The potential of 'alternative' charter school authorizers

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 89, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 304-309

  Palmer, Louann Bierlein ^a  

^a WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 37549015209     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170708900415     Document Type: Article

References (10)

1. Some would categorize all authorizers other than local district boards as "alternative authorizers," but for the purposes of this research, only those traditionally not involved with K-12 schools are deemed alternative authorizers.
2. Louann Bierlein Palmer and Rebecca Gau, Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade? (Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2003).
3. Bryan Hassel and Meagan Batdorff, High-Stakes: Findings from a National Study of Life-or-Death Decisions by Charter School Authorizers (Chapel Hill, N.C.: Public Impact, 2004).
4. Rebecca Gau, Trends in Charter School Authorizing (Washington, D.C: Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2006).
5. Principles & Standards for Quality Charter School Authorizing, rev. ed. (Chicago: National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2005).
6. To obtain data for this study, e-mail exchanges along with follow-up telephone interviews occurred with one or more primary state-level contacts within each state currently allowing alternative authorizers. In addition, an electronic survey was sent to a primary contact at each of the nonprofit and university authorizers to obtain insights regarding their authorizing activities.
7. For summary details regarding all 41 charter laws, see Bryan Hassel, Todd Ziebarth, and Lucy Steiner, A State Policymaker's Guide to Alternative Authorizers of Charter Schools (Denver: Education Commission of the States, 2005).
8. In addition to the eight states that permit higher education institutions to authorize charter schools directly, public higher education institutions can co-sponsor schools with the state chartering board in Florida and with the state board of education in North Carolina. The law in Texas indicates that such entities can be authorizers, but this is interpreted to mean that a university may bring a charter proposal to its state board of education under a different section of law, but the state ultimately authorizes such schools.
9. For a complete listing of these states and the number of authorizers and charter schools within each, see Louann Bierlein Palmer, "'Alternative' Charter School Authorizers: Playing a Vital Role in the Charter Movement," Progressive Policy Institute, Policy Report, December 2006, available at www.ppionline.org. Click on "Education."
10. These conclusions are generally in line with the national authorizer survey referred to above. See Gau, op. cit. That study concluded that nonprofits and separate state chartering boards were the strongest authorizers, based upon self-reported data. However, the results differ in that Gau concluded that municipalities and higher education entities are equal to state boards of education and county and local school boards. These differences are primarily due to using different criteria to draw conclusions.