U . S . D E P A R T M E N T O F E D U C A T I O N

Supporting Charter School Excellence 

Through Quality Authorizing

I n n o v ati o n s i n E d u cati o n 

Prepared by Public Impact and WestEd

For

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Innovation and Improvement

2007

Supporting Charter School Excellence 

Through Quality Authorizing

I n n o v ati o n s i n E d u cati o n 
Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

This report was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. ED-04-CO-0060-0001, Task 

Order No. 2 with WestEd. Sharon Kinney Horn served as the contracting officer’s representative. The content 

of this report does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Education, nor does 

the mention of trade names, commercial products or organizations imply endorsements by the U.S. government. This publication also contains URLs for information created and maintained by private organizations. 

This information is provided for the reader’s convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside 

information. Further, the inclusion of information or URL does not reflect the importance of the organization, 

nor is it intended to endorse any views expressed, or products or services offered.

U.S. Department of Education

Margaret Spellings

Secretary

Office of Innovation and Improvement

Morgan S. Brown

Assistant Deputy Secretary

Office of Parental Options and Information

John Fiegel

Director

June 2007

This report is in the public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission 

to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing, Washington, D.C., 2007.

To order copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, 

MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov;

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not yet available in 

your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1-877-576-7734.

or order online at: www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at:

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/choice/charter/authorizing/index.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, or computer diskette. For 

more information, please contact the Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-0852 or (202) 260-0818.
iii

Contents

Foreword	 vii

Acknowledgments	 ix

Introduction	 1

Process for Selecting Profiled Authorizers (2)

The Authorizers Profiled in This Guide (3)

Overview of This Guide (4)

Part I. Common Practices Among High-quality Authorizing Offices	 9

Authorizers Build a Strong Organization (10)

Authorizers Develop a Strong Talent Pool (16)

Authorizers Select for Quality (19)

Authorizers Support New School Operators (28)

Authorizers Provide Meaningful and Transparent Oversight (35)

Authorizers Hold Schools Accountable for Meeting Performance Goals (45)

Part I Conclusion: Common Practices (49)

Part II. Policy Considerations	 51

Level and Type of External Accountability (51)

Level of Operational Autonomy (53)

Vulnerability to Political Change (55)

Limits on Charter School Growth (56)

Level and Type of Funding (57)

Part II Conclusion: Policy Considerations (58)

Part III. Profiles of Authorizers Highlighted in Parts I and II 61

California Department of Education Charter Schools Division (61)

Chicago Public Schools Office of New Schools (65)

Ferris State University (68)

Indianapolis Mayor’s Office (71)

Massachusetts Department of Education Charter School Office (74)

New York City Office of Charter Schools (78)

State University of New York Charter Schools Institute (81)

Volunteers of America of Minnesota Charter School Sponsorship Program (84)
iv

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Appendix A. Research Methodology	 89

Study Framework and Data Collection (89)

Site Selection Process (90)

Selection Criteria (91)

Analysis and Reporting (91)

Using the Guide (92)

Appendix B. Resources	 93

Notes	 95
Illustrations

Figures

1. Common Practices Among Highlighted Charter School Authorizers (9)

2. SUNY Institute Staff Structure (11)

3. VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship Program Selection Criteria (20)

4. Indianapolis Mayor’s Office Application Steps (22)

5. Flyer to Recruit Members for Chicago Transition Advisory Councils (24)

6. Indianapolis Mayor’s Office Timeline for Accountability Plan Development, 

Implementation, and Oversight (30)

7. Excerpt from SUNY Institute’s Guidelines for Writing Accountability Plans (32)

8. VOA of MN Charter School Start-up Progress Checklist (33)

9. NYC CCSE Individual Charter School Support Plan (34)

10. Educational Service Provider Agreement (Excerpted from CMU Provider Policies) (36)

11. Sample from Massachusetts Department of Education Opening Procedures Handbook (38)

12. Excerpt from California Department of Education’s Preopening Site Inspection Checklist 

(41)

13. Ferris State University Field Representative Job Description (43)

14. Checklist of Common Practices Used by Highlighted Charter School Authorizers (50)

15. Policy-related Factors That Affect the Quality of Charter Authorizing (51)

16. Checklist of Policy-related Factors That Affect the Quality of Charter Authorizing (59)

Tables

1. Selected Variables of Profiled Authorizers and Their Schools (6)

2. Examples of Different Application Processes (21)
vi

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 
vii

Foreword

I’m pleased to introduce this newest edition in the Innovations in Education book series, which 

identifies real-world examples of innovative education practices that are helping students achieve 

in schools all across the nation. This guide complements two additional publications in the series, 

Charter High Schools Closing the Achievement Gap, which was released in 2006, and a forthcoming 

publication regarding high-performing K–8 charter schools.

The charter school movement has come a long way since 1991 when the first charter law was 

passed in Minnesota. Now, 40 states and the District of Columbia have adopted charter laws, and 

some 3,600 charter schools are operating throughout the nation, serving over one million children. 

In many local school districts, charter schools have raised their students’ academic achievement and 

influenced other district schools to do more to raise their performance. 

Throughout the last few years, it has become apparent how critical charter school authorizers are 

in advancing the quality and growth of charter schools. They’re the ones responsible for approving 

new schools, monitoring schools’ compliance with applicable laws, providing technical assistance, 

and evaluating schools’ performance. As such, authorizers are in a powerful position to close ineffective schools and champion successful ones so that they can serve as models for others. 

One of the most important purposes of charter schools is to give parents high-quality options for 

their children’s education. The eight authorizers profiled in this guide share this commitment to 

quality and remain focused on improving and expanding the education options in their areas. 

The No Child Left Behind Act recognizes the value and vitality of charter schools, and their important role in helping us reach our goal of every child reading and doing math at grade level by 2014. 

I hope this guide will prove a helpful resource for policymakers, current charter school authorizers, 

and potential authorizers so that they may replicate the successful practices described within the 

following pages. 

Thank you. 

Margaret Spellings

U.S. Secretary of Education
viii

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 
ix

Acknowledgments

This guide was developed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of 

Innovation and Improvement. Sharon Horn was project director.

An external advisory group provided feedback to refine the study scope, define the selection criteria, and clarify the text. Members included Milo Cutter, Mark Cannon, Tony Gerlicz, Frederick Hess, 

Margaret Raymond, Mary Street, and Caprice Young.

Staff in the Department of Education who provided input and reviewed drafts include Sandra Cook, 

Tom Corwin, Kate Devine, Cynthia Dorfman, David Dunn, Lorenzo Esters, Sarah Flowers, Steve Freid, 

Virginia Gentles, Cathy Grimes-Miller, Margaret Guenther, Dean Kern, Meredith Miller, Tiffany Tabor, 

and James Woodsome.

James Goenner, Executive Director of the Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University, was 

kind enough to provide the study team with details about several of the center’s policies and practices. 

The eight authorizers participating in the development of this guide and the case studies on which it is 

based were generous with both their time and attention to this project. We would like to thank those 

who were instrumental in coordinating and participating in the site visits that inform the case studies 

and this guide:

Jennifer Sneed, Senior Vice President

Charter Schools Institute

State University of New York

41 State Street, Suite 700

Albany, NY 12207

518-433-8277

Ronald Rizzo, Interim Director

Ferris State University 

Charter Schools Office

1020 E. Maple Street, Suite 114

Big Rapids, MI 49307-1676

231-591-5802 

Marta Reyes, Director

California Department of Education

Charter Schools Division

1430 N Street, Room 5401

Sacramento, CA 95814

916-322-6029

Daniel Roy, Director

Indianapolis Charter Schools

2501 City County Building

200 E. Washington Street

Indianapolis, IN 46201

317-327-3618 

New York City Office of Charter Schools

52 Chambers Street, Room 405

New York, NY 10007

212-374-5402

Justin Testerman, Director

Volunteers of America of Minnesota

Charter School Sponsorship Program

924 19th Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55404

612-310-8949

Mary Street, Director of Charter Schools

Massachusetts Department of Education

350 Main Street

Malden, MA 02148-5023

781-338-3227

Beatriz Rendon, Executive Director

Office of New Schools

Chicago Public Schools

125 S. Clark Street, 5th Floor

Chicago, IL 60603

773-553-1530
Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 


Introduction

Most policymakers, charter school operators, and others immersed in the charter school movement 

since it began in the early 1990s have focused their attention primarily on charter schools, not on the 

public bodies that license these schools to operate. As the charter school movement has grown, however, there has been increasing recognition that effective charter school authorizing is critical to the 

success of the charter school sector. Charter school authorizers are entities charged by law to approve 

new schools, monitor their compliance with applicable laws and regulations, and evaluate their performance to make decisions about charter renewal and closure. The role of charter authorizers* has 

become particularly important in the context of increasing accountability under the No Child Left 

Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

Intended primarily for policymakers and charter 

school authorizers and potential authorizers, this 

guide describes various ways that authorizers 

and policymakers can achieve quality authorizing. It provides detailed information designed to 

help policymakers at the state and national levels and to help current and potential authorizers 

replicate these successful models and practices.

In order to provide specific illustrations of abstract concepts involved in successful charter 

authorizing, this guide highlights the practices 

of eight charter authorizers that have fostered 

the development of high-quality charter schools. 

By profiling the work of these authorizers, this 

guide intends to enhance the knowledge base, 

capacities, and practices of all types of authorizers, aiming to strengthen the quality and success of charter schools nationwide. The field of 

charter authorizing is relatively new, though, 

and there is a great deal of necessary experimentation—and resulting variation—among the 

offices profiled here.

It is outside the scope of this guide to explore 

all of the processes and responsibilities in 

which authorizers engage. Instead, the guide 

highlights the experiences of authorizing agencies that are successful at the most challenging 

aspects of quality authorizing (e.g., providing 

transparent oversight of the schools they authorize). By focusing on these challenging and potentially make-or-break issues, the examples in 

this guide are intended to help move the field 

of high-quality authorizing forward.

The type of entity that may authorize charter schools varies by state. During the 2004–05 

school year, according to estimates by the 

* For purposes of the federal Charter Schools Program, “authorized 

public chartering agency” is definited as “a State educational agency, 

local educational agency, or other public entity that has the authority 

pursuant to State law and approved by the Secretary to authorize or 

approve a charter school” (The Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended by The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 

§5210[4]). Each of the eight profiled authorizing offices has an 

oversight body that ultimately approves, denies, renews or revokes 

each charter and meets this federal definition (for more information, 

see Part II - Policy Considerations).


Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

researchers who developed this guide, there were 

more than 800 charter school authorizers across 

the country. Nearly 90 percent of active authorizers are local education agencies (LEAs). The rest 

are county, regional, or intermediate agencies; 

colleges and universities; state boards, commissions, and departments of education; nonprofit 

organizations; independent, special-purpose charter boards; and mayors’ offices and city councils.

Most states allow more than one type of entity to 

authorize charter schools. Most also offer charter school developers some degree of choice in 

selecting an authorizer. But some states restrict 

choice to designated geographic areas. In other 

states, local school boards are the only option 

for authorizing.

The volume of authorizing varies significantly 

by authorizer type. Although most authorizers 

are LEAs, the most typical LEA authorizes only 

a very small number of charter schools: Almost 

80 percent of the LEAs that are active authorizers have authorized only one or two charter 

schools each.1

Process for Selecting Profiled 

Authorizers

Because there are many strong authorizing offices across the country, the selection process for 

this guide was challenging. As further described 

in Appendix A, advisors and researchers with 

extensive charter school experience conducted 

several levels of review in order to select the 

eight authorizers profiled in this guide. 

Preparation began with a literature review examining the existing research about authorizing 

and oversight of charter schools, including theories and essays as well as reviews of empirical 

research and major research studies. This review identified variables that the research suggests contribute most to effective authorizing. 

(For more information on the existing research 

base, see Appendix B: Resources.)

The set of variables were organized into a 

framework that was reviewed by an advisory 

group composed of seven researchers and expert practitioners in charter schools and charter 

authorizing. Meeting on Feb. 5, 2006, in Washington, D.C., the advisors refined and validated 

the framework, prioritized key concepts, and 

suggested methods for authorizer selection.

The variables identified by literature review 

and refined by the advisory group were used 

to guide the selection of the sites profiled in 

this guide and the data collection at these sites. 

The site selection process involved several 

steps. In order to narrow the list of authorizers 

that could potentially be included in the guide, 

the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Innovation and Improvement, sent out a memo 

inviting people to voluntarily nominate authorizers that they believed met the initial set of 

criteria identified by research and confirmed by 

the advisory board.

Several factors were considered in screening the 

list of potential sites, including: the number of 

nominations for a particular authorizer; whether 

a particular authorizer was nominated by a variety of sources, such as school leaders, charter support organizations, and state-level directors; and whether nominations suggested that a 

particular authorizer met several of the indicators for success defined by the advisory group. 


The advisory board agreed that the authorizers 

selected for this guide should represent a crosssection of several variables in order to be applicable to a wide audience. Site selection involved 

two levels of screening: the characteristics that 

each individual authorizer should have in order 

to be included and the overall characteristics of 

the authorizers as a pool.

In order to be considered for this guide, each 

authorizer had to meet several characteristics, 

including: 1) strong performance of the schools 

chartered by the authorizer, as compared to 

traditional schools within its jurisdiction; 2) 

some impact on public education as measured 

by the number of charter schools in its jurisdiction (as a percentage of all public schools), the 

number of charter school students (as a percentage of all public school students), or both; 

3) experience responding to school failure, 

school renewal issues, or both; and 4) evidence 

(provided by nominators, interviews with the 

authorizer’s staff, or both) indicating that the 

authorizer engages in the effective practices.

The individual site selection process also took 

into account the reality that a single authorizer 

may be very successful in one or more of its 

roles, while less successful in others. Each site 

profiled in this guide exemplifies some successful innovations, even though there may be 

other areas of each site’s work that may need 

strengthening.

After the pool of potential authorizers was narrowed by applying the criteria listed above, the 

remaining authorizers were sorted by various 

characteristics that the advisors felt should be 

represented in the overall pool of authorizers to be included in the guide. These “pool” 

characteristics included: 1) diversity by type of 

authorizer (ideally including one or two local 

school boards, a college or university, a nonprofit organization, a state-level board, and a 

mayor or city council); 2) diversity by volume 

of authorizing; and 3) diversity by authorizing 

approaches. The advisors also made sure that 

the final selection of authorizers profiled in this 

guide included geographic diversity and included a balance between authorizers that had been 

profiled in several other publications and newer or lesser-known authorizers. Selected variables for each profiled authorizer are provided 

in table 1 and also in the individual authorizer 

profiles later in this guide.

The Authorizers Profiled in This Guide

The sites profiled in this guide include two public school districts—Chicago Public Schools and 

New York City Public Schools. In 2006, each had 

authorized more than 20 charter schools. A very 

different kind of locally based authorizer also is 

included: the mayor of Indianapolis. As the only 

mayor in the country with authority to authorize 

charter schools, Mayor Bart Peterson had authorized 16 charter schools as of the 2006–07 school 

year.

Examples of successful charter authorizing offices that operate within institutions of higher 

education are the Ferris State University (FSU) 

Charter Schools Office and the State University of 

New York (SUNY) Charter Schools Institute. The 

guide profiles the Minneapolis-based Volunteers 

of America of Minnesota (VOA of MN) Charter 

School Sponsorship Program to provide examples of successful practices from a small authorizing office that is part of a much larger nonprofit.


Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

To provide examples of state-level authorizers, 

the guide profiles practices from two states with 

very different charter school laws and contexts. 

The Massachusetts Department of Education is 

the sole authorizer of charter schools in its state, 

whereas the California Department of Education fills a discreet role in a state that has over 

250 different authorizers.

The guide also includes discussion of successful 

practices developed by one other authorizer—

the Charter Schools Office at Central Michigan 

University (CMU). Because Michigan state law 

provides each authorizer with per-pupil funding for every school the authorizer charters, 

CMU maintains an unusually large and well-resourced authorizing office. As a result, CMU has 

been able to invest in several key systems that 

most of the country’s other authorizing offices 

could not afford to create from scratch. Because 

CMU has made this investment, many of these 

systems are now available for other authorizers to learn from and reproduce. For example, 

CMU has created an NCLB Charter Schools Leaders’ Guide,2

 which translates federal guidelines 

into an accessible and practical format. CMU

provides this guide to other authorizers who 

request it. The office also has developed an Individualized Performance Review Assessment 3

that enables authorizers to evaluate schools 

on a set of core competencies. Among CMU’s 

most-requested resources is its guide to Educational Service Provider Policies,

4

 a framework 

for establishing agreements between charter 

school boards and charter management companies, which are for-profit and nonprofit companies that manage multiple charter schools.

CMU also initiated the development of an electronic Authorizer Oversight Information System 

(AOIS),5

 an online compliance and document 

management system. Other authorizers, such as 

FSU, have adapted this system and have come 

to rely on the program to monitor compliance. 

These resources are described in greater detail 

in Appendix B: Resources, and other information from CMU that is pertinent to readers is 

referenced throughout this guide.

Researchers visited each of the profiled sites and 

conducted interviews in person and by phone 

with representatives from the offices and a selection of schools that they have authorized. The 

methodology also included the collection and 

analysis of numerous documents and extensive 

data related to the sites’ charter authorizing.

Overview of This Guide

Part 1 of this guide describes the common practices of the eight charter authorizers profiled 

here. Although these authorizers represent very 

different kinds of entities, they all share several 

fundamental characteristics, including strong internal capacity, a rigorous process for selecting 

which schools to authorize, transparent oversight policies, and willingness to make hard decisions. The details of how they implement these 

processes differ from office to office, but all are 

focused on constant improvement in the service 

of expanding education options for students.

In particular, this guide describes how effective 

authorizers:

• Build a strong organization by recruiting 

and retaining qualified staff members and using external resources strategically.

• Develop a strong talent pool, including 

seeking strong applicants that are aligned 

with the authorizer’s mission.


• Select for quality by employing a variety 

of evaluation methods to assess applicants’ 

capacity, requiring strong evidence of community support, and engaging in responsible 

risk-taking.

• Support new school operators by assisting schools in developing meaningful measures of student performance and supporting 

schools during the incubation and planning 

period.

• Provide meaningful and transparent oversight by using information and technology to 

streamline compliance, using site visits strategically, and approaching oversight with a sense 

of purpose and respect for schools’ autonomy.

• Hold schools accountable for meeting 

performance goals, including intervening 

early as problems arise and closing or renewing schools based on solid evidence.

All of the activities and processes described 

in Part I are important elements of effective 

charter authorizing. But the quality of what 

charter authorizers can accomplish is dependent not only on what the authorizers do—the 

set of practices described in this guide that 

authorizers must undertake well in order to 

be successful—but also is dependent on the 

broader policy environment in which authorizers operate. Accordingly, Part II of this 

guide describes the kinds of policy factors that 

can either support or hinder quality charter 

authorizing practices.

The policy issues that affect each entity’s ability to 

authorize high-quality charter schools include: 

• Level and type of external accountability; 

• Level of operational autonomy;

• Vulnerability to political change;

• Limits on charter school growth; and

• Level and type of funding.

As interviews with the authorizers profiled in this 

guide revealed with clarity, each authorizer operates in a unique environment that has its own 

set of challenges and opportunities. The strength 

of many of these offices is that they are able to 

operate effectively—and to find opportunity—in 

spite of the policy constraints (such as legal restrictions on the number of charter schools) that 

could easily limit their effectiveness.

Part III of this guide offers profiles of each of the 

eight authorizers that are highlighted throughout Parts I and II. The profiles cover the history 

of each of these authorizers and provide more 

detail on the contexts in which they operate.


Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Table 1. Selected Variables of Profiled Authorizers and Their Schools

(Data collected as of 2005–06 school year unless otherwise noted)

Authorizer First Year as 

Authorizer 

Number 

of Staff 

Number of 

Schools

Percentage of 

Applications 

Approveda

Number 

of School 

Closuresb

Total of 

Students in 

Authorized 

Schools 

Percentage 

of Title I 

Schools

California Department 

of Education Charter 

Schools Division

2004 3.5

8, plus 

8 charter 

districts 

operating 

15 schools

55% of appeals

100% of statewide benefit 

chartersd

1 9,440 50% 

Chicago Public Schools 

Office of New Schools 1997 27 27 with 35 campuses

7% in 2005

7% in 2004 3 15,310 80% 

Ferris State University 1998 6 16 n/af 1 6,863 69% 

Indianapolis Mayor’s Office

(Data collected as of 

2006–07 school year)

2001 4 16

14% in 2006

43% in 2005

36% in 2004

1 2,768 83% 

Massachusetts Department 

of Education Charter 

School Office

1993 10 57 23% 9 21,706 82% 

New York City Office of 

Charter Schools 1998 5 23 34% in 2006 1 4,494 -- 

State University of New York 

Charter Schools Institute 1999 16 36 Avg. 23% for 1999–2005 5 10,326 97% 

Volunteers of America 

of Minnesota 2000 2 12 -- 0 1,260 -- 

a

 Charter school authorizers do not always approve every application they receive for a new charter. This column indicates the percentage of applications that each authorizer has approved out of the total number of applications they have received.

b When a charter school does not fulfill the terms of its charter or fails to follow regulatory or other obligations, the entity that authorized the school 

may choose to revoke the school’s charter. This column indicates how many schools’ charters have been revoked by each profiled authorizer.

c

 Adequate yearly progress.

d

 The California Department of Education Charter Schools Division authorizes two different kinds of charter schools: 1) schools that appeal to the 

state after having been denied charters by their local district and county (these schools are referred to as “appeals” in the chart above) and 2) charter 

schools with a proven record that seek to replicate statewide (called “statewide benefit charters”). These two groups of charters are explained further in 

the profile of the California Department of Education Charter Schools Division in Part III of this guide.


