Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspective Report On Quality Authorizing

8/14/2019 Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspective Report On Quality Authorizing

1/22

AUTHORIZING ROADMAP: NATIONAL

PERSPECTIVES ON QUALITY

AUTHORIZING

Nelson SmithSenior Advisor, National Association of Charter School Authorizers

October 2013


2/22

1

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

FOREWORD

It is nearly impossible to have reliably good charter schools without competent, conscientious, properly

motivated charter school authorizers. For too long, however, the importance of charter schoolauthorizers had been an under-examined area in public discussions about charter school quality.

Fortunately, in recent years the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) has spent

much time and energy and many resources studying and reporting on quality authorizer practices. There

are notable differences between the practices, values, staffing, and operations of quality authorizers

and those who arent, and NACSA has done a superb job of mapping those differences.

NACSAs Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizinghas become a go-to resource for

lawmakers, policy makers, and charter school advocates across the country who are looking to improve

the quality of their charter school laws and programs. Idahos recent changes to its charter school law

benefited from both the work of NACSA and that of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in its

Model State Charter School Law.

But crafting good law is only part of the challenge. It is harder still to implement successful charter

school policies and practices. In Idaho, this heavy lifting is falling predominantly to the state charter

school commission, and to 15 local school district authorizers. New state law also encourages colleges

and universities to authorize charter schools, but none have yet stepped up to take on the role.

In order to help outline a roadmap for Idaho charter school authorizers as they navigate their current

implementation challenges, and to provide an overview of quality authorizing for prospective

authorizers, the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation and the Idaho Charter School Network recruited

Nelson Smith to produce the report Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on QualityChartering. We couldnt think of anyone better to do the work than Nelson Smith. He is currently

Senior Advisor to NACSA, and before that was President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public

Charter Schools. He also served as executive director of the District of Columbia Public Charter School

Board, and is currently an adjunct lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education.

Nelson has done a fantastic job capturing the qualities and practices of the nationsbest authorizers, as

well as the lessons Idaho should take from them. He also shows that Idaho has put itself in a strong

position to become one of the nations top performing charter states. But challenges remain and,

according to Smith, these include:

Strengthening the charter school commission membership. The governor, the Senate president,and the Speaker of the House must do their very best to appoint commission members who are

dedicated to ensuring the success and expansion of high-quality charter schools;

Providing adequate resources so the commission can successfully manage its expandingworkload;

Convening a special committee or task force to examine the oversight of virtual charter schools;


3/22

2


Getting other organizations to consider taking on charter school authorizing in order to help thestates current authorizers better serve schools across Idahos vast geography; and

Encouraging the commission and other authorizers to work collaboratively with philanthropy,business, and education partners to strategically support the expansion of top-flight schools

while also recruiting high-performing models and education talent to the Gem State.

These are exciting times for Idahos charter schools and Smith provides an excellent roadmap to help

the charter sector improve and thrive in the coming months and years.

Jamie MacMillan

Executive Director

J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation

Terry Ryan

President

Idaho Charter School Network


4/22

3


BACKGROUND

Idahos charter school sector is positioned to grow. The state currently has 39 brick-and-mortar charter

schools, seven statewide virtual schools, and one distant education academy, and these schoolscollectively serve approximately 18,500 students. According to the Idaho Department of Education,

there are nearly 11,400 students on waiting lists who would like to attend one of the states current

charter schools.

In addition to demand for new charter school seats, Idahos charter schools as a group are well-rated

academically. On the 2012-13 report cards, 69 percent of charter schools received a four- or five-star

rating. In comparison, 59 percent of traditional Idaho public schools received a four- or five-star rating.

But not all charters are high-flyers academically. Four of the states charters received just a one-star

rating last year. Nevertheless, Idaho charter school students as a group perform better onNational

Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math assessments than their traditional district

school peers. In 2011, fourth and eighth grade charter students outpaced their district peers in both

reading and math.

The performance of Idaho charter schools is better on average than that of charters in many other

states, but this is not the only way in which they are different. While its schools are more often in urban

settings than is true of Idaho public schools on the whole, nearly 42 percent of the states charters are in

rural areasmore than double the percentage of rural charters nationwide. Nationally, charters serve

predominantly low-income populations, but in Idaho just six of the states47 charters exceed the state

average for poverty (although the average rate of 46 percent across all charters is comparable to the 50

percent of the states public schools). Students of color are the predominant charter population in most

states, yet in Idaho, charters enroll more white students (87 percent) than the statestraditional public

schools (78 percent), and enroll merely eight percent Hispanic students compared to 17 percent

statewide.1Although local school districts are eligible authorizers (school districts currently authorize 15

schools), they have ceded active authorizing to the Idaho State Charter School Commission, which is by

far the dominant authorizer in the state with 34 schools.

Changes to state law (H221) signed by Governor Butch Otter in April 2013 also allow Idaho colleges and

universities to serve as charter school authorizers. H221 also made changes to the process of appointing

members to the Idaho Charter School Commission. Further changes mandate performance certificatesthat require charter schools and their authorizers to have agreements that contain measurable

academic and financial targets. These recent changes to law make this an opportune moment to

examine the drivers that push toward quality charter schoolsand in particular, to bring Idahos

authorizing practices closer to the nations best practices as defined in the National Association of

Charter School Authorizers(NACSAs) Principles & Standards of Quality Charter School Authorizing.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/


5/22

4


EFFECTIVE CHARTER AUTHORIZING

Charter school authorizing is a relatively new profession within the field of public education. It did not

exist prior to 1991; that all changed when the school district in St. Paul, Minnesota granted a charteragreement to City Academy High School. This was groundbreaking because it created a new model of

school governance. Unlike a district superintendent, whose schools are all part of the same incorporated

entity, an authorizer does not directly manage school sites. Rather, the authorizers task is to identify

through rigorous means those operators with the strongest potential; grant them a charter or

performance contract for a set period of time; monitor their progress toward the goals articulated in the

charter; and make high-stakes decisions about whether to renew or revoke the charter. All of that (not

just the initial selection) is encompassed within the notion of authorizing charter schools.

