parents, and we have several projects. For example, another [project] that I can mention besides the parent workshops, we have a reading and writing plan, where the parents are part of that. So, every week parents come to take some books to read at home as a family, or we are going to a library near here, we go on Saturdays with children and parents to read there. What we want is to foster a culture. (BOGACT3)

To implement these programs, CECs at times rely on teachers to work extra hours. At the same time, though, CECs offer additional resources to teachers, for example, in the form of in-school food subsidies and no-interest loans to pursue post-bachelor’s study. However, while volunteer teacher labor is a key avenue for enabling the provision of additional resources to students and their families, it is only one strategy among many, as discussed further in the next section.

CHART 1:
Non-pedagogical resources offered by concession schools in Bogotá

RESOURCE ACQUISITION STRATEGIES

Through the present study, it was found that CECs rely on five strategies to acquire additional resources, beyond the initial infrastructure and learning materials provided by the government. The first is budget prioritization - that is, the CECs and the CMOs that oversee them place more emphasis on certain inputs than others. As the supervisor of the CEC program from the Secretary of Education of Bogotá commented: “[that CMO] spends a lot on this specialized class they have for catching students up that has some pedagogical elements that can be more expensive because they require more staff” (NATACT6). A CEC principal also addressed the issue of budget priorities in reference to after-school activities: “Yes, there is a band, the CEC pays for it from its own money. It is part of that deficit [in funding] that you have. In other words, programs, extracurricular activities, how there is a band in [this school] or you might do it a dance club in the afternoon, those things are part of the concession” (BOGACT5). Thus, not only do CECs allocate the funding that they receive differently, but, as the previous statement indicates, they are commited to services that cannot be covered by per pupil funding alone.

Adding to government funding are donations. These donations originate from a number of sources, including the parent CMO (which may provide buses for excursions), the parent-teacher association of the parent CMO (which may provide funding for school and sport team uniforms), and from foundations (which may donate used clothing or machines for vocational education, for example). Regarding foundation donations, a CEC explained:

We did not arrive to say, we need 100 million pesos for this [thing], no never. […] I, for example, went out to look for foundations, told them, “We want to get some machines [for vocationa-technical education]. Wouldn’t you want to provide some machines?” If I ask the CEC if it is possible, the CEC will tell me yes, but I wanted to involve foundations and to pursue avenues other than the school, so that the help was faster and of greater quality. This is the kind help that I am explaining. (BOGACT16)

Interestingly, then, even where CEC principals could use the school’s budget for certain materials, they prefer at times to look for ways to involve private foundations, because they are seen as providing assistance that is quick and high quality. Notably, this strategy also helps to stretch what budget the school does have.

The third strategy identified is the use of volunteers, including university students, parents, and teachers. While teachers help to implement after-school activities, and while parents volunteer around the school with various tasks, CECs also set up programs with local universities for student volunteers, as a CEC principal described: “we have agreements with universities [...] those from the universities come here to the school on Saturdays, undergraduate education students, to review the literacy programs with the children” (BOGACT10). In another case, university students work with school children in a dance club at a CEC, with these university students able to receive credit for the social service hours they are required to peform as part of their degree. Outside of volunteers, however, larger partnerships were also established with universities and other organizations.

Indeed, partnerships is the fourth strategy, with each partnership being facilitated by CEC leadership, just as Scott and Holmes (2002) noted in relation to charter schools in California. For example, CECs in Bogotá have established partnerships with religious organizations (e.g., the local parish) to procure used clothes and shoes for students (e.g., for first communion) and with the National System of Youth and Infant Orquestras of Colombia. A CEC principal explained in detail this last relationsihp:

In fact, one of our strongest links is with Batuta, which is an institution that works on music for children and youth, it is the National System of Child and Youth Orchestras of Colombia. Batuta works in this school for all children in this neighborhood, not only for children of [this CEC]. … there are horns, flutes, cellos, trumpets, there is an orchestra, there are groups, there are 250 children. 100 are from [this CEC] but the rest are from other schools. What is the advantage that Batuta has here? What does Batuta get out of being here? We give them a space, which we help with, we advertise them on our website, we give them lunch, we facilitate the processes [for these things]. (BOGACT1)

Notably, such partnership strategies can reinforce the positive image or reputation that CECs enjoy, for example, as a result of the orquestral relationship being featured on the CEC’s webpage.