Percentage of Students by Race/Ethnicity Percentage of 

English 

Language 

Learners

Percentage of 

Free and 

ReducedPrice 

Lunch

Percentage of 

Special 

Education

Percentage of 

Schools 

Making 

AYPc Asian

AfricanAmerican Latino WhiteNative 

American Other

6% 19% 40% 29% < 1% 5% 21% --e 6% 100%

2% 56% 38% 9% 1% -- 4.5% 80% 12% 44%

2% 65% 7% 25% 1% 2% 4% -- 11% 90%

-- 66% 4% 26% -- 4% 2% 66% 10% 80%

4% 26% 20% 46% < 1% 3% 4% 44% 12%

75% 

English 

language 

arts; 74% 

mathg

3% 62% 29% 4% < 1% -- 3% 75% 10% 100%

1% 70% 17% 11% < 1% 0% 2% 75% 8% 97%

2% 14% 8% 66% 10% -- 3% 47% 19% 71%

e

 Cells with no data indicate that the authorizer did not report this information as of the time of publication.

f

 University-based authorizers in the state of Michigan, where Ferris State University is located, have reached their collective cap of 150 charter schools.

g Massachusetts reports AYP separately for the subjects of English language arts and mathematics. AYP also is reported in aggregate for the entire 

school and for subgroups. The numbers reported in the chart represent the percentage of charter schools meeting AYP in each subject for all subgroups.


Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 


The eight charter authorizers in this study have developed strong practices designed to strengthen the 

quality and success of the charter schools they authorize. The authorizers are diverse in many ways: 

One is part of a much larger nonprofit that has a mission to provide services to marginalized communities, while two others are based in large urban district offices that have chosen charter schools 

as one strategy to improve student performance. Some are the sole authorizer in their state; while 

others operate where there are multiple entities with authority to authorize charter schools. Some have 

chartered dozens of schools; others have far fewer. A checklist at the end of this section summarizes 

steps for building a strong authorizing program.

P A R T I

Common Practices 

Among High-quality 

Authorizing Offices

Despite these differences, these offices all share 

several fundamental characteristics—strong internal capacity, a rigorous selection process, 

transparent oversight policies, and willingness 

to make hard decisions—that form the basis of 

successful authorizing (see fig. 1). They implement these core processes in different ways, 

having developed them in response to their 

particular contexts, but all are focused on constant improvement. In their drive to improve 

education options for students, these authorizers have developed essential practices that offer a model for other authorizing offices across 

the country.

Figure 1. Common Practices

Among Highlighted Charter

School Authorizers

• Build a Strong Organization

• Develop a Strong Talent Pool

• Select for Quality

• Support New School Operators

• Provide Meaningful and Transparent 

Oversight

• Hold Schools Accountable for 

Meeting Performance Goals
10

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Authorizers Build a Strong 

Organization

Each of these authorizing offices is guided by 

a leader or a team of leaders who have a clear 

philosophy about the role of a charter school 

authorizer. Some have large operating budgets, 

others have budgets that are more lean; but 

across the board, these authorizers work with 

the resources they have to hire staff members 

with the necessary expertise and experience 

who also are dedicated to the overall mission 

of providing strong education options for students. For many of them, building a strong organization requires extensive searches for talented 

leaders and staff, ongoing professional development, and strategic use of external resources.

Recruit and retain qualified staff members

Each of these authorizing offices is filled with 

dedicated individuals who have the skills and 

experience to execute their duties effectively, 

and also have an allegiance to the office philosophy that informs their daily decisions. Whether 

office responsibilities are divided by core function or by geographic assignments of schools, 

each authorizer has its own set of criteria when 

it comes to hiring. Some require applicants to 

have previous education or charter school experience. Others look for people who bring an 

external perspective as well as a particular expertise to the job, such as board governance 

or finance. Regardless of the particular skill set 

they seek, all of them agree that recruiting staff 

members who are interested in and capable of 

taking on the challenges associated with charter 

school authorizing is difficult.

Hosanna Mahaley Johnson, the former director 

of the Office of New Schools within the Chicago Public Schools, says that there is a growing demand for people who have experience in 

the relatively new field of authorizing. “Because 

this body of work is so hot,” she says, “I really 

fight hard to keep talented people. We get tons 

of resumes coming in all the time from people 

who want to work here for different reasons. 

But I work really hard to try to keep those who 

are here because I know that other employers 

continually attempt to recruit them, and other 

people in charter authorizing are constantly 

looking at them because this body of work is 

growing so fast.”

According to Mahaley Johnson, what makes this 

work so unique is the fact that it is a relatively 

new field. Charter schools have been around 

for a mere 15 years, while the traditional public 

school system has been in existence for more 

than a century. Because of this, staff members 

in the Chicago office “need to adapt all the 

time. They have to be able to put their assumptions on the table and allow them to be questioned, challenged and even overturned if new 

data become available.” Finding people who 

thrive in such a dynamic environment can be 

difficult. One way she addresses this challenge 

is to hire people who have been successful in 

similar environments elsewhere and who demonstrate real commitment to the work during 

the interview process.

At the State University of New York Charter 

Schools Institute (SUNY Institute), former director James Merriman organized his staff by core 

function (see fig. 2) rather than assigning individual staff members to a group of schools or a 

geographic area, as some of the other authorizers 
11

profiled in this guide have done. This way, when 

school leaders have questions, they call the person who is knowledgeable about a particular 

area, such as facilities, federal programs, or accountability. Rather than hire people who have 

subject expertise but little education experience, 

the SUNY Institute looks for people who have 

both. “Because SUNY is operating an educational program,” Merriman says, he “expects all 

staff members to understand schools’ core business.” Filling staff positions with former educators has been an ongoing challenge, however. 

According to Merriman, “Charter schools have a 

hard time staffing, and the authorizing ranks are 

thin too.” In his experience, many people with 

education experience come from a bureaucratic background where they focused only on 

compliance. Often, “They don’t get it. Their 

instinct is to do what a superintendent would 

do, to the detriment of the charter school’s autonomy.” To find talented staff members who 

“get it,” SUNY Institute has conducted national 

and regional searches for individuals who can 

work effectively in a performance-based accountability system.

Figure 2. SUNY Institute Staff Structure
12

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Like Mahaley Johnson, Merriman has worked 

hard to retain experienced staff members who 

can successfully work with schools. One of his 

key retention tools is the promotion of staff 

members to senior positions as the office has 

grown. Another is the provision of consistent 

professional development through ongoing 

examination of the staff’s practices, feedback 

from schools, and the schools’ learning results. 

Staff members rely on the resources of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers 

(NACSA) and meet periodically with an Authorizing Coordinating Team made up of offices 

from around the state to share best practices, 

to align their standards for annual school openings in the fall and for renewal, and to discuss 

common issues, such as board membership and 

school closure.

At the California Department of Education Charter Schools Division, Marta Reyes has worked to 

ensure that her staff members share a common 

mission and vision, despite their different backgrounds and previous experience. When Reyes 

first came to the division in 2003, she found that 

some staff members did not fully understand 

or embrace the charter model. “They’d grown 

up in a government agency,” says Reyes. “In 

many government agencies the focus is generally on one thing: regulatory compliance.” 

Many of these staff members did not initially 

take well to the idea of a cooperative relationship with charter schools, focusing instead on 

monitoring and compliance. Others, who had 

more experience working with charter schools, 

had to shift their focus under Reyes’ leadership 

from charter advocacy to charter authorizing, 

learning to provide technical assistance while 

also monitoring compliance and student performance. Reyes accomplished this culture change 

by emphasizing professional development to 

build the skills and develop the division’s capacity as an authorizer. The entire staff participated in 18 months of training, which included 

workshops and off-site retreats to develop a 

common vision of charter authorizing and a 

mission for supporting and expanding highquality charter schools.

Retaining highly qualified staff members is a 

particular challenge for the Massachusetts Department of Education Charter School Office. 

Several staff members have left this office over 

the years to take on leadership positions in 

other areas of education and at national charter school organizations. Despite the challenges that turnover poses, the current director, 

Mary Street, is willing to accept this level of 

change. By setting the bar high, she is able 

to attract the best people, even if those same 

people are more likely to move on to other 

jobs either because of salary considerations or 

because they want to take on different responsibilities. She finds that the challenges associated with the job—developing more efficient 

systems and processes, interacting successfully with charter school leaders, advocating for 

charter schools in a contentious political environment—are attractive to highly motivated 

people. She believes that her best hope of retaining these people lies in her ability to foster 

a supportive, collegial working environment 

where people who have a strong personal interest in the mission of the office are able to 

do their work effectively.

Barry Barnett, the coordinator of federal programs in the Massachusetts office, was attracted to the charter school idea early on. One of 

the few staff members who came to the Char-
13

ter School Office from another branch of the 

state department, Barnett holds a position that 

is not typical in charter school authorizing 

offices. His previous experience in the Office of 

Program Quality Assurance, conducting special 

education audits of both charter and non-charter schools, convinced him that charter schools 

need ongoing technical assistance (e.g., informational workshops) regarding special education and limited English proficiency programs. 

Over time, he was able to convince others within the department that the state’s charter schools 

would benefit from having a federal programs 

contact person. In this position, he is able to 

work actively to improve education outcomes 

for a segment of the student population that 

consistently underperforms academically.

Use external resources strategically

All of the authorizers highlighted herein use 

external resources strategically to supplement 

their internal staff capacity. Some, such as the 

SUNY Charter Schools Institute and the Indianapolis mayor’s office, have chosen to hire external contractors to assist them with particular 

aspects of their work. Others have partnered 

with external support organizations, and some 

have chosen to utilize the expertise of people 

in their parent organizations.

The leadership at the SUNY Institute has chosen to use external contractors not only to allow institute staff to focus on their core responsibilities, but also because they believe that 

these contractors bring an important perspective to the authorizing work. Athough SUNY 

Institute’s own staff members review charter 

applications, the institute also contracts with 

external reviewers. Its intent in doing so is to 

gain fresh perspective and to draw on the best 

expertise from across the country. Although institute staff conduct site visits during the first 

two years of a new charter school, external 

people are again brought in for third-year site 

visits. This is in part because the institute has 

found that school administrators and staff are 

often more candid with these individuals than 

with staff. Also, according to Merriman, when 

the institute’s own staff conduct site visits, they 

focus exclusively on their role as evaluators. 

He believes that external contractors are able 

to step out of the evaluative role and also offer schools technical assistance with specific 

aspects of their programs.

Because Mayor Peterson’s charter schools office 

in Indianapolis has only four full-time employees, many of its authorizing responsibilities are 

undertaken by external consultants. The office 

hires consultants for a variety of tasks, including survey administration and data collection, 

site visits, and data analyses. As the office’s former director David Harris explains, “We want 

the best people in the country who are doing 

this type of work on our team. We would never 

have been able to hire the range of expertise 

that we needed [on our staff]. The most efficient 

way for us to get the expertise was to contract 

out for that work.”

California’s Charter Schools Division also has 

drawn upon the expertise of other organizations 

to improve its policies and maximize its internal 

capacity. The division secured a grant to work 

for 18 months with NACSA, during which staff 

created a new memorandum of understanding (MOU) and developed a broader perspective of charter authorizing nationally and in 

California. The division also worked for a year 
14

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

with an education services company* to develop 

an inspection protocol for site visits to state-approved schools. The new MOU, developed with 

substantial support and assistance from both 

groups, is now a central feature of oversight for 

state-authorized charter schools and includes the 

inspection protocol as well as criteria to guide 

site visits and the evaluation of documents.

Several of the organizations highlighted herein 

work in cooperation with other charter groups 

in their states. The New York City (NYC) Office of Charter Schools, for example, works 

closely with the New York City Center for Charter School Excellence (CCSE), an independent 

nonprofit organization based in New York that 

focuses solely on charter school support and 

advocacy. The NYC charter office relies heavily 

upon the CCSE to fill several roles that are outside of the office’s defined mission and beyond 

its current capacity. For example, the NYC office 

does not focus on recruitment of potential charter applicants. Instead, it relies upon the CCSE 

to help supply charter applicants that align with 

NYC’s mission and meet their standards. The 

NYC office also looks to the CCSE to provide 

technical assistance, resource development assistance, assessment and data management 

modeling, and to facilitate networking between 

charter schools and allied organizations in the 

city. According to the former executive director 

of the NYC Office of Charter Schools, Mashea 

Ashton, the CCSE is a unique and valuable resource that allows the NYC office to focus on 

quality oversight and accountability while feeling confident that the NYC office-authorized 

schools have support and advocacy available 

from another source.

Several authorizers in Michigan, including Ferris State University and Central Michigan University, are members of the Michigan Council of Charter School Authorizers (MCCSA), a 

membership organization incorporated in 2002 

to foster the exchange of information and resources among charter offices in Michigan. 

MCCSA has developed accountability standards 

for charter schools and has developed its own 

standards for authorizing. The council meets 

periodically to collaborate on best practices 

and bring uniformity to charter school oversight in the state.

California’s Charter Schools Division has developed a strong relationship with the California 

Charter Schools Association, as well as other 

statewide and other local organizations that provide technical support, leadership development, 

and the sharing of best practices. These relationships have enabled the California Department of 

Education to partner on many key issues related 

to charter advocacy and policy setting.

One advantage charter authorizers have in 

working within a state department of education is access to resources in close proximity 

(e.g., in the office next door or down the hall). 

Four staff members in California’s charter office are responsible for overseeing all state 

board-approved charters, including reviewing 

applications, developing contracts, and making recommendations for renewal and revocation. Nine other employees are responsible 

for overseeing all charter schools in the state, 

but not in the capacity of an authorizer. The 

relatively small workgroup dedicated to state 

* To develop an inspection protocol for site visits, the California Department of Education Charter Schools Division worked with Cambridge Education, based in England.
15

board-approved charters is able to draw upon 

the expertise of these other colleagues in the 

charter division for assistance with tasks, such 

as analyzing achievement data, monitoring 

compliance with special education and NCLB

requirements, and resolving issues related to 

the financing and maintenance of charter facilities. They also are able to rely on experts 

in other department offices for assistance with 

legal issues and particular education programs 

that schools have chosen to use. This external assistance makes it possible for a small 

staff to oversee eight charter schools and eight 

all-charter districts (which accounted for 15 

schools in 2005–06) that are spread widely 

throughout this large state.

Both the Massachusetts Charter School Office 

and VOA of MN’s Charter School Sponsorship 

Program are also able to leverage the resources 

of the larger organizations of which they are a 

part in several key ways. Staff members in the 

Massachusetts office, for example, regularly turn 

to other departments for information about particular regulations or requirements with which 

charter schools need to comply, as well as for 

resources, such as contact lists and program materials. When more specific expertise is needed 

in an area like finance or law, staff members 

have ready access to those resources as well. 

For example, when the Massachusetts Board of 

Education voted not to renew a school’s charter 

and the school exercised its right to an administrative hearing, the Charter School Office was 

able to turn to the Massachusetts Department of 

Education’s legal office for guidance. Not only 

did this save time for the office staff, but it also 

meant they did not have to use their limited 

funds on legal advice.

The VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship 

Program is part of a much larger nonprofit with 

a history of serving the most vulnerable populations in the state—children, seniors, juvenile and adult ex-offenders—through a range 

of social service programs. In all, VOA of MN

employs 700 people and has 4,000 volunteers. 

The Charter School Sponsorship Program is a 

small office within this much larger organization. With only two full-time staff members (a 

director and a school liaison), the charter office has had to creatively engage the services 

of numerous external resources to develop 

high-quality practices. For general nonprofit 

management issues, charter office staff members frequently turn to the large staff and board 

of its parent nonprofit for experienced advice. 

They are also able to draw on various other 

services within the larger organization when 

necessary, including legal, financial, and fundraising expertise.

To easily obtain information about authorizing 

best practices, Justin Testerman, the director 

of the VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship 

Program, has joined several state and national 

organizations, including NACSA and the Minnesota Sponsors Assistance Network. Attendance 

at national charter school conferences also has 

given Testerman access to materials he would 

have had to create from scratch otherwise. 

Some examples of materials that they have 

adapted from elsewhere include accountability 

and monitoring tools from the mayor’s office 

in Indianapolis,6 the Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory checklist for opening new 

schools,7 and a five-step intervention process 

developed by the D.C. Public Charter School 

Board in Washington, D.C.8
16

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Authorizers Develop a Strong 

Talent Pool

These authorizers are not only focused on developing their internal capacity, many also devote time and resources to developing capacity 

in their applicant pools. No matter the strength 

of their own offices, they would be unable to 

charter successful new schools without a strong 

applicant pool. Not content to wait for talented 

and capable charter school operators to apply, 

many of these authorizers have added publicity 

and recruitment to their list of responsibilities.

Seek out strong applicants

Many authorizers have found that creating a 

high-quality pool of potential charter operators requires active recruitment of talented applicants. In states that have not reached their 

charter school cap, these offices are engaged in 

strategic recruitment locally and nationally for 

charter school operators that show strong potential for being successful.

The Renaissance 2010 initiative in Chicago has 

made recruiting new school applicants a top priority for everyone in the Office of New Schools 

within the Chicago Public Schools (CPS). In 

2004, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and CPS 

CEO Arne Duncan announced that they intended to open 100 new schools in Chicago by 

the year 2010, many of them to replace existing low-performing CPS schools. As the city approaches the cap set by state law on how many 

charter schools can open (they are at 27, and 

the cap is set at 30) many of these new schools 

will not open as charter schools. But all will 

be charter-like—operating free of many of the 

regulations that govern other public schools in 

such areas as human resources, curriculum, and 

length of school day—in return for increased 

accountability for performance.

As a result of this ambitious 100-school goal, the 

Office of New Schools has developed multiple 

strategies to attract high-quality applicants. The 

mayor and CEO have put their public support 

behind the effort to open new schools. Both are 

involved in recruiting potential school developers. Previously, many of the charter schools in 

Chicago were started by community-based organizations. Both the mayor and the CEO believe 

that such organizations will continue to be sources for strong new schools, so they encourage 

well-known and respected community-based organizations from across the city to consider designing school approaches that would best meet 

the unique needs of particular neighborhoods.

Recognizing that they will almost certainly need 

to supplement local capacity by attracting charter 

school operators from elsewhere, the Office of 

New Schools is also in the process of developing 

a national recruitment strategy. The high profile 

of the Renaissance 2010 initiative has attracted 

interest. The office has had inquiries from several national charter school management organizations and there are conversations with some 

of them to determine if their approaches and 

expectations regarding school operations are a 

good fit with the district’s needs. In order to get 

a better grasp on what these organizations have 

to offer, teams of people from Chicago, including community members from neighborhoods 

that may host some of the new schools, have 

begun visiting schools across the country.

From the beginning of their charter school authorizing initiative, officials in the mayor’s office 
17

in Indianapolis have known they would need 

to develop a long-term strategy for recruiting 

high-quality leaders to start schools. Following 

a pattern similar to Chicago’s, many of the early 

charter schools in Indianapolis were started by 

community-based organizations. Recognizing 

the finite number of local organizations with 

the capacity and drive to open schools, city 

officials have addressed what they describe as 

a local “talent shortage” on three fronts. First, 

they have used Mayor Peterson’s strong public profile to get the attention of several school 

operators that have had success with similar 

student populations elsewhere. Second, they 

have made the climate more appealing to potential charter operators by addressing one of 

the major barriers to successful charter school 

operation—the challenge of finding and affording appropriate facilities. By offering an innovative facilities financing plan that allows school 

leaders to access tax-exempt interest rates for 

the acquisition, construction, and renovation 

of a school facility, the mayor hopes to make 

Indianapolis an attractive option for both national and local applicants. The nation’s first 

city-developed charter school facility financing 

program draws upon the city’s backing and the 

support of public and private donors to enable 

charter schools to save millions of dollars on 

their facilities loans, savings that can be redirected to improving instruction. Finally, Mayor 

Peterson’s office has secured grant money to 

launch a program designed to recruit and train 

new entrepreneurs to build a supply of strong 

charter school leaders in Indianapolis.

While it is too soon to determine how these 

efforts will ultimately affect the quality and 

number of applicants in Indianapolis, there are 

early signs of success. Since 2004, operators of 

several national school models* have submitted 

applications and been granted charters to open 

schools in Indianapolis. These models include 

the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP), Expeditionary Learning Schools Outward Bound,

and Lighthouse Academies.