Charter schools and their authorizers have both been created by state laws. As the charter revolution

spread across the nation in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, the initial laws were expansive about the

corporate form, flexibilities, obligations, and funding of charter schools, but said little about authorizers.

Mostly, the laws specified which entities would have the right to do the authorizing. Nearly every state

allowed traditional school districts to charter, but a few named other entities: state education agencies

in New Jersey and Massachusetts; universities in Missouri and Michigan; state commissions in Arizona

and D.C.; and later on, large nonprofits in Ohio and Minnesota. While identifying who could authorize,

however, the laws said little about how outcomes were to be measured. And no state took authorizing

seriously enough to put in place any meaningful standards or evaluation processes for authorizersown

performancea development that finally began to pick up steam in such places as Ohio, Minnesota,

and Washington in the mid-2000s.

Idahos charter law followed the usual pattern, with some notable exceptions.The section on

Authorization in the original 1998 statute says:The state board of education shall adopt rules, subject

to law, to establish a consistent application and review process for the approval and maintenance of all

public charter schools.2The section on petitions spells out with some precision how applicants should

approach authorizers, the timelines to be followed, and other procedural matters, but there was little in

the original law saying with similar precision how charters were to be monitored or held accountable for

performance. In fact, there was no provision at all for a renewal processmeaning that a primary

accountability instrument used by authorizers around the country was not available to those in Idaho.

While revocation was still possible, there was little incentive for improvement of consistently low-

performing charters.

New legislation, passed in spring 2013 and signed into law by Governor Otter, took major steps toward

aligning Idahos charter school statute with the ModelState Charter School Law created by the National

Alliance for Public Charter Schools. H206 took a first step toward providing facilities funding and

provided that charter schools would pay an authorizer fee, a funding model that supports 60 percent of

authorizers nationwide.3H221 made significant changes to the system of governance, requiring for the

first time a process for charter renewals, establishing a performance certificate (or contract) for each


6/22

5


school, allowing Local Education Agency (LEA) status for district-authorized charters (heretofore

reserved for those approved by the commission), and allowing institutions of higher education to

become authorizers.

A new report from CREDO at Stanford University emphasizes the significance of strong state statutes

and affirms the path outlined in Idahos new laws. CREDO finds that many state laws have prescribedprocesses for authorizers, but have neglected to say what outcomes are desired, including closing failing

schools. Often, CREDO notes, authorizers have simply defaulted to the federally-mandated, proficiency-

based reporting required under the No Child Left Behind Act as their sole accountability standard.

Among findings about specific practices, CREDO says that requiring reviews for academic proficiency in

renewal processes produces strong learning gains (the equivalent of 32 additional days of schooling

annually), as does requiring authorizers to conduct mid-term performance reviews (21 additional days).4

A Code of Professional Practice

As the charter movement neared the end of its first decade, a group of authorizers from various states

and representing disparate types began meeting to talk about their craft, asking whether certain

approaches tended to increase the odds of creating high-quality charter schools. They formed the

National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), which in 2004 released the first edition of

Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. The publication has been updated

periodically as new evidence merits. In 2011, NACSA identified a dozen essential practices found

among highest-quality authorizers, and now conducts an annual survey to determine how widely these

practices have been adopted throughout the field.

A consistent finding from NACSAs survey work is that larger authorizers (those with ten or more

schools) tend to develop more of the essential practices than those with fewer schools. This stands to

reason; a local school district that approves one or two charters is less likely to invest the time,

resources, and expertise needed to create space for quality charter schools while also having direct

responsibility for running the day-to-day operations of its traditional schools. An authorizer that

oversees dozens of charters has to figure out how to do it well, particularly if charter approval and

oversight is its sole reason for existence.

Although there are only small differences overall in the adoption of essential practices by authorizer

type (that is, state commission vs. school district vs. universities), there are marked differences in

specific areas. Traditional school districts are far more likely to approve charter applications (a 42

percent approval rate) than are statewide chartering agencies (26 percent) or higher education

institutions (14 percent). State commissions are far more likely to have developed policies to replicate

high-performing charters (78 percent) than are colleges (50 percent) and school districts (35 percent).5

What matters most are the practices themselves, not the institutional form of the authorizer. While

there are trends among authorizer types, they do not predict how any given authorizer will actually

perform; that is far more a function of leadership, resources, and the states policy environment.Being a

commission or a college is no guarantee of excellence, and school districts, despite the inherent

institutional complexity, can be terrific authorizers. In the few states that allow them, there are some


7/22

6


excellent non-profit authorizers such as Volunteers of America in Minnesota and the Thomas B.

Fordham Foundation in Ohio. The key to success in both cases has been their organizational

commitment to quality charter schools and the significant resources and talent they have made

available to their charter authorizing work.

