PIE Network Guest

Don Shalvey said it’s important for charters and districts to work together.

Moderator: Michael J. Petrilli Executive Vice President Thomas B. Fordham Institute Panelists:  Don Shalvey Deputy Director, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Doug Tuthill President, Step Up For Students Robin Lake Associate Director, Center on Reinventing Public Education Todd Ziebarth Vice President, State Advocacy and Support, National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

The last few years have seen big progress on the charter policy front in terms of busting through caps and creating or improving state charter laws, but what’s been happening on the quality agenda? Some of the nation’s leading charter experts discussed how states can boost both charter quantity and quality.

“There have been big strides in the number of charters, thanks in part to Race to the Top,” said moderator Mike Petrilli of the Fordham Institute, as he opened the session. “But the charter movement hasn’t been as successful in terms of quality. It’s hard to legislate toward better quality.” Petrilli said it’s difficult for state charter associations to advocate for shutting down their member schools if they aren’t performing, so the independent voices of education advocacy groups are important to push quality issues.

Regulating charter authorizers

Todd Ziebarth said his organization, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, has created model legislation around charter expansion and quality. He said state legislators have many levers to pull, but the ones that impact quality the most revolve around regulating charter authorizers.

“Initial laws looked at who could authorize and there were low barriers to entry,” he said. “There was no attention to the unsexy work of the application process and meaningful service contracts. We don’t need meddling, but we do need to pay attention to what the work of authorizers should look like.”

Ziebarth said states need to standardize the way authorizers work in terms of applications, contracts, oversight, and renewal or revocation. He said it’s very important “to pair fiscal equity and auto-closure requirements for bad charters.”

Ziebarth added that states with strong track records for authorization include Massachusetts and New York. “States should not allow just anyone to do it, it’s not the more authorizers the better,” he said, suggesting that an independent statewide entity be created.

Killing bad charters

Petrilli said Ohio has around 60 charter authorizers (including the Fordham Institute) and just used its right to rescind authorizer status for the first time. “The vast majority of authorizers are school districts, who don’t want the job,” he said.

“The authorizers that are doing the worst for the charter schools are also doing badly with traditional schools as well,” said Robin Lake.

In response to a question on whether districts should be allowed to authorize, the Gates Foundation’s Don Shalvey cited California as an example. He said it was difficult during the first 15 years for districts to understand what being a good authorizer took, but that’s changing. However, he said, “poor performing charters are still not losing their renewals.”

Shalvey said California should move authorizing to the state level or a third party. He advocated policy that would make renewal much harder and remove it from local control. “Then, if you don’t make a certain bar, the local district cannot renew you, and you have to go elsewhere,” he said. “The distant body can be an adult about this, whereas the local board just can’t.”

Is auto-trigger an answer for low-performing schools?

Petrilli asked panelists it taking away the discretion of the authorizer would work. If charters don’t meet metrics, they would close automatically.

Ziebarth said he wouldn’t recommend that policy in states with a good history of closing poor performing schools, such as New York, Massachusetts, and Indiana. Lake said she would support an auto trigger to close low-performing schools, but questioned how performance would be measured. “The bottom five percent is obvious,” she said. “But you need good data system for fine-grained decision making.”

“What about a state like Ohio, where the traditional public school options are worse for kids than the school that would be shut down?” asked Petrilli.

Lake said when it comes to making calls on closure, Public Impact has looked at what assets of the closing schools might be salvageable. “Maybe one answer is charter turnarounds, where charters come in and work to improve existing schools.”

Creating more quality charters

When asked how more quality charters can be developed, Doug Tuthill of Step Up For Students said a good regulatory foundation is necessary but not sufficient. “I think you have to combine an excellent regulatory framework as well as consumers making good choices,” he said. “You have to look at both sides of the equation.” He said quality will be driven by helping parents make good choices.

“Too often we think about quality as a fixed school characteristic,” said Tuthill. “But in the real world, when you think about a parent trying to find the right fit for their kid, one school may be the right choice for one child whereas it may not be for another. Quality depends on the relationship between the school and the child, which is why parents making good choices is so important.”

