Charter School Authorizing

Closing Troubled Schools

When a school fails to meet student learning needs year after year – or, in the case of a charter school, fails to meet the terms of its charter contact – closure is sometimes the only responsible intervention. In this report, prepared for the Center on Reinventing Public Education’s National Charter School Research Project, Julie Kowal and Bryan Hassel draw upon interviews with high-quality charter school authorizers and school districts to offer a framework and preliminary lessons for improving the process of school closures. Recommendations include involving key stakeholders early in the closure process, developing clear and objective criteria for selecting schools to be closed, enlisting external evaluators to make tough calls, and creating support structures to help displaced students secure quality alternatives.

Salvaging Assets: Considering Alternatives to School Closure

[pdf] Closing bad schools is necessary to maintain quality in a system based on performance accountability. However, even “failing” schools may have pockets of strength and/or “assets” that are worth preserving: a committed parent body, high-quality teachers, a valuable school building in a tight real estate market. In this report, prepared for the Center on Reinventing Public Education’s National Charter School Research Project, Lucy Steiner and Bryan Hassel draw upon interviews with high-quality charter school authorizers and school districts to offer a framework and preliminary lessons for considering alternatives to school closures. Three approaches — installation of new leaders, school reconstitution (where governance structures and personnel are replaced but students remain) and facility acquisition (new school operator takes over a failing school’s facility) — have shown promise for intervening in failing schools when closure is not the best option.

NACSA Charter School Authorizing Policy Guides for State Leaders

States create the environment in which charter school authorizing happens. As a result, state policymakers are in a strong position to influence charter school quality by laying the groundwork for good authorizing. Public Impact organized and edited this series of brief “policy guides” for the National Association of Charter School Authorizers designed to help state policymakers meet this challenge.

Read more...

State Policymaker’s Guide to Alternative Authorizers of Charter Schools

[pdf] This brief helps state policymakers think through what kind of alternative authorizing structures may make sense for their states. The paper presents the advantages, disadvantages and policy considerations for each of the seven types of alternative authorizers. In addition, it discusses the critical design issues facing states interested in creating alternative authorizers.

Building a Foundation for Success: How Authorizers Can Help Schools with the Facilities Challenge

[pdf] This brief, written by Bryan Hassel and Robin Halsband, explores the ways in which authorizers can, indirectly and directly, affect a school’s ability to obtain the financing necessary for a schoolhouse. Part I examines the indirect impact: how the quality of the authorizer, as perceived by a financial institution, can affect loan decisions. Part II considers the direct, proactive roles that some authorizers have taken to help schools meet their facilities financing needs.

Navigating Special Education In Charter Schools Part I: Critical Background Information For Authorizers

This two-part NACSA issue brief series by Lauren Morando Rhim identifies the issues related to navigating special education in the charter school sector. The first brief introduces the basic foundation underlying provision of special education in public schools and research findings regarding key challenges and strategies charter schools are using to build capacity to provide special education and related services. The second brief outlines authorizers’ roles in ensuring the development of quality special education programs in charter schools. It also identify issues authorizers should consider when reviewing applications and developing accountable systems.