Table 1 lays out the 12 Essential Practices6

of a quality authorizer. To be clear, they do not in themselvesrepresent the pinnacle of practice. No authorizer can be labeled excellent simply by checking yes in

each box. Everything depends on the quality of implementationand indeed, when NACSA does deep-

dive evaluations, its often the case that authorizers are carrying out these practices on a superficial

level. An authorizer may be signing a contract with each school, fulfilling Practice #3, but that contract

may omit some critical components, or simply incorporate by reference an entire charter application

rather than spelling out which elements are material.

Yet these practices do represent a threshold. Unless an authorizer implements a substantial share of

them, theyre not likely to have a strong portfolio of charter schools.

Table 1: NACSAs 12 Essential Practices for Quality Charter School Authorizing

1. Have a published and available mission for quality authorizing

2. Have staff assigned to authorizing within the organization or by contract

3. Sign a contract with each school

4. Have established, documented criteria for the evaluation of charter applications

5. Publish application timelines and materials

6. Interview all charter applicants

7. Use expert panels that include external members to review charter applications

8. Grant charters with five-year terms only

9. Require and/or examine annual, independent financial audits of its charter schools

10. Have established renewal criteria

11. Have established revocation criteria

12. Provide an annual report to each school on its performance


8/22

7


Idahos Authorizers

As with many states, Idahoscharter law allows local school districts to authorize charter schools, and as

with 13 other states and the District of Columbia, it has an Independent Chartering Board or ICB

the Idaho Public Charter Schools Commission. The Commission can authorize schools statewide and,

under recent changes to state law, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) can now join the authorizer ranks

as well: An Idaho public college, university or community college; a private, nonprofit Idaho-based,

nonsectarian college or university that is accredited by the same organization that accredits Idaho public

colleges and universities.7

The following section provides a review of the strengths and challenges facing different authorizer

types. Since Idahos local school districts rarely authorize new charters, what follows focuses mostly on

the efforts of state charter commissions and higher-education institutions.

School Districts/LEAs

There are as many motivations for school districts to authorize as there are schools. The district may, for

example, see chartering as an opportunity to try out a new academic model or program on an

experimental basis; the charter school may be founded by educators who want to stay in the districts

benefits and pension system, but need flexibilities traditional schools cant easily provide (e.g., longer

school day or school year); or the founders may feel that going outside the district will rock the boat.

Nationally, charter schools divide roughly in half between those that have Local Education Agency (LEA)

status and those that are legally part of another school district. In almost all cases, those that are part of

other LEAs are chartered by a local school district, and commonly that comes with certain other benefits

or conditions: the district may provide special education services (since is it legally liable for instances of

non-compliance); may house the charter in one of its buildings; and may include the charters test

results in its overall district calculations for state and national accountability purposes.

______________________________________________Differences in Application Approaches One area in which LEA practices differ sharply from those of

state commissions and higher education authorizers is the conduct of application cycles. LEAs are far

less likely to issue a Request for Proposal for each annual cycle. This could mean that they stick with a

basic application over many yearsor that they accept applications on a rolling basis rather than on a

defined annual timeline.

Table 2: Percentage Issuing Annual RFPs by Authorizer Type

Type No Yes

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) 61% 39%

Independent Charter Boards (ICBs) 36% 64%

Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 75% 25%

______________________________________________


9/22

8


A key concern for charter schools authorized by school districts is whether the local district respects and

maintains charter school autonomy. Freedom and flexibility in return for accountability is key to the

charter school bargain. District-authorized charter schools should have the same operational freedoms

as charter schools authorized by any other type of authorizer. Charter school autonomy should be

guaranteed and protected. But there are a regrettable number of cases, due either to weak state laws or

to district authorizer decisions, where charter schools lose their freedoms and are treated as just

another district school. In Wisconsin, for example, the so-called instrumentality charters (those

chartered by districts) often have no independent board, and the districts school board acts as their

direct governing body. Iowas few charter schools must remain part of the district, and have only an

advisory council rather than an independent governing board. In Maryland, the school district is the

legal employer of charter staff, rather than the school itself.8In such cases, charters are really little more

than district programs and, as such, do not provide the space, freedom, and flexibilities that strong

charters need to thrive and succeed.

______________________________________________Table 3: Frequency of Essential Practices (%) by Authorizer Type 2012Practice HEIs ICBs LEAs

Contract 96% 82% 91%

Application Criteria 83% 100% 88%

Application Timeline 71% 100% 80%

Application Interview 50% 100% 82%

External Expert Panel 42% 82% 37%

Five-Year Term Length 33% 9% 31%

Financial Audit 96% 100% 94%

Annual Report to Schools 83% 64% 57%

Revocation Criteria 79% 73% 77%

Renewal Criteria 83% 55% 89%

Authorizing Staff 92% 91% 90%

Mission 67% 82% 46%

Average 73% 78% 72%

______________________________________________

Independent Charter Boards

Arizona created the first statewide commission for charter schools in 1995, followed a year later by the

District of Columbias Public Charter School Board. ICBs are now found in 14 states and the District ofColumbia, with the most recent addition being the Mississippi State Charter School Authorizer Board.

These state charter school commissions share one enormous advantage: an ability to focus solely on

approving and overseeing high-quality charter schools. Other types of authorizers are nested within an

organization whose main mission is something other than charter schoolsfor example, running a

district of traditional schools, overseeing state education policy, or implementing a social welfare

program.


10/22

9


In addition, because they are statewide in scope, they tend to develop larger portfolios and

consequently put more effort into developing and refining their charter-specific professional practice.

