"Accountability" is one of the central concepts of the charter school idea. When legislators enact charter laws, they intend the new public schools to be held accountable for achieving results. Charter schools that fail to perform, they say, will be shut down. But putting this intention into practice has proven challenging for charter-granting agencies across the country.¹ The work of setting expectations for charter schools, gathering information about their performance, and using that information to make judgments about the schools" progress has presented technical challenges, stretched the capacity of charter-granting agencies, and stimulated political debates.

This guide, commissioned by the Annie E. Casey Foundation, does not purport to offer easy solutions to these pervasive challenges. Instead, it aims to present charter school authorizers with:

• a clear picture of the design issues they face in creating accountability systems for charter schools, and
  
  
• a review of some of the approaches charter-granting agencies around the country are using to address these issues.

While charter school authorizers are the primary audience of this guide, it may also be of interest to charter school leaders, state policymakers responsible for crafting charter school laws, and state and district leaders interested in new approaches to school accountability for district public schools. More and more districts and states across the country are trying to move systems of oversight from a focus on compliance to a focus on performance.² Many of the issues charter-granting agencies are confronting resemble those facing any public body charged with holding public schools accountable for results.


Focusing On Results

Policymakers intend charter schools to be accountable in two respects. First, they are accountable to families. Charter schools are schools of choice: their funding, and thus their very survival, depends upon their ability to attract and retain students. As a result, charter schools face strong incentives to be responsive to the needs of children.

Second, charter schools are accountable to the public body that oversees them. Each school operates under a "charter" that specifies the school's obligations. Charter authorizers have the power to close down schools that do not fulfill these promises. As public schools, a charter school's obligations include compliance with a range of laws and regulations.

But the focus of charter school accountability - and of this guide - is on the school's obligations to achieve results with students. The job of making this second form of accountability real falls to "charter authorizers" or "charter-granting agencies."³ The entities empowered to serve as charter authorizers vary by charter law. In general, authorizers can be divided into four categories:

• State boards of education
  
  
• District school boards
  
  
• Independent agencies specifically created to grant charters, and
  
  
• Other existing entities with a broader purpose (e.g., colleges and universities or municipalities).
  
  

Charter laws may allow for one or more of these entities to grant charters. Some charter laws give an applicant the opportunity to appeal a rejection by one authorizer to a higher body, such as the state board of education.

Charter school authorizers generally have a fair amount of latitude in designing accountability policies. Legislation establishes boundaries and constraints on authorizers' powers - particularly in the level of funding, if any, allocated to authorizing staff, minimum standards or required assessments - but laws generally do not spell out the specifics of how the agencies are supposed to hold charter schools accountable for results. Therefore, authorizers generally have some flexibility about how to craft their charter school accountability policies. This discretion is both a burden and an opportunity. It poses a burden if authorizers are saddled with authorizing responsibilities but few additional resources; however, it is an opportunity because it provides authorizers a chance to redefine how public schools are held accountable.


Designing an Accountability System

Because of the discretion granted to them by charter legislation, most charter authorizers must design a system of accountability from the ground up. In doing so, they face three primary design issues:

• Setting the terms
  
  
• Gathering the data, and
  
  
• Using the data.
  
  

Setting the terms
Charter authorizers must determine the standards of performance to which they will hold charter schools. How well must a charter school perform in order to have its charter renewed? How poorly must a charter school perform before the authorizer takes action to remedy the failure or close the school? If these thresholds vary from school to school, how will the authorizer and each school go about setting the terms of their agreement?

Gathering The Data
What evidence of progress toward goals will the authorizer accept from the school? Will the authorizer visit schools and, if so, what will happen during visits?

Using The Data
How will the authorizer use information about each school's performance? Will the authorizer offer technical assistance to help schools improve? What process will the authorizer use to make decisions about the renewal and revocation of charters?


Differing Approaches To Designing A System

Charter school authorizers around the country have responded to these design issues in different ways. The details of authorizers' approaches are the subject of this guide's main chapters, but some broad themes appear to underlie the different approaches. Thinking through these broad themes initially might help authorizers get their bearings as they move through the more detailed discussions in the chapters that follow.

First, authorizers differ in the level of prescriptiveness they apply when setting the terms of charter school accountability. At one end of a hypothetical continuum, an authorizer could establish a set of goals that all charter schools would be expected to meet. At the other, a charter-granting agency could negotiate a unique agreement with each charter school depending on the school's own focus and approach. In between, an authorizer could insist upon certain common elements while allowing for school-by-school negotiation of additional terms.

Second, authorizers differ in the weight they assign to families' choices about charter schools. Some authorizers place great stock in a school's success at attracting and retaining students. Schools that manage to enroll sufficient numbers of students are presumed to be successful. Others assign relatively little weight to such data alone, arguing that the authorizers' responsibility is to ensure that schools are achieving results regardless of whether families are satisfied. In between, authorizers consider the school's market fortunes as one factor in its overall success as a school.

Third, authorizers vary in the intensity of oversight they apply. Some authorizers rely mostly on reports from schools and the results of standardized tests. Others visit the schools regularly, speak often with school leaders and board members, and generally stay more deeply informed about schools' day-to-day activities.

