AS EDUCATIONAL REFORMERS who travel around the country extensively performing advocacy and researching public education, we are frequently asked to provide input regarding the most pressing issues chartered schools face. On one occasion, a county education consultant reached out to us for help. She asked us, “What’s the best way for our office to guide the districts within our borders that authorize chartered schools?”
We have been asked variations of this question countless times before. Therefore, in this chapter, we will provide authorizers a road map to navigate the important role they play and the immense responsibility they have. We will outline how authorizers can fairly and effectively perform the duties they are charged with.
As Chartered Schools Grow, So Do Their Oversight Needs
Whether states vest their chartered school authorization to school districts, state commissions, county offices, universities, or other agencies, each entity is required to provide clear and reasonable regulations to the chartered schools they oversee. We will refer to any of these entities with the broad term “authorizer.”
Unfortunately, our cross-country research has informed us that authorizers frequently fall short of their duties. As chartered school growth continues, authorizers have not invested substantial time identifying how to fulfill their obligations. In other words, most have not kept up with the increase of their responsibilities and caseloads.
The oversight landscape is rapidly and dramatically changing, and those responsible for chartered schools must take a new look at the impact the educational reform movement holds for them. They must figure out how to perform their jobs well despite mounting responsibilities.
Throughout most of the educational reform movement’s history, authorizers were granted relative flexibility when it came to overseeing chartered schools. Regulations were open to wide interpretation, and authorizers played a low-profile role in a chartered school’s operations. In fact, authorizers were largely unknown outside the educational reform movement and therefore received little public attention and scrutiny. In addition, authorizers oversaw charters on a campus-by-campus basis. Some chartered schools succeeded, and others failed, and these gains and losses were not viewed within the wider context of a national educational reform movement. Rather, they were evaluated on an individual basis.
But with the growth of chartered schools and the bigger role they began playing in public education, the pressure on authorizers to rigorously oversee the chartered schools under their watch increased. Chartered schools, once seen as an insignificant fringe movement, were siphoning students within a district’s borders and undermining the long-standing and assumed monopoly districts had. The educational establishment’s loss of market share caused alarm that turned into panic. It seemed as if it was being robbed of its entitled status. Consequently, authorizers became well-armed weapons of pushback powered by the educational establishment. These traditional practitioners were intent on upholding the status quo. Outrage over chartered schools even resulted in interdistrict conflicts. For example, in some instances, district B could approve a chartered school to open its doors in district A. Students within the boundaries of district A would enroll in the chartered school authorized by district B. District A had no control over the accountability of the chartered school so would put pressure on district B in hopes to regain authority over all public school students that resided within its boundaries.
Through our research, we discovered authorizer pushback started in urban areas. This is primarily because urban areas were the first to become saturated with chartered schools. Saturation brought to the surface issues districts were already facing, such as budget, staffing, and control. As new chartered schools continued to open their doors and districts realized they were losing students, a widespread disdain for chartered schools resulted. In addition, authorizers found themselves overseeing more chartered schools with the same level of district staff and budget they had used many years earlier. Supervising chartered schools turned from manageable to overwhelming and from low-key to burdensome.
Authorizers with well-organized offices comprising highly trained staff implementing strong policy were the best prepared to manage growing chartered school caseloads. Authorizers with a deep understanding of policy and an openness to work with chartered schools within their boundaries fostered a more collaborative and less adversarial authorizer–chartered school relationship. These well-prepared authorizers were ready to execute their duties. They valued chartered schools for the function they served and the role they played within public education.
Today, authorizers are charged to adjust to changing circumstances. They must review all previous policies and practices and ensure they are relevant to today’s authorizer landscape. If a policy is obsolete, it must be discarded or revised. And when new policies and practices are necessary, they must develop them. In the following section, we will outline a process for authorizers to develop practices and policies that provide chartered schools the tools they need to continue to leverage their strengths, allow authorizers to perform their responsibilities efficiently, and most importantly, put student needs first.
