AUTHORIZING ROADMAP: NATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON QUALITY AUTHORIZING

October 2013

Nelson Smith
Senior Advisor, National Association of Charter School Authorizers

FOREWORD

It is nearly impossible to have reliably good charter schools without competent, conscientious, properly motivated charter school authorizers. For too long, however, the importance of charter school authorizers had been an under-examined area in public discussions about charter school quality. Fortunately, in recent years the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) has spent much time and energy and many resources studying and reporting on quality authorizer practices. There are notable differences between the practices, values, staffing, and operations of quality authorizers and those who arent, and NACSA has done a superb job of mapping those differences. NACSAs Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing has become a go-to resource for lawmakers, policy makers, and charter school advocates across the country who are looking to improve the quality of their charter school laws and programs. Idahos recent changes to its charter school law benefited from both the work of NACSA and that of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools in its Model State Charter School Law. But crafting good law is only part of the challenge. It is harder still to implement successful charter school policies and practices. In Idaho, this heavy lifting is falling predominantly to the state charter school commission, and to 15 local school district authorizers. New state law also encourages colleges and universities to authorize charter schools, but none have yet stepped up to take on the role. In order to help outline a roadmap for Idaho charter school authorizers as they navigate their current implementation challenges, and to provide an overview of quality authorizing for prospective authorizers, the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation and the Idaho Charter School Network recruited Nelson Smith to produce the report Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering. We couldnt think of anyone better to do the work than Nelson Smith. He is currently Senior Advisor to NACSA, and before that was President and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. He also served as executive director of the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, and is currently an adjunct lecturer at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Nelson has done a fantastic job capturing the qualities and practices of the nations best authorizers, as well as the lessons Idaho should take from them. He also shows that Idaho has put itself in a strong position to become one of the nations top performing charter states. But challenges remain and, according to Smith, these include: Strengthening the charter school commission membership. The governor, the Senate president, and the Speaker of the House must do their very best to appoint commission members who are dedicated to ensuring the success and expansion of high-quality charter schools; Providing adequate resources so the commission can successfully manage its expanding workload; Convening a special committee or task force to examine the oversight of virtual charter schools;

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

2 Getting other organizations to consider taking on charter school authorizing in order to help the states current authorizers better serve schools across Idahos vast geography; and Encouraging the commission and other authorizers to work collaboratively with philanthropy, business, and education partners to strategically support the expansion of top-flight schools while also recruiting high-performing models and education talent to the Gem State.

These are exciting times for Idahos charter schools and Smith provides an excellent roadmap to help the charter sector improve and thrive in the coming months and years. Jamie MacMillan Executive Director J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Foundation Terry Ryan President Idaho Charter School Network

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

BACKGROUND

Idahos charter school sector is positioned to grow. The state currently has 39 brick-and-mortar charter schools, seven statewide virtual schools, and one distant education academy, and these schools collectively serve approximately 18,500 students. According to the Idaho Department of Education, there are nearly 11,400 students on waiting lists who would like to attend one of the states current charter schools. In addition to demand for new charter school seats, Idahos charter schools as a group are well-rated academically. On the 2012-13 report cards, 69 percent of charter schools received a four- or five-star rating. In comparison, 59 percent of traditional Idaho public schools received a four- or five-star rating. But not all charters are high-flyers academically. Four of the states charters received just a one-star rating last year. Nevertheless, Idaho charter school students as a group perform better on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math assessments than their traditional district school peers. In 2011, fourth and eighth grade charter students outpaced their district peers in both reading and math. The performance of Idaho charter schools is better on average than that of charters in many other states, but this is not the only way in which they are different. While its schools are more often in urban settings than is true of Idaho public schools on the whole, nearly 42 percent of the states charters are in rural areas more than double the percentage of rural charters nationwide. Nationally, charters serve predominantly low-income populations, but in Idaho just six of the states 47 charters exceed the state average for poverty (although the average rate of 46 percent across all charters is comparable to the 50 percent of the states public schools). Students of color are the predominant charter population in most states, yet in Idaho, charters enroll more white students (87 percent) than the states traditional public schools (78 percent), and enroll merely eight percent Hispanic students compared to 17 percent statewide.1 Although local school districts are eligible authorizers (school districts currently authorize 15 schools), they have ceded active authorizing to the Idaho State Charter School Commission, which is by far the dominant authorizer in the state with 34 schools. Changes to state law (H221) signed by Governor Butch Otter in April 2013 also allow Idaho colleges and universities to serve as charter school authorizers. H221 also made changes to the process of appointing members to the Idaho Charter School Commission. Further changes mandate performance certificates that require charter schools and their authorizers to have agreements that contain measurable academic and financial targets. These recent changes to law make this an opportune moment to examine the drivers that push toward quality charter schools and in particular, to bring Idahos authorizing practices closer to the nations best practices as defined in the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSAs) Principles & Standards of Quality Charter School Authorizing.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

