Charter Authorizing,Applications,and the Needs of Historically Marginalized Students: A Cross State Analysis

Abstract

Charter school authorizers shape which charter schools open, where they open, and who they serve. We draw on principal agent theory to investigate how the priorities and practices of nine authorizers intersected with charter school applications’ attention to the needs of historically marginalized students. Using data from interviews and applications, we find authorizers vary in orientations toward equity and the ways in which they signal that orientation to charter applicants. Our analysis suggests a robust relationship between authorizer mission and the content found in charter applications, demonstrating the influence of authorizing practices on the contents of charter school applications.

Keywords

charter schools educational equity governance

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

Finnigan

(2001). Charter school authorizers and charter school accountability. SRI International.

Baker

G. P.

(1992). Incentive contracts and performance measurement. Journal of political Economy, 100(3), 598–614.

Beard

K. S.

Adeeko

(2018). Charter school authorization: A gateway to excellence and equity. Journal of Transformative Leadership & Policy Studies, 7(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.36851/jtlps.v7i1.495

Bulkley

K. E.

(1999). Charter school authorizers: A new governance mechanism? Educational Policy, 13(5), 674–697. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904899013005004

Bulkley

K. E.

(2001). Educational performance and charter school authorizers: The accountability bind. Education Policy Analysis Archives. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.v9n37.2001

Bulkley

K. E.

(2005). Understanding the charter school concept in legislation: The cases of Arizona, Michigan and Georgia. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 18, 527–554.

Bulkley

K. E.

(2013). Conceptions of equity: How influential actors view a contested concept. Peabody Journal of Education, 88(1), 10–21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42001739

Bulkley

K. E.

Torres

A. C.

Hashim

A. K.

Woodward

Marsh

J. A.

Strunk

K. O.

Harris

D. N.

(2021). From central office to portfolio manager in three cities: Responding to the principal-agent problem. American Journal of Education, 127(4), 597–626.

Carlson

Lavery

Witte

J. F.

(2010). Charter school governance and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 33(1), 76–94.

10.

Eckes

S. E.

(2010). Charter school legislation and the potential to influence student body diversity. In Lubienski

Weitzel

(Eds.), The charter school experiment (pp. 51–71). Harvard Education Press.

11.

Eckes

S. E.

Plucker

J. A.

(2013). Segregation in charter schools: The important role of university-based authorizers. Education and Urban Society, 45(5), 589–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124513486291

12.

Eckes

S. E.

Trotter

A. E.

(2007). Are charter schools using recruitment strategies to increase student body diversity? Education and Urban Society, 40(1), 62–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124507304012

13.

Gailmard

(2014). Conceptual flavor of principal-agent theory. In Bovens

Goodin

Schillemans

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public accountability (pp. 90–105). Oxford Academic. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.013.0016

14.

Garcia

P. K.

Morales

P. Z.

(2016). Scaling up success for English language learners in charter schools: Exploring the role of charter school authorizers. Journal of School Choice, 10(4), 495–515. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2016.1238279

15.

Hassel

B. C.

(1997). Balancing acts: What charter schools teach us about government-nonprofit contracting. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 26(4), 442–465. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764097264004

16.

Hassel

B. C.

Batdorff

(2004). High stakes: Findings from a national study of life-or-death decisions by charter school authorizers

17.

Henry

K. L.

Jr. (2019). Heretical discourses in post-Katrina charter school applications. American Educational Research Journal, 56(6), 2609–2643. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831219853811

18.

Henry

K. L.

Jr. (2021). “The price of disaster”: The charter school authorization process in post-Katrina New Orleans. Educational Policy, 35(2), 235–258.

19.

Henry

K. L.

Jr. Dixson

A. D.

(2016). “Locking the door before we got the keys” Racial realities of the charter school authorization process in post-Katrina New Orleans. Educational Policy, 30(1), 218–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904815616485

20.

Holmström

(1979). Moral hazard and observability. The Bell Journal of Economics, 10, 74–91.

21.

Holmstrom

Milgrom

(1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7, 24.

22.

Kingsbury

Maranto

Karns

(2020). Charter school regulation as a disproportionate barrier to entry. Urban Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085920923011

23.

Lake

R. J.

Hill

P. T.

(2009). Performance management in portfolio school districts. A report from the doing school choice right project and the national charter school research project. Center on Reinventing Public Education.

24.

Loeb

McEwan

P. J.

(2006). An economic approach to education policy implementation. In M. Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 169–186). State University of New York Press.

25.

Logan

J. R.

Burdick-Will

(2016). School segregation, charter schools, and access to quality education. Journal of Urban Affairs, 38(3), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12246

26.

Maranto

Trivitt

Nichols

Watson

(2017). No contractual obligation to improve education: School boards and their superintendents. Politics & Policy, 45(6), 1003–1023.

27.

McShane

Hatfield

English

(2015). The paperwork pile-up: Measuring the burden of charter school applications. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

28.

Moe

T. M.

(1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739–777.

29.

National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2019). Reinvigorating the pipeline: Insights into Proposed and Approved Charter Schools. Author. http://www.qualitycharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Reinvigorating-the-Pipeline_March_2019_FINAL_WEB.pdf

30.

Oluwole

J. O.

Green

P. C.

III . (2008). No child left behind act, race, and parents involved. Hastings Race & Poverty LJ, 5, 271.

31.

Reardon

S. F.

Owens

(2014). 60 years after Brown: Trends and consequences of school segregation. Annual Review of Sociology, 40, 199–218. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043152

32.

Rees

(1985). The theory of principal and agent part i. Bulletin of Economic Research, 37(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.1985.tb00179.x

33.

Ruble

Harris

D. N.

(2014). To charter or not to charter: Developing a testable model of charter authorization and renewal decisions. Journal of School Choice, 8(3), 362–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/15582159.2014.942166

34.

Stiglitz

J. E.

(1987). Principal and agent. In Eatwell

Milgate

Newman

(Eds.), The new Palgrave: A dictionary of economics (Vol. 3, pp. 966–971.). MacMillan.

35.

Trujillo

(2014). The modern cult of efficiency: Intermediary organizations and the new scientific management. Educational Policy, 28(2), 207–232.

36.

Vergari

(2000). The regulatory styles of statewide charter school authorizers: Arizona, Massachusetts State, and Michigan. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 730–757. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131610021969182

37.

White

Snydman

(2020). Who authorizes charter schools? National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. https://data.publiccharters.org/digest/charter-school-data-digest/who-authorizes-charter-schools/

38.

Worsham

Gatrell

(2005). Multiple principals, multiple signals: A signaling approach to principal-agent relations. Policy Studies Journal, 33(3), 363–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2005.00120.x

39.

Yin

R. K.

(2013). Case study research: Design and methods. SAGE.

40.

Zimmer

Gill

Attridge

Obenauf

(2014). Charter school authorizers and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 9(1), 59–85. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00120