The concept of scale has gained purchase across social sectors in recent years as organizational leaders and funders seek to maximize the impact of promising social innovations.
Purpose/Objective
We apply insights from recent scholarship on ideas as mechanisms for change to explain how the idea of “getting to scale” intersected with political opportunities and human and financial resources in the early diffusion of the charter management organization (CMO).
Research Design
As the birthplace and a political locus of the CMO form, California is an ideal vantage point from which to understand the early years of the form's diffusion. We conducted interviews with California CMO and non-CMO leaders, principals, and funders. Our interviews were designed to understand when and why CMO leaders thought about growth, the challenges and opportunities associated with growth, organizational goals and strategic priorities, and whether and how funders shaped CMO development and plans. In addition, we constructed a school-level panel dataset for the 1991–92 to 2006–07 school years using data from the National Center for Education Statistics Common Core of Data and the California Department of Education. We included charter organizational form, enrollment, and school founding and closure years. We also joined multiple Foundation Center datasets to create a grant-level dataset for the years 1999 to 2006 that includes grant amount, grant type, recipient, and funder. Finally, we conducted participant and nonpar-ticipant observations at CMO board meetings, foundation staff meetings and presentations, and charter school conferences and meetings.
Findings/Results
Understood and framed as the vehicle for getting to scale, the CMO form drew a disproportionate share of private philanthropy dollars, appealed to a new class of professionals from outside of education, and was successfully distinguished from alternative charter forms, all of which contributed to its early diffusion.
Conclusions/Recommendations
We develop a fuller understanding of the charter school movement, describing how the diffusion of the CMO form displaced ideas about school-level autonomy and decentralization in favor of ideas about getting to scale and tipping the system. The study also offers insight to scholars analyzing current and past efforts at educational reform by emphasizing the roles played by ideas, opportunities, and resources.
BakerD. P., & LeTendreG. K. (2005). National differences, global similarities: World culture and the future of schooling. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
3.
BattilanaJ., LecaB., & BoxenbaumE. (2009). How actors change institutions: Towards a theory of institutional entrepreneurship. Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 65—107.
4.
BélandD. (2009). Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(5), 701—718.
5.
BenfordR. D., & SnowD. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611—639.
6.
BilligM. (1996). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
7.
BilligM., CondorS., EdwardsD., GaneM., MiddletonD., & RadleyA. (1988). Ideological dilemmas: A social psychology of everyday thinking. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
8.
BraceyG. W. (2002). The war against America's public schools: Privatizing schools, commercializing education. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
9.
BradachJ. L. (2003). Going to scale: The challenge of replicating social programs. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Spring, 19—25.
10.
BuckleyJ., & SchneiderM. (2007). Charter schools: Hope or hype?Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
11.
BuddeR. (1989). Education by charter. Phi Delta Kappan, 70(7), 518—520.
12.
BuddinR., & ZimmerR. W. (2003). Academic outcomes. In ZimmerR. W., BuddinR. J., ChauD., DaleyG. A., GillB., GuarinoC. M., Brewer… D. J. (Eds.), Charter school operations and performance: Evidence from California (pp. 37—62). Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
13.
BulkleyK. E., & BurchP. (2011). The changing nature of private engagement in public education: For-profit and nonprofit organizations and educational reform. Peabody Journal of Education, 86(3), 236—251.
14.
California Department of Education, Education Data Partnership. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.ed-data.org
15.
CampbellJ. L. (2004). Institutional change and globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
CarrollG. R., & HannanM. T. (2000). The demography of corporations and industries. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
17.
Charter Schools Act of 1992, California Education Code §47600- §47664.
18.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013). National charter school study. Stanford, CA: Author.
19.
ChubbJ. E., & MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America's schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20.
CoburnC. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change. Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3—12.
21.
CoburnC. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43(3), 343—349.
22.
Cochran-SmithM., & FriesM. K. (2001). Sticks, stones, and ideology: The discourse of reform in teacher education. Educational Researcher, 30(8), 3—15.
23.
CohenD. K., PeurachD. J., GlazerJ. L., GatesK. E., & GoldinS. (2013). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
24.
ColyvasJ. A., & JonssonS. (2011). Ubiquity and legitimacy: Disentangling diffusion and institutionalization. Sociological Theory, 29(1), 27—53.
25.
CressD. M., & SnowD. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063—1104.
26.
DedeC. (2006). Scaling Up: Evolving innovations beyond ideal settings to challenging contexts of practice. In SawyerR. K. (Ed.) Cambridge handbook of the learning sciences (pp. 551—566). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
27.
DeesJ. G. (2001). The meaning of social entrepreneurship. Durham, NC: Center for the Advancement of Social Entrepreneurship, Duke Fuqua School of Business. Retrieved from http://www.caseatduke.org/documents/dees_sedef.pdf
28.
EdwardsB., CraneE., BarondessH., & PerryM. (2009). California charter schools: 2009 update on issues and performance. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
29.