EFFECTIVE CHARTER AUTHORIZING

Charter school authorizing is a relatively new profession within the field of public education. It did not exist prior to 1991; that all changed when the school district in St. Paul, Minnesota granted a charter agreement to City Academy High School. This was groundbreaking because it created a new model of school governance. Unlike a district superintendent, whose schools are all part of the same incorporated entity, an authorizer does not directly manage school sites. Rather, the authorizers task is to identify through rigorous means those operators with the strongest potential; grant them a charter or performance contract for a set period of time; monitor their progress toward the goals articulated in the charter; and make high-stakes decisions about whether to renew or revoke the charter. All of that (not just the initial selection) is encompassed within the notion of authorizing charter schools. Charter schools and their authorizers have both been created by state laws. As the charter revolution spread across the nation in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, the initial laws were expansive about the corporate form, flexibilities, obligations, and funding of charter schools, but said little about authorizers. Mostly, the laws specified which entities would have the right to do the authorizing. Nearly every state allowed traditional school districts to charter, but a few named other entities: state education agencies in New Jersey and Massachusetts; universities in Missouri and Michigan; state commissions in Arizona and D.C.; and later on, large nonprofits in Ohio and Minnesota. While identifying who could authorize, however, the laws said little about how outcomes were to be measured. And no state took authorizing seriously enough to put in place any meaningful standards or evaluation processes for authorizers own performance a development that finally began to pick up steam in such places as Ohio, Minnesota, and Washington in the mid-2000s. Idahos charter law followed the usual pattern, with some notable exceptions. The section on Authorization in the original 1998 statute says: The state board of education shall adopt rules, subject to law, to establish a consistent application and review process for the approval and maintenance of all public charter schools.2 The section on petitions spells out with some precision how applicants should approach authorizers, the timelines to be followed, and other procedural matters, but there was little in the original law saying with similar precision how charters were to be monitored or held accountable for performance. In fact, there was no provision at all for a renewal process meaning that a primary accountability instrument used by authorizers around the country was not available to those in Idaho. While revocation was still possible, there was little incentive for improvement of consistently lowperforming charters. New legislation, passed in spring 2013 and signed into law by Governor Otter, took major steps toward aligning Idahos charter school statute with the Model State Charter School Law created by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. H206 took a first step toward providing facilities funding and provided that charter schools would pay an authorizer fee, a funding model that supports 60 percent of authorizers nationwide.3 H221 made significant changes to the system of governance, requiring for the first time a process for charter renewals, establishing a performance certificate (or contract) for each

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

5 school, allowing Local Education Agency (LEA) status for district-authorized charters (heretofore reserved for those approved by the commission), and allowing institutions of higher education to become authorizers. A new report from CREDO at Stanford University emphasizes the significance of strong state statutes and affirms the path outlined in Idahos new laws. CREDO finds that many state laws have prescribed processes for authorizers, but have neglected to say what outcomes are desired, including closing failing schools. Often, CREDO notes, authorizers have simply defaulted to the federally-mandated, proficiencybased reporting required under the No Child Left Behind Act as their sole accountability standard. Among findings about specific practices, CREDO says that requiring reviews for academic proficiency in renewal processes produces strong learning gains (the equivalent of 32 additional days of schooling annually), as does requiring authorizers to conduct mid-term performance reviews (21 additional days).4 A Code of Professional Practice As the charter movement neared the end of its first decade, a group of authorizers from various states and representing disparate types began meeting to talk about their craft, asking whether certain approaches tended to increase the odds of creating high-quality charter schools. They formed the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), which in 2004 released the first edition of Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing. The publication has been updated periodically as new evidence merits. In 2011, NACSA identified a dozen essential practices found among highest-quality authorizers, and now conducts an annual survey to determine how widely these practices have been adopted throughout the field. A consistent finding from NACSAs survey work is that larger authorizers (those with ten or more schools) tend to develop more of the essential practices than those with fewer schools. This stands to reason; a local school district that approves one or two charters is less likely to invest the time, resources, and expertise needed to create space for quality charter schools while also having direct responsibility for running the day-to-day operations of its traditional schools. An authorizer that oversees dozens of charters has to figure out how to do it well, particularly if charter approval and oversight is its sole reason for existence. Although there are only small differences overall in the adoption of essential practices by authorizer type (that is, state commission vs. school district vs. universities), there are marked differences in specific areas. Traditional school districts are far more likely to approve charter applications (a 42 percent approval rate) than are statewide chartering agencies (26 percent) or higher education institutions (14 percent). State commissions are far more likely to have developed policies to replicate high-performing charters (78 percent) than are colleges (50 percent) and school districts (35 percent).5 What matters most are the practices themselves, not the institutional form of the authorizer. While there are trends among authorizer types, they do not predict how any given authorizer will actually perform; that is far more a function of leadership, resources, and the states policy environment. Being a commission or a college is no guarantee of excellence, and school districts, despite the inherent institutional complexity, can be terrific authorizers. In the few states that allow them, there are some

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

6 excellent non-profit authorizers such as Volunteers of America in Minnesota and the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation in Ohio. The key to success in both cases has been their organizational commitment to quality charter schools and the significant resources and talent they have made available to their charter authorizing work. Table 1 lays out the 12 Essential Practices6 of a quality authorizer. To be clear, they do not in themselves represent the pinnacle of practice. No authorizer can be labeled excellent simply by checking yes in each box. Everything depends on the quality of implementation and indeed, when NACSA does deepdive evaluations, its often the case that authorizers are carrying out these practices on a superficial level. An authorizer may be signing a contract with each school, fulfilling Practice #3, but that contract may omit some critical components, or simply incorporate by reference an entire charter application rather than spelling out which elements are material. Yet these practices do represent a threshold. Unless an authorizer implements a substantial share of them, theyre not likely to have a strong portfolio of charter schools.