______________________________________________Differences in RecruitingICBs across the country are significantly more likely than HEIs, and

far more likely than local district authorizers, to define needs and seek out operators who canaddress those needs, as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Authorizer Takes Actions to Recruit or Support a Supply of Charter Applicants

Type Don't know No Yes

HEIs 4% 65% 30%

ICBs 0% 55% 45%

LEAs 2% 83% 15%

______________________________________________

But statewide charter commissions have potential downsides as well.

Distance

A recent NACSA evaluation of one ICB found that Some school leaders have come to view the Board as

detached and remote, and report that they do not understand the Boards decision-making process.9

This problem is common in large states with a commission headquartered in the state capital but serving

the entire state. The distance between the authorizer and its authorized schools can be exacerbated by

the way the commission sees its work. In the case cited here, commissioners had been careful to guard

their impartiality in decision making, and felt that their accountability role might be jeopardized by

getting too close to schools. When briefed on these evaluation findings, they discussed rethinking their

approachfor example, making more of an effort to attend graduations and other school functions, andperhaps holding their own meetings at schools around the state, as a way of showing institutional

support.

Of course, this can cut both ways. Sometimes charter schools that value their autonomy are just as

happy not to be bothered. Another state evaluation, recently completed, showed that schools were

fairly comfortable with the remoteness of the authorizer. High-performers felt they didnt need

additional guidance and low-performers found that they wouldnt be threatened if they simply met

minimal targets to escape sanctions. But even some of the high-performing charter operators

interviewed by NACSA conceded that it would be good for their state agency to get to know them

better, if only to understand the broad variations in mission, programs, and students being served.

Boundary Squabbles

As with other statewide authorizers, ICBs can confront tensions when they authorize schools to operate

within the boundaries of a traditional school district. This means that the district loses students and the

state funding that goes with them when they move from a district school to an independent charter.

The local district also has no control over whether some of its teachers and other staff may leave for

charters, further causing the district pain, at least in the short-term.


11/22

10


A few states have tackled this tension by limiting the ICBs jurisdiction in some way. Colorados State

Board of Education, for example, can grant exclusive chartering authority to local school districts if the

district can demonstrate that itscharter-friendly and has the needed capacity for quality charter

authorizing. Hence the states Charter Schools Institutedoes not authorize charter schools in Denver,

where the district does a good job of authorizing schools on its own. In Georgia, the recently-

reconstituted state charter commission, as in Idaho, can receive applications only that have been turned

down first at the local level, the exception being schools that operate statewide, such as virtual charters.

One surprising outcome in reviewing evaluations of the practices of several state commissions is that

they seem to share some technical shortcomings as well: a lack of transparency, insufficiently developed

performance objectives and criteria, and lack of consistency in various processesfor example,

variations in training among external reviewers. Its not clear whether the ICB form itself has anything to

do with these problems.

Who Should Be Appointed to Independent Charter Boards?

Among states with ICBs, Idaho had created some of the more idiosyncratic

requirements for naming commission members. The commissions original

enabling legislation required that six of seven slots be held by current or

former members of school boards or trustees of school districts. New

legislation gives the governor, House Speaker, and Senate president

appointing authority and stipulates that nominees must have demonstrated

understanding of and commitment to charter schools as a strategy for

strengthening public education, and represent a variety of management and

education skills.10This brings Idahos methodin line with the trend in most

other ICB states, where, in an effort to defuse political or institutional capture

of the commission, members are named by various appointing offices.

By requiring commitment to charter schools, the law assures alignment with the commissions

mission. But even with this change, there is no guarantee that the right people will be chosen. What

kind of candidates make good charter commissioners? This is a topic that has not been studied

systematically, but NACSA has been asked for help in getting several state commissions up and running.

In the course of one recent engagement, NACSA was asked to outline essential requirements for

effective state commission membership, and conducted interviews with a number of state commission

officials from around the country. Their recommendations are summarized here.

NACSAs interviews found that those who do the job of statewide authorizing paint a picture of an ideal

commissioner as someone who is a committed but open-minded public servant. They recommend thatcommissioners be fair and impartial without any bias for or against particular charter schools, district

schools, one type of school model, or any particular school operator. The only bias a commissioner

should show is toward high academic achievement and proper financial and management stewardship

that serve the interests of the students and the public. As it is for any state board or commission

member, the primary role of a commissioner is that of a public servant representing the interests of the

states people.

Attitude and beliefs are much

more important than experienc

It is useful to have people of

diverse experience, but more so

shared mind/vision and

commitment around doing wha

best for kids.

- Authorizer Board Mem


12/22


13/22

12


1. Candidate Disclosures. Prospective commissioners should be required to disclose all charterschool affiliations during the process. The state board of education must have an opportunity to

assess any potential conflicts.

2. Financial Interest. Going forward, the existence of a financial interest in a charter school,whether as an employee, contractor, consultant, or other financial interest, should be a basis fordisqualification from appointment to the commission.

3. Commissioner Prohibitions. Commissioners should, for the duration of their terms, beprohibited from establishing new affiliations with charter schools, whether as governing board

members, full-time employees, or consultants. Such affiliations introduce potential conflicts into

the commissions work and would undermine the commissions credibility as an independent,

objective decision maker. Permitting such affiliations would also create a perverse incentive for

charter schools to influence commission decisions by creating such affiliations.