The final avenue for resource acquisition is alumni networks. This strategy has been most relevant in relation to university scholarships. Here, principals reach out to former students who now work in various universities, asking them to facilitate the arrangement of scholarships for students from their CEC. Thus, many of the avenues for resource acquisition overlap. For example, when it comes to scholarships, the strategies of donations, partnerships, and networks intersect. More will be said about this issue in what follows.

DISCUSSION

This paper has sought to shed light on approaches to teacher management and resource acquisition in charter schools by focusing on the case of CECs in Bogotá, Colombia. On teacher management, for example, it was found that, in many regards, CEC teachers enjoy a positive work environment in that they participate more in group planning with other teachers, they participate more frequently in professional development, and they engage more regularly with their principals for the purpose of teaching observation, feedback, and discussion of goals and problem solving. In part, these findings echo previous research. That is, while Ni (2012) has found that charter schools embodied a more supportive work environment, other scholars have reported that charter school teachers in the United States have fewer professional development opportunities (WEI; PATEL; YOUNG, 2014). However, in that this finding is inconsistent across studies, it represents an area for further investigation. Future studies should not only compare professional development in charter schools and noncharter schools, but should also distinguish among types of charter school management, as there is likely to be differences in professional development opportunities and requirements between independent charter schools and those run by CMOs, for example. Interestingly, and in contrast with previous research (e.g., MALLOY; WOHLSTETTER, 2003; NI, 2012; WEI; PATEL; YOUNG, 2014, the teachers in the present study did not report more autonomy in the classroom. This finding is due to the fact that the pedagogical approach to which teachers should adhere is defined by the CMO that oversees the teachers. Ultimately, through this supportive, collegial, and guided approach, CECs expect that their teachers will deliver added value for students.

CECs use their autonomy in other ways as well. For example, they hire non-unionized teachers, contract them for periods of a year or less (with the implication being that many teachers are not compensated during the summer or winter breaks), impose more stringent hiring requirements (beyond what is required to work in public schools), and offer significantly lower salaries, on average, despite working over 12 hours more each week than their public school counterparts. Again, these findings both align with and differ from previous research. The higher education level of CEC teachers in Bogotá mirrors the finding that elite CMOs in the United States hire teachers from more competitive universities (BREWER; AHN, 2010; CANNATA, 2008). However, while other scholars have indicated that demand for high-qualified teachers in US charter schools outstrips supply (FARRELL et al., 2014), in Colombia, CMOs benefit from an oversupply of teachers because of insufficient teaching positions in the country. Longer work hours, lower teacher pay, and the absence of job security in CECs in Bogotá are further similarities with previous studies (BREWER; AHN, 2010; CANNATA, 2008; HARRIS, 2006; PODGURSKY; BALLOU, 2001), and like previous studies have found, because of these features of teacher management by charter schools, there is greater teacher turnover (BREWER; AHN, 2010; CANNATA, 2008; CLARK, 2001; DEARMOND et al., 2012; MALLOY; WOHLSTETTER, 2003) - the exception here, as elsewhere, being those cases where CEC teachers prefer to work in a school where they identify with the mission (a preference which is more common for CEC teachers working in schools run by religious orders) (CANNATA; PEÑALOZA, 2012; DEARMOND et al., 2012; NELSON; MIRON, 2004).

Of course, the issue of teacher salaries stands out as an aspect of teacher management in need of further attention. On the one hand, this is because the findings here indicate that CECs ignore teacher pay scale regulations - based on teacher qualifications and years of experience -instead assigning hired teachers to lower compensation categories. Indeed, in that representatives of the Secretary of Education of Bogotá have been found to be aware of this practice, but seem not to have pursued corrective action, raises questions about why this may be the case. One explanation may be that the government has not been in a position to replace CMOs with alternative management because there are too few qualified organizations with interest in managing charter schools in marginalized areas of the city. Whatever the reason, charter school compliance with applicable hiring regulations in Bogotá is an area in need of further investigation; this issue also stands out as one that has not been the focus of much research on charter schools generally.