Policy Resources
The first step to developing effective policy is to perform effective and exhaustive research. We recommend authorizers thoroughly understand their own state charter law. This is the fundamental starting point because authorizers need a deep understanding of what is required to implement a particular law. From this strong foundation of understanding a law’s intent, authorizers have the information necessary to develop prudent local policy.
The second step is to perform thorough local policy research. This research should include focus groups that consider input from all stakeholders. In most cases, we recommend focus groups be led by facilitators trained to objectively direct discussions and keep them zeroed in on improvement.
Once a focus group has identified the advantages and disadvantages of local policy, authorizers are armed with information to move to the next step: improving current policies or introducing new ones.
Several state-level and national authorizer associations have published extensive guidelines for authorizers to develop policy. Many provide step-by-step instructions and clear templates. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools offers quality information. While associations such as this offer solid guidance, we do not recommend any one-policy model be simply duplicated. There is no one-size-fits-all policy that will properly meet each authorizer’s requirements. Developing good policy requires understanding and addressing each chartered school’s specific needs, which vary from state to state and even city to city. Authorizers must consider the long-term implications of a particular policy and how it will be enforced and overseen.
When developing policy, authorizers should factor in chartered school governance. Chartered schools have made strides in increasing student outcomes in large part through their governance structures. Thus, authorizer polices should be rooted in state law and include guidance for profit and nonprofit structures, appointed or elective options for boards, conflict-of-interest requirements, open meeting regulations when applicable, and numerous other aspects needed for chartered schools to maintain independence while still upholding accountability and compliance standards.
Included in any policy development should be workforce guidelines. Historically, chartered schools have been granted a great deal of flexibility in their hiring and employment practices.
Authorizers must always keep in mind that local charter policy is not intended to replicate traditional public school policy. If chartered schools are forced to use traditional school district practices, they will not be able to develop new employment models. For instance, depending on the rules of the particular state, chartered school employees may or may not be part of a union. Thus, not all chartered schools are governed by the same workforce rules that traditional public schools must follow. Regardless of an authorizer’s particular preference, chartered schools must be granted the flexibility initially intended in each state’s original charter law.
Authorizers should also ensure chartered schools maintain their independence and flexibility when developing chartered school instruction, operations, and safety policy. Whether instruction is site-based, online, blended, flex, or any combination of the preceding, the type of school being authorized should be clearly articulated to the community at large. The school’s leadership should be able to demonstrate that its leadership has the knowledge and background to create a successful school.
Policy statements for operations and safety should include guidance for building codes and permits, if they apply in whole or in part. Buildings must comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Authorizers should highlight the expectations for English-language learners, special-needs students, transportation, and health services. Chartered schools will use this information to identify the areas where they must demonstrate the ability to provide for the health and well-being of students enrolled in their schools. State law should clearly describe areas where chartered schools must maintain strict compliance, where they are granted flexibility, and where state law always supersedes local law.
When it comes to finances, authorizers should require transparency and accountability while preserving a chartered school’s fiscal autonomy. Regardless of a chartered school’s fiscal design, the end-of-the-fiscal-year outcome should always be revenue neutral, which means expenses do not exceed revenue. When designing local policy, authorizers should consider a chartered school’s internal control, bidding and purchasing processes, responsibility for audit, and minimum reserve amounts.
Local policy also provides important guidance for use of facilities. The authorizer should know where a chartered school’s facilities are located, its management terms, and who provides them. If chartered schools have access to district-owned facilities, they should have a straightforward means to determine how these properties can be obtained, the terms and agreements required, and who will be responsible for their maintenance, remodel, custodial services, and security.
The ground rules guiding the relationship between chartered schools and their authorizers must be very clear. This includes mitigating disagreements between chartered schools and authorizers through a logical process. A logical process comprises steps such as written notification requirements, meetings, mediation or arbitration, and possible legal resolution.
Realistic Projections
With shrinking student enrollments, the educational establishment views chartered schools as a threat, and authorizers are often at the front lines of pushback. While authorizers are charged to oversee chartered schools, the educational establishment has often used authorizer authority as a pushback weapon. The reality is, however, school districts often unfairly characterize chartered schools as responsible for the challenges districts face. When chartered schools are targeted in these instances, they become scapegoats. Rather than address the challenges or the need to adapt to change within their organizations, school districts often focus on pushback.
