| ||
 |
Over the life of a school's charter, the authorizer will likely gather a tremendous amount of information on each school. The question then becomes, how should that information be used? Many new schools will inevitably struggle and authorizers will need to decide if they can or should provide them with technical assistance to improve. Further, at the end of a school's charter or sooner, authorizers have the challenge of using the data collected to determine whether the school's charter should be renewed or terminated by nonrenewal or revocation.
This section describes how some authorizers provide help to failing schools and outlines some of the issues authorizers might confront when attempting to hold schools accountable for their performance. Technical Assistance At least in part, the success of a data-driven accountability system hinges on the ability of school leaders and central administrators to use data to improve practice. The capacity to act on this information is often limited. School leaders may not have the training or time to weed through data and make the appropriate programmatic, fiscal, and human resource decisions necessary to improve student performance. And authorizing agencies are often unprepared to intervene in schools that are under-performing because they either don't have the staff or the expertise to provide help. Charter authorizers typically provide two types of technical assistance:
In contrast, technical assistance takes the form of intervention when a school is clearly in trouble, e.g., falling well short of its medium-range benchmarks, losing enrollment at an alarming rate, or making governance decisions that appear to jeopardize the viability of the school. As stated previously, authorizers generally have some discretion as to how they respond to these technical assistance needs. Once again, the range of responses falls along a continuum. At one end, an authorizer could take the approach that schools should "sink or swim," succeeding or failing based on their own ability to get the help they need. At the other end of the continuum, an authorizer could believe that intervention is sometimes appropriate to help schools succeed. An Arm's Length Response To Needs For Assistance In practice, while each authorizer may lean toward one pole or the other, most fall somewhere in between. For example, the Massachusetts charter school office initially adopted a policy of refraining from officially providing technical assistance. The rationale for this decision was based on two factors. First, Massachusetts' officials believe that providing guidance would muddy their responsibilities regarding charter renewals. That is, if the state recommended a particular action, and the school attempted to follow it but failed to improve as a result, it might be difficult for the state to hold that school accountable for its failure. And second, officials simply do not have the capacity to provide adequate technical assistance to more than 40 schools. However, Massachusetts' authorizing officials are not completely hands-off - they view the site visit process as a form of technical assistance. Site visit reports are meant to provide school leaders with an outsider's perspective on the school's challenges without being prescriptive about solutions. And the state has in fact intervened in many situations in which schools were floundering. For example, in 1996, when three schools saw unexpected shortfalls in their revenues, the state requested and received additional federal funds to keep these schools solvent. Massachusetts has recently developed a start-up guidance program focused in the areas of governance, financial oversight/management, and regulatory compliance. While Massachusetts is starting to provide more technical assistance, its approach is focused on trying to set expectations for a school's operation at start-up - being clear about what a school will have to demonstrate as a precondition for opening, as well as providing general introductory training reviewing the school thoroughly before and after opening to see that it has met minimal expectations. A More Hands-on Response To Needs For Assistance By contrast, in Michigan, some authorizers have adopted a more explicitly hands-on approach.28 Some authorizers not only monitor progress closely; they offer advice as well. For example, some Michigan authorizing staff attend charter school board meetings and visit schools regularly. An authorizer staff member said, We try to be very human. When there's a problem at a school, rather than sending them a warning or a letter telling them we are going to do something if they don't do what we say, we drive over there.29 Further, some Michigan authorizers have provided direct support to schools via advice and funding for technical assistance. At times, they have even gotten involved in governance decisions such as encouraging directors or board members to resign. Using Technical Assistance Organizations Charter school technical assistance organizations can play an important role in providing technical assistance, especially if an authorizer has a small staff and limited expertise. Private resource centers, trade associations, and other providers have been established in virtually every state with a charter school law. These organizations provide workshops for applicants, more substantive trainings for established schools (e.g., on governance or assessment), and one-on-one assistance on problems as they arise. An advantage of these centers as service providers is that because they are private, charter school leaders may feel that they can have honest dialogues with them without disclosing certain information to "the authorities." For information about