On the other hand, teacher salaries warrant further attention in relation to resource acquisition and use more generally. While per pupil funding figures for CECs and TPSs cannot be compared for reasons explained in the paper, the closest comparison available shows CECs receive less funding from the government per pupil than the amount that the government spends per student in its recent initiative to offer high quality education in public schools (i.e., the 40*40 initiative). Indeed, while 40*40 schools cost twice as much (USD$2,091 per student annually vs. USD$1071), over half of the difference (55 percent) is due to the fact that CECs choose to pay teachers less, with another 42 percent of the gap due to differences in spending on transportation (7.7 percent), nutritional support (13 percent), and learning resources (21.43 percent). Unsurprisingly, in a context with surplus workers and non-union contracts, labor suffers lower salaries, a finding that has been echoed in relation to charter schools before (ARSEN; NI, 2012; HUERTA; D’ENTREMONT, 2010). Moreover, in a context where funding is seen to be inadequate, CECs are willing to pursue a range of strategies to supplement school resources but not to supplement teacher compensation.

While we cannot speak to the efficiency with which CECs use their resources, the perceived need of supplementing government resource provision was understandably strong, just as Huerta and d’Entremont (2010) have suggested it should be for charter school leaders (who they claim should be motivated by the gap between the funding they receive and the resource levels they deem necessary). In the present study, it was found that five strategies are employed to garner a wide range of resources: budget prioritization, donations, volunteers, partnerships, and alumni networks. To this list, we could have added “proactive school leadership” as an additional strategy, as Scott and Holmes (2002) have done; however, in that this strategy is necessary for the activation of the other strategies presented here, we do not list it separately. Interestingly, while CECs and charter schools elsewhere both acquire volunteers and donations by relying on parents and partnerships with foundations and by tapping into their relationship with the CMOs that oversee them, two differences stand out (HUERTA; D’ENTREMONT, 2010; SCOTT; HOLMES, 2002). The first is reliance on grants and fundraising. This strategy may not have been targeted by CECs for two reasons: (a) because the government provided new and well-equipped schools upfront for the CEC program, thereby eliminating the need to fundraise or write grants for expenditures such as facilities, teaching materials, and furnishings - expenditures which US charter schools often have to cover on their own (HUERTA; D’ENTREMONT, 2010); and (b) because CECs were able to acquire the resources they sought through other avenues.

The other strategy of difference is “governing board membership,” which is used by US charter schools in order to benefit from the “connections, expertise, or resources these people could bring to the school” (SCOTT; HOLMES, 2002, p. 112). In contrast, in Bogotá, this strategy was not necessary because of the way the CEC program was initially designed by the government, which decided that it would only allow charter schools to be managed by private entities (e.g., private schools, religious foundations, or family benefit societies) with a track record of engagement in educational services. The implication is the CMOs in Bogotá were not new players in the education sector; that is, they were already well-connected and had good reputations. Bogotá’s CECs were thus arguably in a better position to start than many charters in the United States, which must procure their own facilities, teaching materials, and furnishings (HUERTA; D’ENTREMONT, 2010), and which must invest time and energy on the front-end to network and make connections (SCOTT; HOLMES, 2002).

CONCLUSION

In the end, supporting CECs is a question of policy priorities, particularly since CECs have not been found to produce better results on standardized exams in comparison with TPSs once length of school day and student socio-economic status is taken into account (TERMES et al., 2015). In that CECs are well-equipped and in that they are able to acquire and provide a range of supplemental resources and services, they are islands of excellence in which students benefit and in which teachers suffer - at least in terms of salary, job security, and bargaining power, if not in terms of teaching resources and a collegial work environment. Moreover, based on the available funding estimates, it may be that CECs are less costly for the government on a per pupil basis than typical TPSs. However, it needs to be remembered that the cost incurred by the government only reflects part of the total cost. As shown in this study, complementing the government’s funding are various forms of additional resources, such as supplemental health and medical services, after school clubs, weekend engagement, university scholarships, and teacher support (e.g., no-interest loans for post-bachelor’s study), among others. Thus, while we cannot say definitively, it may be that the overall value of CEC services is greater than the cost of TPSs to the government. To be sure, future research is needed in this area.

