Public charter schools (PCS) are thought to succeed because they have greater autonomy and are held more accountable than traditional public schools (TPS). Though teachers are central to this expectation, there is little evidence about whether teachers in PCS enjoy more autonomy and are held more accountable than teachers in TPS. Also, it is unclear what the franchising of the PCS sector—the growth of schools run by educational management organizations (EMOs)—means for teacher autonomy and accountability. Using nationally representative survey data, this article compares teachers’ perceptions of autonomy and accountability in PCS and TPS and in EMO-run and non-EMO-run PCS. It shows that teachers in PCS reported greater autonomy than teachers in TPS; similarly, teachers in non-EMO-run schools indicated greater autonomy than teachers in EMO-run schools. However, there were no differences in perceptions of accountability across these different school types.
AndrewsR.BoyneG.WalkerR. (2011). Dimensions of publicness and organizational performance: A review of the evidence. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Supplement 3), i301–i319.
2.
AngristJ.PathakP.WaltersC. (2011). Explaining charter school effectiveness. Washington, DC: NBER.
3.
BatdorffM.MaloneyL.MayJ.SpeakmanS.WolfP.ChengA. (2014). Charter school funding: Inequity expands. School Choice Demonstration Project. Fayetteville, AK: University of Arkansas.
4.
BettsJ.TangY.ZauA. (2010). Madness in the method? A critical analysis of popular methods of estimating the effect of charter schools on student achievement. In BettsJ.HillP. (Eds.), Taking measure of charter schools: Better assessments, better policymaking, better schools (pp. 15–32). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
5.
BoserU.HannaR. (2014). In the quest to improve schools, have teachers been stripped of their autonomy?Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
6.
BozemanB. (2000). Bureaucracy and red tape. New York, NY: Prentice Hall.
7.
BozemanB. (2004). All organizations are public: Bridging public and private organizational theories. Washington, DC: Beard Books.
8.
BozemanB.RaineyH. (1998). Organizational rules and the “bureaucratic personality.”American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 163–189.
9.
BrewerD.AhnJ. (2010). What do we know about teachers in charter schools? In BettsJ.HillP. (Eds.), Taking measure of charter schools: Better assessments, better policymaking, better schools (pp. 129–152). New York, NY: Rowman & Littlefield.
10.
BuddeR. (1988). Education by charter: Restructuring school districts. Andover, MA: Regional Laboratory for Educational Improvement of the Northeast and Islands.
11.
BulkleyK. (2004). Balancing act: Educational management organizations and charter school autonomy. In BulkleyK.WohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next (pp. 121–141). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
12.
Burian-FitzgeraldM.LuekensM.StrizekG. (2004). Less red tape or more green teachers: Charter school autonomy and teacher qualifications. In BulkleyK.VohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What happened and what’s next? (pp. 11–31). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Cooper-ThomasH.AndersonN. (2006). Organizational socialization: A new theoretical model and recommendations for future research and HRM practices in organizations. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 21(5), 492–516.
15.
CoxJ.MasonC. (2007). Standardisation versus adaptation: Geographical pressures to deviate from franchise formats. The Service Industries Journal, 27(8), 1053–1072.
16.
CrawfordJ. (2001). Teacher autonomy and accountability in charter schools. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 186–201.
17.
CrewR.Jr.AndersonM. (2003). Accountability and performance in charter schools in Florida: A theory-based evaluation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(2), 189–212.
18.
DavisR. (2011). Blue-collar public servants: How union membership influences public service motivation. The American Review of Public Administration, 41(6), 705–723.
19.
DavisR.StazykE. (2015). Developing and testing a new goal taxonomy: Accounting for the complexity of ambiguity and political support. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(3), 751–775.
20.
DixonJ. (2014). Charter school board members found themselves powerless. Detroit Free Press. Retrieved from http://www.freep.com/
21.
DonahueJ. (1989). The privatization decision: Public ends, private means. New York, NY: Basic Books.
22.
FeeneyM.BozemanB. (2009). Stakeholder red tape: Comparing perceptions of public managers and their private consultants. Public Administration Review, 69(4), 710–726.
23.
FinniganK. (2007). Charter school autonomy the mismatch between theory and practice. Educational Policy, 21(3), 503–526.
24.
FullertonA. (2009). A conceptual framework for ordered logistic regression models. Sociological Methods and Research, 38(2), 306–347.
25.
GardnerD. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for education reform. Washington, DC: National Commission on Excellence in Education.
26.
GarnG.CobbC. (2001). A framework for understanding charter school accountability. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 113–128.
27.
GawlikM. (2008). Breaking loose principal autonomy in charter and public schools. Educational Policy, 22(6), 783–804.
28.
GoodmanJ. (2013). Charter management organizations and the regulated environment: Is it worth the price?Educational Researcher, 42(2), 89–96.
29.
GoodsellC. (2004). The case for bureaucracy: A public administration polemic. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
30.
