Early on, the role of charter
school authorizers seemed so straightforward that little focus was placed on them, while the politics of chartering and the action surrounding the schools themselves consumed most of the attention.
Not exact matches
They commonly serve disadvantaged students; they are all under pressure to attract parents and to satisfy a small number of
authorizers; one
school may deliberately imitate another by adopting a policy that
seems to be working in the other
school;
schools may also imitate one another unconsciously (as when teachers who have worked at one
school are hired by another and bring their knowledge with them).
I am not suggesting that the Arnold Foundation (or the charter movement in general) abandon all quality control efforts, but I think quality is best promoted by relying heavily on parent judgement and otherwise relying on a decentralized system of
authorizers with the most contextual information to make decisions about opening and closing
schools if parents
seem to have difficulty assessing quality on their own.
In short, the takeaway from the charter literature
seems to be that they are, on average, more effective than traditional public
schools in urban settings and perhaps should be encouraged there, but that
authorizers and policy contexts matter tremendously in determining whether these
schools succeed or not.
I'm not sure I can prove it with hard data, but it sure
seems clear to me that the cities and states with some of the highest - performing charter
schools (Boston, Washington, D.C., New York State, Tennessee) are also home to some of the most thoughtful and effective
authorizers.
So it
seems that
authorizers are generally unwilling to close a
school that is failing to comply with federal or state law, but they are also unwilling to require the
school to make changes to its special education program, presumably because the
authorizers see this as infringement on charter autonomy.