What the present study does indicate is that the CEC program functions as a way for the government to enable a well-resourced educational experience for some students without bearing many of the costs. CECs fill this gap through a number of avenues, including the networks and social capital of their CMOs, their principals, their alumni, and the parents of their students. On this last point, it is worth noting that CECs, like other charter schools (HUERTA; D’ENTREMONT, 2010), have been found to admit students who are relatively more well-off and less high-need (EDWARDS; DEMATTEHWS; HARTLEY 2017; TERMES et al., 2015), with the implication being that CEC students further benefit from the composition of the student body and from the ability and willingness of their peers’ parents to volunteer with the school on different projects. At the same time, then, these parents are removed from TPSs, compounding the effects of TPSs having older infrastructure, lower morale, fewer resources, more students, less time for principal outreach, shorter school days, different networks, and a smaller amount of discretionary spending at the school level (EDWARDS, 2014; TERMES et al., 2015).

In discussing teacher management and resource acquisition in CECs in Bogotá, our aim has been to shed light on aspects of the charter school debate that arguably receive less attention. As we have shown, CECs are very dedicated when it comes to their commitment to providing a quality educational experience for their students. In making this experience available, both the government and CECs dedicate their energy and resources in ways that involve tradeoffs, tradeoffs with significant implications for those involved, including teachers and students - in both CECs and TPSs. As always, tradeoffs involve costs and benefits. Our point here is that, going forward, when addressing the costs and benefits of charter schools, we need to ask: Costs in what sense? Benefits for whom? And at whose expense? Our hope is that the present paper contributes to the understanding of these issues in relation to the case of CECs in Bogotá