Table 1: NACSAs 12 Essential Practices for Quality Charter School Authorizing 1. Have a published and available mission for quality authorizing 2. Have staff assigned to authorizing within the organization or by contract 3. Sign a contract with each school 4. Have established, documented criteria for the evaluation of charter applications 5. Publish application timelines and materials 6. Interview all charter applicants 7. Use expert panels that include external members to review charter applications 8. Grant charters with five-year terms only 9. Require and/or examine annual, independent financial audits of its charter schools 10. Have established renewal criteria 11. Have established revocation criteria 12. Provide an annual report to each school on its performance

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

7 Idahos Authorizers As with many states, Idahos charter law allows local school districts to authorize charter schools, and as with 13 other states and the District of Columbia, it has an Independent Chartering Board or ICB the Idaho Public Charter Schools Commission. The Commission can authorize schools statewide and, under recent changes to state law, Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) can now join the authorizer ranks as well: An Idaho public college, university or community college; a private, nonprofit Idaho-based, nonsectarian college or university that is accredited by the same organization that accredits Idaho public colleges and universities.7 The following section provides a review of the strengths and challenges facing different authorizer types. Since Idahos local school districts rarely authorize new charters, what follows focuses mostly on the efforts of state charter commissions and higher-education institutions. School Districts/LEAs There are as many motivations for school districts to authorize as there are schools. The district may, for example, see chartering as an opportunity to try out a new academic model or program on an experimental basis; the charter school may be founded by educators who want to stay in the districts benefits and pension system, but need flexibilities traditional schools cant easily provide (e.g., longer school day or school year); or the founders may feel that going outside the district will rock the boat. Nationally, charter schools divide roughly in half between those that have Local Education Agency (LEA) status and those that are legally part of another school district. In almost all cases, those that are part of other LEAs are chartered by a local school district, and commonly that comes with certain other benefits or conditions: the district may provide special education services (since is it legally liable for instances of non-compliance); may house the charter in one of its buildings; and may include the charters test results in its overall district calculations for state and national accountability purposes.

______________________________________________
Differences in Application Approaches One area in which LEA practices differ sharply from those of state commissions and higher education authorizers is the conduct of application cycles. LEAs are far less likely to issue a Request for Proposal for each annual cycle. This could mean that they stick with a basic application over many years or that they accept applications on a rolling basis rather than on a defined annual timeline. Table 2: Percentage Issuing Annual RFPs by Authorizer Type Type No Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) 61% Independent Charter Boards (ICBs) 36% Local Education Agencies (LEAs) 75%

Yes 39% 64% 25%

______________________________________________

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

8 A key concern for charter schools authorized by school districts is whether the local district respects and maintains charter school autonomy. Freedom and flexibility in return for accountability is key to the charter school bargain. District-authorized charter schools should have the same operational freedoms as charter schools authorized by any other type of authorizer. Charter school autonomy should be guaranteed and protected. But there are a regrettable number of cases, due either to weak state laws or to district authorizer decisions, where charter schools lose their freedoms and are treated as just another district school. In Wisconsin, for example, the so-called instrumentality charters (those chartered by districts) often have no independent board, and the districts school board acts as their direct governing body. Iowas few charter schools must remain part of the district, and have only an advisory council rather than an independent governing board. In Maryland, the school district is the legal employer of charter staff, rather than the school itself.8 In such cases, charters are really little more than district programs and, as such, do not provide the space, freedom, and flexibilities that strong charters need to thrive and succeed.

______________________________________________
Table 3: Frequency of Essential Practices (%) by Authorizer Type 2012 Practice HEIs Contract 96% Application Criteria 83% Application Timeline 71% Application Interview 50% External Expert Panel 42% Five-Year Term Length 33% Financial Audit 96% Annual Report to Schools 83% Revocation Criteria 79% Renewal Criteria 83% Authorizing Staff 92% Mission 67% Average 73% ICBs 82% 100% 100% 100% 82% 9% 100% 64% 73% 55% 91% 82% 78% LEAs 91% 88% 80% 82% 37% 31% 94% 57% 77% 89% 90% 46% 72%

______________________________________________
Independent Charter Boards Arizona created the first statewide commission for charter schools in 1995, followed a year later by the District of Columbias Public Charter School Board. ICBs are now found in 14 states and the District of Columbia, with the most recent addition being the Mississippi State Charter School Authorizer Board. These state charter school commissions share one enormous advantage: an ability to focus solely on approving and overseeing high-quality charter schools. Other types of authorizers are nested within an organization whose main mission is something other than charter schools for example, running a district of traditional schools, overseeing state education policy, or implementing a social welfare program. Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

9 In addition, because they are statewide in scope, they tend to develop larger portfolios and consequently put more effort into developing and refining their charter-specific professional practice.

