Even after more than a decade of experience, surprisingly little is understood about the entities responsible for authorizing and overseeing charter schools. The authors argue that the success of the charter school movement depends on the effectiveness of those authorizers. WHEN THE charter school movement began in the early 1990s, one key set of players received little attention: the public entities that sponsor or authorize these unconventional schools. A charter, after all, is properly understood as a contract between two parties: the school operator and the authorizer. For the charter movement to succeed, both operators and authorizers must do their jobs effectively. An operator must run a successful school that delivers the results it promised. An authorizer must see that this happens by providing various forms of oversight and assistance and by renewing the charter if all goes well -- or pulling the plug if it does not. The role of the authorizer, therefore, is pivotal to the overall success of the charter movement. Yet surprisingly little is really understood about authorizers. They have rarely been scrutinized closely or evaluated, especially at the cross-state level.1 So how are charter authorizers doing across our country? To address this question, as part of a broader team of researchers, we recently studied state charter school policy environments and the practices of authorizers in 23 states and the District of Columbia (herein referred to as 24 states).2 These entities were selected for study since their chartered schools had at least a minimal level of legal or fiscal autonomy. Without such autonomy, a charter-style performance contract means little, and ultimately the role of a given authorizer is less vital. We examined authorizer practices to see whether high-quality oversight and accountability processes were in place that did not choke the chartered schools in red tape and paperwork. Here we summarize our key findings, especially those regarding the critical policy issues of which types of authorizing entities are perceived to be doing the best jobs and how many authorizers per state are needed. Research Design Before we get to the findings, let's briefly review the methods used to collect data and draw conclusions. The research design included structured surveys of three key charter constituencies in each of the 24 states: 1) major charter authorizers (those doing the actual authorizing of at least three or more operating charter schools); 2) charter operators (those actually running schools, who are on the receiving end of the authorizing process); and 3) knowledgeable observers of the statewide charter scene (people not engaged in authorizing or operating schools but broadly familiar with such activities, including charter school network directors, technical assistance providers, legislative or state department staff members, and various charter advocates). We recognize that individuals in any of these groups may have tunnel vision with regard to their own roles and may exhibit some favorable bias toward the whole idea of charter schools. However, we judged that the authorizers, operators, and observers -- taken together -- would be in the best position to know about and be able to judge the policies and practices within a given state. Moreover, by triangulating among the responses of the three groups, we believe it is possible to obtain a reasonably accurate picture of their perceived reality. The primary data collection tools were three online surveys, one each for authorizers, operators, and observers. All three groups were asked to rate their state's policy climate for charter schools and authorizers, as well as the performance of the authorizing bodies as a whole, on 56 criteria. Strong response rates were achieved for most states. Ten percent or more of all operating charter schools responded from each state (with over 40% responding in 10 of the 24 states). …
Read full abstract
Jan 1, 2009
Deborah A Gibbs + 3
Open Access