Referências

• ARSEN, D.; NI, Y. Is administration leaner in charter schools? Resource allocation in charter and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, v. 20, n. 31, p. 1-24, 2012.
• BAKER, B. D.; LIBBY, K.; WILEY, K. Spending by the major charter management organizations: Comparing charter school and local public district financial resources in New York, Ohio, and Texas. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center, 2012.
• BARGHAUS, K.; BOE, E. From policy to practice: Implementation of the legislative objectives of charter schools. American Journal of Education, v. 118, n. 1, p. 57-86, 2011.
• BARRERA-OSORIO, F. The impact of private provision of public education: Empirical evidence from Bogotá’s concession schools. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 4121. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2006.
• BOGOTÁ. Secretaría de Educación. Bogotá D. C.: caracterización sector educativo, Año 2012. Bogotá: Oficina Asesora de Planeación, 2013.
• BONILLA, J. Contracting out public schools for academic achievement: Evidence from Colombia. USP/Departamento de Economia, 2011.
• BREWER, D. J.; AHN, J. What do we know about teachers in charter schools? In: BETTS, J. R.; HILL, P. T. (Ed.). Taking measure of charter schools: Better assessments, better policymaking, better schools. New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2010. p. 129-152.
• CANNATA, M. Teacher qualifications and work environments across school types. Arizona State University, Education Policy Research Unit, 2008.
• CANNATA, M.; PEÑALOZA, R. Who are charter school teachers? Comparing teacher characteristics, job choices, and job preferences. Education Policy Analysis Archives , v. 20, n. 29, p. 1-25, 2012. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1021 >. Acesso em: 28 maio 2015.
  » http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1021
• CASTRO, J.; PÉREZ, A.; ALVAREZ, A. Historial institucional: Secretaría de Educación Distrital. Bogotá: Corporación Internacional para El Desarrollo Educativo, 2012.
• CHAKRABARTI, R.; PETERSON, P. E. Perspectives in public-private partnerships in education. In: CHAKRABARTI, R.; PETERSON, P. E. (Ed.). Exploring Public-Private Partnerships. Cambridge, MA: MIT, 2009.
• CHUBB, J. E.; MOE, T. M. Politics, markets and Americas schools. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1990.
• CLARK, R. J. Past and future trends affecting K-12 employment relations: a management perspective. Journal of Law & Education, v. 30, n. 2, p. 227-245, 2001.
• COLOMBIA. Banco de la República. Salario mínimo legal en Colombia. Colombia, s. d. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.banrep.gov.co/es/indice-salarios >. Acesso em: 17 maio 2017.
  » http://www.banrep.gov.co/es/indice-salarios
• COLOMBIA. Ministerio de Educación. Concurso docente, 2016. Disponível em: <http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/article-233970.html>. Acesso em: 17 maio 2017.
  » http://www.mineducacion.gov.co/1621/article-233970.html
• DEARMOND, M.; GROSS, B.; BOWEN, M.; DEMERITT, A.; LAKE, R. Managing talent for school coherence: Learning from charter management organizations. Bethel, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education, 2012.
• EDWARDS Jr., D. B. Public-private partnerships in Colombian educational governance: The case of Bogotá’s Concession Schools. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam, 2014.
• EDWARDS Jr., D. B.; DEMATTHEWS, D.; HARTLEY, H. Public-private partnerships, accountability, and competition: Theory versus reality in the charter schools of Bogotá, Colombia. Education Policy Analysis Archives , v. 25, n. 10, p. 1-32, 2017. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2556 >. Acesso em: 17 maio 2017.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/epaa.25.2556
• EDWARDS Jr., D. B.; HALL, S. Neglected issues: How charter schools manage teachers and acquire resources. Teachers College Record, forthcoming.
• FARRELL C.; NAYFACK, M.B.; SMITH, J.; WOHLSTETTER, P. One size does not fit all: Understanding the variation in charter management scale-up. Journal of Education Change, v. 15, n. 1, p. 77-97, 2014.
• FARRELL, C.; WOHLSTETTER, P.; SMITH, J. Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling up what works. Educational Policy, v. 26, n. 4, p. 499-532, 2012.
• GARCIA, M.; TORRES, C.; ZULUAGA, D. Calidad y costos en la educación en Colombia, mirada a colegios públicos, privados y en concesión. Isocuanta: Resultados de investigación formativa, v. 4, n. 2, p. 37-44, 2014.
• HARRIS, D. C. Lowering the bar or moving the target: A wage decomposition of Michigan’s charter and traditional public school teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly, v. 42, p. 424-460, 2006.
• HUERTA, L.; D’ENTREMONT, C. Charter school finance: Seeking institutional legitimacy in a marketplace of resources. In: LUBIENSKI, C.; WEITZEL, P. (Ed.). The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence and implications. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010. p. 121-146.
• IREGUI, A.; MELO, L.; RAMOS, J. Evaluación y análisis de eficiencia de la educación en Colombia. Bogotá D.C.: Banco de la República, 2006.
• JEYNES, W. H. A meta-analysis on the effects and contributions of public, public charter, and religious schools on student outcomes. Peabody Journal of Education, v. 87, v. 3, p. 305-335, 2012.
• KRAWCZYK, N.; VEIRA, V. A reforma educacional na América Latina. Uma perspectiva históricosociológica (Argentina, Brasil, Chile e México na década de 1980). São Paulo: Xamã, 2008.
• LAROCQUE, N. Public-private partnerships in basic education: An international review. Council for British Teachers, 2008. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.azimpremjifoundation.org/pdf/ppp_report.pdf >. Acesso em: 8 mar. 2015.
  » http://www.azimpremjifoundation.org/pdf/ppp_report.pdf
• MALLOY, C. L.; WOHLSTETTER, P. Working conditions in charter schools: What’s the appeal for teachers? Education and Urban Society, v. 35, n. 2, p. 219-241, 2003.
• NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS - NAEP. Glossary, Washington, DC: NAEP, 2008. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/glossary.asp#c >. Acesso em: 17 maio 2017.
  » http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/glossary.asp#c
• NELSON, C.; MIRON, G. Professional opportunities for teachers: A view from inside charter schools. In: BULKLEY, K.; WOHLSTETTER, P. (Ed.). Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2004. p. 32-49.
• NI, Y. Teacher working conditions in charter schools and traditional public schools: A comparative study. Teachers College Record, v. 114, n. 3, p. 1-26, 2012.
• OSORIO, C. 800 profesores de Distrito no han podido comenzar a trabajar. El Espectador, 2015, Aug 30. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/bogota/800-profesores-deldistrito-no-han-podido-comenzar-trab-articulo-582671 >. Acesso em: 17 jul. 2016.
  » http://www.elespectador.com/noticias/bogota/800-profesores-deldistrito-no-han-podido-comenzar-trab-articulo-582671
• PATRINOS, H.; BARRERA-OSORIO, F.; GUAQUETA, J. The role and impact of PPPs in education. Washington, DC: World Bank. 2009
• PÉREZ, A. Petro y la educación: Avances y retrocesos. razonpublica.com, 03 ago. 2015. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.razonpublica.com/index.php/economia-y-sociedad/8702-petro-y-laeducaci%C3%B3n-avances-y-retrocesos >. Acesso em: 14 jul. 2016
  » http://www.razonpublica.com/index.php/economia-y-sociedad/8702-petro-y-laeducaci%C3%B3n-avances-y-retrocesos
• PODGURSKY, M.; BALLOU, D. Personnel policy in charter schools. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, 2001
• SARMIENTO, A.; ALONSO, C.; DUNCAN, G.; GARZON, C. Evaluación de la Gestión de los Colegios en Concesión en Bogotá, 2000-2003. Bogotá: Departamento Nacional de Planeación, 2005. (Archivos de Economía, Documento 291)
• SCOTT, J.; HOLMES, J. Public schools, private resources: The role of social networks in California charter school reform. In: WELLS, A. (Ed.). Where charter school policy fails: The problems of accountability and equity. New York: Teachers College, 2002. p. 102-128
• TERMES, A.; BONAL, X.; VEGER, A.; ZANCAJO, A. Public-Private Partnerships in Colombian education: The equity and quality implications of “Colegios en concesión”. New York: Open Society Fundations, 2015. (ESP working paper, 66). Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.periglobal.org/role-state/document/public-private-partnerships-colombian-education-equity-and-qualityimplications- >. Acesso em: 14 jul. 2016
  » http://www.periglobal.org/role-state/document/public-private-partnerships-colombian-education-equity-and-qualityimplications-
• TRADING ECONOMICS. Colombian Peso 1992-2016. 2016. Disponível em: <Disponível em: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/colombia/currency >. Acesso em: 17 maio 2017
  » http://www.tradingeconomics.com/colombia/currency
• UNITED NATIONS EDUCATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC AND CULTURAL ORGANIZATION - UNESCO. Education for All by 2015: Will we make it? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007
• VILLA, L.; DUARTE, J. Concessionary Public Schools in Bogotá: An Innovation in School Management in Colombia. In: WOLFF, L.; NAVARRO, J.; GONZALEZ, P. (Ed.). Private Education and Public Policy in Latin America. Washington D.C.: PREAL, 2005. p. 95-130
• WEI, X.; PATEL, D.; YOUNG, V. M. Opening the “black box”: Organizational differences between charter schools and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives , v. 22, n. 3, p. 1-31, 2014