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as Authorizers

For college and university authorizers, the question of missionis as important as the kind ofqualifications mentioned above. The charter function exists within institutions dedicated to

postsecondary scholarship, not K-12 education, and can be submerged without a distinct identity and

purpose.11In NACSAs most recent survey, just 67 percent of HEI authorizers reported having a distinct

mission statement, compared to 82 percent for ICBs.12A member of NACSAs Leaders Program, who

heads a university-affiliated authorizing office, recently commented that while the university has a

mission statement, her office has lacked onea condition soon to be remedied.

A 2011 report on the Missouri charter sector, funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, found

some serious shortcomings in that states oversight environment, which is uniquely dominated by

university-based authorizers. Some of the institutions studied in the report became authorizers simplybecause an enterprising would-be operator approached the college president and asked if theyd

authorize his school. With that kind of haphazard entry into the authorizing profession, its not

surprising that some of these universities lacked a clear mission for this work and failed to create the

policies and infrastructure needed to do the job well.

Among others, however, the chartering functions reinforced the universities existing commitmentsto

improve public education. St. Louis University and Washington University both got into the authorizing

business because they saw chartering as an appropriate extension of their urban missions, giving them

an opportunity to help educate children put at risk by their current school systems.13

Universities can bring other assets to the role of authorizer. The Charter Schools Institute of the State

University of New York (SUNY) is actually situated within the universitys research division. Its mission

statement includes the following: CSI strives to become a nationally recognized repository and

disseminator of research, training and best practices for charter schools, public school choice and

charter authorizing.14Accordingly, the Institute has cooperated with the New York City Charter Center

(a charter school support organization) in a series of workshops on charter replication for schools


14/22

13


considering expansion, and has at times made its portfolio of schools available to SUNY scholars as a

resource for their research papers.

But even this can be a double-edged sword. One Midwestern university is currently navigating some

difficult questions about its chartering versus research responsibilities; their NACSA evaluation report

pointed to a need for separating reporting responsibilities and/or decision-making authority forauthorizing decisions from research or educational programming decisions.

Universities that have schools of education, and that train teachers and school leaders, would seem to

have the clearest motivation for wanting to become charter authorizers. Among some of the Missouri

higher-ed authorizers, for example, their teaching graduates find ample job opportunities in schools the

colleges authorize.

But its important to understand the difference between operatingand authorizing schools, a point of

possible confusion that arose in preparing this paper. A number of colleges form charters as lab schools

where their students can get first-hand classroom experience under superior professional supervision.Such is the case at the four campuses operated by the University of Chicago Charter School. Other

colleges host charters on their campuses, often making facilities available and encouraging professors to

lend their servicesHoward University in D.C.; Dayton Early College Academy at the University of

Dayton; and the University of CaliforniaSan Diego, with its Preuss Charter School, are examples of this

approach. But none of these universities are authorizers. Howard University Charter School is authorized

by the D.C. Public Charter School Board, Dayton Early College Academy by the Dayton Public Schools,

and Preuss by San Diego Unified Public Schools in a unique partnership with the University of California.

______________________________________________

In-House Resources One strength of university-based authorizers is that, as with school districts, theycan draw on the educational expertise of colleagues to support application reviews and other high-

stakes decisions. As the table below indicates, HEIs and LEAs are both more likely than state

commissions to report that they have academic expertise housed within the organization.

Table 5: Where Authorizers Find Expertise in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Authorizer Type "By contract" "No access"

"Within authorizing

organization"

HEIs 14% 5% 73%

ICBs 40% 0% 60%

LEAs 0% 1% 94%

______________________________________________

______________________________________________Performance AccountabilityPerhaps because evaluation talent is close at hand, HEIs are also more

likely than state commissions, and considerably more likely than school districts, to have developed

performance frameworks.


15/22

14


Table 6: Performance Frameworks by Authorizer Type

Type Don't know No Yes

HEIs 0.0% 4.3% 95.7%

ICBs 0.0% 20.0% 80.0%

LEAs 3.3% 31.1% 65.6%

______________________________________________

This is an important point for IdahosHEIs to grasp. If some become authorizers, they will be reviewing

applications from around the state which, if approved, will require monitoring, oversight, and high-

stakes reviews. This is a different undertaking than, for example, creating a university-based school to

serve children of the faculty. (There is no such preference allowed under state law in any case, although

there is an admissions preference for children of founders.) Becoming an authorizer will require setting

up an authorizing office that can draw on university resources for such tasks as application reviews, but

also retain its ability to act independently.

In fact, for a college that trains teachers for local school systems, chartering independent schools that

primarily employ Teach for America graduates or uncertified staff (if state law allows) can pose a

challenge. Central Michigan University, acknowledged as one of the nations leading authorizers, was

initially warned by some district superintendents that they would refuse to hire CMU education school

graduates if the university authorized schools in their communities. (Happily, this has not turned out to

be the case.)

What Kind of Governance?

The evaluation of one university authorizer found that the basis of the authorizers decision is not clear.

Historically, the Executive Director and Finance Director have made approval decision with no clear

connection to the proposal review and interview process. Will the universitys board of directors have a

say in approvals, or will a separate board be createdor none at all, leaving the decisions to

administrators? Unless there is clarity in governance, HEI authorizers risk a lack of transparency.

Its not clear why, but among HEI authorizers surveyed, application processes were a relatively weak

link. While 100 percent of statewide charter commissions reported implementing the recommended

steps of clear application criteria and timelines, just 83 percent and 50 percent of HEIs included these

recommended components, respectively. And while 82 percent of state commissions used an expert

external panel for application reviews, just 42 percent of HEIs reported doing so (although they could be

defining internal liberally and using personnel from other university departments).

