NACSA | For Members | Member Spotlight
Ting Sun Co-Founder & Educational Program Director, Natomas Charter School
|
|
Member Spotlight
Ting Sun
Co-Founder & Educational Program Director, Natomas Charter School
May, 2009
Interview by Erica E. Jones
Location: Sacramento, CA
Authorizer: Natomas Unified School District
Number of Charters in District: 3
Type of Authorizer: Local Education Agency
Website: www.natomascharter.org; www.natomas.k12.ca.us
Contact: Ting Sun – Co-Founder & Educational Program Director, Natomas Charter School;
This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
.
Natomas Charter School (NCS) was approved by the Natomas Unified School District Board of Trustees in the spring of 1993 and began operations in the fall of 1993. The overall goal of the school's charter is to establish a variety of innovative educational programs that will accommodate its diverse student population. Natomas Charter School provides K-12 students the opportunity to develop unique interests, uncover hidden talents, experience satisfaction in accomplishments, gain a sense of responsibility, and pursue education as a way of life through educational programs tailored to their own specific needs.
Ting Sun is Co-Founder & Educational Program Director of Natomas Charter School. She has worked for over 18 years in education as a teacher, administrator, and school operator.
What is your vision for charter schools?
My vision for charter schools is the creation of a variety of educational options for students and parents that lead to higher academic performance. Everything I do in my charter school work has been informed by my experience as a classroom teacher. I think the traditional education system tends to develop these “one size fits all” programs. One of the reasons I started a charter school was to get more flexibility to structure the school day and do things different from the norm. I found that we were losing a lot of kids by sticking to a “one size fits all” program.
How did you become involved in the charter school movement?
I began my career as a classroom teacher. When the California Charter School Law was passed in 1993, the Natomas Unified School District was led by a fairly progressive Superintendent named General Davie. Superintendent Davie visited the District schools to inform us about this new charter school law, and he asked if anyone would be interested in starting a charter school. I was looking for new options and thinking that the school I was teaching in should do something different, so I said, “Let’s try this charter thing.”
Charlie Leo (who is now my husband) and I wrote a charter in January of 1993, had it approved, and opened the school in September 1993. It was quite a feat to open the school only eight months after hearing about the charter law. We were fortunate to have overwhelming support from General Davie, and he has been a mentor to me ever since.
I operated the school for a time, and then became involved with the California Network of Educational Charters (CANEC), which evolved into the California Charter Schools Association (CCSA). The California Department of Education (CDE) was expanding its charter office at the time, and they hired me to manage the federal charter school grant program. I was also involved in the charter review process development to be sure the charter school petitions (proposals) included the required legal elements.
After a 3-year stint at the CDE, I came back to work at Natomas Charter School. Soon after, Caprice Young (former Executive Director of CCSA) asked me to join the CCSA staff as VP of Leadership and Quality. After three years working for CCSA, I came back to Natomas Charter School, where I currently serve as Educational Program Director. I also serve on the Board of another charter school authorized by the Natomas Unified School District.
I’m lucky to have been able to jump in and out of the school-level work. I think that I have a unique perspective in that I bring the practical, “in the trenches” perspective to my national work, and I bring the national mindset to the school level. It’s been a great professional and personal experience.
What are the major challenges your school faces annually; how do you address them?
Natomas Charter School is a much older school, so we don’t have so much of the funding or the facilities challenges as younger charters. Our biggest challenge is to continuously renew ourselves; to continue to revitalize our vision and not fall into the trap of doing the same things just because we’ve always been doing them. We still need to examine why we do the things we do and if it ties back to our mission.
How do you describe a “quality authorizer?”
First and foremost, an authorizer has to have the right attitude about what chartering can bring to its district/state. A quality authorizer has to understand the purpose of chartering is to increase opportunities for kids to achieve. Second, an authorizer has to have the ability to balance autonomy and accountability; it has to allow schools to do what they need to do, but hold them accountable for outcomes and results.
How would you characterize a successful authorizer?
One that has a portfolio of educational programs that is both educationally and fiscally accountable; an authorizer that has been able to find that right balance of autonomy and accountability and has the strength to close schools that are not meeting established goals.
What inspires you?
Students. My school and students ground me; students are always very candid and honest about their experience. I am most proud of the school and what we have accomplished when I do exit interviews with the students and they tell me what they gained from attending the school.
What are your thoughts on the lack of minority leadership in the charter school sector, both at the school and support organization levels?
It is a combination of different things. It took a while for charters to rise to the “main stream.” I think that the movement is starting to have more minority leaders as the number of charter schools expands. However, I find there are not enough minorities represented in “education” in general, so it’s not surprising that there is a lower proportion of minority leadership in charters as well. I encourage minority educators to “step up.” I know there are people out there – quality people; but it is really about taking risks. One of the ways to increase minority leadership would be to promote the idea of “personal responsibility” to take advantage of the charter the charter option to create new paths for student success.
What is the most pressing issue that authorizers must tackle in the next 5 years if we are to grow a high quality charter sector?
Economics; with the pressures of the economy, we will start to see a withdrawing of funds for some programs. However, the greater challenge is to continue to promote innovation and choice while doing the hard work of enforcing accountability in the midst of an economic crisis.
What are the most frequent issues that tend to arise between authorizers and the schools they authorize?
I think that one of the most frequent issues is the lack of understanding of charter schools and the purpose of chartering. Therefore, when a district is busy or lacking resources, the tendency of the district is to go back to “what they know” and oversee operations from what they are used to because it takes extra time and effort to treat the charter schools differently. We haven’t moved far enough into what chartering is supposed to be about. The original idea of charters was to change the way districts operate. In the charter movement, we still focus on individual schools, when instead we need to focus on districts providing general oversight, with decentralized programming. What we have instead in the charter movement is a hybrid model. As long as we have districts running schools as “district schools” with charters on the side, there will always be tension. I hope we remember the core values of site-based decision-making and decentralization when as we spin off into Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) and Independent Statewide Chartering Boards.
I think that chartering as an educational reform has surpassed many previous education reform movements. However, we are still at a precipice, in that as we grow older, we must remember what the original purpose was and push for that innovation and autonomy piece of chartering, along with accountability.