The authorizing staff at Ferris State University 

(FSU) in Big Rapids, Mich., is no longer engaged 

in active recruitment, as the university authorizers in the state have reached their collective 

cap of 150 charter schools. Before meeting its 

cap, FSU announced available charters largely 

by word of mouth, relying largely upon its reputation in the charter school community as a 

“tough but fair” authorizer to bring quality charter operators to its door. However, FSU faced a 

localized talent shortage when it sought applications for two types of charter schools—Strict 

Discipline Academies and Urban High School 

Academies—that are not subject to the statewide 

cap. Both of these exceptions to the charter cap 

were established through state legislation to 

serve students’ unmet needs. Operators of these 

charters would be required by the legislation to 

implement additional security measures, such 

as metal detectors, uniform codes, and strict adherence to behavior policies. The authorizing 

staff announced a request for proposals to run 

these schools but found that only one of the 

applicants met their standards for quality. This 

outcome forced the question for the first time 

of how to attract high-quality charter operators 

to apply for these much-needed urban schools. 

For the next cycle, the authorizing staff plans to 

publicize its available charters widely, using its 

* A national school model is a defined set of management and educational approaches that is implemented in many different schools 

across the country.
18

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

monthly newsletter and the charter office’s Web 

site, a statewide charter newsletter, and several 

Detroit newspapers.

Seek education models that are aligned 

with the authorizer’s mission

While all of these offices have focused their efforts on designing a selection process that accurately identifies strong leaders, some have additional criteria that they use during the selection 

process. For some authorizers, these additional criteria have given them an opportunity to 

further the purposes of their states’ charter laws; 

for others, additional criteria have enabled them 

to align their selection processes with their own 

organizational missions.

For example, New York state has defined the 

purposes of charter schools to include increasing learning opportunities for students who are 

at risk of academic failure. The SUNY Institute 

has incorporated this objective into its mission 

by encouraging and favoring education models 

that have a proven record of success with students at risk of academic failure. In its recruitment and selection decisions, the institute makes 

clear that before applicants can be considered 

seriously, they must propose an education model that the applicant team has personally used 

before with students at risk of academic failure, 

or they must document research showing that 

the model has been effective with the type of 

students that the school expects to serve.

In California, the state legislature recognized the 

potential for barriers to effective charter authorizing, including the fact that some communities 

may not attract a range of charter school developers with a demonstrated track record of meeting 

or exceeding state performance expectations. In 

2004, the state legislature extended a new authorizing power to the California State Board of 

Education in a strategic effort to replicate highquality charter schools in high-need areas. The 

state board was given authority to grant charters 

for the statewide replication of charter schools 

with a proven record. Applicants for these charters, called “statewide benefit charters,” must 

demonstrate their ability to provide high-quality instructional services that have been shown 

to improve student achievement and that could 

not be provided by a charter school operating 

in only one school district or one county. Applicants also must be willing to target those areas 

where local public schools are in Program Improvement—California’s designation for schools 

that have failed to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) in the same subject for two consecutive years. Through this initiative, the Charter 

Schools Division also is providing ongoing support to charter schools that have a proven track 

record of success with students who are at risk 

for academic failure, and the division is helping 

these schools to locate in areas where district 

schools are not showing adequate academic 

progress as defined by state law. 

The VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship 

Program is part of the Minneapolis office of 

VOA of MN, which is an affiliate of one of 

the oldest nonprofit social service agencies in 

the country. With a long-standing record of 

serving the most vulnerable populations in the 

city, the VOA of MN is much larger than just 

its charter office and has an overall budget of 

$40 million and a staff of 700. In addition to 

charter authorizing, VOA of MN offers a range 

of services that include mental health clinics, 

home health care for seniors, and residential 
19

treatment centers for children at risk for health 

and behavioral problems.

When VOA of MN’s CEO Mike Weber was first 

approached about his organization becoming a 

charter school authorizer in 1999, he was willing 

to consider the idea but only if he could create 

a set of guiding principles for accepting applicants that was aligned with VOA of MN’s existing mission and purpose. Having been assured 

by officials in the Minnesota State Department 

of Education that the state’s charter law granted 

him this authority, he and the newly hired director of the charter office began developing a set 

of criteria to use during the selection process. 

(See fig. 3.) These included: small size; a focus 

on marginalized student populations; a focus on 

engaging students in service learning (an educational strategy whereby students gain and apply 

academic knowledge and critical thinking skills 

to address community needs); filling a void in 

the community by assisting in the development 

of education opportunities that do not currently 

exist in the community; and a focus on racial, 

ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity. Each of the 

12 schools that VOA of MN’s charter office has 

since agreed to authorize has had to meet these 

five criteria in order to be considered for VOA of 

MN sponsorship. According to Justin Testerman, 

the director of the Charter School Sponsorship 

Program, these principles have become an effective initial screening tool and also have promoted VOA of MN’s intent to target its resources 

to communities that have the most need.

Authorizers Select for Quality

In the design of everything from the application 

timeline to the review criteria, all of the authorizers profiled here use their application processes 

to select high-quality schools to authorize. The 

application requirements encourage applicants 

to provide meaningful information about areas 

of school management that these authorizers 

have learned are the best indicators of success, 

including a description of a compelling mission 

and well-researched educational program, a 

solid business plan, and well-thought-out governance and management structures. The process also usually requires applicants to provide 

strong evidence of the community’s support for 

the proposed school. Over the years, these authorizers also have developed review processes 

that provide reviewers with ample time and a 

variety of opportunities to get to know the applicants in order to reliably assess their capacity to 

create and sustain a successful charter school.

Employ a variety of evaluation methods to 

assess applicants’ capacity

Early on in the charter movement, many authorizers relied on only one written application 

to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of a 

potential charter operator. More recently, all of 

these offices have begun to employ a variety of 

evaluation methods to assess an applicant’s capacity, including a multistage application process, in-person meetings to offer feedback on 

the application, review by internal and external 

review teams, and formal interviews. (Table 2 

provides a few examples of the main stages in 

the charter application process used by different authorizers.)
20

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 3. VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship Program Selection Criteria
21

Table 2. Examples of Different Application Processes

Authorizer Sequential Stages in the Application Process ➜ ➜ ➜ ➜ ➜ ➜

Indianapolis 

Mayor’s Office

Letter of intent, including general location, 

grades served, anticipated enrollment

Prospectus, including 

summary of school 

mission, leadership 

team, prospective 

students, curricular 

approach

Final application, including interviews by internal staff and review by external contractors and 

a charter schools board

New York City 

Office of Charter 

Schools

Intent to apply, including general location, grades served, 

anticipated enrollment

Concept paper, including vision for the 

school and capacity 

of the planning team

Panel interview by 

charter schools staff

Final application, 

including proposed 

leadership, curricular 

model, start-up and 

five-year operating 

budgets

Central Michigan 

University Charter 

Schools Office

Initial application, 

including vision, 

business plan and 

proposed curriculum

Training and development, including an 

on-site seminar for 

successful applicants 

to further develop 

their plans

Full application, including all plans for leadership, funding, and compliance

construction company for the school’s facility. 

The company made a six-figure mistake regarding the cost. The chair of the school’s board 

was a sophisticated and high-profile business 

person who had access to the resources to 

solve the problem. “We couldn’t have anticipated that problem; they couldn’t have anticipated that problem,” says Harris. “But they had 

people who had the ability to do the work and 

a board that could support them in overcoming 

unforeseen obstacles.”

After the mayor’s authorizing staff has reviewed 

an application, it then presents its findings to 

the Charter Schools Board—a group of community leaders with experience in education, 

business, and law. The board invites selected 

applicants to submit a full application, which 

In Indianapolis, the mayor’s office has a multistep rolling application process (see fig. 4). The 

applicant’s letter of intent starts the process and 

gives the authorizing staff a sense of how many 

applications to expect in a given time period. 

Though not required by law, the mayor’s office 

then requires a prospectus to extend the time 

for the authorizing staff to get to know applicants and offer feedback to help them improve 

on their proposals. 

The application requires a description of the 

proposed education model, but according to 

the mayor’s former charter schools director David Harris, “It’s not about the model. It’s about 

the people.” In retrospect, he cites as an example one of the mayor’s newly authorized 

schools that contracted with a well-respected 
22

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 4. Indianapolis Mayor’s Office Application Steps

STEP 2:

Applicant submits a 

Prospectus

STEP 1:

Letter of Intent

Applicant is identified as a new 

design applicant or an existing 

design applicant

STEPS 3, 4:

Selected applicant:

• asked to submit a Full Application

• may participate in informal meeting

STEP 5:

Selected applicant submits Full 

Application

STEPS 6, 7, 8:

Full Application Review:

• Application preview

• Initial internal review

• Review by Charter Schools Board

STEP 9:

Mayor notifies applicant of 

determination

City-County Council ratifies

Charter documenation finalized

Some applicants asked 

to reapply.
23

is examined by a team of external reviewers 

and the Charter Schools Board. These groups 

expand the authorizing staff’s perspective and 

offer additional expertise to assist the mayor in 

making his final chartering decisions. 

The Office of Charter Schools in New York City 

(NYC) follows a similar multiphase application 

process. Reviewers there have learned to look 

in each stage for proposals that take advantage 

of the unique features of charter schools while 

showing tangible ties to the community and a 

plan for effective oversight. Jim Goenner, executive director of the Charter Schools Office at Central Michigan University (CMU), describes this 

type of multiphase application process as “both 

an art and a science.” Staff members at CMU

follow the “science” as they evaluate the school’s 

financial viability and proposed education plan. 

Much of the “art” takes place during the second 

phase, when successful applicants are invited 

to meet with CMU staff members to discuss and 

refine their applications.

Require strong evidence of community 

support

Across all sites, one of the most important determining factors of a school’s success is its ties to 

the local community. Some schools are started 

by a community-based nonprofit and, as such, 

they have a built-in understanding of the unique 

needs of a particular community as well as an 

established reputation within that community. 

Other schools are started by the operators of 

national school models who may have to invest 

considerable time and energy in learning about 

the community and in building support for their 

school among local residents.

Regardless of the school’s founder or its mission, these authorizers have learned that schools 

are most likely to attract students, successfully 

serve their learning needs, and draw upon local 

resources if they have strong community support. Whether they require school operators 

to engage in a formal partnership with a community organization or simply ask for letters of 

support from community representatives, each 

of these offices uses its application process to 

ensure that schools are in touch with the communities they intend to serve.

Building community support has become a major focus of the Renaissance 2010 initiative in 

Chicago Public Schools (CPS). Because there 

is opposition to the initiative from the local 

teacher’s union and some community groups 

concerned about the district’s decision to close 

several low-performing and under-enrolled 

schools, staff members in the Office of New 

Schools have invested considerably in a strategy to build neighborhood support for the new 

schools. Internally, the Office of New Schools 

has created two staff positions dedicated to 

community relations. These staff members analyze school data and produce press briefings 

and other materials that highlight the performance gains made by CPS schools.

Chicago’s efforts go beyond public relations, 

however, to forge deep community involvement 

in the new schools process. The Office of New 

Schools sets up Transition Advisory Councils 

(TACs) in communities that have new charter 

schools opening in recently closed non-charter 

school buildings. (See fig. 5 for a flyer used to 

recruit TAC members.) Each TAC includes 10–12 

members of the community who go through an 
24

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 5. Flyer to Recruit Members for Chicago Transition Advisory Councils
25

application process and are then selected by staff 

members from the Office of New Schools to represent their neighborhood. TAC members meet 

regularly and have several responsibilities including: 1) developing a list of guidelines about what 

type of school they would like in the neighborhood, 2) conducting outreach activities to deliver 

information to community members about how 

new school operators will be selected, 3) hosting 

public forums to collect information about community concerns and deliver information about 

the school selection process, and 4) recruiting 

individuals from within the community to operate new schools. In addition, one TAC member 

participates in the district’s process of selecting 

the new school’s operator. 

Past concerns of TAC members have included 

whether a school would take students from the 

immediate neighborhood and whether a school 

would train students to work in neighborhood 

industries. In both cases, district officials addressed these concerns by including questions 

about them in the application review process. 

TAC members also have gone on “learning 

trips” to see successful schools both in Chicago 

and around the country. At this point, the TAC 

program is still relatively new, so it is too early 

to determine if TACs will influence the level of 

community support for the new schools. But 

many TAC participants report that they appreciate being involved in the selection process.

When asked to list the top three factors that 

will determine a school’s success, the staff 

in the mayor’s office in Indianapolis reply, 

“People, people, people.” The mayor’s charter application requires evidence of parental 

demand to ensure that the school will fulfill 

its enrollment projections, as well as several 

letters of support for the school. Most importantly, however, as part of the review process the staff carefully evaluates the founding 

group’s capacity to access community resources and garner support from the community. 

Most applicants demonstrate this capacity by 

partnering with a local business or community organization. Fairbanks Hospital in Indianapolis, for example, partnered with a charter 

board to operate a school that serves students 

who are recovering from alcoholism or drug 

addiction. The Indiana Black Expo, a nonprofit 

dedicated to showcasing the achievements of 

African-Americans, led the application for the 

Andrew J. Brown Academy, a school in eastern 

Indianapolis; and students at Christel House, a 

charter school supported by local philanthropist Christel DeHaan, benefit from her local 

ties as well as her experience managing children’s homes and schools around the world. 

These types of partnerships help ensure that 

schools authorized by the mayor’s office have 

an authentic connection to the communities 

they serve, even if the original impetus for the 

school did not come from that community.

Across all of these authorizers, applicants’ demonstrated capacity to draw upon resources in 

the local community is an important part of the 

selection process. The NYC Office of Charter 

Schools requires evidence of an applicant’s partnerships with students, parents, and community 

organizations as collaborators and stakeholders, 

as well as three letters of support from representatives of the community that the school intends 

to serve. In California, applicants that come to 

the State Board of Education (SBE) for approval of their charter through the appeals process 

must appear before the Advisory Commission 

on Charter Schools (ACCS), an advisory body 
26

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

composed of representatives of charter school 

operators and administrators, teachers, school 

district and county-level education officials, parents and other community members. The ACCS 

conducts public hearings that provide an opportunity to explore each school’s petition in depth. 

The charter division uses these hearings as an 

informal method to gauge community support 

and the applicant’s capacity. If stakeholders 

are absent from a school’s hearing, the ACCS 

views this absence as a red flag indicating that 

the school may not have the necessary support 

within the community to be successful. 

Engage in responsible risk-taking with 

regard to innovative school programs

According to a recent study by Andy Smarick of 

the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,9

80 percent of the charter school laws that include 

a preamble or purposes sections mention “encouraging classroom innovation” as one of the 

purposes of the law. This purpose presents a dilemma for many charter school authorizers who 

feel pressure to adopt proven models in order to 

meet the pressing needs of underachieving students but who also want to encourage innovation 

in the hopes that new ideas in break-the-mold 

schools will prove successful as well. All of the 

offices agree that one way to balance the risk involved in authorizing an innovative program is to 

carefully evaluate the applicant’s capacity to implement its plan during the application process.

Justin Testerman, the director of the Charter 

School Sponsorship Program at VOA of MN, 

likes to use a venture capital analogy to describe VOA of MN’s approach to authorizing 

schools. According to Testerman, applicants 

generally fall into one of three categories. First, 

there are “whole school models,” like Success 

for All or Core Knowledge Schools, that have a 

research base to support their approach to improving student achievement. These models require schools to adopt a schoolwide curricular 

and instructional approach, and in some cases a 

governance approach, that has been developed 

elsewhere. Second, there are applicants that 

base their proposals on best practices. While the 

entire school program may not have been tried 

before, there is some evidence, perhaps anecdotal, that these practices have been successful 

elsewhere with a similar group of students. Finally, there are applicants that submit proposals to try education approaches that have never 

been done before. As Testerman looks across 

the 12 schools that VOA of MN has authorized, 

he notes that there are a few schools that fall 

into all three of these categories.

According to Testerman, “Trying new things is 

part of what charter schools are about.” EdVisions Off Campus High School is an example of 

a school that VOA of MN decided to authorize 

despite the risk entailed in the school’s featuring an approach that had not been tried before: project-based learning that is facilitated 

online. When asked how VOA of MN makes 

the judgment call to authorize such a higher 

risk approach, Testerman says it comes down 

to the people. The VOA of MN staff members 

ask themselves, “Do we trust these people? Do 

they have the right capacity?” In the case of 

EdVisions Off Campus High School, “We had 

worked closely with EdVisions in the past and 

knew them to be capable and talented innovators. We also knew the organization was not 

going to let that school fail and would back it 

up with their own money if necessary, so we 

were willing to take a chance on this school.”
27

In Massachusetts, opening innovative schools 

is a high priority despite ongoing pressure 

from education officials of the Massachusetts 

Department of Education who would like the 

state to offer charters only to conventional, 

proven school models. A very contentious and 

difficult school closing in 2005, and the negative publicity it generated,10 could have caused 

the Massachusetts Charter School Office not to 

take risks on innovation, and yet that has not 

happened. According to Jeff Wulfson, the Massachusetts Department of Education Associate 

Commissioner for School Finance and District 

Support, who oversees the charter office, “If we 

can’t stick our necks out, we shouldn’t be in the 

charter business.”

In continuing to reward charters to innovative 

models, the Massachusetts office has remained 

true to both the spirit and the letter of the state’s 

charter law, which reads:

The purposes for establishing charter schools 

are: to stimulate the development of innovative programs within public education; 

to provide opportunities for innovative 

learning and assessments . . . and to provide teachers with a vehicle for establishing 

schools with alternative, innovative methods of educational instruction and school 

structure and management.11

Given this mandate, it is not surprising that 

the state’s 57 charter schools represent a broad 

spectrum of education approaches. There are 

urban, suburban, rural, arts-focused, college 

prep, and Montessori schools. In 2006, the state 

granted a charter to the Fall River Maritime Public Charter School, a fifth through eighth grade 

program that will be operated under a unique 

governance model in which teachers own the 

school. The school will be small (founders 

project an eventual enrollment of 80), projectbased, and focused on marine science.

Because the New York charter school law has a 

different emphasis, the SUNY Institute’s application process is not as focused on innovation 

as some of the other authorizers. According to 

the New York charter law, charter schools are 

intended primarily to increase learning opportunities for students who are at risk of academic 

failure. With this goal in mind, the SUNY Institute generally seeks out applicants that have 

a track record of success with schools serving 

low-income families or applicants that propose 

a model that has been successful with inner-city 

students. From the SUNY Institute’s perspective, 

it is too great a risk—and outside the bounds of 

the law—to approve innovative charter schools 

for innovation’s sake. When faced with a proposal for a school model that has not been tried 

before in New York, the SUNY Institute staff 

press the applicant to explain how its model will 

work with students who are at risk for academic failure. While the SUNY Institute welcomes 

new approaches, the office has little tolerance 

for applicants who come without a clear understanding of the proposed education model. According to Jennifer Sneed, Senior Vice President 

of the SUNY Charter Schools Institute:

They can’t know everything, but do they understand what they don’t understand? Have 

they gone to visit other schools that are using 

this model? Have they researched where this 

model has been tried before with similar types 

of students? The lay of the land has changed 

so much. Even five years ago, you couldn’t 

go out to a charter school [in New York] and 
28

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

talk to the founders and teachers and board 

members. You couldn’t even see a completed 

application. Now you can see these things; 

you can investigate their success.

Authorizers Support New School 

Operators

After an authorizer grants a charter to the individual or group who will run the charter school, 

the real work of school start-up begins. The 

majority of the school’s and the authorizer’s responsibilities start after the charter is granted: 

The authorizer and the school must define their 

obligations to one another and the methods by 

which the authorizer will hold the school accountable. During the first few months—even 

up to the first year—of a school’s operation, 

these authorizers provide intensive support to 

help ensure that the school’s goals and responsibilities are clear, and that the school has everything in place that will support its success.

Assist schools in developing meaningful 

measures of student performance

After the charter is granted, but before the school 

opens, it is important to define the school’s student performance goals and how they will be 

measured. Most of these organizations follow 

a yearlong process during which they work 

with the school to develop rigorous performance goals. In some cases, authorizers allow 

schools one year after opening to develop their 

accountability plans. These authorizers report 

that working with schools over an extended period of time allows them to define meaningful 

performance goals based on students’ incoming 

performance levels.

Each authorizer profiled in this guide includes 

student performance measures that are the 

same for all of its schools. This allows each 

authorizer to compare the performance of its 

schools to each other and to other schools with 

similar student populations. While some offices continue to include school-specific performance measures in the accountability plan or 

contract, others do not encourage schools to 

include school-specific indicators, largely because it is challenging for schools to develop 

rigorous assessments to measure these indicators. Those who continue to include schoolspecific indicators argue that such indicators 

benefit schools because they allow the schools 

to evaluate their success in meeting unique missions. These authorizers also argue that schoolspecific indicators allow schools to counter the 

problems associated with using only one statewide standardized test (such as test results reported too late to be useful to teachers). The 

Massachusetts charter office, for example, has 

written guidelines that refer to this dilemma by 

noting, “The solution to the challenge posed by 

the limitations of one assessment tool is to use 

assessments strategically and in combination.”