______________________________________________
Differences in Recruiting ICBs across the country are significantly more likely than HEIs, and far more likely than local district authorizers, to define needs and seek out operators who can address those needs, as shown in Table 4. Table 4: Authorizer Takes Actions to Recruit or Support a Supply of Charter Applicants Type Don't know No Yes HEIs 4% 65% 30% ICBs 0% 55% 45% LEAs 2% 83% 15%

______________________________________________
But statewide charter commissions have potential downsides as well. Distance A recent NACSA evaluation of one ICB found that Some school leaders have come to view the Board as detached and remote, and report that they do not understand the Boards decision-making process.9 This problem is common in large states with a commission headquartered in the state capital but serving the entire state. The distance between the authorizer and its authorized schools can be exacerbated by the way the commission sees its work. In the case cited here, commissioners had been careful to guard their impartiality in decision making, and felt that their accountability role might be jeopardized by getting too close to schools. When briefed on these evaluation findings, they discussed rethinking their approach for example, making more of an effort to attend graduations and other school functions, and perhaps holding their own meetings at schools around the state, as a way of showing institutional support. Of course, this can cut both ways. Sometimes charter schools that value their autonomy are just as happy not to be bothered. Another state evaluation, recently completed, showed that schools were fairly comfortable with the remoteness of the authorizer. High-performers felt they didnt need additional guidance and low-performers found that they wouldnt be threatened if they simply met minimal targets to escape sanctions. But even some of the high-performing charter operators interviewed by NACSA conceded that it would be good for their state agency to get to know them better, if only to understand the broad variations in mission, programs, and students being served. Boundary Squabbles As with other statewide authorizers, ICBs can confront tensions when they authorize schools to operate within the boundaries of a traditional school district. This means that the district loses students and the state funding that goes with them when they move from a district school to an independent charter. The local district also has no control over whether some of its teachers and other staff may leave for charters, further causing the district pain, at least in the short-term.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

10 A few states have tackled this tension by limiting the ICBs jurisdiction in some way. Colorados State Board of Education, for example, can grant exclusive chartering authority to local school districts if the district can demonstrate that its charter-friendly and has the needed capacity for quality charter authorizing. Hence the states Charter Schools Institute does not authorize charter schools in Denver, where the district does a good job of authorizing schools on its own. In Georgia, the recentlyreconstituted state charter commission, as in Idaho, can receive applications only that have been turned down first at the local level, the exception being schools that operate statewide, such as virtual charters. One surprising outcome in reviewing evaluations of the practices of several state commissions is that they seem to share some technical shortcomings as well: a lack of transparency, insufficiently developed performance objectives and criteria, and lack of consistency in various processes for example, variations in training among external reviewers. Its not clear whether the ICB form itself has anything to do with these problems. Who Should Be Appointed to Independent Charter Boards? Among states with ICBs, Idaho had created some of the more idiosyncratic requirements for naming commission members. The commissions original enabling legislation required that six of seven slots be held by current or former members of school boards or trustees of school districts. New legislation gives the governor, House Speaker, and Senate president appointing authority and stipulates that nominees must have demonstrated understanding of and commitment to charter schools as a strategy for strengthening public education, and represent a variety of management and education skills.10 This brings Idahos method in line with the trend in most other ICB states, where, in an effort to defuse political or institutional capture of the commission, members are named by various appointing offices.

Attitude and beliefs are much more important than experience. It is useful to have people of diverse experience, but more so a shared mind/vision and commitment around doing what is best for kids. - Authorizer Board Member

By requiring commitment to charter schools, the law assures alignment with the commissions mission. But even with this change, there is no guarantee that the right people will be chosen. What kind of candidates make good charter commissioners? This is a topic that has not been studied systematically, but NACSA has been asked for help in getting several state commissions up and running. In the course of one recent engagement, NACSA was asked to outline essential requirements for effective state commission membership, and conducted interviews with a number of state commission officials from around the country. Their recommendations are summarized here. NACSAs interviews found that those who do the job of statewide authorizing paint a picture of an ideal commissioner as someone who is a committed but open-minded public servant. They recommend that commissioners be fair and impartial without any bias for or against particular charter schools, district schools, one type of school model, or any particular school operator. The only bias a commissioner should show is toward high academic achievement and proper financial and management stewardship that serve the interests of the students and the public. As it is for any state board or commission member, the primary role of a commissioner is that of a public servant representing the interests of the states people.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

11 Other qualities or traits identified by our interviewees include the following: 1. Ability to work together as a group. It is critical that the commission be composed of people who are able to work well with others and together as a group, who have the ability to disagree and debate issues professionally without harming their relationships, and to ultimately come together in common respect for and commitment to the groups decisions. 2. Ability to make difficult decisions. Commissioners must be willing to make difficult, perhaps even unpopular, decisions and deal with ambiguity. At times, an authorizer board will be confronted by throngs of passionate school leaders, teachers, parents, and students, and must stay focused on the mission and responsibility of the authorizer to make decisions that ensure high-quality charter schools. 3. Commitment to active participation. Serving on the commission entails a commitment of time and effort not only in attending meetings, but also in doing a lot of "homework" ahead of meetings. Commissioners must review staff submittals before meetings and be prepared to ask relevant questions and engage in meaningfully ways at meetings. 4. Ability to be persuaded. As one interviewee stated, Some commissioners and board members cling to their original positions for political or ideological reasons, or just because they can't countenance opposition. All commission members should be willing to listen to evidence and adjust positions if thats where the facts point. One obstinate board member might not only bog down discussions, but can actually promote bad decision making if weaker members acquiesce to avoid conflict. 5. Commitment to commission values and philosophy. Guided by state laws, commissions will develop a point of view on how to accomplish their long-term strategic vision and a set of values that guide their deliberations. When individual members have radically different ideas, it can prevent the commission from working effectively. With respect to specific skills and background, and informed by experience in other states, NACSA recommends that statewide authorizers have people with experience in educational leadership; financial expertise; government or other board experience; management expertise; familiarity with state government and/or politics; legal expertise; and perhaps surprisingly lobbying expertise, since such representation is beneficial in promoting the authorizers legislative agenda. Those who nominate commissioners should also be sensitive to the need for geographic representation, as called for in the revised Idaho statute. For nearly any statewide authorizer and particularly for a statewide commission, there is value in obtaining different perspectives from across geographical areas. Finally, the question inevitably arises: Should those with direct charter school affiliation be on the commission? Obviously, first-hand knowledge of charter schools and how they work can be a strong asset but it can also raise questions of conflict of interest. NACSA would also make the following recommendations regarding the selection and service of commissioners with charter school affiliations:

