Charter schools are immersed in two accountability processes: They are accountable to public entities (bureaucratic accountability), and they are accountable to the parents, students, and teachers who have chosen the schools and who may exit them if dissatisfied (market accountability). This study focuses on bureaucratic accountability and examines the regulatory styles of active statewide charter school authorizers (CSAs) in Arizona, Massachusetts, and Michigan. Key features of the legal design, task and political environments, and leadership of the CSAs are examined. The findings suggest that the CSAs tend to favor a “negotiated compliance” regulatory style rather than an “enforced compliance” approach to the oversight of charter schools. The study also raises questions about the appropriate mechanisms for holding public schools accountable for performance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arizona Department of Education . (2000).Frequently asked questions about charter schools [Online]. Available: http://www.ade.state.az.us/schools/charter-schools/faqs.htm
2.
Arsen, D. , Plank D., & Sykes, G. (1999).School choice policies in Michigan: The rules matter (Policy report). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
3.
Bardach, E. , & Kagan, R. A. (1982).Going by the book: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
4.
Cibulka, J. G. , & Derlin, R. L. (1998). Authentic education accountability policies: Implementation of state initiatives in Colorado and Maryland.Educational Policy, 12(1-2), 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 Institute.
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 Institute.
8.
Frank, N. , & Lombness, M. (1988). Gaining regulatory compliance: Law enforcement and power in an interactionist perspective.Administration and Society,20, 71-91.
9.
Fuhrman, S. H. (1999).The new accountability (CPRE Policy Briefs RB-27-January). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
10.
Gormley, W. T., Jr. (1997). Regulatory enforcement: Accommodation and conflict in four states. Public Administration Review,57(4), 285-293.
11.
Gormley, W. T., Jr. (1998). Regulatory enforcement styles.Political Research Quarterly,51, 363-383.
12.
Grabosky, P. , & Brathwaite, J. (1986).Of manners gentle: Enforcement strategies of Australian business regulatory agencies. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
13.
Gunningham, N. (1987). Negotiated noncompliance: A case study of regulatory failure.Law & Policy,9, 69-91.
14.
Hassel, B. C. (1999).The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
15.
Hassel, B. C. , & Vergari, S. (1999). Charter-granting agencies: The challenges of oversight in a deregulated system.Education and Urban Society,31(4), 406-428.
16.
Hawkins, K. , & Thomas, J. M. (Eds.). (1984).Enforcing regulation. Boston: Kluwer-Nijhoff.
17.
Hill, P., Pierce, L., & Lake, R. (1998).How are public charter schools held accountable? Unpublished manuscript, The University of Washington, Seattle.
18.
Hill, P. , Pierce, L., Lake, R., & Herdman, P. (1998, September 30).Charter schools: Accountability for results (Annual report draft). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
19.
Hutter, B. (1988).The reasonable arm of the laws? The law enforcement procedures of environ- mental health officials. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
20.
Hutter, B. (1989). Variations in regulatory enforcement styles.Law and Policy,11, 153-174.
21.
Kagan, R. A. (1986). Regulating business, regulating schools: The problem of regulatory unreasonableness. In D. L. Kirp & D. N. Jensen (Eds.),School days, rule days: The legalization and regulation of education (pp. 64-90). Philadelphia: Falmer.
22.
Kagan, R. A. (1994). Regulatory enforcement. In D. Rosenbloom & R. Schwartz (Eds.),Handbook of regulation and administrative law (pp. 383-422). New York: Marcel Dekker.
23.
Kagan, R. A. , & Skolnick, J. H. (1993). Banning smoking: Compliance without enforcement. In R. Rabin & S. Sugarman (Eds.),Smoking policy: Law, politics, and culture (pp. 69-94). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Kingdon, J. W. (1995).Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: HarperCollins.
25.
Kolderie, T. (1992). Chartering diversity.Equity and Choice,9, 28-31.
26.
Kolderie, T. (1994).The essentials of the “charter school strategy” (Typescript). St. Paul, MN: Center for Policy Studies.
27.
Ladd, H. F. (Ed.). (1996). Introduction. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.),Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 1-19). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
28.
Latin, H. (1991). Regulatory enforcement, administrative incentives, and the new clean air act. Environmental Law,21, 1647-1720.
29.
Loveless, T. , & Jasin, C. (1998). Starting from scratch: Political and organizational challenges facing charter schools.Educational Administration Quarterly,34, 9-30.
30.
Manno, B. V. (1999).Accountability: The key to charter renewal, a guide to help charter schools create their accountability plans [Online]. Available: http://www.edreform.com/pubs/charter_school_accountability.htm
31.
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.
32.
Manno, B. V. , Finn, C. E., Jr., & Vanourek, G. (1999, September).Charter school accountability: Problems and prospects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
33.
Maranto, R. , Milliman, S., Hess, F., & Grisham, A. (1999).School choice in the real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools. Boulder, CO: Westview.
34.
Massachusetts Office of the Inspector General . (1999).A management review of commonwealth charter schools. Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
35.
Michigan Office of the Auditor General . (1997).Performance audit of charter schools office and Michigan resource center for charter schools, Central Michigan University. Lansing: State of Michigan.
36.
Mintrom, M. (2000).Leveraging local innovation: The case of Michigan’s charter schools (Policy report). East Lansing: Michigan State University.
37.
Nathan, J. (1994).Charter public schools: A brief history and preliminary lessons. Minneapolis: Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota Center for School Change.
38.
Nathan, J. (1996).Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
39.
Olson, Lynn . (1999). Shining a spotlight on results.Education Week,18(17), 8-10.
40.
RPP International , Jennings, W., Premack, E., Adelmann, A., & Solomon, D. (1999).A comparison of charter school legislation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
41.
Sabatier, P. , & Mazmanian, D. (1983).Can regulation work? The implementation of the 1972 California coastline initiative. New York: Plenum.
42.
Scholz, J. T. , Twombly, J., & Headrick, B. (1991). Street level political controls over federal bureaucracy.American Political Science Review,85, 829-850.
43.
Scholz, J. T. , & Wei, F. H. (1986). Regulatory enforcement in a federalist system.American Political Science Review,80, 1249-1270.
44.
Shover, N. , Clelland, D. A., & Lynxwiler, J. (1984).Enforcement or negotiation: Constructing a regulatory bureaucracy. Albany: State University of New York Press.
45.
Steele, E. H. (1987). Community participation and the function of rules: The case of urban zoning boards.Law & Policy,9, 279-304.
46.
Tucker, M. S. , & Clark, C. S. (1999). The new accountability.The American School Board Journal,186(1), 26-29.
47.
Vergari, S. (1999). Charter schools: A primer on the issues.Education and Urban Society,31(4), 389-405.
48.
Wells, A. S. , Artiles, L., Carnochan, S., Cooper, C. W., Grutzik, C., Holme, J. J., Lopez, A., Scott, J., Slayton, J., & Vasudeva, A. (1998).Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts (Policy report). Los Angeles: UCLA.
49.
Wells, A. S., & Research Associates . (1998). Charter school reform in California: Does it meet expectations?Phi Delta Kappan,80(4), 305-312.
50.
Wilson, J. Q. (1989).Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
51.
Witte, J. (1996). School choice and student performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.),Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 149-176). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
52.
Wolfe, L. C. (1998).Public school academy authorizing bodies: Chartering authorities, over-sight bodies and fiscal agents, a framework for oversight (Discussion paper prepared for Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, Ferris State University, and Grand Valley State University). Ann Arbor, MI: Dykema Gossett.