The charter school accountability system in 

Massachusetts requires schools to establish specific five-year performance objectives designed 

to measure the school’s progress in three areas: 1) raising student achievement, 2) establishing a viable organization (e.g., one that has 

financial stability), and 3) fulfilling the terms 

of its charter. These objectives are included in 

each school’s accountability plan. Schools are 

required to submit their initial plan by Aug. 1 

after their first year of operation. Every Aug. 1 

thereafter, each school submits an annual report that discusses the school’s interim progress 
29

on each goal and presents evidence to validate 

its claims.

In order to help schools undertake the daunting task of writing an accountability plan that 

measures progress in so many different areas, 

the Massachusetts charter office has developed 

Guidelines for Writing Charter School Accountability Plans.

12 This document provides schools 

with detailed instructions on developing goals 

and measures and includes references to many 

common pitfalls. For example, the guidelines 

note in the first few pages:

An accountability plan is not designed to 

describe all of the outcomes a charter school 

has set for itself. It sets objectives for the most 

critical areas of performance that will inform a decision about whether to renew the 

school’s charter. Effective measurement and 

reporting can require a significant commitment of time and resources, and even 

concise goals can yield a lengthy Annual 

Report. A more powerful case is made when 

schools measure fewer things better than 

many things incompletely or superficially.

Relative to the other authorizers, the SUNY Institute and the Indianapolis mayor’s office have 

fairly prescriptive performance requirements for 

the schools they authorize. SUNY Institute charter schools are required to develop an accountability plan during the first year of their charter 

that includes goals that are organized into two 

sections—“academic” and “unique programmatic areas.” Charter schools authorized by the 

Indianapolis mayor’s office also are required to 

develop an accountability plan during the first 

year of their charter.

In SUNY Institute-authorized schools, student 

performance must be measured in absolute 

terms, using value-added measures (e.g., assessments that measure students’ academic 

growth), and compared to the performance of 

local district schools or the district school where 

the charter school’s students would have been 

assigned to attend. SUNY Institute expects at 

least 75 percent of all its schools’ students to 

score at proficiency levels on state reading and 

math exams. SUNY Institute staff members offer workshops for schools as well as individual 

guidance to help them develop meaningful and 

measurable goals for student performance.

Charter schools authorized by the Indianapolis 

mayor’s office are required to measure students’ 

performance not only using state standardized 

tests but also using the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic Progress reading and math tests in the fall and spring. (See 

fig. 6 for the Indianapolis mayor’s office timeline for accountability plan development, implementation, and oversight, which describes when 

the schools submit testing data and other performance indicators to the mayor’s office.) This 

consistent year-to-year testing allows the mayor’s office to assess the “value-added” by each 

school—the school’s contribution to the learning of its students. The charter schools office at 

CMU also conducts a value-added analysis of its 

schools’ performance, using a Web-based, realtime assessment system called Scantron’s Performance Series, which it makes available to all 

of its schools. Schools administer the test every 

fall and spring and use the testing data to track 

students’ learning progress over time. The Indianapolis mayor’s office also encourages schools 

to develop school-specific performance goals, 

but schools are not required to do so. 
30

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 6. Indianapolis Mayor’s Office Timeline for Accountability Plan

Development, Implementation, and Oversight
31

SUNY Institute-authorized schools may include 

additional measures of student performance beyond outcomes on state standardized tests. (See 

fig. 7 for SUNY’s guidelines for writing accountability plans that include required and optional 

accountability measures.) However, SUNY Institute does not encourage schools to do so without demonstrating a clear understanding both of 

how to develop the measures and the determination of what the measures will contribute to 

students’ success. According to Jennifer Sneed, 

the senior vice president of the SUNY Institute, 

she and other institute staff tell schools: “If this 

will help you in the administration of the school, 

is part and parcel of your mission, and will be 

useful to you internally, then by all means include it in your accountability plan. But the fact 

is, it is a lot of work. You may want to do these 

things, but not include them in your plan.” In the 

development of schools’ accountability plans, 

the SUNY Institute staff members place primary 

value on students’ learning progress and mastery of core subjects. If schools wish to develop 

additional, school-specific measures of success 

that assess unique aspects of their school’s program (such as arts performance), they must do 

so largely on their own. 

Support schools during the incubation and 

planning period

These authorizers have found through experience that the most critical phase of a charter 

school’s development is often in the first few 

months after it receives a charter, during which 

it must prepare the school for students and staff. 

Even the most experienced school leaders have 

probably not had to prepare a facility, hire an 

entirely new staff, develop a curriculum, attract 

students and prepare a budget—all in a relatively short time span. Accordingly, these authorizers provide more intensive support during this 

period—between the initial grant of a charter 

and the first day of school opening, and in some 

cases throughout the school’s first year—than 

they provide after this start-up period.

In Minnesota, one of the tools that the VOA 

of MN charter office uses to help schools become established initially is a detailed checklist 

of actions they need to take before and during 

the first year the school is open (see fig. 8). 

This checklist, which has been through several 

revisions, is organized as a timeline so that 

school leaders know what they need to do and 

when. The Massachusetts charter office uses 

a similar checklist called “Summary of All Action Items,” covering what needs to be done by 

when. This six-page checklist is at the beginning of a handbook produced by the Massachusetts charter office to guide schools through 

opening. The Opening Procedures Handbook 13 

also includes guidelines on such issues as governance, enrollment, school safety, and hiring. 

In both Chicago and New York City, authorizers use additional strategies to support schools 

during this critical period. The Chicago Public 

Schools Office of New Schools has worked with 

one of its partners, the Renaissance Schools 

Fund,* to provide each new school with funding for three staff positions, usually including 

the school leader, to prepare for the school’s 

opening during the eight months leading up to 

its first day of classes. In addition, CPS provides 

optional office space and technology support 

*

 The Renaissance Schools Fund is an independent, nonprofit 

organization dedicated to raising money to support the mayor’s 

Renaissance 2010 initiative to open 100 new schools in Chicago 

by the year 2010.
32

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 7. Excerpt From SUNY Institute’s Guidelines for Writing Accountability Plans
33

so that new school leaders have adequate work 

space as they prepare to open. In 2006, at the 

time of this study, it was too early to evaluate the 

impact that this incubation support, which began 

in 2004, would have on the future success of the 

new schools, but initial reports from participating 

school leaders were positive. In the future, the 

CPS Office of New Schools would like to further 

improve the start-up process by bringing in intermediary organizations that can provide technical 

assistance to address common challenges, such 

as board development and student recruitment.

NYC charter schools have the benefit of a similar program that offers even more direct technical assistance. That is, in addition to incubation 

space (a desk, phone, and computer) at the nonprofit New York City Center for Charter School 

Excellence (CCSE), leaders of new schools also 

have access to leadership and management 

training, school development workshops, facilities planning, and school assessments that highlight students’ strengths and weaknesses. (See 

fig. 9 for CCSE school support plan for development and operational phases.)

Every charter school authorized by the NYC Office of Charter Schools also receives a preopening visit from a staff member from the charter 

office during the summer preceding its first year. 

Figure 8. VOA of MN Charter School Start-up Progress Checklist
34

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 9. NYC CCSE Individual Charter School Support Plan
35

The visit is based on a “school readiness review” 

protocol and focuses mainly on elements of successful school opening, including staffing, curriculum, facilities, and board governance. This 

protocol addresses factors regarding whether 

the school has what it needs to serve students 

on the first day. During this visit, staff members 

collect information, such as certificates of occupancy, fiscal policy manuals, job descriptions, 

operations manuals, and materials regarding insurance. They also make sure that school administrators know how to obtain any such missing 

documents before the first day of school. 

Many charter school boards seek out and contract 

for services with school management organizations during this early stage. Such contracts are 

particularly common in Michigan, and CMU’s charter office has become a national leader in helping 

charter leaders negotiate effective contracts with 

what they call “Educational Service Providers” 

or ESPs. The CMU Board of Trustees implemented its Educational Service Provider Policies14 in 

1999 to help its charter school boards negotiate 

agreements with ESPs and establish relationships 

with ESPs that will be beneficial for the schools. 

(See fig. 10 for an educational service provider 

agreement included in the CMU policy guide.) 

The policies require, for example, that the charter school board retain its own legal counsel and 

demonstrate a responsible and thorough search 

for an ESP. 

Authorizers Provide Meaningful and 

Transparent Oversight

All of these authorizers understand that their major responsibility to the public is to monitor their 

schools’ academic performance and compliance 

with applicable laws and regulations. Beyond 

carrying out their basic oversight responsibilities 

as defined in the charter law, these offices have 

found that ongoing and close monitoring allows 

them to help schools improve and helps them 

to make well-informed decisions about whether 

to renew or revoke a charter.

Each authorizer monitors its schools using a 

variety of methods. All require some amount 

of documentation, including annual reports, 

evidence of legal and regulatory compliance, 

student assessment results, and nonacademic 

data, such as student attendance rates and the 

results of parent satisfaction surveys. They also 

use site visits to gather additional information 

about compliance and students’ experience in 

their charter schools. In each of these authorizing offices, both document collection and the 

site visits are informed by the office’s philosophy of charter oversight. Leaders have thought 

through the appropriate balance between their 

oversight responsibilities and their duty to respect charter schools’ autonomy, and they train 

their staff members to respect this balance every day in interactions with schools.

Use information and technology to 

streamline compliance

Charter schools are subject to many regulations 

imposed by state law.15 Each of these authorizers has found ways to streamline compliance 

and reporting requirements to make their state’s 

demands more achievable for their schools, 

which tend to have smaller staffs and fewer 

leaders. For example, one of the ways these 

offices collect the information needed to fulfill 

their oversight responsibilities while respecting 

schools’ autonomy is to be very clear up front 
36

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 10. Educational Service Provider Agreement (Excerpted From CMU

Provider Policies)
37

about the information they require (such as annual reports) and the form in which they expect 

to receive it. New school operators know that 

as charter school leaders, they will be held accountable in ways that traditional district schools 

are not. For example, if they do not meet the 

terms of their charter, charter schools face possible closure. Therefore, many of these leaders 

report that one of the most important things 

their authorizer can do to help them meet their 

goals is to communicate their expectations up 

front. Chicago has found that providing information about accountability requirements early 

on has an additional benefit. According to Katie 

Weaver, the director of accountability of the Office of New Schools, “Giving the information 

to the schools up front really promotes their 

autonomy. This way they don’t have to call us 

at the last minute to figure out how something 

is going to work. They can go back to the documentation they received early on and find the 

information and the contact person they can 

call to get more information.”

Staff members in the Massachusetts office have 

invested a considerable amount of time and 

thought in revising and improving the materials 

they give to schools to explain their oversight 

and monitoring system. The Opening Procedures Handbook is an example of their guidance, rich with detailed information about what 

schools need to do in order to meet a host of 

state regulations and requirements. In order to 

make such guidance more accessible and useful, staff members have included task checklists, 

due dates, and sidebars with crucial information 

highlighted. (See fig. 11 for an excerpted checklist.) Written in a straightforward style, the documents avoid heavy use of jargon and frequently 

refer readers who need more detail about a specific topic to additional sources of information. 

These sources include written materials as well 

as contacts within the Massachusetts office who 

can answer questions about a specific topic.

The Massachusetts office also has produced 

several documents that explain how it monitors 

schools to see that they are meeting the terms of 

their charters. These documents are intended to 

clarify the schools’ responsibilities from the outset. One document gives readers an overview 

of the entire monitoring process. Organized in a 

series of action steps, the Guidelines for Writing 

Charter School Accountability Plans 16 takes the 

reader from the beginning of the process, submitting an application, through writing an accountability plan, submitting annual reports on 

the school’s progress in meeting accountability 

goals, preparing for annual site visits, and finally 

applying for charter renewal and participating 

in a lengthy renewal inspection.

Authorizers in Michigan have considerable oversight responsibilities, in large part because state 

law requires charter schools to adhere to many 

of the same regulations and policies that govern 

traditional district schools. To ease the reporting 

burden on its schools, the Charter Schools Office at CMU commissioned the design of an electronic system to track and maintain information 

regarding schools’ compliance. The Authorizers 

Oversight Information System (AOIS) allows authorizers and schools access to an online compliance recordkeeping system, provides a daily 

account of a school’s compliance status, and 

helps track school performance and academic 

achievement. AOIS is also an electronic filing 

system, so every document associated with a 

school is readily available from any location.
38

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 11. Sample From Massachusetts Department of Education Opening 

Procedures Handbook
39

The Ferris State University (FSU) charter office 

adopted the AOIS system in 2003. One of the 

first documents that FSU-authorized schools 

receive after they are granted a charter is a 

copy of the year’s “Master Calendar,” a comprehensive document that contains every compliance and reporting deadline that the school 

is expected to meet throughout the year. As 

one school principal remarked, “This calendar 

is what keeps us on top of knowing what’s 

coming and when. Otherwise, I’d have to be 

thinking about it all the time. The master calendar makes it so much easier.” Using the AOIS 

system, schools submit their compliance documentation electronically and receive periodic 

reminders through an electronic calendar—for 

example, “In seven days, your board minutes 

will be due.” FSU also reviews monthly bank 

check registers from each school, and requires 

a quarterly financial statement. Both are submitted electronically by each school and managed at FSU in the AOIS software. The electronic system enables FSU staff to quickly identify 

schools that are experiencing academic, financial, or compliance challenges.

With regard to academic performance, FSU also 

communicated clear expectations for student 

testing and annual performance goals. It makes 

extensive use of a Web site provided by the 

state department of education to track student 

scores on Michigan Education Assessment Program tests. With up-to-date performance data at 

their fingertips, FSU staff members monitor student achievement gains at each of their schools 

and can quickly identify and assist those schools 

that face academic challenges. 

The SUNY Institute-authorized charter schools 

also receive a master calendar at the beginning 

of their charter term that provides a deadline 

for every document and a date for each site 

visit that is required, by both the SUNY Institute and the New York State Education Department, during the course of the school’s charter 

term. Evidence of compliance with regulatory 

and legal requirements (pertaining to facilities, enrollment, grades served, open meetings, 

teacher certification, and NCLB requirements) 

is reviewed each year in the form of annual 

reports. The SUNY Institute provides sample reports for schools to follow and collects the majority of documents in hard copy form. Because 

it shares oversight duties with the New York 

State Education Department, the SUNY Institute 

also works to alert its charter schools to issues 

to which the New York State Education Department pays close attention to, such as fingerprinting of staff, so that when the information is 

required, the charter schools will be ready.

“Once we have approved a school, it r­eally 

is our school. We want to work with them. 

The whole goal is that they are effective. 

That’s why we try to be as transparent 

as we can from the very beginning, treat 

schools with respect, and have reciprocity 

in the relationship to the degree that we 

can as their authorizer.”—Jennifer Sneed, 

Senior Vice President of the SUNY Charter 

Schools Institute

Use site visits strategically

While these organizations collect a lot of information regarding performance and compliance 
40

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

through electronic and paper submissions, relying solely on written documentation would not 

provide them with a comprehensive view of their 

schools. The majority of these offices also use focused site visits to gather information that is only 

apparent on-site at the school. The offices differed 

in the number and timing of visits, but most agreed 

that the visits were an effective monitoring tool.

The VOA of MN charter office conducts more 

site visits than many other offices—four per year. 

Two visits are informal, and two visits are formal 

in that the reviewers keep to a set protocol and 

follow up with a written report. According to 

Justin Testerman of VOA of MN, when he walks 

into a school for a visit, he is “looking to see 

if the reality is consistent with the information 

in the reports and other materials I have been 

reading.” Often, he can determine this quickly 

through observation. Is the student work on the 

walls regularly updated? Are students engaged 

and attentive? If the answer to such questions is 

no, he will bring it to the attention of the school 

leaders and ask them to explain why there is a 

discrepancy in information provided in reports 

and site visit observations.

California’s charter division has invested a great 

deal of staff time in refining its site visit protocols. 

Because of limitations on the office’s travel budget 

and the great distance between Sacramento and 

most board-authorized charter schools, schools 

typically receive one preopening site visit and 

one additional site visit per year from a member 

of California’s charter division staff. These site 

visits follow a detailed protocol that has been 

developed with the help of external consultants. 

Staff members report that this one visit per year 

provides them with the information they need to 

make sound accountability decisions. The division also uses Web-based software to provide a 

virtual forum for state-authorized charter schools 

to check in with division staff and access twoway technical assistance. 

California’s preopening site visit mainly addresses the adequacy of the facility: Will it effectively and safely hold students and staff on 

the first day of school? (See fig. 12 for an excerpt from CDE’s preopening site inspection 

checklist.) Subsequent visits assess the school’s 

progress in governance and organizational management, education performance, fiscal operations, and fulfillment of the terms of the charter. 

The primary purpose of these visits is to assess 

the student achievement plan, perform a facility inspection, and review records (e.g., student 

attendance, financial, personnel). Visits typically 

involve an interview with the school director, 

staff, students, parents, and board members, and 

focus on teaching and learning through observation of classroom instruction. Written reports 

from the site visits inform the California office’s 

decisions about charter renewal. If the school is 

having trouble, the frequency of visits generally 

increases. 

Rather than rely on internal staff to conduct site 

visits, FSU’s authorizing office hires four “field 

representatives”—retired principals, administrators, and district superintendents—to conduct 

site visits. These field representatives are responsible for four schools each, and they conduct at 

least six site visits to each of their schools per 

year, attend at least six meetings of the schools’ 

boards per year, and submit written reports to 

the FSU authorizing staff with information about 

the school’s climate, classroom instruction, parental involvement, facility conditions, and any 

concerns that require immediate attention or 
41

Figure 12. Excerpt From California Department of Education’s Preopening

Site Inspection Checklist
42

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

continued monitoring. In addition, staff members 

from FSU also visit the school informally, both 

announced and unannounced. In all, schools see 

someone from FSU, either a field representative 

or a full-time staff member, at least 12 times per 

year, on average. The use of field representatives 

allows FSU staff members to have a good sense 

of what is happening in its schools without having to dedicate office staff to constant travel. (See 

fig. 13 for field representative’s job description.)

The charter school staff of the mayor’s office in 

Indianapolis also uses external teams for many 

of its school visits. The authorizing staff members conduct an initial preopening site visit to 

allow them to get to know the school administration, see the facility, and determine whether 

the school is in compliance to open. Thereafter, a group of experts (including current and 

former teachers, administrators, and district superintendents) from the Center of Excellence 

in Leadership of Learning at the University of 

Indianapolis conducts formal site visits to each 

school annually. The office uses these external 

teams because staff members have found that 

schools are more likely to use the improvement-oriented feedback they receive when the 

schools do not feel they are being targeted by 

the authorizing staff. Recurring visits by the 

same team gives schools an incentive to address problems because they know the team 

will be coming back to see improvements. Authorizing staff also frequently drop in at schools 

unannounced for informal visits or to pick up 

paperwork. These visits are helpful for fostering communication, bringing issues to the office staff’s attention, and reminding schools of 

their upcoming deadlines.

Several schools report that their authorizer’s site 

visits, when well structured and announced in 

advance, serve as a recurring incentive to reflect 

on school performance and collect information 

schools themselves will use. Unannounced and 

less formal site visits also allow school leaders and staff an opportunity to display their accomplishments and ask questions or share their 

concerns with the authorizing staff.

Approach oversight with a sense of purpose 

and respect for schools’ autonomy

Each of these authorizers has carefully developed a point of view about how to balance 

adequate oversight with respect for schools’ 

autonomy. Their approaches are different, but 

each office has an oversight philosophy that 

promotes the development of a monitoring 

process that is thorough but also safeguards 

schools’ freedom to experiment with new approaches to governance, curriculum, and instruction. Having a philosophy about how 

to manage the monitoring-autonomy balance 

also has allowed these offices to develop their 

own approaches to another complex factor 

that is inherent in the authorizer’s role: how to 

balance staff members’ natural desire to offer 

support with the need to maintain their role as 

objective evaluators.

At FSU, staff members are so aware of the need 

to maintain this balance that they regularly refer 

to it as “The Line,” which is their way of describing the border between adequate oversight 

and infringing upon schools’ autonomy as well 

as between providing necessary assistance to 

schools versus running the schools’ day-to-day 

operations. This “line” comes up during every 
43

Figure 13. Ferris State University Field Representative Job Description
44

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

staff meeting and is a part of every policy decision in the office. Before providing assistance, 

for example, staff members ask themselves 

whether they are setting a precedent: Is this 

something they should do for the school or is 

this something the school should do for itself? 

Staff members acknowledge that the line differs 

with every school; those that run into trouble 

receive more assistance and greater oversight 

from the authorizer, while those that are doing well require less. Staff members believe that 

this balance between oversight and autonomy 

in every policy decision and in their relationship 

with each individual school helps FSU maintain 

a strong and healthy authorizing relationship 

with its schools.