Fourth, authorizers differ in the level of transparency of their processes. Some authorizers have established systems in which a great deal of information about individual charter schools and the authorizers' own processes are readily available to school officials, parents and the public. Others have less transparent operations, meeting in private, and leaving individual schools to share information with stakeholders.

Finally, authorizers differ in the amount of technical assistance they provide to schools. Some authorizers see an obligation to do what they can to help each school succeed, including providing advice, feedback, and training. Others assume a more arm's-length posture, allowing each school to chart its own course and live with the consequences.


Many Reasons For Different Approaches
Authorizers come to different positions on these issues for a variety of reasons. Charter laws may push charter-granting agencies in one direction or the other. For example, a charter law may require all schools to be held accountable for results achieved on state-mandated standardized tests. The political environment within which authorizers work also makes a difference. Most charter-granting agencies either are themselves elected bodies or have members who are appointed by elected officials. In this context, it is inevitable that politics will influence their calculations about the right course to pursue. The level of resources provided to charter authorizers also affects their design choices. Authorizers with low levels of funding simply cannot afford to conduct intense oversight or technical assistance, even if they would like to. And within the constraints they face, the staff and boards of authorizing agencies cannot help but bring their own beliefs and experiences to bear on the decisions they make.


About This Guide

Though the constraints they face are important, most authorizers still have a range of significant design decisions to make. The authors hope this guide:

• offers authorizers an opportunity to benchmark their practice against the work of other authorizers nationwide
  
  
• reduces redundancy of efforts
  
  
• facilitates the exchange of ideas and effective practices among authorizers, and
  
  
• helps authorizers institute meaningful, efficient ways to hold schools accountable for results.
  
  

In addition, the authors believe that there are several developments in the world of charter-granting agencies that can inform broader discussions of public school accountability. First, in a relatively short time frame policymakers and school leaders will be forced to generate a range of new ideas in measuring and demonstrating student performance. That is, during the life of a charter (usually three to five years), charter school leaders need to produce "results" or risk losing their charter, and policymakers are, or will soon be, compelled to develop high-stakes accountability policies.

Second, compared to traditional public schools, charter schools should be more open to results-based accountability. While some conventional school leaders may regard accountability systems as foisted upon them from above, charter leaders enter the system fully aware that they will be held accountable for results. As a result of this buy-in, authorizers may find it easier to follow-through on results-based accountability than their counterparts in the traditional school system.

Third, in contrast to statewide accountability systems that may encompass hundreds or even thousands of schools, charter school authorizers typically work with a relatively small number of schools. Thus, oversight agencies may be more able to manage this policy, investing the time needed to work through issues and learn as they go. As their systems mature, authorizers should be able to hold more and more schools accountable, but the relatively slow expansion provides some room to experiment and improve over time.

In sum, while charter schools did not introduce the topic of accountability to public education, the movement may help policymakers understand what it means to hold public schools accountable for results because the initiative is manageable in scale and because it will quickly produce a broad range of accountability policies that can be compared and refined.


Helpful Resources

Though the field of charter authorizing is relatively new, resources are beginning to emerge to help these organizations with their work. For example, the Charter Friends National Network's Accountability Network provides resources and assistance both to charter schools and to charter school authorizers (http://www.charterfriends.org). The California Charter Schools Development Center produces a "Charter Granting Agencies Accountability Toolkit," the 4th Edition of which is available at http://www.cacharterschools.org. The Center's other publications, such as "A Comprehensive, Practical Guide to Holding Charter Schools Accountable," contain additional information. Charter school authorizers from around the country have recently formed an association to share ideas. And the http://www.uscharterschools.org website manages an online discussion group for authorizers. The reader will find many other resources throughout this guide and in Appendix B.


Sources For This Guide

To develop the material contained in the following chapters, the authors drew on a number of sources. The research team conducting the U.S. Department of Education Study of Charter School Accountability, led by Paul Hill of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, provided us with an early draft of their report on the six states in their study (Arizona, California, Colorado, Georgia, Massachusetts, and Michigan).⁴ The annual federally-funded National Study of Charter Schools, conducted by RPP International, was also helpful as a resource for background information. But the most significant source of data was gathered directly via interviews with charter authorizers and the review of authorizers' policy documents from states across the country.

Many individuals provided helpful comments and advice along the way. The authors would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that helped complete this guide. Charles Abelmann, Ed Kirby, Margaret Lin, Bruno Manno, and Greg Richmond provided especially detailed comments on drafts of the document. Many others reviewed drafts or provided information including Bob Bellafiore, Katy Bulkley, Mary Gifford, Jim Griffin, Peter Huidekoper, Robin Lake, David Mack, James Merriman, and Nelson Smith. Michelle Godard McNiff and OPUS I Graphic Design, Inc. provided valuable assistance with editing and production of the guide. The authors wish to thank the Charter Friends National Network for distributing the document nationally, WestEd and the U.S. Department of Education for making the guide available electronically via uscharterschools.org, and the Annie E. Casey Foundation for its financial support.