Charter School Overseers Perform Well Despite State & District Roadblocks; School Boards Least Successful Authorizers, Report Says 6/5/2003
From: Justin Torres, 202-223-5450 Jessica Schwartz Hahn, 202-667-0901 both for the Thomas B. Fordham Institute WASHINGTON, June 5 -- In the first significant study of the organizations that authorize charter schools, fifteen states earned grades of "B-" or better for their authorizers' work, but just four received similar marks for the policy environment in which charter schools and authorizers function. Massachusetts and Texas led the pack while California, Pennsylvania and New Mexico brought up the rear. Issued today by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade? examined 23 states and the District of Columbia to determine how supportive they are of charter schools, how good a job their authorizers are doing, and how policy makers could strengthen their states' charter programs. The full report and supporting data are available at http://www.edexcellence.net/tbfinstitute/authorizers.html. Charter authorizers are the bodies-local or state school boards, universities, mayors' offices, city councils, non-profit groups-that give birth to these independently-operated public schools, monitor their performance, hold them to account for results, and decide whether to renew their charters. More than 500 such entities are now responsible for America's 2,700 charter schools, which enroll almost 700,000 students. The new study gathered data from nearly 900 people who are knowledgeable about authorizer performance in the 24 jurisdictions where most such schools are located. "Many studies have looked at whether charter schools are succeeding," said Dr. Louann Bierlein Palmer of Western Michigan University, lead author of the study, "but almost nobody has examined the entities that are responsible for such schools-the groups on the other side of the charter contract. Overall, we found that authorizers in many states are doing a decent job carrying out their oversight responsibilities, despite poor policy environments for them and their schools." Using 56 criteria, Bierlein Palmer and her co-author, Rebecca Gau of Arizona State University's Morrison Institute for Public Policy, reached these timely conclusions: -- Most major authorizers are doing an adequate job but mounting red tape is a concern, since autonomy is key to the success of charter schools. -- Many states are not supportive of charter schools and authorizers. -- Local school boards generally do not make good authorizers. -- States with fewer authorizers, serving more schools each, do a better job. -- States getting higher grades have authorizers that assist schools as well as overseeing them, and that serve as advocates for the charter movement. -- Quality authorizing costs money-and many authorizers don't have much. One key finding is that local school boards generally do a poor job of authorizing. "We now have evidence that the education establishment is wrong about who should sponsor charter schools," noted Fordham Institute president Chester E. Finn, Jr. "Policy makers have argued this issue for a decade, and the establishment view has always been that only local boards ought to have this authority. But that's like trusting coyotes to raise rabbits. We've tried it and, with rare exceptions, the bunnies suffer. A school is usually better off being sponsored by a university, state agency, mayor or non-profit group. They're less tied to the old regulatory regimen." Money is also an issue. "With most charter authorizers strapped for funds," commented Mark Cannon, executive director of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers, "the authors of the Fordham report are right to praise those that have managed to make the current process work as well as it has. Some do outstanding work despite often-inhospitable state policy environments." (The report averaged the grades in states where there are multiple authorizers.) The Thomas B. Fordham Institute is a private, nonprofit organization that supports research, publications, and action projects in elementary/secondary education reform. It is not connected with Fordham University. Further information can be obtained from its website, www.edexcellence.net/tbfinstitute, where this report is also available in full. Support for this study was provided by the Walton Family Foundation. ------ Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade? This table displays the grades for 23 states and the District of Columbia included in the new Fordham Institute study, ranked by their overall score. These grades are based upon input from those most knowledgeable about these issues in their states: charter school operators, authorizers, and observers. The table also summarizes grades for two major sets of criteria examined (policy environment for charter schools and authorizers; and specific authorizer practices). The full report, along with detailed information for each state, can be found at http://www.edexcellence.net/tbfinstitute/authorizers.html. State Grades & Ranking Summary State...Policy Environment...Authorizer Practices...Overall ........Grade, Rank..........Grade, Rank............Grade, Rank MA......B, 2.................A-, 1..................B(plus), 1 TX......B-, 3................B(plus), 2.............B(plus), 2 AZ......B(plus), 1...........B, 9...................B, 3 NJ......B-, 4................B(plus), 4.............B, 4 NC......C, 6.................B(plus), 3.............B, 5 WI......C, 9.................B, 7...................B, 6 IN......D(plus), 18..........B, 5...................B-, 7 MI......C, 6.................B, 8...................B-, 7 DC......C, 11................B, 9...................B-, 9 CT......D(plus), 20..........B, 6...................B-, 9 OH......C(plus), 5...........B, 11..................B-, 11 IL......C, 12................B-, 12.................B-, 12 NY......C, 9.................B-, 13.................B-, 12 DE......C, 6.................C(plus), 16............C(plus), 14 FL......C, 13................B-, 14.................C(plus), 15 LA......C-, 14...............B-, 14.................C(plus), 16 MO......D(plus), 21..........C(plus), 17............C, 17 MN......C-, 15...............C-, 18.................C-, 18 CO......C-, 17...............C-, 20.................C-, 19 OK......C-, 16...............C-, 21.................C-, 20 OR......D, 24................C-, 19.................C-, 21 CA......D(plus), 19..........D(plus), 22............D(plus), 22 PA......D, 23................D(plus), 22............D(plus), 23 NM......D(plus), 22..........D, 24..................D, 24 This study was completed by Louann Bierlein Palmer (Western Michigan University), and Rebecca Gau (Morrison Institute for Public Policy, Arizona State University). The report was published in June 2003 by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, with support from the Walton Foundation. | |