At the Massachusetts Charter School Office, 

staff members face a similar struggle to preserve their objectivity as authorizers and not 

step into too much of a supportive role with 

schools. Schools frequently call individual 

staff members for help with everything from 

filling out the application to selecting an external auditor. When faced with such questions, Director Mary Street advises staff members to resist the urge to offer advice. As she 

defines it, their role is to “hold a mirror up to 

the schools.” That is, all of their monitoring 

processes are designed to help schools see 

their own strengths and weaknesses, but not 

to offer them specific advice about how they 

should respond to these challenges. Therefore, to do their job well, staff members need 

to focus on improving these processes so they 

can provide the schools with the most accurate “mirror” possible. According to Street, offering specific advice not only compromises 

her staff’s role as evaluators, but also means 

her office could be held accountable down 

the line for decisions that the schools make 

because of her staff’s advice.

In Chicago, charter schools themselves are very 

definitive about the kind of assistance they request from their authorizer. Beatriz Rendon, 

executive director of the Department of New 

School Support in Chicago, offers this analysis: 

“As a group, the charter schools in Chicago are 

very aware of their autonomy.” According to 

Rendon, several of the schools have expressed 

concerns that the most recent staff reorganization in her office might lead to a loss of independence on the part of the schools. “They 

were really afraid,” she reports, “that we would 

come in and start telling them you have to do 

this kind of curriculum; you have to do this 

professional development.” As a result of this 

climate, charter schools in Chicago are less likely to turn to CPS for advice about their school 

programs and more likely to ask about compliance issues. The majority of the phone calls the 

charter office receives are inquiries about issues 

such as funding, facilities, or special education 

requirements. Rarely does a school call to ask 

for advice or feedback related to the school’s 

educational program.

Staff members at SUNY Institute say they are 

very conscious of the dilemma of finding the 

right balance between providing oversight versus going too far and impinging on a school’s 

autonomy. With every report, piece of documentation, and site visit they require of their 

schools, the SUNY Institute staff members ask 

themselves, “Is this [information] convenient 

for us, or is it good for the school?” Over the 

years they have been tempted to increase their 

compliance requirements and lengthen their 

site visit protocol in order to gather additional 
45

information about their schools’ day-to-day operations, but they have tried to resist this temptation by consistently revisiting the purposes of 

their oversight: to ensure that schools are meeting their performance, regulatory, and legal 

obligations and to provide information that the 

schools can use to help themselves improve.

All of these authorizers require different levels 

of reporting about the schools’ financial condition. At one end of the spectrum, officials in the 

California charter division require schools to 

submit a preliminary budget, two interim budgets, and annual audits. Other offices require a 

bit more reporting: the SUNY Institute-authorized schools must submit evidence of fiscal 

compliance periodically throughout the term 

of their charter (including a five-year projected 

budget, one-year cash flow projection, annual 

audits, and quarterly financial statements). Requirements in Indianapolis are similar: Schools 

are required to submit quarterly financial reports 

to the mayor’s office and conduct an annual audit. Staff members in the mayor’s office review 

these data closely to determine whether or not 

the school is financially sound. FSU monitors 

schools even more frequently and closely. Staff 

members there review monthly check registries 

from each school and require quarterly financial statements and annual budgets and audits. 

At 36 months into their charter term, schools 

also must submit a statement regarding their 

assets and liabilities. In order to reduce the reporting burden that this could potentially place 

on schools, staff members at FSU have focused 

their efforts on developing an electronic reporting system that allows schools to submit all required documents automatically.

Authorizers Hold Schools 

Accountable for Meeting 

Performance Goals

One of the most challenging tasks that authorizers face is to hold schools strictly accountable to 

the terms of their charters. Much of the work that 

these offices do at each stage of the authorizing 

process is designed to make the accountability 

process as straightforward and objective as possible so they can make sound decisions about 

whether to allow schools to continue operating 

when their charters come up for renewal.

Every state with a charter school law is different from one another. States differ both in how 

they hold schools accountable for the success of 

education programs and how the states hold authorizers accountable for fulfilling oversight responsibilities. Aside from approving charters and 

monitoring their progress, most authorizers have 

two main responsibilities: 1) to revoke a charter 

at any time when the school is clearly not meeting expectations and 2) to renew or not renew a 

charter based on information about whether the 

school has fulfilled the terms of its contract, including its academic performance goals. Renewal decisions are usually made every five years, 

but this timeframe varies among authorizers.

These offices ensure that they will have the information they need to make sound renewal or 

revocation decisions by focusing on sound practices from the very beginning of the chartering 

process. That is, a strong recruitment and application process allows only the most promising 

schools to open; a thoughtful contracting process 

encourages schools to develop a set of measurable 

performance goals; and a thorough and ongoing 
46

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

monitoring process documents each school’s 

progress toward its goals, which enables the authorizer to intervene early if problems arise.

Intervene early as problems arise

While these authorizers generally take a handsoff approach to education issues, such as curriculum or instruction, each sees it as their responsibility to intervene, to varying degrees, when a 

school falls out of compliance with other organizational, fiscal, or performance expectations.

Only one of the 12 schools authorized by VOA 

of MN has performed poorly enough to warrant 

formal intervention. Staff members at the VOA 

of MN charter office attribute this success to their 

ongoing efforts to foster and maintain a strong, 

close relationship with their schools. In addition 

to conducting four site visits per year and requiring schools to submit two annual reports, the VOA 

of MN charter office also collects board minutes 

monthly and keeps in touch with schools informally through phone calls and e-mail. In the staff 

members’ experience, board minutes are often 

an early warning sign of trouble. For example, if 

Testerman, the director of the VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship Program, says he reads 

in the board minutes that a school hasn’t been 

able to pay a bill or has initiated a personnel 

action, he follows up with the school leader by 

phone to ask for more information. Typically, 

Testerman acts as a sounding board during these 

phone calls as he helps the school or board leader decide what steps he or she needs to take to 

correct the problem. Depending on the nature 

of the problem, Testerman may recommend that 

the leader contact another charter school leader 

who has expertise in the problem area, or he 

might suggest the school hire a consultant or 

take some other direct action.

To address school issues ranging from academic downturn to student discipline, the California 

Charter Schools Division and the NYC Office 

of Charter Schools both follow structured intervention protocols. In both offices, this process 

typically starts with a phone call or a visit by a 

member of the office, specifying the concerns. 

This initial contact often is followed by a formal 

notice of concern, in which the authorizer directs the school to decide upon and implement 

corrective action by a particular date (called a 

“Performance Improvement Plan” in NYC). Staff 

members will generally assist the school in taking the corrective action if the school requests 

assistance. If the agreed-upon improvements 

are not completed by the target date, the school 

may be given a notice of probation, which typically lasts one year. Thereafter, if the problem is 

still not corrected, the charter can be reviewed 

and possibly revoked.

In practice, interventions by the current NYC 

charter office staff in daily operations usually 

relate to facilities issues. Because so many of 

NYC charter schools share space with district 

schools, the authorizing staff members often are 

called upon to serve as advocates for the charter 

school’s use of certain space. Sometimes, however, such staff members intervene on behalf 

of the district to require the charter operator to 

change its use of such space to comply with the 

original agreement regarding both schools’ use 

of facilities. For example, if students of the charter school are using the school gym, but were 

not allocated use of this space in the original 

agreement, a member of the authorizing staff 

will meet with both school directors and work 

out a compromise that serves the best interests 

of all children.
47

Based on its early experiences, FSU’s charter office also has developed specific guidelines for 

addressing problems that arise in its schools. In 

its first years of authorizing, the staff addressed an 

ongoing lack of compliance at one of its schools 

simply by meeting with the school’s board and 

suggesting that it replace the school director. 

The intervention was successful in that case, but 

since then, FSU has developed a more structured 

plan for intervention. This plan involves an initial phone call to the school director or a board 

member to make them aware of the problem, 

followed by a formal letter outlining the specific 

practices or requirements that need to be addressed (issues usually concern compliance or 

financial management). Schools are given one 

year to correct the problem, during which FSU

staff carefully document all of their communication with the school. If the school is unable to 

correct the problem by the end of that year, FSU

will recommend revocation of its charter.

Fortunately, FSU also has found over the years 

that ongoing involvement in its schools and 

careful attention to compliance throughout the 

year heads off many challenges that would call 

for such an intervention. It has only had to close 

one school (out of the 16 it has authorized) for 

a failure to address major governance and organizational problems.

“Constant ongoing monitoring is the best 

substitute for significant intervention.” 

—David Harris, former director of the 

Indianapolis mayor’s charter schools 

office

Base decisions regarding intervention, 

renewal, and closure on solid evidence

Several of these offices have been faced with the 

difficult decision of whether to close a school 

that has not lived up to the terms of its charter. 

In some cases, clear financial mismanagement 

has been the reason. In other cases, schools 

have not met their academic goals. In many 

cases, a combination of factors, operational and 

academic, is the cause. In every case, however, 

closing a school has caused the office to carefully 

rethink many of its earlier processes. James Merriman, the former director of the SUNY Charter 

Schools Institute, says, “Every time we’ve closed 

a school, it’s clearly a reflection of a failure on 

our part to make the right decision.” For this 

reason, he and his staff use each nonrenewal 

decision as an opportunity to reflect on their 

approval standards, oversight and intervention 

policies, and renewal decision-making.

According to several of these organizations, 

the most difficult decisions they face involve 

schools that have not lived up to their charter 

but still are a better option for parents than the 

other schools that their children would attend 

(e.g., as when the charter schools have a safer 

school climate). Understandably, parents in this 

situation are likely to argue vigorously against 

the closure decision, resulting in contentious 

public hearings and negative media attention.17

Authorizers that have experienced controversial school closings agree that without solid evidence that schools have not met the terms of 

their charters, they would be unable to see their 

way through such situations.

In 2005, the mayor’s office of Indianapolis revoked a school’s charter due to numerous 
48

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

problems experienced over a two-year period, 

including failure to report enrollment and attendance records, graduating students who did 

not meet requirements, poor student test scores, 

lack of certified teachers, and a debt of almost 

$150,000. Despite the preponderance of evidence 

that the school had not met the terms of its charter, the prospect of this closure sparked great 

community and parent resistance. The mayor’s 

office took at least two actions that eased the 

situation somewhat. First, the mayor and his 

staff were able to present careful documentation 

of each problem leading up to the decision to 

close, and second, they appointed a trustee who 

managed the process for communicating with 

parents and closing down the school’s affairs.

When SUNY Institute recommends a school for 

nonrenewal, parents, students, and community 

members have an opportunity to present their 

concerns to the institute staff in a public forum. 

Each time a charter has not been renewed, a 

group of parents has requested a hearing. The 

SUNY Institute’s staff members have found over 

the years that many parents and community 

members do not fully understand the reasons 

a school can be shut down. So, during these 

hearings, staff members begin by explaining 

the charter renewal process and the reasons for 

their nonrenewal decision. Just as when talking with school personnel about a closure, the 

SUNY Institute staff members want to ensure 

that parents clearly understand the institute’s 

expectations and the renewal process. During 

the hearing, they also give parents an opportunity to be heard and are committed to staying 

until the last parent leaves.

In the case of one recent nonrenewal, the 

school had multiple problems, including a lack 

of programmatic leadership and the lowest test 

scores in the lowest-performing district in the 

state. Starting in year one and every year after, 

the SUNY Institute staff and outside contractors 

laid out to the school administrators the shortcomings they saw at the school in instruction 

and student learning and the improbability that 

the school would be able to make a compelling 

case for renewal. SUNY Institute staff members 

directed school leaders to respond with a plan 

for improvement. The school was unable to institute the type of change or bring in staff with 

the necessary expertise to improve the school’s 

performance. Over time, it became clear that the 

school did not have the capacity to turn itself 

around. Institute staff explained these problems 

and its responses to parents and community 

members present at a public forum, and thereafter directed the school to close its doors.

In Massachusetts, since the state began granting 

charters in 1993, six charter schools (out of the 

57 it has authorized) have closed. Two of these 

were not renewed, while two charters were revoked, and two others voluntarily closed their 

doors. The most recent revocation occurred in 

2005, when a school had its charter revoked 

due to significant under-enrollment, a spiraling 

deficit, failure to keep adequate records, failure 

to meet special education and English immersion requirements, and a lack of oversight by 

its board of trustees. The Charter School Office 

documented its findings in a report to the Massachusetts Board of Education, which voted unanimously in September 2005 to close the school.

Instead of agreeing with the state’s ruling, the 

school challenged the decision and refused 

to close, citing the continued support of parents as its rationale for remaining open. The 
49

decision then meant administrative hearings for 

several days, during which the testimony from 

parents indicated that many of the families that 

had enrolled their children in the school did 

not understand the charter school “bargain”—

that schools have some increased freedoms 

in return for increased accountability. Despite 

the testimony of parents, the hearing officer at 

the hearing ultimately upheld the decision to 

close.18 Throughout this contentious and difficult process, the Charter School Office was able 

to rely on its monitoring system and the data 

it had collected through this system to justify 

its decision. Had staff members not had these 

data, they would have been in a much weaker 

position when the decision was contested.

Part I Conclusion: Common 

Practices

The eight authorizers profiled have years of expertise, carefully honed procedures, and useful 

materials that can aid in empowering other authorizing offices across the country to improve 

their own oversight and support of high-quality charter schools. Each of these authorizers 

f­ollows established policies and employs fundamental processes that foster success. They 

approve and oversee their charter schools with 

an eye toward what will best serve students and 

families in their communities, and they constantly strive to improve their practices.

The field of charter authorizing is relatively 

new, though, and there is a great deal of necessary experimentation—and resulting variation—among the offices profiled here. These 

authorizers have come to different conclusions 

regarding the specific form their recruitment, 

approval, oversight, and accountability efforts 

will take because of the unique circumstances 

in which they operate. Other authorizers across 

the country also will want to consider their context—demographic, political, financial—when 

developing and refining their policies and procedures. They would do well, however, to carefully consider the common themes that emerge 

from the experiences and comments of the 

authorizers profiled in this guide (summarized 

in fig. 14, “Checklist of Common Practices Used 

by Highlighted Charter School Authorizers”).
50

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Figure 14. Checklist of Common Practices Used by Highlighted Charter

School Authorizers

Build a Strong Organization 

R Recruit and retain qualified staff members, 

building a staff of dedicated individuals with 

the skills and experience to conduct authorizing responsibilities effectively and with an allegiance to the office philosophy.

R Use external resources strategically, such as 

external contractors or staff in a parent organization, to supplement internal staff capacity.

Develop a Strong Talent Pool

R As allowed by charter law, engage in strategic 

recruitment of local and national school models that show strong potential for operating 

successful charter schools.

R Build criteria into the application process that 

provide an opportunity to align selection with 

the authorizer’s organizational mission.

Select for Quality

R Employ a variety of evaluation methods to assess applicants’ capacity, using methods such 

as a multistage application process, in-person 

meetings, and reviews by internal and external 

teams.

R Use the application process to ensure that 

schools are in touch with the communities they 

intend to serve, such as by requiring letters of 

support or evidence of claimed partnerships 

with community organizations.

R Balance the risk involved in authorizing innovative charter programs by carefully evaluating 

the applicant’s capacity to implement its plan.

Support New School Operators 

R Allow school operators sufficient time to develop 

rigorous performance goals to ensure goals are 

based on students’ incoming performance levels.

R Ensure that each school has the support it needs 

between the initial grant of its charter and the 

first day of school, and, in some cases, throughout the school’s first year.

Provide Meaningful and Transparent 

Oversight

R Streamline compliance and reporting requirements and be very clear up front about the information schools are required to collect and the 

form in which to submit it.

R Use focused site visits to gather information that 

can be observed only on site.

R Craft a monitoring process that is thorough but 

also safeguards schools’ freedom to experiment 

with new approaches to governance, curriculum, 

and instruction.

Hold Schools Accountable for Meeting 

Performance Goals

R Intervene early when problems arise and follow 

a predetermined protocol when a school falls 

short of organizational, fiscal, or performance 

expectations.

R Collect sufficient evidence on both student performance (e.g., achievement test results) and school 

performance (e.g., financial viability) in order to 

build a solid case for school renewal or closure.
51

The first part of this guide focused on the design elements that support high-quality authorizing—

elements over which authorizers themselves have some control. But quality authorizing is not just a 

function of what the authorizers do—the set of practices that authorizers must undertake well in order to be successful—but also is dependent on the policies, laws, and regulations that shape the context in which authorizers operate. Accordingly, this section of this guide describes the kinds of policy 

factors that either can support or can hinder quality charter authorizing practices. The checklist at 

the end of this section gives concrete steps that policymakers can take to improve the policy environment for charter school authorizing.

Figure 15. Policy-related Factors That Affect the Quality of Charter Authorizing

From the point of view of the authorizers 

profiled in this guide, the answer to whether 

the policy context affects their ability to operate successfully is a resounding yes. (See fig. 

15.) Each authorizer has its own challenges 

in this regard, but none of them is insulated from the wider policy arena. How they 

are held accountable, their ability to operate 

with autonomy, their vulnerability to political 

change, whether there are caps imposed on 

charter school growth, and the funding each 

authorizer receives can seriously impact their 

ability to do their jobs effectively.

P A R T I I

Policy Considerations

• Level and Type of External Accountability

• Level of Operational Autonomy

• Vulnerability to Political Change

• Limits on Charter School Growth

• Level and Type of Funding

Level and Type of External 

Accountability

In designing charter school legislation, policymakers have focused a great deal of attention 

on the specifics of the authorizer-charter school 

bargain (i.e., that charter schools are given certain freedoms as long as they produce results). 

If charter school leaders cannot improve student performance, operate a financially viable 

organization, and satisfy parents who have a 

choice about whether to send their children to 

this school, then the school will be closed. On 
52

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

the other hand, if a school meets and exceeds 

the terms of its charter, it can continue to operate and even expand.

As with any bargain, there are two sides to this 

relationship. The research literature19 and the 

focus of charter school legislation itself indicate 

that policymakers have given far less attention 

to the authorizer side of the bargain. What happens if the authorizer does not set up a rigorous 

screening process? Monitor schools consistently? Hold schools accountable for results? Experience suggests that student performance suffers 

if these responsibilities are not carried out.

So, how should policymakers hold authorizers 

accountable for their performance? What types 

of entities should oversee the authorizer? What 

should they monitor? How should they measure 

results? How much oversight is desirable, and 

how much would be burdensome? What role, if 

any, should the public play in this process?

Charter school legislation regarding authorizer 

oversight varies greatly from state to state, both 

in terms of what agencies provide the oversight 

and what their roles are. To move toward a 

more coherent policy, one that manages the balance between responsible oversight and freedom to act, policymakers need to know more 

about what works best. The experiences of the 

authorizers featured in this guide offer some insights into what types of entities generally hold 

authorizers accountable and how they exercise 

their oversight responsibilities, but there is more 

work to be done to determine how authorizers themselves should be held accountable for 

overseeing a system of high-performing schools. 

By directing more resources to examine these 

emerging questions, policymakers, foundations, 

advocacy groups, and government offices could 

improve our understanding of what level and 

type of oversight is most desirable.20

On the surface, there are multiple levels of oversight for the authorizing staff in the Ferris State 

University Charter Schools Office. Staff members report to the university’s vice president 

for academic affairs and the dean of extended learning, and, ultimately, to the university 

Board of Trustees, which has the final say on 

all decisions about charter approval, renewal, 

and closure. But in actuality, these offices rarely intervene in the operations of the authorizing office. Neither the university administrators 

nor the board sets policy or guides the office’s 

mission. Instead, they focus on the big picture: 

ensuring that no charter school poses a serious risk to its students, its community, or the 

university. This hands-off role leaves the daily 

work and decision-making to the authorizing 

staff, which has the expertise and tools to work 

most effectively with its schools.

Authorizers in Massachusetts, New York, and 

California make recommendations to state-level 

bodies that ultimately grant charters and approve closures. In California, this takes the form 

of an appointed Advisory Commission on Charter Schools that makes recommendations to the 

State Board of Education, which then makes all 

final decisions. Through advocacy, presentations, and annual reports, the California charter 

office answers to both of these groups for the 

integrity of its relationship with its schools and 

for the quality of their academic performance. 

The situation in Massachusetts, where the statewide authorizer is the only authorizer, is similar. 

The Massachusetts office answers directly to the 

state commissioner of education, who makes 
53

recommendations to the Massachusetts Board of 

Education. The state board ultimately makes all 

decisions. The NYC Office of Charter Schools 

also makes recommendations to the NYC public 

schools chancellor who then proposes them to a 

legislatively empowered board—the New York 

State Board of Regents—for final decisions regarding charter approval, renewal, and closure.

In the cases of Massachusetts and California, the 

state board almost always follows the charter 

office’s recommendation. This is not the case 

with NYC, where the New York State Board of 

Regents has been known to reject the recommendations made by the charter office. This 

situation is attributable in large part to differing 

levels of risk tolerance. In general, the NYC Office of Charter Schools is more open to innovative school models than the Board of Regents. 

When the Board of Regents disagrees with the 

proposed leadership, education focus, or location of a new charter school, its word is final.