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

12 1. Candidate Disclosures. Prospective commissioners should be required to disclose all charter school affiliations during the process. The state board of education must have an opportunity to assess any potential conflicts. 2. Financial Interest. Going forward, the existence of a financial interest in a charter school, whether as an employee, contractor, consultant, or other financial interest, should be a basis for disqualification from appointment to the commission. 3. Commissioner Prohibitions. Commissioners should, for the duration of their terms, be prohibited from establishing new affiliations with charter schools, whether as governing board members, full-time employees, or consultants. Such affiliations introduce potential conflicts into the commissions work and would undermine the commissions credibility as an independent, objective decision maker. Permitting such affiliations would also create a perverse incentive for charter schools to influence commission decisions by creating such affiliations. Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) as Authorizers For college and university authorizers, the question of mission is as important as the kind of qualifications mentioned above. The charter function exists within institutions dedicated to postsecondary scholarship, not K-12 education, and can be submerged without a distinct identity and purpose.11 In NACSAs most recent survey, just 67 percent of HEI authorizers reported having a distinct mission statement, compared to 82 percent for ICBs.12 A member of NACSAs Leaders Program, who heads a university-affiliated authorizing office, recently commented that while the university has a mission statement, her office has lacked one a condition soon to be remedied. A 2011 report on the Missouri charter sector, funded by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, found some serious shortcomings in that states oversight environment, which is uniquely dominated by university-based authorizers. Some of the institutions studied in the report became authorizers simply because an enterprising would-be operator approached the college president and asked if theyd authorize his school. With that kind of haphazard entry into the authorizing profession, its not surprising that some of these universities lacked a clear mission for this work and failed to create the policies and infrastructure needed to do the job well. Among others, however, the chartering functions reinforced the universities existing commitments to improve public education. St. Louis University and Washington University both got into the authorizing business because they saw chartering as an appropriate extension of their urban missions, giving them an opportunity to help educate children put at risk by their current school systems.13 Universities can bring other assets to the role of authorizer. The Charter Schools Institute of the State University of New York (SUNY) is actually situated within the universitys research division. Its mission statement includes the following: CSI strives to become a nationally recognized repository and disseminator of research, training and best practices for charter schools, public school choice and charter authorizing.14 Accordingly, the Institute has cooperated with the New York City Charter Center (a charter school support organization) in a series of workshops on charter replication for schools

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

13 considering expansion, and has at times made its portfolio of schools available to SUNY scholars as a resource for their research papers. But even this can be a double-edged sword. One Midwestern university is currently navigating some difficult questions about its chartering versus research responsibilities; their NACSA evaluation report pointed to a need for separating reporting responsibilities and/or decision-making authority for authorizing decisions from research or educational programming decisions. Universities that have schools of education, and that train teachers and school leaders, would seem to have the clearest motivation for wanting to become charter authorizers. Among some of the Missouri higher-ed authorizers, for example, their teaching graduates find ample job opportunities in schools the colleges authorize. But its important to understand the difference between operating and authorizing schools, a point of possible confusion that arose in preparing this paper. A number of colleges form charters as lab schools where their students can get first-hand classroom experience under superior professional supervision. Such is the case at the four campuses operated by the University of Chicago Charter School. Other colleges host charters on their campuses, often making facilities available and encouraging professors to lend their services Howard University in D.C.; Dayton Early College Academy at the University of Dayton; and the University of California San Diego, with its Preuss Charter School, are examples of this approach. But none of these universities are authorizers. Howard University Charter School is authorized by the D.C. Public Charter School Board, Dayton Early College Academy by the Dayton Public Schools, and Preuss by San Diego Unified Public Schools in a unique partnership with the University of California.

______________________________________________
In-House Resources One strength of university-based authorizers is that, as with school districts, they can draw on the educational expertise of colleagues to support application reviews and other highstakes decisions. As the table below indicates, HEIs and LEAs are both more likely than state commissions to report that they have academic expertise housed within the organization. Table 5: Where Authorizers Find Expertise in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment "Within authorizing Authorizer Type "By contract" "No access" organization" HEIs 14% 5% 73% ICBs 40% 0% 60% LEAs 0% 1% 94%

______________________________________________ ______________________________________________
Performance Accountability Perhaps because evaluation talent is close at hand, HEIs are also more likely than state commissions, and considerably more likely than school districts, to have developed performance frameworks.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