A superintendent and board of trustees are largely responsible for a school district’s fiscal well-being. Chief financial officers, along with their financial divisions and administrators, are responsible to provide superintendents and boards of trustees critical operations data that is accurate, timely, and actionable. Therefore, accurate and clear data are essential for boards of trustees to design and then implement a sound strategic plan. Unfortunately, inaccurate and unclear data are a formula for poor decision-making, which results in poor outcomes.
Boards of trustees are charged with using public education resources to make long-term plans, including hiring, purchasing, and operations decisions, as well as projections for student enrollments and attendance (for one, three, five, and ten years), transportation, revenue, and expenses related to services.
Armed with proper planning tools, district leaders are prepared to make major decisions. Examples include whether to do any of the following:
A district’s actions do not have to be reduced to one strategy. For example, school districts can rightsize their organizations by correcting an issue that has been previously identified in an effort to improve their financial positions. Along with rightsizing, districts can also determine how they need to improve and the costs associated with doing so.
Here is where a teamwork approach can dramatically benefit traditional public schools. Rather than maintain a categorical and sometimes irrational hostility toward chartered schools, traditional public schools can work with them to decrease expenses and increase revenue in order to invest in program improvement.
Well-Articulated Processes
Throughout the history of chartered school authorization, authorizers have been responsible for creating sound and practical chartered school policy. But the bottom line is that times have changed. Previous practices are not sufficient to meet the needs of today’s chartered school landscape. Authorizers should now move away from their previous role and toward enforcing a clearly articulated oversight process. They should begin this transition by drafting or redrafting forms, documents, letters, and assurances that support implementing chartered school policy. Authorizer offices must balance their oversight objectives with their staffing and resources. After all, oversight and any subsequent action plans submitted to chartered schools are pointless if realistic parameters are not established and appropriate follow-up is not performed.
Authorizers should develop a schedule that indicates in what month certain tasks should occur. These tasks include authorizer and chartered school expectations. Furthermore, authorizers must then inform chartered schools when their visits will take place. Some authorizers will be able to complete visits within a few months. Those authorizers with large caseloads may have to perform visits all year long.
Authorizers should issue reports on their findings in a timely manner. Their reports must be well designed and clear so that from day one of a chartered school’s approval, the school is aware of the study’s findings. When authorizers make changes to report criteria, the process should always include the input of chartered schools. It is important to include the perspectives of those being affected by authorizers’ decisions. While the authorizer board will always have the final say when it comes to approval, including chartered school stakeholders in the decision-making process reflects sound management practice and follows the model that has been pioneered in the world’s most successful corporations. When all stakeholders are involved in decision-making, the process of implementing changes is made easier. Doing so ensures a more objective decision-making process that considers multiple perspectives and increases the likelihood that those charged with complying with changes will successfully implement them.
The process to effectively approve, renew, or revoke a chartered school’s charter always begins with a well-designed timeline and support documents that are date- and time-stamped to verify receipt. Authorizers should send chartered school dates for public hearings or final votes or both. The format of the findings authorizers follow should be carefully crafted and used consistently. As public documents, they are subject to immediate availability to the applicants and public at large.
When a chartered school is at risk of having its charter revoked, authorizers must create documents specifically for this purpose. This is not only for legal reasons but also in the spirit of fairness—only when chartered schools clearly violate policies outlined in charter law should their revocation be considered. For example, financial losses to school districts and saturation are not legitimate grounds to revoke a charter. The most common acceptable reasons to revoke a charter are a school’s weak instructional programs, fiscal insolvency, failure to comply with state and federal law, and circumstances where students are in imminent danger. Under these circumstances, authorizers should act immediately.
