Over a million students nationally wait for seats to open up in already-full charter schools. Many more attend failing schools in neighborhoods that could benefit from the high-quality charter networks revolutionizing public education in places like Newark and New Orleans. In the face of a clear and persistent need for excellent charter schools, what stands in the way of their growth? This paper from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) attempts to answer this question by examining constraints on charter expansion.
Authors Jenn Hatfield and Ian Lindquist profile three of the nation’s oldest and most successful networks: Uncommon Schools (forty-three schools in six northeast cities), Great Hearts Academies (twenty-seven schools in Phoenix and, recently, Texas), and Carpe Diem Learning (six schools scattered throughout Arizona, Indiana, Ohio, and Texas). They use in-depth interviews with teachers, principals, staff, and executives within each network to explore two sides of the same coin: What factors facilitated the growth of these networks, and conversely, what factors deterred them and likely still hinder others?
Specifically, they seek to identify the “bottlenecks” limiting each operator’s expansion. All three networks experienced problems with authorizers and/or identified authorizer relationships as essential to manage well. For instance, Great Hearts’ attempted Nashville expansion was blocked by the local authorizer (the district school board), which refused them a charter. And each network struggled with expectations from local stakeholders that weighed on the pace and size of their growth. Carpe Diem, a blended, project-based model for students in grades 6–12, was able to expand quickly in response to pressing demand for high-quality, innovative options. But as CEO Robert Sommers relayed, authorizer expectations and state regulations don’t always make it easy for new models: “People on the ground want us, but states want schools that look like other schools.” Across the board, public resources have been insufficient and charter organizations leaned heavily on philanthropic support. Finally, each network named human capital as a tremendous growth hurdle, echoing what Fordham discovered in a survey of high-performing Ohio charter leaders.
While the findings themselves aren’t groundbreaking—finances, regulatory burdens, and scarcity of high-quality staff are well-documented challenges—the case studies offer valuable insight into specific state barriers (or opportunities) and the strategic nature of expansion, as well as a fascinating window into each group’s decision-making processes. In sum, the profiles are a useful read for other high-quality charter networks.
The paper is also a must-read for policy makers, who should consider the three concluding recommendations: enable charter operators to certify their own teachers (a cutting-edge idea that makes good sense given the overwhelming human capital barrier, and considering that the skills desired by various charter networks are fairly unique); streamline the authorization process across state boundaries for operators with proven track records, thus reducing barriers to entry (a fine idea in theory, though likely staggeringly difficult in practice); and waive state charter caps for high-performers (a sensible recommendation with varying degrees of urgency depending on the state).
Overall, the paper ought to help policy makers and advocates understand how states can create more hospitable climates for excellent charter schools and ultimately ensure that more students receive a good education.
SOURCE: Jenn Hatfield and Ian Lindquist, “Scaling Up: Successes and Challenges of Growing High-Quality Charter Networks,” American Enterprise Institute (May 2016).