14 Table 6: Performance Frameworks by Authorizer Type Type Don't know HEIs 0.0% ICBs 0.0% LEAs 3.3%

No 4.3% 20.0% 31.1%

Yes 95.7% 80.0% 65.6%

______________________________________________
This is an important point for Idahos HEIs to grasp. If some become authorizers, they will be reviewing applications from around the state which, if approved, will require monitoring, oversight, and highstakes reviews. This is a different undertaking than, for example, creating a university-based school to serve children of the faculty. (There is no such preference allowed under state law in any case, although there is an admissions preference for children of founders.) Becoming an authorizer will require setting up an authorizing office that can draw on university resources for such tasks as application reviews, but also retain its ability to act independently. In fact, for a college that trains teachers for local school systems, chartering independent schools that primarily employ Teach for America graduates or uncertified staff (if state law allows) can pose a challenge. Central Michigan University, acknowledged as one of the nations leading authorizers, was initially warned by some district superintendents that they would refuse to hire CMU education school graduates if the university authorized schools in their communities. (Happily, this has not turned out to be the case.) What Kind of Governance? The evaluation of one university authorizer found that the basis of the authorizers decision is not clear. Historically, the Executive Director and Finance Director have made approval decision with no clear connection to the proposal review and interview process. Will the universitys board of directors have a say in approvals, or will a separate board be created or none at all, leaving the decisions to administrators? Unless there is clarity in governance, HEI authorizers risk a lack of transparency. Its not clear why, but among HEI authorizers surveyed, application processes were a relatively weak link. While 100 percent of statewide charter commissions reported implementing the recommended steps of clear application criteria and timelines, just 83 percent and 50 percent of HEIs included these recommended components, respectively. And while 82 percent of state commissions used an expert external panel for application reviews, just 42 percent of HEIs reported doing so (although they could be defining internal liberally and using personnel from other university departments). Yet higher-ed authorizers were significantly more likely to have developed renewal criteria than state commissions (83 percent vs. 55 percent). This may be a function of age; most state commissions are relatively new and unfortunately a lot of authorizers only get around to developing renewal criteria when its time for their first renewal. No matter their organizational type, a quality authorizer creates organizational structures and commits human and financial resources necessary to conduct its authorizing duties effectively and efficiently.15

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

15

The next section looks at these resources in light of national benchmarks.

AUTHORIZERS AND HUMAN CAPITAL

Recruiting schools and education talent to a particular state or jurisdiction has not traditionally been an authorizer function. Traditionally, would-be charter operators apply, the authorizer decides whether to grant a charter, and then successful applicants put together a team to run their school or schools. However, this approach is changing in more and more jurisdictions and authorizers are becoming more proactive in shaping their school environments. Denver Public Schools, among other urban authorizers, developed a Call for New Quality Schools based on a neighborhood-by-neighborhood analysis of whether there are sufficient quality seats in the charter and traditional sectors to meet parental demand and student need. Tennessees Achievement School District conducts a review of potential operators first, then matches them to specific turnaround schools after consultation with a local advisory group, assuring a good fit for both the school and the needs of students. Other authorizers simply indicate in a cover letter that they would be particularly interested in seeing applications that address special education needs or offer a strong STEM curriculum. In the interests of attracting high-quality operators with a strong local or national track record, the D.C. Public Charter School Board has created a separate application process for experienced operators, with an accelerated timeline from approval through opening. One of the best examples of a charter school authorizer working strategically with the larger community to recruit top schools and education talent to their jurisdiction is found in Indianapolis. The mayors office has the authority to authorize charter schools, but rather than just sit passively and wait for prospective school models to apply to open schools, the office works closely with the non-profit Mind Trust to recruit top education talent to the city through The Mind Trusts Charter School Incubator and other key initiatives. By working together, the mayors charter school office and the Mind Trust have made Indianapolis one of the top performing charter school markets in America. (A recent study by CREDO out of Stanford University demonstrated that students attending mayor-sponsored charter schools gained an additional three months of learning in math and two months of learning in English per school year when compared to students attending traditional public schools.16) The city has not only recruited top national charter school programs such as KIPP to run schools in the citys most low-income neighborhoods, it has also worked with local charter operators to replicate their successful programs. At the system level, much of this has been made possible through the recruitment of such successful nonprofits as Teach For America, The New Teacher Project, Stand for Children, and College Summit.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

16 Another way authorizers can help build the talent pipeline is by ensuring that applicants themselves have a firm handle on how they will staff as they grow. This is another reason why many authorizers work on bringing high-powered national groups into the state, since many come with built-in training strategies. KIPP, for example, is more than anything a leadership-based model. Even though it has begun taking on the characteristics of a management organization, it places tremendous emphasis on finding and cultivating leaders who can implement the model at peak performance. Building Excellent Schools does not directly operate charters, but builds relationships with charter organizations that can use their well-trained graduates. There are many other examples in the charter arena, and authorizers do well to pay close attention to an applicants human capital strategy. But the most significant contribution authorizers make is by being a rigorous, conscientious, but constructive partner. Some authorizers take the position that they cannot maintain their accountability role if they get too friendly with schools and applicants and theres some truth to that. But so long as there is a level playing field for all applicants, and the authorizer sets a high bar for any and all approvals, there is no reason why an authorizer cannot be part of broad-based efforts to attract highperforming schools and networks into their city or state. At the 2009 National Charter Schools Conference, for example, New York Citys schools chancellor Joel Klein (who by then was overseeing more than 50 charter schools) held a breakfast for high-performing charter school/network operators from around the country. He and his team made a powerful pitch much as a mayor might make in trying to woo convention business. He said that successful applicants would have access to public school facilities, special education programs, and technical assistance opportunities and, most importantly, they would have the personal and political support of the mayor and chancellor as they navigated the rough and tumble world of New York school politics. But while welcoming those whove made a mark in other states, authorizers also need to ramp up their own due-diligence efforts. The application should require a range of information about performance at other sites and with comparable student populations, the applicants plans for carrying through the mission and curricular themes, local support for their work, and their capacity to implement at full speed from day one. Reviewing these requires special guidance as well; the D.C. Public Charter School Board (among other authorizers) uses a detailed scoring guide developed especially for applicants whose models are new to the District: http://www.dcpcsb.org/data/files/201314%20experienced%20operators%20scoring%20guidelines.pdf.