EisenhardtK. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management Review, 14, 532—550.
30.
ElmoreR. F. (1996). Getting to scale with successful educational practices. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 1—26.
31.
FabricantM., & FineM. (2012). Charter schools and the corporate makeover of public education: What's at stake?New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
32.
FarrellC., WohlstetterP., & SmithJ. (2012). Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling up what works. Educational Policy, 26(4), 499—532.
33.
FinnC. E., MannoB. V.Jr., & VanourekG. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
34.
FinniganK. S. (2007). Charter school autonomy: The mismatch between theory and practice. Educational Policy, 21(3), 503—526.
35.
FrankK. A., ZhaoY., & BormanK. (2004). Social capital and the diffusion of innovations within organizations: The case of computer technology in schools. Sociology of Education, 77(2), 148—171.
FullerB. (2000). Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
38.
FurgesonJ., GillB., HaimsonJ., KillewaldA., McCulloughM., Nichols-BarrerI., … LakeR (2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student impacts. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Bothell, The Center for Reinventing Public Education; and Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
39.
GillB. P., TimpaneP. M., RossK. E., & BrewerD. J. (2001). Rhetoric versus reality: What we know and what we need to know about vouchers and charters. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
40.
GlassG. V., & WelnerK. G. (2011). Online k-12 schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain private ventures in need of public regulation. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/online-k-12-schooling
41.
GoffmanE. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
42.
GrossmanF. D. (2010). Dissent from within: How educational insiders use protest to create policy change. Educational Policy, 24(4), 655—686.
43.
HallP. A. (1993). Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: The case of economic policymaking in Britain. Comparative Politics, 25(3), 275—296.
44.
HanushekE. A., KainJ. F., RivkinR. G., & BranchG. F. (2005). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice (NBER Working Paper No. 11252). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
45.
HasselB. (2008). Attracting entrepreneurs to K-12. In HessF. M. (Ed.), The future of education entrepreneurship: Possibilities for school reform (pp. 45—64). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
46.
HenigJ. R., HolyokeT. T., BrownH., & Lacireno PaquetN. (2005). The influence of founder type on charter school structures and operations. American Journal of Education, 111(4), 487—588.
47.
HessF. M. (2005). With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 education. Harvard Education Press.
48.
HillP. T., AngelL., & ChristensenJ. (2006). Charter school achievement studies. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 139—150.
49.
HillP. T., & LakeR. J. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
50.
HillP. T., PierceL. C., & GuthrieJ. W. (1997). Reinventing public education: How contracting can transform America's schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
51.
HoxbyC. M. (2004). A straightforward comparison of charter schools and regular public schools in the United States. Working paper, Harvard Institute of Economic Research.
52.
HuertaL. A., & ZuckermanA. (2009). An institutional theory analysis of charter schools: Addressing institutional challenges to scale. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(3), 414—431.
53.
KeynesJ. M. (1936). The general theory of interest, employment and money. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
54.
KingB. G., ClemensE. S., & FryM. (2011). Identity realization and organizational forms: Differentiation and consolidation of identities among Arizona's charter schools. Organization Science, 22(3), 554—572.
55.
KingdonJ. W. (1993). How do issues get on public policy agendas. In WilsonW. J. (Ed.), Sociology and the Public Policy Agenda (pp. 40—50). New York, NY: Sage.
56.
KuhnT. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
57.
LakeR., DusseaultB., BowenM., DemerittA., & HillP. (2010). The national study of charter management organization (CMO) effectiveness: Report on interim findings. Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
58.
LawrenceS., & MukaiR. (2011). Foundation growth and giving estimates: Current outlook. New York, NY: The Foundation Center.
59.
LeschlyS. (2004). Aspire Public Schools (Harvard Business School Case #9-804-114). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School
60.
LewisW. D., & YoungT. V. (2013). The politics of accountability teacher education policy. Educational Policy, 27(2), 190—216.
61.
LiebermanR. C. (2002). Ideas, institutions, and political order: Explaining political change. American Political Science Review, 96(4), 697—712.
62.
LounsburyM., VentrescaM., & HirschP. M. (2003). Social movements, field frames and industry emergence: A cultural-political perspective on U.S. recycling. Socio-Economic Review, 1(1), 71—104.
63.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395—443.
64.
McAdamD. (1999). Political process and the development of black insurgency, 1930–1970 (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
65.
McAdamD., & ScottW. R. (2005). Organizations and movements. In DavisG. F., McAdamD., ScottW. R., & ZaldM. N. (Eds.) Social movements and organization theory (pp. 4—40). New York: Cambridge University Press.
66.
McAdamD., TarrowS., & TillyC. (2001). Dynamics of contention. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
67.
McCammonH. J., MuseC. S., NewmanH. D., & TerrellT. M. (2007). Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the U.S. women's jury movements. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 725—749.
68.