Because of the way the charter school law is 

structured in Minnesota, the state commissioner 

of education ultimately approves and renews 

the charter, but the authorizing staff acts as a 

“sponsor” in the sense that it is responsible for 

ongoing oversight responsibilities. The state education commissioner in Minnesota does occasionally deny an application, particularly if the 

commissioner does not believe the authorizer 

will implement strong oversight practices.

As part of the Volunteers of America of Minnesota (VOA of MN), the Charter School Sponsorship Program also answers to the board of 

directors of this larger nonprofit for key aspects 

of its operations, such as its mission and budget. Yet it has a lot of freedom to design its own 

processes and to make decisions. The CEO of 

its parent organization—VOA of MN—is actively involved to the extent that he participates in 

the application process and is familiar with the 

processes and the schools, but the charter office director and school liaison have built the 

actual day-to-day operations themselves. They 

have created the materials and processes, and 

they field all school inquiries.

In every state with a charter school law, the state 

itself is ultimately responsible for the quality of 

education offered by charter schools. State policymakers can meet this responsibility by holding the authorizing organizations that directly 

monitor charter school quality accountable for 

results. In order to do so, the individuals who 

sit on these oversight bodies—the state board 

of education, the board of the larger nonprofit 

(as is the case with VOA of MN), and the university board of trustees (as is the case with FSU

and SUNY)—must themselves be familiar with 

strong authorizing practices.

Level of Operational Autonomy

Related to the issue of accountability is the level 

of autonomy under which these offices operate. 

Theoretically, higher-level bodies could pose a 

threat to an authorizer’s autonomy by getting 

involved in the day-to-day workings of the office, but, in most of these highlighted offices, 

this situation does not seem to occur. While 

some higher-level entities do exercise their 

right to reverse decisions made by the authorizing office, state and city education boards, 

in general, have a lot of other responsibilities 

and seem content to leave the ongoing work of 

authorizing up to these offices. According to 
54

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

the authorizers themselves, other bureaucratic 

bodies that share joint oversight over charter 

school operations pose a greater threat to the 

authorizers’ autonomy than do their own oversight bodies.

In New York, for example, both the SUNY Institute and the NYC Office of Charter Schools 

share oversight responsibilities for all of their 

schools with the State Education Department 

(SED). By law, the SED is empowered to interact directly with charter schools regarding compliance and performance and has the authority 

to revoke a charter—regardless of who granted 

it—if a school fails to comply with SED requirements or the terms of its charter. This situation 

creates an additional layer of compliance and 

reporting requirements for charter schools, as 

they must report both to their authorizer and to 

the SED. Staff members in the SUNY Institute 

and NYC offices have sought to protect their 

schools as much as possible from duplicative 

reporting requirements, but, in doing so, they 

have found it necessary to align many of their 

own policies or deadlines with the SED’s established policies and deadlines.

The Chicago and Massachusetts authorizing offices both share some joint responsibility for 

the schools with other departments within their 

larger organizations. While the application, contracting, and performance reporting processes 

are managed by authorizing staff directly, other 

departments within the larger organization also 

require schools to submit reports (e.g., on school 

attendance) and meet compliance requirements. 

In Massachusetts, for example, there are two 

full-time staff members who oversee schools’ 

implementation of federal programs. These staff 

members make regular site visits, field inquiries, 

and require schools to submit information about 

how they are implementing federal requirements. Charter schools in Massachusetts also 

are monitored by the program quality assurance 

unit in the department, which conducts coordinated program reviews of federal programs in 

all districts in the state. These reviews operate 

on a cycle that creates an additional layer of 

oversight for each of the schools.

In the past, charter schools in Chicago reported to multiple offices within Chicago Public 

Schools (CPS). Because many office personnel 

within these other departments (special education, finance, accountability) did not have experience with charter schools, misunderstandings 

occurred when these staff members did not 

know whether charter schools were required to 

meet particular regulations. In January of 2007, 

the Office of New Schools moved toward a 

single point-of-contact system whereby schools 

have an assigned staff member that they use 

as their initial contact. Because this system has 

yet to be implemented, it is too early to know 

if it resolves the difficulties that some schools 

currently experience, but the hope is that with 

well-trained, responsive staff members in those 

contact positions, schools will get the information they need more quickly.

Authorizers housed in larger organizations that 

focus on areas outside of elementary and secondary education do not tend to share oversight responsibilities with other departments 

and, therefore, operate with a larger amount 

of autonomy. The Ferris State University (FSU) 

charter office is an example, as is the nonprofit 

authorizer the VOA of MN Charter School Sponsorship Program. Staff from these authorizers 

mentioned that while they may occasionally turn 
55

to other offices within their parent organization 

for support, members of their larger organization 

rarely seek to influence or guide their work.

The experiences of these offices point to an important aspect regarding charter law—how to 

give the authorizing office enough autonomy 

to perform its job effectively while still monitoring students’ safety, academic performance, 

and their rights under federal law. One option 

is to allow state and district entities that monitor compliance to continue to do so alongside 

charter authorizers. But authorizers that share 

joint day-to-day oversight with other entities report that this shared responsibility can impose 

a burden on their schools. A more promising 

option is to hold authorizers accountable and 

empower them with the capacity they need to 

monitor schools themselves. Authorizers that 

do not share joint oversight report that, with 

proper attention and diligence on their part, 

they are able to monitor schools’ compliance 

with state and federal regulations successfully.

Vulnerability to Political Change

Some authorizers report that they operate in 

a climate of political vulnerability. In Chicago, 

New York, and Indianapolis, for example, the 

effort to open quality new schools is driven by 

high-level political leaders. Chicago’s mayor, 

the CEO of Chicago Public Schools, and the 

chancellor of the NYC Public Schools all have 

tied their political fortunes to their respective 

new schools initiatives through frequent media 

appearances and public efforts to personally recruit high-quality organizations to open schools. 

In Indianapolis, the mayor has launched the 

charter schools effort from his own office, 

thereby taking full responsibility for the schools 

and their results. If any of these elected officials loses a future election or—in the case of 

the CEO and chancellor—is replaced, there is 

a danger that the charter school reform effort 

could collapse under new leadership.

In a very direct way, the political vulnerability 

that these offices operate under acts as a powerful incentive. Staff members cannot afford complacency—they need to recruit and approve 

strong schools that get measurable results—and 

they need to promote their successes widely 

to gain public support for their work. To varying degrees, this pressure also encourages staff 

members to institutionalize their processes as 

much as possible so they are less vulnerable 

to future leadership change. The authorizing 

staff in Indianapolis, for example, has worked 

hard to publicize its schools’ successes so that 

the charter school initiative has strong public 

support no matter who the next mayor is, and 

regardless of how committed to charter schools 

he or she might be. They also have developed 

a series of handbooks outlining how to implement various processes to ensure continuity for 

the schools.

According to these authorizers, political pressure is desirable to the extent that it motivates 

them to improve their practices. It is also desirable to the extent that it reflects the wishes of 

the broader public. But research and experience 

suggest that the most common barriers to meritbased authorizing decisions are political—such 

as those arising from influential community 

groups that have a weak charter application but 

think they have a good idea, or from administrators who do not want to upset parents by 

closing a school, or from parents who want to 
56

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

keep “their” school open, regardless of its performance. Even if these particular authorizers 

have not fallen prey to such problems, policymakers should consider ways to minimize 

the power that their specialized influences can 

exert if they destabilize authorizers’ policies 

and threaten their ability to make merit-based 

decisions. Policymakers also should consider 

the amount of time and money these offices 

spend building public and political support 

for their initiatives. According to these authorizers, when staff members have to spend an 

inordinate amount of time responding to the 

concerns of special interest groups, it compromises their own internal practices.

Authorizers that operate transparently—sharing 

both their decisions and their processes with the 

public—may be more insulated from these types 

of pressures. It is difficult for opponents to argue against hard evidence of a school’s success 

or failure, for example. Specialized committees, 

such as California’s Advisory Commission on 

Charter Schools, that make recommendations to 

the final decision-maker also give the public a 

voice while helping to ensure that an authorizing office and its successful charter schools are 

less vulnerable to political change.

In addition to protecting individual authorizers 

from disruptive politics, policymakers also can 

insulate the state’s overall system of authorizing. By empowering a diverse set of authorizers 

with different kinds of political and institutional 

bases, several of the states where the authorizers profiled in this guide are located have established systems in which high-quality authorizing is likely to endure even if political change 

affects the work of one particular authorizer.

Limits on Charter School Growth

Despite their successful track record, several of 

these authorizers are unable to charter any more 

schools because their state has reached its statutory cap on the number of charters that can be 

awarded. According to the National Alliance for 

Public Charter Schools, state-imposed caps severely constrained charter school growth in 10 states* 

in 2006.21 Five of the authorizers in this guide are 

located in one of these 10 states. (The chartering 

caps identified below were in effect at the time of 

this study, in the summer and fall of 2006.)

In Massachusetts, there is a limit on the total 

number of schools that can operate, the percentage of the state’s public school population 

that can attend charter schools, and the percentage of funding that districts can provide to 

charter schools relative to their other funding. 

A maximum of 30 charter schools can operate in Chicago, and 27 were open in 2006. In 

New York, a total of 100 charters can be issued, 

and both SUNY Institute and the New York 

State Board of Regents authorized their fiftieth 

charter in 2006. State universities in Michigan, 

the most active type of authorizer in the state, 

reached their cap in 1999. Because of a special 

modification in the law, these universities can 

still authorize 15 charter high schools in Detroit, 

but are otherwise restricted from approving any 

new schools. While the overall situation is less 

restrictive in Indiana, the mayor’s office operates under a cap as well—it can approve no 

more than five charters per year.

* The 10 states mentioned in the report are Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Illinois, 

and New York.
57

Caps in these states were included in the original charter legislation in order to appease opponents of charters or to limit charter schools’ 

growth until they showed some success. They 

are still in place despite these authorizers’ demonstrated ability to open and support charter 

schools that consistently outperform traditional 

district schools. Aside from narrow exceptions, 

several of these authorizers can open new 

schools only if another school closes. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter 

Schools, 39 percent of charter schools surveyed 

in 2002–03 reported having a waiting list, averaging 135 students. This translates to thousands 

of families who would like to enroll their children in a charter school and cannot.

It is important in every state to ensure that 

growth in the charter school movement leads 

to more high-quality schools, not just more 

schools. But external limitations upon charters’ 

growth, such as caps, do not ensure charter 

school quality. Other methods that have proven 

to be effective include providing adequate resources, improving how authorizers themselves 

are held accountable for results, and allocating charters among authorizers based on performance outcomes similar to the performance 

outcomes that authorizers set for their schools. 

Authorizers that open successful schools (as 

judged by a common measure, such as AYP, 

or by comparison to traditional district schools) 

could “earn” the authority to charter additional 

schools. Those authorizers that continue to approve failing schools or neglect to intervene in 

or close such schools could forfeit their ability 

to approve any additional schools.

Level and Type of Funding

Funding levels vary greatly among these authorizers, depending on how the state law 

structures authorizer funding and depending on 

the availability of financial support from external organizations or the organization in which 

an authorizer office is located. While several 

have shown success with very lean operating 

budgets, others are limited in their ability to authorize additional schools or to implement particular initiatives because of funding constraints. 

The form and amount of financial support provided to authorizers is a key consideration for 

policymakers to ensure that authorizers are able 

to perform responsibly and effectively.

In some states, authorizer funding is tied to a 

per-pupil administrative fee. In Michigan, a state 

with a generous funding structure, authorizers are allowed to retain up to 3 percent of a 

school’s per-pupil revenue. CMU retains the full 

3 percent, which adds up to an overall budget 

of around $5 million to oversee approximately 

70 schools, a budget that far exceeds the budget 

of most authorizers in other states. FSU also retains a 3 percent fee but is able to return almost 

a third of these fees to its schools in the form 

of incentives, grants, technology (such as software), and cash rewards for compliance. The 

remaining 2 percent is sufficient to allow the 

office to maintain a full-time staff of five to oversee 16 schools with 20 campuses.

Minnesota law allows authorizers to collect a 

per-pupil allotment as well, but at a much less 

generous level. Authorizers get $30 per student 

in the first three years of the school’s existence 

(capped at $10,000 per school) and $10 per student after that (capped at $3,500 per school). 
58

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

This level of funding makes it very difficult for 

authorizers to implement high-quality authorizing practices without external support. In the 

case of VOA of MN, the charter office receives 

roughly $40,000 in per-pupil funding. The larger 

VOA of MN organization subsidizes the office’s 

operations by providing approximately $80,000 

in additional funds to support its work. At this 

funding level, as VOA of MN charter office staff 

members look toward the future, they will be 

unable to authorize many more schools unless 

they attract additional resources.

Funding constraints also affect the operation 

of the Massachusetts Department of Education 

Charter School Office. Current funding, from 

a variety of courses, is almost completely targeted, offering very little room for discretionary spending. For example, the department’s 

state administrative budget line item provides 

funding for salaries, as does the Individuals 

with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) funding, 

which provides for two staff positions dedicated exclusively to monitoring and supporting 

charter schools for IDEA compliance. Funding 

for non-salary-related expenses, such as outside 

consultants and research, is very limited.

California’s Charter Schools Division faces a similar fiscal dilemma. Although it receives funding through the California State Department of 

Education as a budget line item, the money is 

reserved for salaries and basic division needs, 

such as travel to schools for site visits. In addition, as the oversight agent for charter schools 

approved by the State Board of Education 

(SBE), the division collects a statutorily authorized oversight fee (reflecting actual oversight 

costs up to 1 percent of each charter’s general 

revenues). But the budgeted dollars limit the 

division’s ability to invest in professional development, research, and other additional activities. The director of the California division has 

been successful in attracting external money to 

cover the cost of some of these services, but the 

overall budget situation remains challenging.

While it is difficult to determine in a categorical way what level of funding is appropriate 

given the differences between authorizing 

offices, these authorizers’ experiences suggest that there is wide variation in both the 

type and level of funding available to support 

high-quality practices. Although some of these 

authorizers have been adept at securing additional resources, more supportive funding 

structures could prove a critical lever in improving authorizing practices across the country. Policymakers should consider the advantages and disadvantages of their own funding 

systems and then work to design policies that 

ensure that all of the authorizers in their state 

have sufficient resources to support high-quality authorizing practices.

Part II Conclusion: Policy 

Considerations

Each of the authorizers profiled here operates 

within a unique policy environment, with its 

own advantages and challenges for effective 

authorizing. Rather than viewing the environment in which they work as an impediment, 

all have worked to understand and use their 

state’s charter policies to their advantage and 

perform the practices associated with highquality authorizing because of and in spite of 

their environment.
59

Still, it is vital for state policymakers to create as 

strong an environment as possible for effective 

charter school authorizing. To support authorizing as a key to high-quality charter schools, policymakers must examine what should be changed 

in their state to ensure that authorizers have the 

accountability, autonomy, and support to enable 

them to work effectively. While there are many 

ways policymakers can approach each of these 

challenges, the experience of the authorizers profiled here suggests a common set of issues that all 

policymakers should take into account (summarized in fig. 16, “Checklist of Policy-related Factors 

that Affect the Quality of Charter Authorizing”).

Figure 16. Checklist of Policy-related Factors That Affect the Quality of

Charter Authorizing

Level and Type of External Accountability

R Define authorizer “success” and devise systems to hold authorizers accountable for meeting these standards. 

R	Since authorizers’ environment is already 

complex, make these systems as least burdensome and as results-oriented as possible.

Level of Operational Autonomy

R Provide authorizers with sufficient autonomy 

to pursue their authorizing missions and carry 

out their responsibilities. 

R In cases of joint oversight of charter schools by 

the authorizer and other entities (e.g., the New 

York State Department of Education), foster a 

streamlined relationship between monitoring entities that maximizes efficiency and minimizes 

the administrative burden upon charter schools.

Vulnerability to Political Change

R Empower a mix of authorizers so that quality 

authorizing will continue in the state despite 

political change.

R While exposing authorizers to accountability 

for results, insulate authorizers from specialized interests and protect their ability to make 

merit-based decisions.

Limits on Charter School Growth

R	In cases where authorizers have a proven ability to open and monitor successful schools, 

remove caps on the number of charter schools 

that can operate in a given locale.

R Foster success by providing authorizers with 

adequate resources and holding them accountable for results.

R In states with caps, consider rewarding authorizers that open and monitor successful 

schools by allowing them to authorize additional schools. Conversely, disempower authorizers that do not meet expectations.

Level and Type of Funding

R Analyze the current funding structure to determine if it provides adequate resources to support high-quality authorizing practices.

R	Improve funding if necessary by increasing the 

amount of per-pupil funding, the availability of 

external funding, the level of institutional support, or by some other means.
60

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 
61

California Department of Education Charter Schools Division

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of schools Number of students Total number of 

school closures

2004 3.5

8 schools and 8 all-charter 

districts operating a total of 15 

schools*

9,440 1

* The Charter Schools Division is partially responsible for the all-charter district schools.

California State Charter Law: http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/lr/csedcodemar04.asp

P A R T I I I

Profiles of Authorizers 

Highlighted in 

Parts I and II

In a state as expansive as California, traveling 

from one place to another can take a full day or 

more. The state’s size presents special challenges 

to the Charter Schools Division of the California 

Department of Education (CDE) in its role as the 

only statewide charter authorizer in California.

California has over 250 different authorizers, but 

most are local districts, and the majority—about 

80 percent—authorize only one or two charter 

schools. By contrast, the state charter division 

fills a discrete authorizing role: It is empowered 

to recommend for approval charter schools that 

appeal to the state after having been denied at 

the district and county levels and to recommend 

charter schools with a proven record that seek to 

replicate statewide. This latter role results from a 

2002 state policy change creating a new type of 

charter, known as a “statewide benefit” charter. 

Under this policy, a successful school may be 

allowed to open additional sites that all operate 

under one charter. Statewide benefit charters, 

coupled with an anticipated rise in the number 

of charter applicants being denied at the local 

level and appealing to the state, are likely to 

yield a dramatic rise in the number of schools 

overseen by the California charter division.

In addition, the California division can recommend “all-charter districts” for California State 

Board of Education (SBE) approval. This process involves a school district converting all of 

its schools to charter status after demonstrating 

the purpose of the all-charter district and the 

relationships among the schools and the district and county offices of education. Once it 
62

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

receives all-charter district status, a school district is technically under the oversight of the 

Charter Schools Division, but the county office 

of education in which the district is located continues to monitor certain aspects of the district’s 

operations. The partnership between the state 

and the county office of education is essential to 

the oversight of all-charter districts. In the 2005–

06 school year, eight state-authorized all-charter 

districts enrolled 6,306 students in 15 schools.

The mission of the CDE’s Charter Schools Division includes promoting high-quality charter 

schools as a way to reform public education, 

developing partnerships to promote the expansion of high-quality charter schools, analyzing 

student performance data and providing feedback to schools, and becoming a premier state 

model for support and expansion of high-quality charter schools.

The CDE has strategically approved its eight 

schools and eight all-charter districts to create 

a mix of innovative and proven approaches 

and to encourage schools to open in communities where most of the district’s schools are 

in program improvement. With direction from 

the SBE, the charter division intends to use its 

statewide benefit charters to expand school 

choice particularly in California’s isolated rural communities and heavily populated urban 

districts where students have been trapped in 

failing schools. The first two of these statewide 

benefit charters will likely open in 2007.

There is strong support at the state level for 

charter schools: State Superintendent of Public 

Instruction Jack O’Connell and the Chief Deputy 

Superintendent Gavin Payne are very supportive 

of charter schools, as is the SBE, the secretary 

of education and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. 

The support has led to extra funding for charter 

schools and for the Charter Schools Division, 

and it allows them a great deal of autonomy 

as an authorizer. The California Charter Schools 

Association also has a strong presence across 

the state and acts as the CDE’s partner on many 

issues related to charter advocacy.

For all authorizing decisions, the CDE’s Charter 

Schools Division reports to an Advisory Commission on Charter Schools. The commission, 

appointed by the SBE and the state superintendent, is composed of district superintendents, 

charter schools, teachers, parents, members of 

the governing boards of school districts, county 

superintendents of schools, and the California 

state superintendent of public instruction. The 

SBE makes all final decisions regarding charter grants, renewals, and closure. This structure 

makes oversight inherently political, particularly because the SBE is appointed by the governor and because the superintendent is elected. 

Teachers unions are a strong force in California, 

and they tend to oppose the creation of charter 

schools. But their position hinders the CDE’s 

ability to authorize successfully only inasmuch 

as it prevents the superintendent’s office from 

taking political risks on new charter policies.

As student enrollment has been declining in most 

of California’s public school districts, the tension 

between districts and charter schools has increased. Charter schools are perceived by some 

people as a potential threat that could “steal” 

much-needed per-pupil dollars. With many local 

districts less inclined to authorize charter schools, 

CDE’s authorizing role has become that much 

more important. The department, which serves 

as an advocate for charters statewide, is seen as 
63

offering an alternate authorizing route for charter 

operators who think they will be turned away by 

a local district.