GrossB.DeArmondM. (2010). Parallel patterns: Teacher attrition in charter vs. district schools. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
31.
HasselB.VergariS. (1999). Charter-granting agencies: The challenges of oversight in a deregulated system. Education and Urban Society, 31(4), 406–428.
32.
HeinrichC. (2010). Third-party governance under No Child Left Behind: Accountability and performance management challenges. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(Supplement 1), i59–i80.
33.
HillP.LakeR.CelioM. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
34.
HosmerD.LemeshowS. (2004). Applied logistic regression. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
KolderieT. (1990). Beyond choice to new public schools: Withdrawing the exclusive franchise in public education (Policy report No. 8). Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
37.
LipskyM. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
LongJ. (1997). Regression models for categorical and limited dependent variables. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
39.
LubienskiC. (2004). Charter school innovation in theory and practice: Autonomy, R&D, and curricular conformity. In BulkleyK.WohlstetterP. (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What’s happened and what’s next? (pp. 72–92). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
40.
MannaP. (2010). Collision course: Federal education policy meets state and local realities. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
41.
McDonnellL. (2008). The politics of educational accountability: Can the clock be turned back? In RyanK.ShepardL. (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 47–67). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
MeierK.O’TooleL. (2011). Comparing public and private management: Theoretical expectations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(Suppl ement3), i283–i299.
43.
MeierK.O’TooleL.BoyneG.WalkerR. (2007). Strategic management and the performance of public organizations: Testing venerable ideas against recent theories. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 17(3), 357–377.
44.
MillotM. (1996). Autonomy, accountability, and the values of public education: A comparative assessment of charter school statutes leading to model legislation. Seattle, WA: Institute for Public Policy and Management.
45.
MironG.GulosinoC. (2013). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations: Fourteenth edition—2011–2012. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center.
46.
MironG.NelsonC. (2002). What’s public about charter schools? Lessons learned about choice and accountability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
47.
MoodC. (2010). Logistic regression: Why we cannot do what we think we can do, and what we can do about it. European Sociological Review, 26(1), 67–82.
48.
MurrayM. (1975). Comparing public and private management: An exploratory essay. Public Administration Review, 35(4), 364–371.
49.
NathanJ. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
OberfieldZ. (2014). Becoming bureaucrats: Socialization at the front lines of government service. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
53.
OpferV. (2001). Charter schools and the panoptic effect of accountability. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 201–215.
54.
O’ReillyC.ChatmanJ.CaldwellD. (1991). People and organizational culture: A profile comparison approach to assessing person-organization fit. The Academy of Management Journal, 34(3), 487–516.
55.
PandeyS.ScottP. (2002). Red tape: A review and assessment of concepts and measures. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 12(4), 553–580.
56.
PerryJ.RaineyH. (1988). The public-private distinction in organization theory: A critique and research strategy. Academy of Management Review, 182–201.
57.
PizantiI.LernerM. (2003). Examining control and autonomy in the franchisor-franchisee relationship. International Small Business Journal, 21(2), 131–159.
58.
PowersJ. (2009). Charter schools: From reform imagery to reform reality. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
59.
RaineyH. (2003). Understanding and managing public organizations (3rd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
60.
RaineyH.BozemanB. (2000). Comparing public and private organizations: Empirical research and the power of the a priori. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 447–469.
61.
RaineyH.ChunY. (2005). Public and private management compared. In FerlieE.LynnL.Jr.PollittC. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of public management (pp. 72–102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
62.
RavitchD. (2013). Reign of error: The hoax of the privatization movement and the danger to America’s public schools. New York, NY: Knopf.
63.
RenzulliL.ParrottH.BeattieI. (2011). Racial mismatch and school type: Teacher satisfaction and retention in charter and traditional public schools. Sociology of Education, 84(1), 23–48.
RobinsonL.JewellN. (1991). Some surprising results about covariate adjustment in logistic regression models. International Statistical Review, 59(2), 227–240.
66.
SalamonL. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
67.
SangerM. (2003). The welfare marketplace: Privatization and welfare reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
68.
ScottJ.DiMartinoC. (2010). Hybridized, franchised, duplicated, and replicated: Charter schools and management organizations. In LubienskiC.WeitzelP. (Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 171–196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
SimonH. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations. New York, NY: Free Press.
71.
SossJ.FordingR.SchramS. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
72.
StangerA. (2009). One nation under contract: The outsourcing of American power and the future of foreign policy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
73.
StanworthJ.CurranJ. (1999). Colas, burgers, shakes, and shirkers: Towards a sociological model of franchising in the market economy. Journal of Business Venturing, 14(4), 323–344.
74.
StuitD.SmithT. (2012). Explaining the gap in charter and traditional public school teacher turnover rates. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 268–279.
75.
TaylorJ.O’DayJ.Le FlochK. (2010). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Department of Education.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
