Charter-granting agencies: The challenges of oversight in a deregulated system

Education and Urban Society

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 406-428

  Hassel, Bryan C ^a   Vergari, Sandra ^b  

^a Public Impact ^*

^b STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22844455087     PISSN: 00131245     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013124599031004003     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Bierlein, L. A. (1997). The charter school movement. In D. Ravitch &. J. P. Viteritti (Eds.), New schools for a new century: The redesign of urban education (pp. 37-60). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
2. Center for Education Reform. (1999). Charter Schools: A Progress Report. Part II: The Closures. [On-line] Available: http://www.edrerform.com/ pubs/CharterClosures99.htm June.
3. Chicago Public Schools. (1998). Accountability agreement. Mimeograph.
4. Cibulka, J. G., & Derlin, R. L. (1998). Authentic education accountability policies: Implementation of state initiatives in Colorado and Maryland. Educational Policy, 12, 84-97.
5. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards-based school reform: policy, practice, and performance. In H. F. Ladd, (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
6. District of Columbia Public Charter School Board, (n.d.). Charter school application review criteria. Mimeograph.
7. District of Columbia Public Charter School Board. (1998). Scoring rubrics for use with charter school application review criteria. Mimeograph.
8. Education Week. (1999). Quality counts '99. Washington, DC: Editorial Projects in Education.
9. Elmore, R. F., Abelmann, C.H. & Fuhrman S.H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: from process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65-98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
10. Fuhrman, S. H. (1999). The new accountability. CPRE Policy Briefs RB-27-January. Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
11. Hassel, B. C. (1997). Balancing acts: What charter schools teach us about government-nonprofit contracting. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 26, 442-465.
12. Hassel, B. C. (1998). The case for charter schools. In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 33-51). Washington, DC: Brookings.
13. Hassel, B. C., Burkhardt G., & Hood, A. (1998). The charter school review process: A guide for chartering entities. Washington, DC: Southeastern Regional Vision for Education, U.S. Department of Education.
14. Hill, P. T., Pierce, L. C., Lake, R. (1998). How are public charter schools held accountable? Unpublished manuscript. The University of Washington.
15. Hill, P. T., Pierce, L. C., Lake, R., & Herdman P. (1998). Charter schools: Accountability for results. Annual Report Draft, 30 September. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
16. Ladd, H. F., (1996). Introduction. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 1-19). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
17. Manno, B. V. (1999). Accountability: The key to charter renewal. A guide to help charter schools create their accountability plans. March 1999. [On-line] Available: http://www.edreform.com/pubs/center_for_education_ reform.htm.
18. Manno, B. V., Finn, C.E., Jr., Bierlein L.A., & Vanourek G. (1998). How charter schools are different: Lessons and implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan 79(7), 489-498.
19. Manno, B. V., Finn, C.E., Jr., Bierlein L.A., & Vanourek, G. (1997).Charter school accountability: problems and prospects. Charter Schools in Action Project, Final Report, Part IV. Hudson Institute.
20. Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schoois: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
21. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (1999). Charter school fiscal and operational accountability. Handout presented to the National Charter Schools Conference, Denver, CO, March 14.
22. RPP International. (1999). The state of charter schools: Third-year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
23. Tucker, M. S. & Clark, C.S. (1999). The new accountability. The American School Board Journal 186(1), 26-29.
24. Wells, A. S., Artiles L., Carnochan S., Cooper, C.W., Grutzik C., Holme, J.J., Lopez A., Scott, J., Slayton J., & Vasudeva, A. (1998a). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study often California school districts. Los Angeles: UCLA Charter Schools Study.
25. Wells, A. S., Artiles L., Carnochan S., Cooper, C.W., Grutzik C., Holme, J.J., Lopez A., J. Scott, J., Slayton J., & Vasudeva, A. (1998b). Charter school reform in California: Does it meet expectations? Phi Delta Kappan 80(4), 305-312.
26. Wohlstetter, P., Wenning R., & Briggs, K.L. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy 9, 331-358.