The CDE’s Charter Schools Division dedicates 

three staff positions (two of them full-time, the 

other half-time), in addition to its director, to 

oversight of charter schools and the all-charter districts authorized by the state. These staff 

members are responsible for reviewing applications, developing contracts, overseeing performance and compliance (in cooperation with 

other charter schools office staff), conducting 

site visits, and making recommendations for renewal and revocation. The Charter Schools Division also has nine other staff members who 

are responsible for overseeing the hundreds of 

other charter schools in the state, but not in 

the capacity of an authorizer. These staff members do offer expertise to the state-authorized 

schools in several areas of oversight, such as 

monitoring achievement data, complying with 

special education requirements, critiquing program design, and assisting with facilities and 

financing. The Charter Schools Division also 

draws on the expertise of staff outside of its 

own office. If a portion of a charter operator’s 

application is particularly innovative or looks 

risky or unfamiliar, division staff may consult 

colleagues within the CDE for their perspective 

on its feasibility.

The CDE’s Charter Schools Division has put a 

high priority on its staff expertise, ensuring that all 

staff interactions with charter schools are based 

on the same core philosophy. The CDE’s Charter 

Schools Division underwent an 18-month training with NACSA during which all staff members 

were involved in development and implementation of new authorizing practices. Even the CDE 

staff members who are not involved in oversight 

of state board-approved charters received the 

training, so that they could see the “big picture” 

of charter schools and understand the process of 

approving and overseeing a charter school. The 

division’s philosophy is woven into each of the 

policies it developed with NACSA and was a part 

of each workshop that staff attended during the 

course of their training. This training created a 

culture of collaborative partnerships with charter 

schools (instead of a strict compliance approach) 

and treating charter schools as clients.

Charter schools in California are held to specific performance requirements for renewal 

based on the state’s Academic Performance Index (API), a measure of student performance 

on state assessments. To qualify for renewal, 

charter schools must earn an API ranking that is 

similar to district schools with comparable student populations and meet all AYP criteria for 

the previous three years.

The Charter Schools Division has developed 

a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that 

clearly and transparently outlines the key areas 

involved in the oversight process. The standard 

MOU then is tailored to each charter school 

and is reviewed annually. The CDE commonly negotiates governance, facilities plans, and 

special education arrangements with its charter 

schools. Measures of academic achievement are 

less flexible, but have been modified in the past 

for schools with innovative programs that have 

a track record of success.

The Charter Schools Division stays in touch with 

its schools primarily through frequent phone 

contact and Web-based, interactive discussions. 

Schools also may subscribe to three listservs, 
64

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

which periodically provide information via email about grant opportunities, compliance updates, and other relevant updates. Aside from 

this and their reporting requirements, CDE-authorized schools are left on their own. They can 

call for help and will receive extra assistance if 

they are having trouble. But schools that are 

performing well and meeting the terms of their 

charters are given a great deal of autonomy.

Because of constraints on the CDE’s geographic 

reach in such a large state, the charter division 

is pursuing the possibility of contracting with 

county offices of education, local nonprofits, 

colleges and universities, and other entities to 

be regionally available to its charter schools 

and conduct site visits, so that state-authorized 

schools will have an authorizing representative 

available nearby in their part of the state. This 

would not change the authorizing bodies but 

would involve these community stakeholders in 

the oversight of charter schools.

Signs of Success: California 

Department of Education Charter 

Schools Division

•	 In 2006, five out of six (83 percent) state

board-authorized charter schools met their

annual growth targets on the state’s Annual

Performance Index, a measure of student

performance on the state’s Standardized

Testing and Reporting (STAR) tests.

•	 Also in 2006, 80 percent of state boardauthorized charter schools exceeded the

annual performance growth of 100 other

non-charter schools that had similar demographic characteristics.
65

Chicago Public Schools Office of New Schools

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

1997 27 27 15,310 3

Illinois State Charter Law: http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=010500050HArt%2E+27A&ActID=1005

&ChapAct=105%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=17&ChapterName=SCHOOLS&SectionID=17524&SeqStar

t=150000000&SeqEnd=151600000&ActName=School+Code%2E

Somewhat unusual among public school districts, particularly large urban ones, Chicago 

Public Schools (CPS) has truly embraced charter 

schools as an important option for its students. 

“When I talk to my colleagues in other cities, 

I’m not sure I have seen a situation where you 

have the city and the district embracing new 

schools in the way that we do,” reflects Hosanna Mahaley Johnson. As the former chief of 

staff to CPS’s chief executive officer, Mahaley 

Johnson oversaw the Office of New Schools, 

which deals with the city’s charters.

Chicago has nearly reached the cap of 30 that 

was set by the state for the total number of 

charters it can authorize. But far from winding down, the CPS Office of New Schools is 

actually expanding. As part of the mayor’s Renaissance 2010 initiative, the office is responsible for opening 100 new schools in Chicago 

by 2010. Given the state’s cap, most of these 

will not be charters, but the district’s charter 

experience has been a positive one, and the 

Renaissance 2010 effort builds on that experience in many ways, including in its commitment to accountability for the new schools.

All of Chicago’s charter schools are held accountable for student performance based on 

a plan that includes several absolute performance indicators as well as a comparison of 

each school’s performance to the schools in the 

neighborhoods where its students live. Schools 

also frequently exercise their option to propose 

unique learning standards. CPS staff proactively 

monitor compliance, but use a hands-off approach when schools are performing well. 

About 44 percent of Chicago’s charter schools 

made AYP in 2004–05, compared to about 31 

percent of all schools in Chicago. Although not 

all charters have met student performance targets, charters overall have been improving at 

a rate of 7 percent per year, while other CPS 

schools have been improving at a rate of 2 percent, according to Mahaley Johnson.

The commitment to accountability has been 

possible in part because of the strong support of 

Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley and the school 

district’s CEO Arne Duncan. The mayor and 

CEO have stood by decisions made by the district regarding who gets a charter and who gets 

renewed, despite occasional political pressure 

to do otherwise. The mayor and CEO also have 

been strong recruiters for the district, actively 

encouraging community organizations and other groups to apply to open new schools.
66

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Chicago’s Office of New Schools recruits locally 

for potential new school operators and uses a 

strategic multistate recruitment process to attract 

operators with a proven record of success from 

all over the country. The office has stepped up 

its effort to recruit by visiting successful schools 

both in Chicago and around the country (e.g., 

North Star Academy in Newark, N.J.) and by 

putting out a request for proposals that invites 

operators of national school models to apply 

and offers approval (if qualified) for five years 

with the ability to open multiple campuses.

Despite support from the mayor, CPS leadership, 

and from strong business partnerships, the Office 

of New Schools faces significant teacher union 

opposition to charters and also has had to address some community resentment remaining in 

neighborhoods where schools have been recently closed for poor performance. The office has 

worked to improve overall community relations. 

It has created two new staff positions that are 

responsible for community relations. These staff 

members focus on analyzing school data and presenting it in easily digestible ways for the public.

For neighborhoods where new schools are being 

opened in buildings that experienced school closings, the district also created local Transition Advisory Councils (TACs), which consist of community 

members who apply to be part of the process. 

Members are usually parents, faith-based community leaders, business leaders from the community, and sometimes some of the teachers from 

the closed school. They meet regularly to discuss 

community needs for the new school, conduct 

community outreach activities, host public forums, and make recommendations to CPS. “We 

have a strong belief that if you want to change the 

school, you have to have buy-in from the people 

who live there,” says Mahaley Johnson.

As the city has neared the limit of the state’s 

cap on charter schools, one approach has been 

to replicate existing charter schools where possible. Those that opened before 2003 and that 

meet certain criteria are eligible to apply to 

open additional campuses that do not count 

against the cap on new charter schools.

Because of the combined pressure of the cap 

and the Renaissance 2010 initiative, the Office 

of New Schools has been undergoing a significant transition. Mahaley Johnson and Beatriz 

Rendon, executive director of the Department 

of New School Support, both joined the Office 

of New Schools in March 2005 at approximately 

the same time the first group of Renaissance 

2010 schools were awarded. They revamped 

the office to improve communication with 

schools, to increase accountability oversight of 

schools, and to ramp up for opening so many 

new schools by 2010.

Also, with the charter cap almost filled, the office 

is in the process of developing other options for 

opening new schools. Because district leadership supports high-quality options and accountability, CPS has introduced a “contract school” 

process (the details of which are still under 

negotiation) for opening new schools and, in 

order to encourage more teacher-led groups to 

open new schools, a “performance school” option, which entails opening unionized schools 

with a five-year performance contract.

The details of these new options are still being 

worked out, but they are intended to build on 

the district’s experience with charters and are being designed in part to work around the charter 

school cap. CPS stresses the importance of high 

achievement and meeting community needs, 
67

giving preference to schools that will be located 

in certain priority communities in Chicago.

“Renaissance 2010 was an evolution of the 

charters,” Rendon says. Reflecting on the mix 

of charters and other new school options, she 

adds, “Even though there are these distinct 

types of schools, there are more similarities 

than there are differences because the common 

thread amongst all of them is that they have 

these accountability agreements and they all 

certainly have some level of need for support 

during incubation.”

Mahaley Johnson also focused on improving the 

office’s support for the charter schools and other new schools. She would like the office to be 

known for providing support that is, in her words, 

“world class.” She added new staff positions; each 

of these staff members acts as the main point of 

contact for a set of schools and is responsible for 

contacting and visiting those schools regularly, as 

well as for answering their questions.

A longer-term goal is to learn from the charters and other new schools in ways that help 

improve achievement throughout the district. 

“One day we’d like to be known for the sharing of best practices,” says Mahaley Johnson. 

“When 2010 is at its end, and we’ve opened 100 

schools, we will be serving 17 percent of the 

students in the district. So, I’d like to see us as a 

catalyst. When we look at our data, we see that 

the growth of the charter schools is three times 

the district schools’ growth. So, I want to know 

what they are doing and then share that with 

other schools, so that it isn’t just a side initiative, 

but we’re really trying to transform the district.”

“We’re not in it to say charters are better than 

non-charters,” adds Rendon. “We’re in it to say, 

why is it that our charters are so successful? Why 

is it that they’re ranking in the top five of any given indicator? And how can we share those practices across the district to ensure that we have as 

many quality options as possible? . . . We really 

see this as the next chapter in urban education. 

It’s not that it’s the right solution for every school, 

but this definitely has to be part of our portfolio. 

The only way we can succeed is with proven 

results. Nobody can argue with results.”

Signs of Success: Chicago Public 

Schools Office of New Schools

•	 In the 2004–05 school year, 17 out of 19 of

Chicago’s charter schools that reported

Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) reading scores

had a higher percentage of students performing at the national average than similar

schools in the same neighborhood as the

charter schools.

•	 In the 2004–05 school year, 18 out of 19 of

Chicago’s charter schools that reported

ITBS math scores had a higher percentage

of students performing at the national average than similar schools in the same neighborhood as the charter schools.

•	 Chicago’s charter schools and campuses

outperformed their comparison neighborhood schools on 86 percent of student performance measures in the 2004–05 school year.

•	 All eight of Chicago’s charter high schools

reported higher graduation rates than their

comparison neighborhood schools in 2004–05.

Source: Chicago Public Schools Charter Schools Performance Report 

2004–2005; http://www.ren2010.cps.k12.il.us/docs/2004-2005_Performance_Report.pdf [accessed on Feb. 19, 2007].
68

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Ferris State University

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

1998 6 16 6,863 1

Michigan State Charter Law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(dbwu0zydduq3zr55ukspg145))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&

objectname=mcl-380501&queryid=18059774&highlight=public%20AND%20school%20AND%20academy 

In Michigan, local districts, intermediate school 

districts,* community colleges, and state universities are all eligible to authorize charter schools. 

But only state universities can authorize schools 

anywhere in the state. The others only can authorize schools in their own geographic area. 

State universities have been the most active authorizers in Michigan, and among these, Ferris 

State University (FSU) has been one of the most 

active and effective authorizers.

Teacher unions are very powerful in Michigan, a 

historically pro-labor state, and typically oppose 

charter schools. This powerful opposition has created anti-charter sentiment among many school 

boards and in many communities, where charter 

schools are seen as a threat to district schools. 

Statewide authorizers, such as FSU, are typically 

more willing to open charter schools than local 

districts, irrespective of politics.

FSU has an enormous stake in the success of its 

charter schools. As a state university with mostly in-state students, its own success depends 

greatly upon the academic and personal growth 

of Michigan’s K–12 students. The university’s 

efforts are also very visible and answer to several types of constituents—the governor, investors, alumni, and the academic community. The 

university’s interest also is tied to its own academic reputation and financial security.

FSU’s charter schools office seeks to improve education options for students in urban and rural 

communities throughout Michigan. They meet this 

goal by authorizing high-quality charter schools 

across the state that offer a quality education option where the traditional schools have failed.

FSU’s charter office is accountable ultimately to 

the university’s board of trustees, which has the 

final say on all decisions about charter approval, renewal, and closure. Current board members are primarily pro-charter and generally 

have acted based upon the recommendations 

of the FSU charter office’s staff. The board does 

not set policy or guide the office’s mission, but 

rather ensures that no charter school poses a 

serious risk to its own students’ safety or to the 

university’s reputation as a high-quality authorizer. Policies and mission are left to the office 

staff to determine.

Staff members report that their level of resources 

is sufficient. The office receives all of its funding 

from a 3 percent fee assessed from each charter 

school, but the office’s facility is subsidized by 

* In Michigan, local school districts are grouped into intermediate 

school districts, which are regional services agencies that provide 

various student and administrative services to their member districts.
69

the university. FSU is able to return almost a full 

1 percent of its funding to the schools in the form 

of incentives, grants, technology (such as software), and cash awards. Michigan has high perpupil funding for charters, which ensures that 

authorizers have better than ordinary financial 

resources from their withholding of a percentage 

of these funds. FSU currently requires no sources 

of funding outside of the 3-percent fee.

FSU collaborates with several other university 

authorizers in Michigan. For example, FSU has 

partnered with Central Michigan University to 

track student performance data and develop a 

compliance software program that it likely could 

not have developed on its own. The combined 

effort also allowed both organizations greater 

influence with the Michigan Department of Education in regard to gaining access to student 

scores on the Michigan Educational Assessment 

Program (MEAP) statewide tests. These authorizers also share best practices with each other.

FSU also depends on the Michigan Council of 

Charter School Authorizers, the Michigan Association of Public School Academies, the National Charter Schools Institute (based in Michigan), 

and the National Association of Charter School 

Authorizers for perspectives about the areas in 

which FSU is excelling or is in need of improvement and for resources that FSU has used to 

improve its authorizing practices.

FSU is not engaged in active recruitment, but 

has found most of its charter applicants as a 

result of FSU’s visibility within statewide organizations that support charter schools. FSU has 

a reputation among charter operators and authorizers as being “tough but fair,” in the words 

of FSU’s charter office’s former director Jimmie 

Rodgers, meaning that it holds its schools to 

stringent standards but provides them the best 

support they can for meeting those standards. 

FSU’s reputation and visibility in the state have 

meant that FSU has not had to do much recruitment to find charter applicants.

Currently, however, a legislative cap22 on charter schools in Michigan hinders FSU’s ongoing authorizing abilities. Public universities in 

Michigan are allowed to authorize a total of 

150 charter schools, a number that was reached 

several years ago. FSU must work in collaboration with the other university authorizers to 

decide which authorizer will oversee any new 

charters that come available. While there are 

additional charters available for two special 

types of charter schools that are exempt from 

the cap—Strict Discipline Academies and Urban 

High School Academies—FSU has been able to 

find only one talented applicant for these kinds 

of charters. Because FSU is not willing to lower 

its quality standards, so far it has been able to 

move forward with only one charter school under these exempt programs since the exemptions were established in 1999.

For 16 schools spread out across the state, 

FSU has a five-person office staff and a fourperson field staff. The office staff relies heavily 

upon technology to make sophisticated ongoing monitoring possible without significant staff 

time. Pairing oversight and assessment technology with field representatives has allowed the 

staff to accomplish office administrative duties 

while providing more face time in the schools 

and at board meetings.

For schools that adequately meet expectations, 

FSU provides ongoing support to ensure each 

school’s continued success. FSU collects a lot of 

data on compliance and student performance 
70

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

and has the capability of analyzing it for a variety of purposes. Staff members can track 

student performance to certain aspects of schools’ 

operations, which allows them to get a better 

sense of which school characteristics contribute 

most to student learning and which detract from 

performance. This information helps the staff 

better advise their boards, target particular areas 

of assistance to their schools, and often informs 

their decisions at renewal time as well.

FSU requires schools to track scores from state 

and national tests. FSU tracks Michigan Education Assessment Program (MEAP) scores online 

via the state’s department of education Web 

site, requiring no reporting from the schools. 

Results from other tests can be submitted automatically if the school uses the Scantron system. 

FSU reviews monthly check registries from each 

school and requires a quarterly financial statement. Schools must annually submit a budget 

and conduct an audit. At 36 months, they must 

submit a statement regarding their fund equity. 

FSU also requires evidence of compliance with 

all FSU requirements as well as state and federal 

laws and regulations. Financial and compliance 

information is submitted through FSU’s online 

compliance monitoring system.

FSU’s four field representatives work throughout the state and are required to conduct six 

site visits to each of their schools per year. They 

also are required to attend at least six board 

meetings per year; many attend several more. 

Their visits result in written reports that are 

submitted to the FSU authorizing staff, with reports including information on school climate, 

observations from classroom visits, degree of 

parental involvement, facility conditions, and 

planned future focus. The authorizing staff 

also visits informally, both announced and 

unannounced. Informal visits provide staff with 

useful information about the school and provide school staff an opportunity to express any 

concerns, but are not typically captured in a 

formal report. Schools see staff members at 

least 12 times per year, on average, at site visits, 

at off-site training sessions, and at an annual 

dinner for all charter school employees.

FSU staff persistently ask themselves if they are 

near “The Line,” referring to the line between 

adequate oversight and infringing upon schools’ 

autonomy; between assisting schools and running their day-to-day operations; and between 

providing incentives for performance and overcommitting their limited resources.

Signs of Success: Ferris State 

University

•	 In the 2004–05 academic year, the Michigan

Educational Assessment Program (MEAP)

showed FSU-authorized charter schools

gaining on the state proficiency averages.

In particular, the majority of FSU-authorized

schools moved students from Level 4, the

lowest of the MEAP performance levels, to

Level 3, the next higher level of scoring.

•	 In the 2004–05 school year, 54 percent of

FSU-authorized charter schools made greater gains on state MEAP tests in reading and

math in comparison to the local school district in which each charter school is located.

•	 In the 2004–05 school year, one FSU-authorized school scored 100 percent proficient on

the science MEAP test. Three FSU-authorized

schools had 75 percent or more students scoring proficient in math, science, or reading.
71

Indianapolis Mayor’s Office

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2006–07 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

2001 4 16 2,768 1

Indiana State Charter Law: http://www.in.gov/legislative/ic/code/title20/ar24

can overturn chartering decisions but cannot 

grant its own charters.

The mayor’s overarching goal for charter 

schools is to expand public education opportunities throughout the city, specifically by 

opening more charter high schools, increasing 

financing for charter school facilities, attracting 

top education leaders to Indianapolis, and engaging the business community in Indianapolis public schools.

So far, the mayor’s office has made significant 

progress on all four of these fronts. Nine of its 

16 schools in the 2006–07 school year include 

high school grades. The mayor’s office also 

provides low-cost capital financing for charter 

school facilities. A bank provides up to $20 

million in loans—backed by the city’s Local 

Public Improvement Bond Bank—for qualified 

charter schools, which can borrow at tax-exempt rates to purchase, construct, renovate, 

or lease a facility. The mayor’s office recently 

helped launch a new nonprofit organization, 

the Mind Trust, to attract talented leaders into 

the city to launch new schools and start other 

education ventures in Indianapolis. And most 

charter schools authorized by the mayor’s office operate in partnership with local community organizations and businesses, which help 

them make local connections and draw upon 

community resources.

Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson is not only a 

strong supporter of charter schools, his office is 

the only mayor’s office in the country granted 

the power to authorize charter schools by the 

state charter law. The mayor’s office oversaw 16 

charter schools in the 2006–07 school year, four 

of which opened in that year. In the 2004–05 

year, 100 percent of the mayor’s schools made 

AYP, compared to 38 percent of schools in the 

Indianapolis Public Schools system. Still in its 

early years of authorizing, beginning in 2001, the 

mayor’s office has been focused on developing 

strong selection and oversight processes instead 

of rapidly opening large numbers of schools.

Authorizing through the mayor’s office brings 

high visibility, ready political and financial resources, and familiarity with community-based 

organizations and neighborhood needs. It also 

offers immediate accountability through Indianapolis voters. Mayor Peterson has made his 

charter efforts very public through press releases, 

public addresses, and an annual report on charter schools. The report includes detailed performance assessments and profiles of each mayorauthorized charter school based on the office’s 

Charter School Performance Framework.

Under charter law in Indianapolis, the mayor 

and his staff are able to make authorizing decisions without interference from the state or 

district. The Indiana State Board of Education 
72

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

To make authorizing decisions, the mayor’s 

office is advised by the Indianapolis Charter 

Schools Board, a group of community leaders 

with experience in education, business, and law. 