McCarthyJ. D., & ZaldM. N. (1977). Resource mobilization and social movements: A partial theory. American Journal of Sociology, 82(6), 1212—1241.
69.
McDonaldS. K., KeeslerV. A., KauffmanN. J., & SchneiderB. (2006). Scaling-up exemplary interventions. Educational Researcher, 35(3), 15—24.
70.
MehtaJ. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285—324.
71.
MeierD. (1995). The power of their ideas: Lessons for America from a small school in Harlem. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
72.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340—363.
73.
MeyerJ. W., & RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W. & Associates (Eds.), Environment and organizations. Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 78—109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
74.
MeyersonD., BergerA., & QuinnR. (2010). Playing the field: Implications of scaling in the California charter school movement. In BloomP. N., & SklootE. (Eds.), Scaling Social Impact: New Thinking (pp. 65—79). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
75.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1984). Qualitative data analysis: A sourcebook of new methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
76.
MironG., & GulosinoC. (2013). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations: Fourteenth edition—2011–2012. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/EMO-profiles-11-12
77.
MolnarA., WilsonG., RestoriM, & HutchisonJ. (2002). Profiles of for-profit education management companies: Fourth annual report. Tempe, AZ: Commercialism in Education Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, College of Education, Arizona State University. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/EMO102.pdf
78.
MorrillC. (2006). Institutional change through interstitial emergence: The growth of alternative dispute resolution in American law, 1965–1995. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Irvine.
79.
NathanJ. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ParsonsC. (2002). Showing ideas as causes: The origins of the European Union. International Organization, 56(1), 47—84.
83.
PrattM. G., RockmannK. W., & KaufmannJ. B. (2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235—262.
84.
QuinnR., Tompkins-StangeM., & MeyersonD. (2014). Beyond grantmaking: Philanthropic foundations as agents of change and institutional entrepreneurs. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 43(6), 950—968.
85.
ReckhowS. (2013). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
86.
ReckhowS., & SnyderJ. W. (2014). The expanding role of philanthropy in education politics. Educational Researcher, 43(4), 186—195.
87.
RojasF. (2007). From black power to black studies: How a radical social movement became an academic discipline. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
88.
SchneibergM., KingM., & SmithT. (2008). Social movements and organizational form: Cooperative alternatives to corporations in the American insurance, dairy and grain industries. American Sociological Review, 73(4), 635—667.
89.
ScottJ. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23(1), 106—136.
90.
ScottW. R. (2001). Institutions and organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
91.
SmithK., & PetersenJ. L. (2006). What is educational entrepreneurship? In HessF. M. (Ed.), Educational entrepreneurship: Realities, challenges, possibilities (pp. 21—44). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
92.
SnowD. A., & BenfordR. D. (2005). Clarifying the relationship between framing and ideology. In JohnstonH., & NoakesJ. A. (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 205—211). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
93.
SnowD. A., & SouleS. A. (2010). A primer on social movements. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
94.
SomersM. R., & BlockF. (2005). From poverty to perversity: Ideas, markets, and institutions over 200 years of welfare debate. American Sociological Review, 70(2), 260—87.
95.
SteenslandB. (2006). Cultural categories and the American welfare state: The case of guaranteed income policy. American Journal of Sociology, 111(5), 1273—1326.
96.
SwaminathanA., & WadeJ. B. (2001). Social movement theory and the evolution of new organizational forms. In SchoonhovenC., & RomanelliE. (Eds.), The entrepreneurship dynamic: Origins of entrepreneurship and the evolution of industries (pp. 286—314). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
TyackD. B., & CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
99.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). Statistical Abstract of the United States. Social Insurance and Human Services, Table 581. Foundations—Number and Finances by Asset Size: 1990 to 2009. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/
100.
WalderA. G. (2009). Political sociology and social movements. Annual Reviews in Sociology, 35, 393—412.
101.
WellsA. S. (2002). Where charter school policy fails. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
102.
WestbyD. L. (2005) Strategic imperative, ideology, and frames. In JohnstonH., & NoakesJ. A. (Eds.), Frames of protest: Social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 217—235). Lanham, MA: Rowman & Littlefield.
103.
WilsonS. F., LevinH., & MathewsJ. (2005). Realizing the promise of brand-name schools. Brookings papers on education policy, 8, 89—135.
104.
WisemanA. W. (2004). Management of semi-public organizations in complex environments. Public Administration and Management: An Interactive Journal, 9(2), 166—181.
105.
WohlstetterP., & ChauD. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based practices in charter and other public schools. In BulkleyK. E., & WohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What's happened and what's next (pp. 53—71). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
106.
YinR. (1994). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
107.
ZaldM. N. (1998). Culture, ideology, and strategic framing. In McAdamD., McCarthyJ. D., & ZaldM. N. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on social movements: Political opportunities, mobilizing structures, and cultural framings (pp. 261—274). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
