Index of Essential Practices for Charter Authorization
This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.
 |
| Education policy in the U.S. |
| Public education in the U.S. |
| School choice in the U.S. |
| Charter schools in the U.S. |
| Higher education in the U.S. |
| Glossary of education terms |
| Education statistics |
|
The Index of Essential Practices for Charter Authorization is a list of twelve practices or policies that the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) finds vital to the quality of charter schools in the U.S. NACSA, being an advisory organization only, cannot mandate any charter school authorizers to follow these practices, but many authorizers use these practices as a framework to follow as they move forward as organizations. NACSA publishes a new index each year, and incorporates their Standards and Practices document alongside it as a way to further increase authorizer effectiveness.[1]
Summary of Essential Practices
Below is a list of the 2013 Essential Practices. All direct quotes (in bold) were taken from the 2013 Workbook for the Index of Essential Practices.
- "Have a published and available mission for quality authorizing."
- This practice asserts the importance of not only having, but publicizing, a mission statement that the authorizing body will follow. NACSA believes a mission statement will focus all members of the authorizing body towards the goal of ensuring quality education in charter schools.
- "Have staff assigned to authorizing within the organization or by contract."
- NACSA recommends that at least some staff within an authorizing body be full-time. This ensures that each organization has a core of capable authorizers who are experts in each of the skills required to be a quality authorizer. These skills include academic and educational knowledge, a firm grasp of statistics, and the ability to communicate with the local community.
- "Sign a performance contract with each school."
- Even though the charter itself is a contract, NACSA recommends creating a separate document. This document would be an opportunity to specifically state how a charter school will be held accountable for educational quality. A contract that both parties can agree upon reduces the risk for misunderstandings and can increase transparency.
- "Have established, documented criteria for the evaluation of charter applications."
- Having established criteria gives potential applicants a good idea of how to design their charters. It gives authorizers a streamlined process through which all applicants can be measured. When an application is reviewed, documented criteria can be used to ensure consistent and unbiased treatment by authorizers.
- "Publish application timelines and materials."
- The application process is one of the charter authorizer's main responsibilities. Therefore, NACSA claims it is critical to ensure that all interested parties know how and when applications will be processed.
- "Interview all qualified charter applicants."
- NACSA views the charter application process as a typical job application. If the paper application is complete, the entire applicant team should be interviewed to assess their ability to open and run a school successfully. NACSA believes that interviews should be as detailed as possible to ensure that the country's youth and education budgets are in good hands.
- "Use expert panels that include external members to review charter applications."
- Because of the complex issues that influence the operations of charter schools, NACSA believes that few internal authorizer staffs have the expertise to make the best decisions in all cases. To rectify this issue, external experts should be a part of the panels that review charter applications. This better allows the review panels to evaluate the alternative education methods that are often used in charter schools.
- "Grant initial charter terms of five years only."
- According to NACSA, five years is the ideal length for charters. Shorter terms don't allow new schools to adequately demonstrate achievement as they will likely still be in different stages of the start-up process. Longer terms, however, allow under-performing schools to go on without penalty or the threat of an intensive renewal process. If a state law requires 10- or 15-year terms, or if longer terms are permitted, NACSA recommends authorizers require high-stakes reviews in five-year intervals.
- "Require and/or examine annual, independent financial audits of its charter schools."
- Financial audits bring greater transparency on the fiscal practices of charter schools. Continued monitoring helps to ensure that the millions of dollars given to charter schools are spent responsibly.
- "Have established renewal criteria."
- As authorizers are also responsible for renewing charter schools, there must be clear criteria that will determine how well a school must operate. This way, schools have clear goals to work towards, and authorizers have clear requirements that must be met.
- "Have established revocation criteria."
- Just as renewal standards are important, there should also be clear, rigorous standards that authorizers use to revoke charters. This makes it easier for schools to understand where the bottom line lies, and gives the public a better idea of how a school can fall short of its expectations.
- "Provide an annual report to each school on its performance."
- NACSA believes that annual reports are important, because it gives the schools an opportunity to see where they stand. Underperforming schools get a chance to correct any mistakes being made, and schools that are doing well can attempt to capitalize on successes. Reports also help authorizers keep track of how charter schools are doing, which can be helpful in the review process.[2][3]
Research
Although NACSA has put out several iterations of the essential practices, some remain unconvinced of their effectiveness. Matthew Di Carlo, a senior fellow at the nonprofit Albert Shanker Institute in Washington, D.C., performed, and then wrote about, research regarding charter school authorization and how certain practices may affect charter performance. In some cases, Di Carlo did notice that certain practices (such as requiring external experts on the review panel) generally had positive effects on charter performance. Overall, however, there weren't substantial differences in the results of charter schools that do or do not follow NACSA's essential practices. Di Carlo attributed this finding to the amibiguity and dichotomy (the ability for schools to answer "yes" or "no" as to whether or not they follow each of the practices) of the essential practices. For instance, signing a performance contract with a school may help to reinforce the school's goals, but if the contract itself is poorly written, there may be less of a chance for positive impact on the school. Research data would not be able to account for the diversity of these contracts, so positive effects would be harder to identify even among schools that report following all twelve of the essential practices. That said, Di Carlo believes that many of these practices are good ideas for charter school authorizers, as none of his research reported poorer performance in schools that followed them.[4]
See also
- National Association of Charter School Authorizers
- Public education in the United States
- Charter schools
- Accountability measures for charter schools
External link
Footnotes
- ↑ National Association of Charter School Authorizers, "Index of Essential Practices," accessed November 12, 2014
- ↑ National Association of Charter School Authorizers, "The essential practes: why they matter," accessed November 12, 2014
- ↑ National Association of Charter School Authorizers, "2013 Index of Essential Practices," accessed November 12, 2014
- ↑ National Education Policy Center, "The charter school authorization theory," accessed November 12, 2014