Yet higher-ed authorizers were significantly more likely to have developed renewal criteria than state

commissions (83 percent vs. 55 percent). This may be a function of age; most state commissions are

relatively new andunfortunatelya lot of authorizers only get around to developing renewal criteria

when its time for their first renewal.

No matter their organizational type, a quality authorizer creates organizational structures and commits

human and financial resources necessary to conduct its authorizing duties effectively and efficiently.15


16/22

15


The next section looks at these resources in light of national benchmarks.

AUTHORIZERS AND HUMAN CAPITAL

Recruiting schools and education talent to a particular state or jurisdiction has not traditionally been an

authorizer function. Traditionally, would-be charter operators apply, the authorizer decides whether to

grant a charter, and then successful applicants put together a team to run their school or schools.

However, this approach is changing in more and more jurisdictions and authorizers are becoming more

proactive in shaping their school environments.

Denver Public Schools, among other urban authorizers, developed a Call for New Quality Schools

based on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis of whether there are sufficient quality seats inthe charter and traditional sectors to meet parental demand and student need. Tennessees

Achievement School District conducts a review of potential operators first, then matches them to

specific turnaround schools after consultation with a local advisory group, assuring a good fit for both

the school and the needs of students. Other authorizers simply indicate in a cover letter that they would

be particularly interested in seeing applications that address special education needs or offer a strong

STEM curriculum. In the interests of attracting high-quality operators with a strong local or national

track record, the D.C. Public Charter School Board has created a separate application process for

experienced operators, with an accelerated timeline from approval through opening.

One of the best examples of a charter school authorizer working strategically with the larger community

to recruit top schools and education talent to their jurisdiction is found in Indianapolis. The mayors

office has the authority to authorize charter schools, but rather than just sit passively and wait for

prospective school models to apply to open schools, the office works closely with the non-profit Mind

Trust to recruit top education talent to the city through The Mind Trusts Charter School Incubator and

other key initiatives. By working together, the mayors charter school office and the Mind Trusthave

made Indianapolis one of the top performing charter school markets in America. (A recent study by

CREDO out of Stanford University demonstrated that students attending mayor-sponsored charter

schools gained an additional three months of learning in math and two months of learning in English per

school year when compared to students attending traditional public schools.16)

The city has not only recruited top national charter school programs such as KIPP to run schools in the

citys most low-income neighborhoods, it has also worked with local charter operators to replicate their

successful programs. At the system level, much of this has been made possible through the recruitment

of such successful nonprofits as Teach For America, The New Teacher Project, Stand for Children, and

College Summit.


17/22

16


Another way authorizers can help build the talent pipeline is by ensuring that applicants themselves

have a firm handle on how they will staff as they grow. This is another reason why many authorizers

work on bringing high-powered national groups into the state, since many come with built-in training

strategies. KIPP, for example, is more than anything a leadership-based model. Even though it has begun

taking on the characteristics of a management organization, it places tremendous emphasis on finding

and cultivating leaders who can implement the model at peak performance. Building Excellent Schools

does not directly operate charters, but builds relationships with charter organizations that can use their

well-trained graduates. There are many other examples in the charter arena, and authorizers do well to

pay close attention to an applicants human capital strategy.

But the most significant contribution authorizers make is by being a rigorous, conscientious, but

constructive partner. Some authorizers take the position that they cannot maintain their accountability

role if they get too friendly with schoolsand applicantsand theres some truth to that. But so long as

there is a level playing field for all applicants, and the authorizer sets a high bar for any and all

approvals, there is no reason why an authorizer cannot be part of broad-based efforts to attract high-

performing schools and networks into their city or state.

At the 2009 National Charter Schools Conference, for example, New York Citys schools chancellor Joel

Klein (who by then was overseeing more than 50 charter schools) held a breakfast for high-performing

charter school/network operators from around the country. He and his team made a powerful pitch

much as a mayor might make in trying to woo convention business. He said that successful applicants

would have access to public school facilities, special education programs, and technical assistance

opportunitiesand, most importantly, they would have the personal and political support of the mayor

and chancellor as they navigated the rough and tumble world of New York school politics.

But while welcoming those whove made a mark in other states, authorizers also need to ramp up their

own due-diligence efforts. The application should require a range of information about performance at

other sites and with comparable student populations, the applicants plans for carrying through the

mission and curricular themes, local support for their work, and their capacity to implement at full

speed from day one. Reviewing these requires special guidance as well; the D.C. Public Charter School

Board (among other authorizers) uses a detailed scoring guide developed especially for applicants

whose models are new to the District: http://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/2013-

14%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdf.

WHAT IT TAKES

Although the resources and infrastructure needed for strong quality charter school authorizing varies by

type and portfolio size, it is essential that the authorizer have the needed tools to do the work well. One

of the messages heard from those interviewed for this paper is that the current Idaho state charter
http://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/2013-14%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdfhttp://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/2013-14%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdfhttp://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/2013-14%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdfhttp://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/2013-14%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdfhttp://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/2013-14%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdf


18/22

17


commission has lacked the resources needed for the job. This observation is borne out by national

comparisons.

Budget Issues

Table 7 shows average budgets by authorizer type, but there is actually wide variation within each

category depending on portfolio size and authorizer approach. Budgets of higher-education authorizers,for example, range from a low of $20,732 per school to more than six times that, a high of $130,000 per

school.