• 1
  The present article is a significantly revised and shortened version of Edwards and Hall (forthcoming).

• 2
  As Villa and Duarte (2005, p. 122) explain, family benefit societies (or “cajas de compensación”) are “private entities funded by two percent of the payroll of private companies and public institutions. Their purpose is to provide recreational, health, training, housing, and other services to affiliated workers”. Those that have participated in the CEC program “have extensive experience in formal and non-formal education” (2005, p. 122) – important because the CMOs selected needed to have previous experience with school management

• 3
  For more on the bidding process and the challenges associated with recruiting private entities to manage the new charter schools, see Edwards, DeMatthews, and Hartley (2017).

• 4
  However, as discussed further later in the paper, this positive work environment and the extra resources enjoyed by CECs have not led to improved student achievement (TERMES et al., 2015).

• 5
  Note that the use of these methods is linked to CEC ability to acquire supplemental resources, as discussed later in the paper

• 6
  See Termes et al. (2015) for more on pay scale details

• 7
  Moreover, in contrast to teachers in traditional public schools, CEC teachers are not assigned to their positions through a “concurso público” (i.e., a governmentally-run teacher assignment review process) and, therefore, do not enjoy the job permanence that is associated with such position allocation mechanisms. See Ministerio de Educación (COLOMBIA, 2016) for more on the characteristics of this process in Colombia.

• 8
  The conversion for the figure from Iregui, Melo e Ramos (2006) assumed an exchange rate of USD$1 = $2,100 Colombian pesos, based on Trading Economics (2016). Barrera- Osorio (2006) includes funding figures in both USD and Colombian pesos.

• 9
  Assuming an exchange rate of USD$1 = $1850 Colombian pesos for 2013 (TRADING ECONOMICS, 2016).

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  Apr-Jun 2017

History

• Received
  Aug 2016
• Accepted
  Nov 2016