Tuthill explained that in Florida, only districts authorize charters, which are almost as heavily regulated as district schools. “Increasingly, charters look like district schools,” he said. “Another problem is insufficient supply in Florida. It keeps weaker schools in business, because there aren’t enough good options. If the regulatory bar is too high, it limits choices, and perpetuates weak schools.”

Tuthill said an important takeaway from Florida is “we need to get serious about building infrastructure to help parents make better choices.”

The role of CMOs

Petrilli asked if Charter Management Organizations (CMOs) are effective in expanding quality. “CMOs are trying to figure out a sustainable funding model; thus far, they have been reliant on philanthropy,” said Lake. “Many of the CMOs are trying to solve the financial sustainability issue through the technology side. They’re also struggling with growth. In becoming large and bureaucratic, they struggle with quality like a district.”

Lake said the key question is: How do we grow a lot of high-quality schools? “This is not about avoiding all risk and growing just two schools each year,” she said. “We need to commit to innovation, high quality, and build great infrastructures to support the pipeline.”

Lake also said arbitrary charter caps should not be set. She suggested that districts offer a CMO with a good track record, such as Aspire, a large number of slots so they can utilize economies of scale.

The inevitability of failure

“I would let more schools in rather than less,” said Tuthill. “In the real world, businesses fail. We can’t pretend that we are going to be perfect, we have to have enough supply to allow for some failures.” Tuthill added that the idea that only high-quality charter schools can be opened “isn’t rational.”

Shalvey agreed that some charters are bound to fail, but said, “They should fail fast.” He advocates a model of “Darwin’s waiting room”—how many charters will it take to exist without philanthropy? “If you have a quality provider, make renewal easier and start with some scale,” he said.

Charter and district collaboration

Shalvey said it’s important for charters and districts to work together. “What advantage does a superintendent get for working with a high-performing charter?” he asked. “If charters are willing to work in a high-needs area in a district, that exchanges low-quality seats for high-quality seats.” States can encourage that through policies such as offering low-interest loans to charters to buy buildings, and encouraging districts to give buildings they want to shut down to charters for free.

In Miami, charters were given buildings in exchange for purchasing services from the district, said Tuthill. “There is opportunity in lots of places,” he said, but districts don’t always see it.

Shalvey said education leaders are now moving between the district and charter sectors, such as the former president of the Los Angeles teachers union who is now running a charter school. “In ten or fifteen years, as we watch the cross-fertilization of the two sectors, we will see more leaders able to do this work,” he said. “CRPE’s work around portfolios models is hopeful.”

“It’s really an exciting time for the Portfolio Districts—there is an interesting energy from those superintendents,” said Lake. “Portfolio leaders are willing to work with anyone; they’re not worried about labels.” Lake said superintendents are recognizing the realities of continued scarce resources.

“Another incentive for districts to collaborate with charters is that district can take high-performing charter test scores for their own,” said Petrilli.

Funding equity

In response to a question on whether there should be incentives to create schools that are more productive with less money, Ziebarth said, “It’s a flashback to the 90s, where in some states charters made an argument they could do more for less. And we got less.” He said it’s important that all resources go with the kids.

“Foundations need to get more savvy about questioning charter plans and their sustainability and pipeline for human capital,” said Lake. “Philanthropy can’t do it all.”

“The holy grail of charter movement is funding equity for kids,” said Ziebarth. “We have made progress on lifting caps and quality authorizing. The next push is the twin goals of strong accountability, likely through automatic closure policies, and fiscal equity.”

“In pushing for equal resources, charters need to be partners with districts and take on more special education, English Language Learners, etc.,” said Lake.

Key takeaways

Petrilli summed up the key takeaways for states looking to create more quality charters:

• Make sure there is authorizer language about transparency, application processes, etc. in state law. Look at the NAPCS model law language.
• If you have a quality problem, consider auto-closure for schools that don’t perform.
• Do you have a serious infrastructure to help parents make informed choices?
• What incentives can you provide for districts to collaborate with charters? Facilities? Finances?
• Boost the human capital pipeline: get Teach for America into your state.
• If you can’t get decent funding then you can’t work on quality. You can’t starve your way to quality.