______________________________________________Table 7: Budget Summary 2012 by Authorizer Type

Summary Budget/Fee Statistics HEIs ICBs LEAs

Average Authorizing Budget $1,026,983 $1,005,983 $1,577,995

Average Budget Per School $46,843 $33,022 $243,776

Average Oversight Fee 2% 2% 3%

______________________________________________

Although few state charter school commissions report budget information directly, the average of those

that did report in NACSA most recent survey is $33,022 per school. Compare this to the resources

available to the Idaho State Charter Commission as seen in Table 8 below. Staffing levels vary widely,

and are driven by how the authorizer defines its professional practices, as well as by budget availability

and the number of schools authorized. State commissions employ an average of .44 full-time

equivalents (FTE) per school, while university authorizers have slightly more staff allocated, at an

average of .53 FTE per school.

But again, these averages mask large variation. Among ICBs, for example, the District of Columbia Public

Charter School Board, which oversees 101 charter schools (now accounting for about 44 percent of

D.C.s public school enrollment), has a highly articulated performance-management system, a significant

policy role in citywide efforts around Race to the Top and other programs, and a mission encompassing

more than the usual amount of technical support. It has 26 full-time staff. By contrast, the Arizona State

Board for Charter Schools, serving four times as many schools statewide, has historically limited its work

to the basicsconducting application processes, reporting as needed and doing renewals. Its staff

consists of eight FTEs, or just .16 FTE per school.

There is a similar range in staffing among higher-ed authorizers. The Governor John Engler Center for

Charter Schools at Central Michigan University has by far the largest staff with 54 positions; in part this

is driven by Michigan law, which requires significant direct oversight of schools, but its also helped by a

fee structure that has enabled the center to invest in development and dissemination of technologies

such as the Epicenter data system that are now used widely by authorizers in other states.


19/22

18


______________________________________________

Staff and Budget Levels The following table shows some comparisons of staff and budget levels among

authorizers of various types that have portfolios similar to that of the Idaho Commission. Note that the

Commission has among the lowest staff-per-school and budget-per-school ratios in this group.

Table 8: Comparison of Staff and Budget Levels

Authorizer #of Schools Budget Budget/school Staff (FTE) Staff/School

Grand Valley

State U (MI)

62 $5.2 million $83,870 16 0.3

Ohio Council

of Community

Schools (U of

Toledo)

47 $3.4 million $72,340 21 0.45

Charter

SchoolsInstitute (CO)

23 $1.73 million $75,217 4 0.17

State Public

Charter School

Commission

(HI)

32 $1.23 million $38,593 15 0.47

Denver Public

Schools (CO)

36 $750K $20,833 9 0.25

Idaho Charter

School

Commission

34 $313,900 $9,232 2.5 0.07

______________________________________________

RECOMMENDATIONS

It will come as no surprise that there has been some discontent about the Idaho State Charter

Commission in the past. Some of this is due to the law as it existed pre-2013. Because there was no

provision for charter renewal in Idahos original charter law, there was no regular cycle of accountability.

The only time the Commission could get everything nailed down was at the starting gate so application

processes became detailed and arduous. And the Commission has 2.5 FTE to manage all the interactions

between Commission, schools, and other stakeholders. As the chart above shows, this is a relatively low

staffing leveland may have bred reliance on one-size-fits-all memos rather than individuation and

customization.


20/22

19


On its own or with direction from the new charter laws, the Commission is moving to put in place more

of the essential practices recommended by NACSA. In 2012, the Commission was implementing just six

of the twelve practices.17By the time the 2013 survey was in the field, a seventh had been addedthe

adoption of renewal criteriaand the new laws require one more, a five-year charter period. On August

30, the Commission adopted new performance frameworks, and staff is working toward creation of the

mandated performance certificates for existing schools by next year.

Recommendations:

Resources.Develop a new strategic plan for the Commission and provide resources needed to

implement it, in particular bringing staffing to a level commensurate with Commission

responsibilities.

Outcomes orientation.Adopt a Performance Framework that evaluates the academic,

operational, and financial status of Commission charter schools. Incorporate Performance

Framework measures into the Performance Certificates now being developed.

Appointments.The governor and legislative chiefs should use their appointment authority to

name Commissioners who support the idea of charter schools; have a strong commitment to

quality and a willingness to learn their craft; encompass a range of skills in education, policy, and

management; and have proven their ability to serve with skill and effectiveness on a board.

In addition to the state commission, other facets of Idahos authorizing landscape deserve attention:

Get higher education involved.Given the reluctance of local districts to use their chartering

powers and the geographic breadth of the state, Idaho leaders should capitalize on new

legislation that permits institutions of higher education to authorize charters, especially those

with campuses that can serve various sections of the state. At the same time, additional

guidance should clear up any confusion about the actual responsibilities and limitations of

higher-ed charter authorizers.

Set a high bar.Clarify the intent of HEI authorizing and set standards for colleges and

universities that wish to become authorizers. The State Board of Education should adopt an

intake evaluation similar to that used in Minnesota and Washington to ensure that new HEI

authorizers have the commitment and capacity to do the job right.

Virtual charters.Charters serving students online pose particular challenges for authorizers.

Every statistic from seat time to teacher-student ratio to attendance takes on a different huewhen students are not in brick-and-mortar buildings. So do questions around use of funds.

