Charter School Authorizers

Facing a twisting road without a map

by Rhonda Barton

symposium participants

What started in 1988 as an idea outlined on a napkin at an educational conference in Minnesota has grown into a full-fledged revolution touching thousands of students, parents, and educators across America. Charter schools—nonsectarian public schools operating under a contract—now number 2,695 and serve 684,495 students in 36 states and the District of Columbia. Three more states have recently passed charter legislation.

With that explosive growth has come added pressure on authorizers, the individuals responsible for granting, renewing, and revoking charters between schools and authorizing bodies such as local school districts, state education agencies, and universities. While extensive research has been conducted on charter school performance, relatively little attention has been focused on the role of the authorizer or sponsor in ensuring success.

With that in mind, the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory gathered more than 30 leaders in the educational reform movement at a symposium in Portland, Oregon, on March 24–26, 2003. These participant experts represented a national cross-section of authorizers, researchers, state officials, and professional association officers. Their charge: to explore the substantive issues facing charter school authorizers and the needs they face in reviewing new applications, monitoring existing schools, renewing old charters, and providing technical assistance.

Before discussion even got underway, debate arose over whether to use the term "authorizer" or "sponsor" for the person legally responsible for approving or denying charter applications. Symposium organizer Joyce Ley, NWREL Unit Director, admitted she uses the two words interchangeably. "We view the authorizer as the sponsor," she told the group. "As such, that person has the responsibility of providing ongoing oversight and support for the charter school to be successful." Still, Ley added, there’s no one magic answer for what those roles and responsibilities are, leaving plenty of room for serious discourse.

Joe Nathan, who helped draft the nation’s first charter school legislation in Minnesota, argued that neither "authorizer" nor "sponsor" did the trick. He suggested finding a new term, one that makes it clear an organization needs to monitor these schools and not just give them permission to start. Nathan, of the Center for School Change at the University of Minnesota, went on to outline key issues for the authorizer/sponsor:

Sharing information about the charter idea
Providing information to prospective applicants
Assessing charter proposals
Approving some proposals and giving feedback to others that are denied
Monitoring charters that have been approved
Determining whether to renew the charter agreement after a set period of years
Helping strengthen public education in the area it serves, whether a district, state, or region

The current state of charter authorizing was the subject of an address by Louann Bierlein Palmer, who recently completed the first cross-national study of authorizers, operators, and observers. Comparing data from 24 states, Bierlein Palmer found that states using local board authorizers in a wholesale fashion don’t fare as well as those with multiple authorizing agencies.

Bierlein Palmer’s study also looked at whether existing charter school policy environments support schools and authorizers, and if authorizers have created quality practices that ensure accountability while respecting schools’ autonomy and distinctive missions. The study, published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute with support from the Walton Family Foundation, will be available online after an anticipated publication date of May 1, 2003. (Contact L.BierleinPalmer@wmich.edu for more information.)

Drawing on their mistakes and successes, symposium participants were asked to build a toolbox to help both sponsors and legislators navigate the sometimes rocky road of charter school authorization. Ideas ranged from a geographic/demographic survey that helps authorizers identify where schools currently are and where gaps still exist to a "one-stop shop" that makes the authorizing system more transparent. Other suggestions included a Web-based authorizer resource center organized around a key word index; a check list of do’s and don’ts related to the application, renewal, and revocation processes; and a directive for ensuring that the corporate status of the charter applicant hasn’t changed.

According to Ley, NWREL researchers will revisit these and other suggested tools. The Laboratory hopes to develop a practical toolbox during the next two to three years, working in partnership with both nonprofit and corporate organizations.

The proceedings of the Charter School Authorizers and Sponsors Symposium will be available this fall. If you are interested in receiving a copy, contact Joyce Ley at leyj@nwrel.org.

| Next Article | Front Page | NW Report Index |