As far as costs for authorizers’ services is concerned, authorizers should clearly outline costs or service fees that will be charged to the chartered school. Similar to revising report criteria, authorizers should work with chartered schools when making changes to fee schedules. If not, a dramatic cost increase may be impossible for the chartered school to meet. When developing fee schedules, authorizers should keep in mind that exorbitant fees are harmful to chartered schools and the students they serve. Unfortunately, some authorizers have used fees as a pushback tactic. This is one example of how pushback has become irrational, excessive, and unethical, and this strategy will inevitably backfire.
When the public catches wind of authorizer malfeasance, the response is typically fast and fierce. The public at large values our market-driven economy, and when public education embraces the free market, parents typically welcome the model. If an authorizer unfairly acts against a chartered school, public outcry will most likely follow. Thus, authorizers must consider the public relations consequences of any decision they make. Stakeholder communities are not mindless. They are aware when action taken is either just or unjust. Authorizers should avoid pushing back merely because a chartered school is operating outside the norms set by the educational establishment. They should perform their duties carefully and consider the broader public relations ramifications of any decisions they make. They are being closely watched, and if for no other reason, their actions should serve the public good now and into the future.
Authorizer oversight should always allow chartered schools the autonomy that is their strength. From the start, they were given more flexibility than their traditional public education counterparts to expand the vision of public education and improve it. Chartered schools were designed to introduce new models outside the status quo that work. They should continue to be encouraged to innovate and find breakthrough ways to approach how schools are managed.
Authorizers’ Responsibilities
As you have learned in this chapter, authorizers are charged with immense responsibilities. The growth of chartered schools and pressure from the educational establishment to apply pushback will only increase oversight burdens on authorizers. Chartered schools can play a direct role in supporting authorizers and the work they do. This will not only benefit authorizers but also ensure they understand the challenges of chartered schools.
Through our cross-country investigation, we observed a clear trend: Chartered school leaders want to see quality schools that maintain the highest ethical standards and fulfill the needs of the students and parents within the communities they serve. When one chartered school fails to meet its commitment to provide the best education possible, this hurts the reputation of the entire educational reform movement, the students and families the school serves, and the authorizer who was charged with oversight.
A chartered school advisory group is one approach to bridge the gap between authorizers and the campuses they oversee. Collaboration begins with dialogue. This model has proven successful in many parts of the country. An advisory group would meet regularly to open up lines of communication, identify and resolve issues, and ensure chartered schools and authorizers always act in the best interests of the students they oversee. When every chartered school plays an active role in working with authorizers, all schools benefit—struggling schools receive the specific support they require, and thriving schools ensure their voices are heard and their needs are being met so they can continue to succeed.
Building a chartered school advisory group may seem like a waste of resources and time. But the opposite is true. Dealing with an adversarial relationship between authorizers and chartered schools is a resource-heavy endeavor. In many cases, conflict is both stressful and time-consuming. Worst of all, when energy and resources are allocated toward resolving conflict rather than improving the school, students suffer.
A chartered school advisory group would include chartered school leaders who would participate in reviewing newly proposed chartered schools, evaluating and providing input about new policy changes, and working to solve problems directly with authorizers.
When Authorizers Embrace Change, Students Win
When chartered schools succeed, students, parents, authorizers, and public education win. No doubt, authorizers play an important role in public education. They can enter a new era of public schools influenced by the vision of educational reformers and their challenge to the status quo. And they can adjust to change and collaborate with chartered schools.
Moving toward teamwork and away from confrontation will allow authorizers and the chartered schools they oversee to leverage their strengths. Both groups are represented by hardworking, caring, ethical, and creative professionals. When they team together, they can identify the most pressing issues public education faces and combine their expertise and effectively solve problems using their diverse perspectives.
Today, parents across the country are benefitting from a market-driven approach to public education. They have voted with their feet and demonstrated their steadfast support of chartered schools. Thus, any efforts on the part of the educational establishment to reject this model are futile.
While at times the conflicts between authorizers and chartered schools may seem huge and the ideological gap hopelessly large, instances of collaboration between authorizers and chartered schools demonstrate that teamwork is preferable, is possible, and puts the needs of students first. In the end, regardless of whether the model is traditional public education or chartered schools, when student outcomes improve, public education has fulfilled its role in society.