ELL, special education, and disadvantaged students are all underrepresented among virtual

school populations nationwide. Many K-12 online and blended schools/programs are woefully

unprepared for the collection and analyses of data that [are] required to truly inform and

transform practice.18And there are warning signs about academic performance as well,


21/22

20


including a 2011 CREDO report on the Pennsylvania charter sector that found the states virtual

charters performing significantly worse than district schools on reading and math tests.19

There does not seem to be an agreed-upon set of best practices among authorizers in this

area. Those that oversee virtual schools as a component of their statewide portfolios seem to

face common problems, but each is finding its own solutions. The Commission should convene a

special committee or task force to examine oversight of virtual charters, looking at such

distinctive concerns as enrollment and attrition, as well as benchmarking academic performance

against similarly situated students. The task force should reach out to other authorizers of

virtual schools in Florida, New Jersey, Arizona, and other states to frame the set of issues they

should consider.

CONCLUSION

Although states enact or amend charter school legislation each year, few have had as clear and positive

a boost as Idaho received in its 2013 amendments. The new laws tighten accountability, address gaps in

funding, and clarify governance. That last item is probably most important in the long run, since the skill

and attentiveness of charter authorizing is the key to the quality of the school portfolio.

Its never easy when a state moves from a relatively laissez-faireposture to one that values clear

performance criteria and solid oversight. But Idahos recent reforms align the state more securely with

the elements of the true charter model: high autonomy in exchange for rigorous accountability.

Authorizers must balance those two elements and need all the tools their profession has developed,

including contracts, performance frameworks, and rigorous application processes.

They also need to be motivated by a real sense of mission and an attitude of problem solving. No public

or private agencies should be in the business of charter authorizing unless they see its potential for

improving the lives of Idahos children and are willing to commit the time and effort needed for the job.

Fortunately, Idahos charter laws now set the stage for an expansion of both schools and authorizers

that will maintain this sense of purpose and increase the chances of quality outcomes.


22/22

21

END NOTES

1Policy Differences between Charter and Traditional Schools. Report 13-04, Office of Performance Evaluations,

Idaho Legislature, March 2013. http://legislature.idaho.gov/ope/publications/reports/r1304.pdf2Idaho Statutes, 33-5203(6)http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5203.htm3National Association of Charter School Authorizers: The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012.

http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/annual-authorizer-survey.html4CREDO at Stanford University: National Charter School Study: Legislative Analysis 2013.

http://credo.stanford.edu/5National Association of Charter School Authorizers: Index of Essential Practices 2012.

http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/index-of-essential-practices.html6Ibid.7Idaho Statutes, op. cit.,33-5202A http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5202.htm8National Alliance for Public Charter Schools: Measuring Up to the Model: A Tool for Comparing State Charter

School Laws.http://www.publiccharters.org/law/ViewComponent.aspx?comp=149

NACSA evaluations are formative in nature. To protect the confidentiality of participating authorizers, materialdrawn from these evaluations will identify the type of authorizer, but not the name of the authorizing agency.10Idaho Statutes, 33-5213(3)(c). http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5213.htm11The author examined this problem more generally in a 2005 Issue Brief titled Square Pegs: Charter School

Authorizers in Non-Charter Agencies.

http://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo7_square_pegs.

pdf12National Association of Charter School Authorizers: TheState of Charter School Authorizing 2012, op. cit.13National Alliance for Public Charter Schools: Delivering on the Promise: How Missouri Can Grow Excellent,

Accountable Public Charter Schools. Washington, DC, 2011.

http://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011_Final_Missouri_Report.pdf_20110330T164833.p

df14Charter Schools Institute, State University of New York, Mission Statement.

http://www.newyorkcharters.org/missionStatement.htm15National Association of Charter School Authorizers: Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School

Authorizing,2012.http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/principles-standards.html16CREDO at Stanford University: Charter School Performance in Indiana.December 2012.

http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/IN_2012_FINAL_20130117nw.pdf17National Association of Charter School Authorizers: Index,op. cit.18Evergreen Education Group: Keeping Pace with K12 Online & Blended Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and

Practice, 2012. http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2012.pdf19CREDO at Stanford University: Charter School Performance in Pennsylvania. April 2011.

http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdf
http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5203.htmhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5203.htmhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5203.htmhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/annual-authorizer-survey.htmlhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/annual-authorizer-survey.htmlhttp://credo.stanford.edu/http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/index-of-essential-practices.htmlhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/index-of-essential-practices.htmlhttp://www.publiccharters.org/law/ViewComponent.aspx?comp=14http://www.publiccharters.org/law/ViewComponent.aspx?comp=14http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5213.htmhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5213.htmhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo7_square_pegs.pdfhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo7_square_pegs.pdfhttp://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011_Final_Missouri_Report.pdf_20110330T164833.pdfhttp://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011_Final_Missouri_Report.pdf_20110330T164833.pdfhttp://www.newyorkcharters.org/missionStatement.htmhttp://www.newyorkcharters.org/missionStatement.htmhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/principles-standards.htmlhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/principles-standards.htmlhttp://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/IN_2012_FINAL_20130117nw.pdfhttp://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdfhttp://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdfhttp://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdfhttp://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/IN_2012_FINAL_20130117nw.pdfhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/principles-standards.htmlhttp://www.newyorkcharters.org/missionStatement.htmhttp://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011_Final_Missouri_Report.pdf_20110330T164833.pdfhttp://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011_Final_Missouri_Report.pdf_20110330T164833.pdfhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo7_square_pegs.pdfhttp://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo7_square_pegs.pdfhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5213.htmhttp://www.publiccharters.org/law/ViewComponent.aspx?comp=14http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/index-of-essential-practices.htmlhttp://credo.stanford.edu/http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/annual-authorizer-survey.htmlhttp://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5203.htm

Documents

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspective Report On Quality Authorizing