WHAT IT TAKES

Although the resources and infrastructure needed for strong quality charter school authorizing varies by type and portfolio size, it is essential that the authorizer have the needed tools to do the work well. One of the messages heard from those interviewed for this paper is that the current Idaho state charter

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

17 commission has lacked the resources needed for the job. This observation is borne out by national comparisons. Budget Issues Table 7 shows average budgets by authorizer type, but there is actually wide variation within each category depending on portfolio size and authorizer approach. Budgets of higher-education authorizers, for example, range from a low of $20,732 per school to more than six times that, a high of $130,000 per school.

______________________________________________
Table 7: Budget Summary 2012 by Authorizer Type Summary Budget/Fee Statistics Average Authorizing Budget Average Budget Per School Average Oversight Fee HEIs $1,026,983 $46,843 2% ICBs $1,005,983 $33,022 2% LEAs $1,577,995 $243,776 3%

______________________________________________
Although few state charter school commissions report budget information directly, the average of those that did report in NACSA most recent survey is $33,022 per school. Compare this to the resources available to the Idaho State Charter Commission as seen in Table 8 below. Staffing levels vary widely, and are driven by how the authorizer defines its professional practices, as well as by budget availability and the number of schools authorized. State commissions employ an average of .44 full-time equivalents (FTE) per school, while university authorizers have slightly more staff allocated, at an average of .53 FTE per school. But again, these averages mask large variation. Among ICBs, for example, the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, which oversees 101 charter schools (now accounting for about 44 percent of D.C.s public school enrollment), has a highly articulated performance-management system, a significant policy role in citywide efforts around Race to the Top and other programs, and a mission encompassing more than the usual amount of technical support. It has 26 full-time staff. By contrast, the Arizona State Board for Charter Schools, serving four times as many schools statewide, has historically limited its work to the basics conducting application processes, reporting as needed and doing renewals. Its staff consists of eight FTEs, or just .16 FTE per school. There is a similar range in staffing among higher-ed authorizers. The Governor John Engler Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University has by far the largest staff with 54 positions; in part this is driven by Michigan law, which requires significant direct oversight of schools, but its also helped by a fee structure that has enabled the center to invest in development and dissemination of technologies such as the Epicenter data system that are now used widely by authorizers in other states.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

18

______________________________________________
Staff and Budget Levels The following table shows some comparisons of staff and budget levels among authorizers of various types that have portfolios similar to that of the Idaho Commission. Note that the Commission has among the lowest staff-per-school and budget-per-school ratios in this group. Table 8: Comparison of Staff and Budget Levels Authorizer #of Schools Budget Grand Valley 62 $5.2 million State U (MI) Ohio Council 47 $3.4 million of Community Schools (U of Toledo) Charter 23 $1.73 million Schools Institute (CO) State Public 32 $1.23 million Charter School Commission (HI) Denver Public 36 $750K Schools (CO) Idaho Charter 34 $313,900 School Commission

Budget/school $83,870 $72,340

Staff (FTE) 16 21

Staff/School 0.3 0.45

$75,217

0.17

$38,593

15

0.47

$20,833 $9,232

9 2.5

0.25 0.07

______________________________________________
RECOMMENDATIONS

It will come as no surprise that there has been some discontent about the Idaho State Charter Commission in the past. Some of this is due to the law as it existed pre-2013. Because there was no provision for charter renewal in Idahos original charter law, there was no regular cycle of accountability. The only time the Commission could get everything nailed down was at the starting gate so application processes became detailed and arduous. And the Commission has 2.5 FTE to manage all the interactions between Commission, schools, and other stakeholders. As the chart above shows, this is a relatively low staffing level and may have bred reliance on one-size-fits-all memos rather than individuation and customization.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

19 On its own or with direction from the new charter laws, the Commission is moving to put in place more of the essential practices recommended by NACSA. In 2012, the Commission was implementing just six of the twelve practices.17 By the time the 2013 survey was in the field, a seventh had been added the adoption of renewal criteria and the new laws require one more, a five-year charter period. On August 30, the Commission adopted new performance frameworks, and staff is working toward creation of the mandated performance certificates for existing schools by next year. Recommendations: Resources. Develop a new strategic plan for the Commission and provide resources needed to implement it, in particular bringing staffing to a level commensurate with Commission responsibilities. Outcomes orientation. Adopt a Performance Framework that evaluates the academic, operational, and financial status of Commission charter schools. Incorporate Performance Framework measures into the Performance Certificates now being developed. Appointments. The governor and legislative chiefs should use their appointment authority to name Commissioners who support the idea of charter schools; have a strong commitment to quality and a willingness to learn their craft; encompass a range of skills in education, policy, and management; and have proven their ability to serve with skill and effectiveness on a board. In addition to the state commission, other facets of Idahos authorizing landscape deserve attention: Get higher education involved. Given the reluctance of local districts to use their chartering powers and the geographic breadth of the state, Idaho leaders should capitalize on new legislation that permits institutions of higher education to authorize charters, especially those with campuses that can serve various sections of the state. At the same time, additional guidance should clear up any confusion about the actual responsibilities and limitations of higher-ed charter authorizers. Set a high bar. Clarify the intent of HEI authorizing and set standards for colleges and universities that wish to become authorizers. The State Board of Education should adopt an intake evaluation similar to that used in Minnesota and Washington to ensure that new HEI authorizers have the commitment and capacity to do the job right. Virtual charters. Charters serving students online pose particular challenges for authorizers. Every statistic from seat time to teacher-student ratio to attendance takes on a different hue when students are not in brick-and-mortar buildings. So do questions around use of funds. ELL, special education, and disadvantaged students are all underrepresented among virtual school populations nationwide. Many K-12 online and blended schools/programs are woefully unprepared for the collection and analyses of data that [are] required to truly inform and transform practice.18 And there are warning signs about academic performance as well,