charter school technical assistance organizations around the country, see the website of the Charter Friends National Network at http://www.charterfriends.org. Decisions Based On Data Whatever approach an authorizer takes to technical assistance, a moment of decision will arrive in each school's case. If the school has avoided major difficulties, that moment will come when the school applies for renewal of its charter. The authorizer will have to decide whether to allow the school to continue operating as a charter school for another term. If the school has run into more serious problems, the moment of decision may come before renewal time. The authorizer will have to decide whether the school's shortcomings warrant revocation. A Continuum Of Cases Authorizers encounter a continuum of cases at these moments of decision. On one end, some schools so clearly meet or exceed expectations that their authorizers have little doubt that they should continue to exist. On the other end, some schools exhibit such poor results or egregious noncompliance that authorizers have little choice but to close their doors. In between lie the difficult cases. The popular low performer This type of school is, by objective measures, failing to live up to its goals as established in the accountability agreement. But it has won the hearts of parents, who speak eloquently about the school's value to their children. Many other families sit on the waiting list, hoping for a chance to send their children to the school. Community leaders attest to the school's importance in the community. Based on the bottom line of academic performance, though, the school falls short. The promising trajectory Like the popular low-performer, this school is generally falling short of expectations. But the school's leaders appear to have a clear understanding of the school's problems and are taking vigorous action to correct them. It may take a while for improvement to show in results, but the school appears to be on the right track. The mixed bag This school is meeting or exceeding some expectations, but falling short of others; or the school has shown considerable progress in some years, but not in others. The authorizer faces a mixed set of results that do not clearly indicate success or failure. In the end, there is little an authorizer can do to make these cases any less difficult. As described earlier, "setting the terms" as specifically as possibly helps. But the "mixed bag" case makes clear that establishing a set of school goals is not enough - arriving at an understanding of how those goals will be weighed together is also vital. The "promising trajectory" case highlights that end-result goals may not always be sufficient to make judgments about a school's progress. And the "popular low-performer" makes clear that political considerations will always swirl around charter school accountability, no matter how carefully set the terms. Clarifying The Process For Revocation And Renewal Since setting the terms well will not guarantee problem-free decision-making, authorizers also need to attend to the process by which it makes decisions about revocation and renewal. Revocation Many state charter laws specify the grounds on which an authorizer may - or must - revoke a charter, but few spell out the process authorizers must follow in the pursuit of revocation. Broader state laws on administrative procedure and judicial review of agencies' actions may set forth some general principles or specific measures to ensure due process, but authorizers are likely to have some discretion in the design of the process. Since revocations have been rare to date, some authorizers have simply approached revocations on a case-by-case basis. Some agencies, however, have developed more detailed protocols that they plan to apply to any case of potential revocation that arises. One such system belongs to the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, which has developed a "Table of Remedies for Substandard Performance" which represents the three critical aspects of their revocation protocol.
Renewal As with revocation, most state laws set only the most general parameters for the renewal decision process. Accordingly, authorizers have designed different kinds of systems to make renewal decisions. Generally, these systems involve:
On the other hand, the technical challenges of measuring performance are compounded by the fact that authorizers may have only one (for three-year charters) to three data points (for five-year charters) to make the culminating decision of whether to renew a school's charter. As a result, it is reasonable to question whether authorizers will have enough data, or feel confident enough, to make a fair and defensible decision. As discussed previously in the case of the "promising trajectory," too hasty a judgment could lead to ending the charter of a school that may have long-term potential, but has simply hit a few bumps in the road early on. By the same token, if the window of evaluation is too short, even the charters of "bad" schools could be renewed if authorizers do not have the data to justify a vote to let the charter expire. Authorizers have tried various approaches to address these challenges. For example, rather than lengthen the terms of charters, Massachusetts is planning to state the evaluation process earlier. Instead of waiting until the fourth year of a school's charter to conduct a renewal inspection, Massachusetts is considering moving that inspection to the third year. This will have two benefits:
Another important issue concerns the range of possible renewal decisions an authorizer could make. The two obvious decisions are renewal and non-renewal, but other possibilities exist. First, an authorizer could place the school on a sort of renewal "probation" - allowing it to stay open for a year or two while it attempts to address certain problems. At the end of the probation period, the authorizer would again face a renewal decision. Second, if an authorizer has a limited number of charters to grant, because of a statutory cap on charters, the authorizer could direct the school to reapply for its charter, in effect entering a competition with other applicants for the limited pool of charters. The examples on page 25 highlight advantages and disadvantages of each approach in the context of one of the hard cases described previously. The challenges raised illustrate some of the reasons why performance-based accountability is, and will be, difficult to implement. The Politics Of Accountability The decision to renew or revoke a charter may inevitably include a political factor. In practice, an authorizer's decision is rarely completely technical. Political factors are likely to be especially strong in borderline cases, when technical criteria alone do not give authorizers clear signals about how to proceed. At The Micro-level Political influence can play a role at two levels. At the micro-level, the relationship between an individual school and its authorizer may be influenced by a school's political connections. For example, a California charter school was on probation for poor academic performance and yet it reported having no concerns about its upcoming renewal because it had recently been visited by President Clinton and saw itself as a benefit to the district30. In fact, there are several reasons why authorizers may have a disincentive to terminate a charter. First, because charter schools are composed of real parents, students, and educators, closing a school may present daunting public relations and logistical challenges. Second, the charter school may be a "gem" in a district or state because it is offering an innovative approach or because it has the political support of an influential lawmaker or community leader. Third, a charter school may serve a group of troubled students that the local school may not be eager to see return to its classrooms. Finally, charter schools may provide financial benefits to a school district through commissions and the purchase of supplies and services, or they may provide a needed supply of classrooms and teachers for districts that are overcrowded. The authorizer's decision becomes a cost-benefit analysis rather than a decision made on the merits of the school. At The Macro-level At the level of city, state, or national politics, or macro-level, the overall charter school policy may fall into and out of favor. At the federal level, President Clinton has expressed support for charter schools, calling for the creation of 3,000 charter schools by 2002, and Congress has demonstrated support by providing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal start-up funds to charter schools since 1996. At the state level, many state charter laws are fairly new and thus still enjoy strong political support, but what will happen with changes in political leadership? For example, in California, changes at the local level may have significant impact on charter schools throughout the state. From 1992-97, San Diego chartered more schools than any other district in the country. However, since then a change in the district administration may have altered this charter-friendly environment. Alan Bersin and Anthony Alvarado, the new leadership team for the San Diego school district, do not see charter schools as a beneficial component of their systemic reform efforts. Thus, the criteria for granting and renewing charters might change accordingly. Conversely, in northern California, the new mayor of Oakland, Jerry Brown, is supportive of charter schools. As a result, it would not be surprising to see the number of charter schools in Oakland rise. Reducing The Influence Of Politics Because charter schools are publicly funded, politics can't be entirely avoided, but authorizers can take steps to mitigate its influence. In policymaking there is an inverse relationship between good data and political influence. That is, the more unassailable the data, the less room there is for political manipulation. Since many charter renewal decisions will be based largely on site visit narratives and unclear analyses of standardized tests results, these decisions may be open to political interpretation and influence. How can charter school authorizers insulate their accountability policies from political influence? Two conventional mechanisms for insulating policy decisions are:
A second means of insulating these policy decisions from political influence is to tap credible outsiders that have needed distance from political factors at play. An example of political distancing is Massachusetts' contracting with an outside firm for its renewal inspection process. Perhaps most important, authorizers can work to ensure that accountability plans with charter schools are true agreements - freely negotiated and entered into by both parties, rather than imposed by the authorizer. The more involved charter school leaders have been in setting the goals to which they will be held and the measures that will be used to judge them, the easier it should be for authorizers to make tough decisions even in the face of significant political pressure. Wisely "setting the terms," as discussed in the first section of this document, can play a critical role in defusing the political issues that will inevitably surround charter renewal and revocation decisions. |
|
|
INTRODUCTION | SETTING THE TERMS | GATHERING DATA | USING DATA | CONCLUSION | APPENDICES AND ENDNOTES
|
||