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

20 including a 2011 CREDO report on the Pennsylvania charter sector that found the states virtual charters performing significantly worse than district schools on reading and math tests.19 There does not seem to be an agreed-upon set of best practices among authorizers in this area. Those that oversee virtual schools as a component of their statewide portfolios seem to face common problems, but each is finding its own solutions. The Commission should convene a special committee or task force to examine oversight of virtual charters, looking at such distinctive concerns as enrollment and attrition, as well as benchmarking academic performance against similarly situated students. The task force should reach out to other authorizers of virtual schools in Florida, New Jersey, Arizona, and other states to frame the set of issues they should consider.

CONCLUSION

Although states enact or amend charter school legislation each year, few have had as clear and positive a boost as Idaho received in its 2013 amendments. The new laws tighten accountability, address gaps in funding, and clarify governance. That last item is probably most important in the long run, since the skill and attentiveness of charter authorizing is the key to the quality of the school portfolio. Its never easy when a state moves from a relatively laissez-faire posture to one that values clear performance criteria and solid oversight. But Idahos recent reforms align the state more securely with the elements of the true charter model: high autonomy in exchange for rigorous accountability. Authorizers must balance those two elements and need all the tools their profession has developed, including contracts, performance frameworks, and rigorous application processes. They also need to be motivated by a real sense of mission and an attitude of problem solving. No public or private agencies should be in the business of charter authorizing unless they see its potential for improving the lives of Idahos children and are willing to commit the time and effort needed for the job. Fortunately, Idahos charter laws now set the stage for an expansion of both schools and authorizers that will maintain this sense of purpose and increase the chances of quality outcomes.

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering

21

END NOTES

Policy Differences between Charter and Traditional Schools. Report 13-04, Office of Performance Evaluations, Idaho Legislature, March 2013. http://legislature.idaho.gov/ope/publications/reports/r1304.pdf 2 Idaho Statutes, 33-5203(6) http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5203.htm 3 National Association of Charter School Authorizers: The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012. http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/annual-authorizer-survey.html 4 CREDO at Stanford University: National Charter School Study: Legislative Analysis 2013. http://credo.stanford.edu/ 5 National Association of Charter School Authorizers: Index of Essential Practices 2012. http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/index-of-essential-practices.html 6 Ibid. 7 Idaho Statutes, op. cit., 33-5202A http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5202.htm 8 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools: Measuring Up to the Model: A Tool for Comparing State Charter School Laws. http://www.publiccharters.org/law/ViewComponent.aspx?comp=14 9 NACSA evaluations are formative in nature. To protect the confidentiality of participating authorizers, material drawn from these evaluations will identify the type of authorizer, but not the name of the authorizing agency. 10 Idaho Statutes, 33-5213(3)(c). http://legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title33/T33CH52SECT33-5213.htm 11 The author examined this problem more generally in a 2005 Issue Brief titled Square Pegs: Charter School Authorizers in Non-Charter Agencies. http://www.qualitycharters.org/assets/files/images/stories/publications/Issue_Briefs/IssueBriefNo7_square_pegs. pdf 12 National Association of Charter School Authorizers: The State of Charter School Authorizing 2012, op. cit. 13 National Alliance for Public Charter Schools: Delivering on the Promise: How Missouri Can Grow Excellent, Accountable Public Charter Schools. Washington, DC, 2011. http://www.publiccharters.org/data/files/Publication_docs/2011_Final_Missouri_Report.pdf_20110330T164833.p df 14 Charter Schools Institute, State University of New York, Mission Statement. http://www.newyorkcharters.org/missionStatement.htm 15 National Association of Charter School Authorizers: Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing, 2012. http://www.qualitycharters.org/publications-resources/principles-standards.html 16 CREDO at Stanford University: Charter School Performance in Indiana. December 2012. http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/IN_2012_FINAL_20130117nw.pdf 17 National Association of Charter School Authorizers: Index, op. cit. 18 Evergreen Education Group: Keeping Pace with K12 Online & Blended Learning: An Annual Review of Policy and Practice, 2012. http://kpk12.com/cms/wp-content/uploads/KeepingPace2012.pdf 19 CREDO at Stanford University: Charter School Performance in Pennsylvania. April 2011. http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/PA%20State%20Report_20110404_FINAL.pdf

Authorizing Roadmap: National Perspectives on Quality Chartering