The board’s primary role is to assist the mayor’s office with decisions about approvals. The 

board also has helped develop criteria by which 

to judge charter school applicants, has reviewed 

and approved the application process that the 

mayor’s office uses, and provides continuing 

oversight of the achievement, finances, staffing, 

and facilities of charter schools authorized by 

the mayor’s office. Once the mayor decides to 

grant a charter, the City-County Council votes 

on whether to ratify his decision. As of January 

2007, the City-County Council has ratified all of 

the mayor’s decisions to grant charters.

Staff in the mayor’s charter schools office describe their office as a “bureaucracy-free operation.” It has only four staff members, and its director reports directly to the mayor. These staff 

members handle core tasks, such as communication with school leaders about regulations, 

compliance and policy-setting in the school. 

The mayor’s office also relies heavily on external consultants for more intermittent responsibilities, such as site visits, accountability reports, 

and parent surveys. Several of the external consultants are leading experts in their fields—from 

school accountability to opinion surveys.

In partnership with these consultants, the 

mayor’s team has developed tools and best 

practices that are used by other authorizers 

around the nation, including a comprehensive 

accountability framework23 and a monitoring 

system that gauges school performance on 

governance, finance, and student achievement 

several times per year.

The office is continually revising its processes. The 

charter application, for example, has been revised 

five times, as has the timeframe in which schools 

are expected to open—both in response to feedback from their schools and experience gained 

from watching these schools get up and running.

The mayor’s office has been very strategic about 

recruitment of new charter applicants, addressing a “talent shortage” on three fronts: attracting 

successful school models nationally that have the 

capacity to replicate in Indianapolis; creating a climate that is conducive to charter school success, 

including creating a city-backed charter facilities 

financing program; and recruiting and providing 

training to build a supply of strong charter school 

leaders in Indianapolis. Indianapolis has been able 

to recruit several national school models to replicate in the city, including Knowledge Is Power 

Program (KIPP), Expeditionary Learning Schools 

Outward Bound, and Lighthouse Academies.

When asked what is most important in charter 

applications, the mayor’s office staff members 

are likely to answer, “People, people, people.” 

The Indianapolis staff views people as the most 

meaningful factor in a school’s success: applicants’ capacity, not just their abilities or their 

intentions. In the words of David Harris, former director of the office, “It’s not about the 

model. It’s about the people. For example, one 

school dealt with a well-respected construction 

company that made a six-figure mistake about 

the cost of the facility. The chair of the [school] 

board was a sophisticated and high-profile business person who had access to the resources to 

solve the problem. We couldn’t have anticipated 

that problem; they couldn’t have anticipated that 

problem. But they had people who had the ability to do the work and a board that could support them in overcoming unforeseen obstacles.”
73

All charter schools authorized by the mayor’s 

office are required to develop an accountability plan during the first year of their charters, 

in which they define their specific performance 

goals. All schools also are required to administer 

state examinations in all state test grades and to 

administer additional tests in both the fall and 

the spring to measure progress over the course 

of the school year. Schools also are encouraged 

to develop school-specific goals based on the 

school’s mission, but these are not required.

The charter law in Indiana only provides one 

type of recourse for authorizers when a school 

is out of compliance: revoking a charter. There 

is no intermediate penalty, which poses a significant challenge for the mayor’s office when 

otherwise successful schools have trouble complying with nonacademic requirements. If a 

high-performing school is out of compliance, 

the mayor’s office will send a letter to the school 

leader, then perhaps a reminder letter, and will 

talk to the school’s board, but the mayor’s office will not deliberately attempt to undermine 

the school’s success, for example, by issuing a 

press release indicating that the school is failing. 

When a school faces nonacademic challenges 

that do not warrant closure, the mayor’s office 

relies on repeated communication to encourage 

the school to address the challenges effectively.

The big question regarding a mayoral authorizer is what will happen when the current mayor 

departs. The prospect of a non-charter-friendly 

successor has guided the authorizing staff since 

the beginning, and they are consistently focused 

on creating sustainable policies, processes, and 

protocols that stand the best chance of ensuring 

some longevity in charter authorizing regardless 

of who comes into office after Mayor Peterson.

Signs of Success: Indianapolis 

Mayor’s Office

• The pass rates of the mayor’s office-authorized charter schools on Indiana Statewide

Testing for Educational Progress-Plus (ISTEP+)

tests rose substantially between 2002 and

2004. That is, all the charter schools authorized by the mayor’s office that were in

operation in 2003 and 2004 administered

the test in those years and demonstrated

average student gains of 10 percentage

points. Older mayor’s office-authorized

schools administered the test in 2002 as well

and showed even greater student gains,

averaging 22 points higher over the twoyear period.

•	 Charter schools authorized by the mayor’s

office administered the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures of Academic

Progress tests in reading, math, and English

in the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005. Students in these schools made greater gains

on the tests between the fall and the spring

than their Indiana peers in 13 out of 21 (62

percent) grades and subjects for which

results are available. Students in charter

schools authorized by the mayor’s office

made greater gains than their national

peers in 12 out of 23 (52 percent) grades

and subjects.

•	 In a 2005 survey administered by the University of Indianapolis’ Center of Excellence in

Leadership of Learning, 85 percent of staff

and 89 percent of parents expressed satisfaction with charter schools authorized by

the mayor’s office.
74

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Massachusetts Department of Education Charter School Office

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

1993 10 57 21,706

9 (including charters granted but not 

opened)

Massachusetts State Charter Law: http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/71-89.htm

In 1996, three years after the Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts enacted its charter school law, 

the state legislature shifted the state’s sole authorizing authority from the Governor’s Executive Office of Education to the State Department 

of Education. The Charter School Office moved 

once again a few years later, this time to an established, larger office within the Massachusetts 

Department of Education—the Office of School 

Finance. The state commissioner for education made this move in part to give the Charter 

School Office more institutional stability, according to Jeff Wulfson, the associate commissioner who currently oversees this office.

Wulfson recalls that at the time of this last move 

there was a real desire among charter advocates 

in the State Department of Education “to move 

away from charter schools being start-up and 

experimental, something different that might or 

might not be here for the long term, and really 

send a message that says charter schools are part 

of the landscape now. They are public schools 

like any other schools, and we don’t necessarily 

need to have them sitting apart. We want to start 

integrating their activities and the department’s 

activities with respect to them.”

Staff members in the Charter School Office see 

this move as positive. Their position in the office of school finance provides ready access to 

other resources within the department, including financial and legal expertise. Staff members 

also have more opportunities within the department to advocate for charter schools, and they 

have the support of Wulfson, a key department 

official who has ongoing contact with the larger 

education community in Massachusetts.

According to staff members, there are several 

advantages to being the sole authorizing entity 

in Massachusetts. Mary Street, the director of 

the Charter School Office, believes that “single 

authorizer states are bound to be more successful in many ways because there is a clear picture. We are able to give every school in the 

state the same information, the same clarification, the same point of contact.” Cliff Chuang, 

the coordinator of research and finance within 

the Charter School Office, agrees, “Being a sole 

state agency authorizer has a lot of advantages 

because you have complete and absolute track 

of every charter school in the state. Data submitted by any public school is submitted by charter 

schools automatically, and we have access to all 

of it—the grant information, the tuition information—we have tabs on everything.”
75

Access to student performance data has enabled the Charter School Office to closely monitor overall school performance and provide 

timely feedback to schools about what aspects 

of their programs need improvement (e.g., low 

student performance in particular grade levels 

or particular subjects). In general, the academic 

performance of Massachusetts’ charter schools 

has been strong. A recently released study commissioned by the state examined the test scores 

of 52 charter schools in existence from 2001 

through 2005.24 According to this report, about 

60 percent of the charter school students performed about the same as their peers in regular 

schools on Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) exams in English and 

math, while 30 percent performed “significantly 

higher.” About 10 percent of the charter schools 

performed worse than the sending districts.* 

The data from Boston, the state’s largest district, 

show that “Charter school students in Boston as 

a combined cohort have performed statistically 

significantly higher than students enrolled in 

the Boston Public Schools each year from 2001 

through 2005 in both English language arts and 

mathematics, except there was no statistically 

significant difference in performance in English 

language arts in 2001.”25

Having a rigorous monitoring process has enabled the Massachusetts office to withstand 

three legal challenges to its accountability system. In all three cases, the office recommended 

closure of a school because the school had not 

met the terms of its charter. In Massachusetts, 

state law dictates that charter schools meet 

three tests: 1) Is the academic program a success? 2) Is the organization viable? 3) Is the 

school faithful to the terms of its charter?26 In 

the case of Lynn Community Charter School in 

2002 and Roxbury Charter High School in 2004, 

the Charter School Office determined that the 

answer to each of the questions was no. When 

the schools challenged the decision through 

an administrative hearing process, the Charter 

School Office’s well-documented record of student performance data, annual reports, and site 

visits convinced the hearing officer who was in 

charge of ruling on their appeal to support the 

decision to close the schools.

While having a larger structure and support 

system behind the office can be an advantage, 

Chuang also notes that there are some disadvantages to working within a state department of education. “You definitely have to work within the 

state bureaucracy in order to do your job. And, as 

a subunit of a larger entity, you have much less 

control over operational decisions and budgetary decisions, and you report to a board that has 

competing priorities.” The Charter School Office’s 

funding is not a line item within the larger department, but rather a collection of funds from several 

sources, including state department administrative funds, federal special education funds, and 

federal charter school program grants.

Because these funds are not tied to the number 

of schools that the office oversees, the office’s 

capacity is an ongoing issue as it continues to 

grow. For this reason, the Charter School Office is in the process of developing a five-year 

plan that documents how many applications, 

* This study defined the comparison sending district for each charter school as follows: 1) For a charter school that is not regional, 

the school district in which it is located is its comparison sending 

district; 2) If 20 percent or more of a charter school’s population 

in 2004–05 came from one sending district, and there are at least 

40 students in this group, then that district is designated as the 

comparison sending district.
76

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

site visits, and renewals are anticipated over the 

next five years, so office leaders can make the 

case for additional staffing if necessary.

Unless there is a change in the law, the number of new charter school applicants will soon 

drop off significantly as the state approaches 

various limits on charter school growth, including a statewide cap on the overall number 

of charter schools. Since the original charter 

school law was enacted in 1993, the state has 

raised the charter school cap in Massachusetts 

twice. In 2006, the law allowed a total of 120 

charters statewide, and there are 58 of those 

charters still available.

In addition to capping the overall number of 

charter schools allowed, Massachusetts’ charter 

law includes other restrictions on growth, such 

as a provision that Commonwealth of Massachusetts charters cannot serve more than 4 

percent of the state’s public school population, 

and a provision that a school district’s payments 

to charters cannot exceed 9 percent of the district’s net school spending. For these reasons, 

the Massachusetts Board of Education cannot 

approve any more charter schools in approximately 150 of the state’s 500 districts.

According to the state’s charter law, once 

schools are approved, school leaders have one 

year to develop an accountability plan that 

lists the school’s performance objectives and 

defines how progress toward those objectives 

will be measured. Schools are required to develop objectives in each area of accountability—academic success, organizational viability, 

and faithfulness to the terms of the charter. Unlike some other authorizers, the Massachusetts 

Charter School Office does not prescribe one 

set of goals for all schools to meet. In order to 

meet obligations under No Child Left Behind, 

all charter schools are required to administer 

MCAS tests, but they also are encouraged to 

set specific goals that are appropriate to the 

school’s unique program. The Charter School 

Office offers limited assistance to schools as 

they develop accountability plans.

In general, staff members do not provide technical assistance to the schools, partly because 

of their own capacity limitations, but also because they philosophically disagree with doing so. “We hold up a mirror, but the choices 

the schools make will always be their own,” 

explains Street. The Charter School Office staff 

members are acutely aware of their responsibility both to respect schools’ autonomy and to 

maintain the office’s oversight integrity.

And yet, the Charter School Office staff members are keenly aware that even the strongest 

charter schools face an uphill battle because 

of the complexity of opening a school from 

scratch. For this reason, the Charter School Office currently is engaged in a statewide conversation with other charter school advocates, 

such as the Massachusetts Charter Public School 

Association, about how to establish a resource 

center that would strengthen the level of support available to charter schools at various stages of their development.
77

Signs of Success: Massachusetts 

Department of Education 

Charter School Office

• Nearly 90 percent of the state’s charter

schools performed the same or better on the

Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment

System than schools in their comparison

sending districts* between 2001 and 2005,

with just 10 percent doing worse, according

to a 2006 study commissioned by the Massachusetts Department of Education.27

•	 The study listed in the first bullet also

showed that similar patterns existed for all

demographic subgroups, with the likelihood of the significant difference favoring

the charter school being most prevalent

for the African-American, Hispanic, and

low-income subgroups.

•	 The same study found that in both reading

and mathematics, at least 30 percent of the

charter schools performed statistically significantly higher than their comparison sending

districts in each year, with the exception

of 2001. In 2001, 19 percent of the charter

schools performed significantly higher than

comparison sending districts in reading, and

26 percent did so in mathematics.

•	 In addition, researchers found that students

in Boston’s charter schools performed significantly better than students in regular

public schools. Between 2001 and 2005,

students in Boston’s charter schools, on average, scored over 9 points higher on the

English language arts state achievement

test than students in regular public schools.

In mathematics, charter school students’

scores were 8.07 points higher on average

in the same time period.

*

 See note on page 75.
78

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

New York City Office of Charter Schools

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

1998 5 23 4,494 1

New York State Charter Law: http://schools.nyc.gov/charterschools/law.text.htm

In a state where charter schools are widely 

opposed by unions, several policymakers, 

and districts, especially in smaller cities and 

towns where resources are scarce, New York 

City (NYC) has had great success with charter 

schools. This success is due in part to tangible 

support from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and 

NYC Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, both reformminded charter advocates who have instituted 

policies to support charter schools throughout 

the city. While state legislators were bemoaning the financial drain of charters upon their 

smaller districts, NYC allocated $250 million in 

capital and has made available district facilities 

for charter operators to expand where real estate prices would otherwise be prohibitive.

Despite a 2006 legislative vote not to lift the cap 

on charters, staff members in the NYC Office 

of Charter Schools remain optimistic. To former 

executive director Mashea Ashton, “It’s not a 

matter of if, but when” the statewide cap will be 

lifted, so the office continues to refine its staff, 

build its processes, and accept applications in 

preparation for the day when the city may grant 

new charters.

Meanwhile the city has moved forward with the 

cap in place by creating other public charterlike schools. In June 2006, Mayor Bloomberg 

announced the creation of 331 “empowerment 

schools” that will operate independently of the 

district much the way charter schools do. In exchange for greater financial and programmatic 

independence, schools will be held to specific 

standards for student achievement, fiscal responsibility, and school safety.

The NYC office’s mission, in Ashton’s words, is 

to “prove the possible,” to foster innovation by 

protecting schools from burdensome regulation 

and by highlighting the schools’ success with 

students who have not thrived in the traditional system. The aim is to authorize schools that 

succeed with at-risk populations to show that 

it can be done and how it might be replicated. 

Aware that the district may not always be charter-friendly, NYC charter office staff seek a record of performance that will speak louder than 

political objections to charter schools, creating 

a powerful image of success to which the traditional system will be forced to pay attention.

NYC authorizing staff report directly to Garth 

Harries, CEO of the Office of New Schools, 

where the charter schools office is housed. 

Chancellor Klein receives all staff recommendations regarding charter approval, renewal, and 

revocation, and, in turn, passes on his recommendation to the State Education Department. 
79

The New York State Board of Regents, overseeing all education activities in the state, makes 

final chartering decisions. Despite this manytiered structure, charter school leaders and the 

chancellor view the NYC charter schools staff 

as the real decision-makers regarding charter 

schools in the city.

Though NYC has had charter schools since 

1998, the Office of Charter Schools was created as a distinct entity within the Office of New 

Schools in 2004 under Chancellor Klein. This 

move has significantly improved operations. 

Developing distinct staff positions, for example, 

each clearly defined by area of expertise, allows charter schools one point of direct contact. Schools appreciate being able to call the 

same person every time with questions regarding a particular issue. In the past when staffing in the Office of Charter Schools was not as 

clearly defined, schools reported getting passed 

along from person to person before finally receiving an answer.

Office capacity is stretched, with five full-time 

staff members in 2006 overseeing 31 of their 

own schools and fiscal operations at all 58 charter schools in the city, irrespective of who authorized them. Fortunately, staff members can 

draw on their colleagues’ expertise in the Office 

of New Schools, and they are able to use other 

divisions of the department to provide a range 

of services to charter schools, such as assistance 

with transportation and other operations issues, 

technical support, and access to district facilities. They also rely a great deal on the Center 

for Charter School Excellence (CCSE), an independent nonprofit organization that focuses entirely upon charter support and advocacy. The 

charter schools staff members often use CCSE 

space for meetings, school gatherings, and 

trainings, and they work in partnership with the 

center to foster communication among school 

leaders and provide planning and technical 

support. This unique and valuable relationship—CCSE helped design the improved staff 

structure now in place—allows the NYC office 

to focus on authorizing while feeling confident 

that CCSE is providing its charter schools the 

type of support and advocacy that augments 

the department’s mission.

The NYC office is not actively involved in recruiting, but relies on the CCSE to encourage 

quality charter operators that meet the NYC 

charter office’s standards to apply. The highprofile nature of charter schools in NYC, due to 

the chancellor and the mayor’s support but also 

to CCSE’s own work, has made recruiting easy. 

In 2006, nearly 100 schools were prepared or 

preparing to submit proposals as soon as the 

cap is lifted.

All charter schools authorized by the NYC Office of Charter Schools must develop performance goals based on absolute measures of student performance on state exams, value-added 

measures (an assessment model that measures 

students’ academic growth), and comparison 

to similar district schools. Schools also are required to meet AYP and maintain high graduation rates. Schools also are welcome to include 

school-specific academic or nonacademic goals 

in their contract and may revise their goals at 

the end of their first year.

Schools are required to submit annual reports 

to the NYC Office of Charter Schools and to 

the state education department. The reports 

must contain detailed information on academic 
80

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

performance, student attendance and enrollment, and fiscal performance. The Office of 

Charter Schools also requires schools to submit 

quarterly reports of assets and liabilities, cash 

flow statements, and board minutes. Internally, 

the office staff organizes this information into an 

“accountability tracker,” an Excel spreadsheet 

containing data on what required information 

schools have or have not submitted. Most of 

these documents are collected in person during 

staff site visits to the schools, which the schools 

appreciate because of the face-to-face contact 

with a member of the Office of Charter Schools 

staff. These frequent visits also create a positive 

relationship with their schools.

The Office of New Schools and the Office of 

Charter Schools within it are a high priority 

for the chancellor and so have received much 

greater funding since he took office than in 

the past. Serving in a district office, these staff 

members also perceive all NYC schoolchildren 

as “their kids,” and this awareness informs all 

their decisions about charter approval, oversight, renewal, and closure.

The great opposition to charters elsewhere in 

the state has made NYC a highly visible focal 

point for many legislators and the public. However, as the NYC charter office applies rigorous 

policies consistently to shut down unsuccessful 

charter schools and to open a greater number 

of high-achieving, replicable schools, it may 

help to make the charter school effort in NYC a 

successful one.

Signs of Success: New York City 

Office of Charter Schools

•	 In 2005, NYC public charter schools outpaced traditional public schools on the

state English language arts (ELA) exam,

achieving 56 percent proficiency compared

to 48 percent proficiency achieved by students at traditional public schools located in

the same district as charter schools.

•	 In 2005, a higher proportion of NYC charter

school students met or exceeded proficiency standards in reading and math

compared to their district public school

counterparts.28

•	 In 2002–03, eighth-grade students in NYC

charter schools performed better than their

district peers on the state’s ELA test. Students with disabilities in NYC charter schools

performed at comparable levels to students

with disabilities in traditional district schools.

While charter school students’ performance

was lower than students from district schools

in fourth-grade English and mathematics and in eighth-grade mathematics, the

charter school students made greater gains

in these areas than students from district

schools in 2002–03.29
81

State University of New York Charter Schools Institute

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

1999 16 36 10,326 5

New York State Charter Law: http://schools.nyc.gov/charterschools/law.text.htm

Starting nearly from scratch, SUNY Institute initially saw its role as more “judge and jury” than 

charter support. But as the office has grown 

along with its number of schools, its staff has 

become more sophisticated about what they 

expect from operating schools and about what 

they offer to the schools in terms of advocacy 

and accountability. Serving schools from a relatively insulated position politically, the institute 

developed policies and procedures based on its 

chartering goals, not on political and bureaucratic pressure. Its relationships with schools 

are built primarily upon results and compliance 

with rules and regulations only inasmuch as 

they support the school’s capacity to achieve 

those results.

The SUNY Institute is known nationwide for 

holding its schools firmly to their accountability 

standards, and it has closed five schools since 

1999. While every nonrenewal has been a difficult experience for the institute staff—not to 

mention the school community—the staff is confident that over time the renewal procedure will 

improve the quality of charter schools in New 

York and strengthen the charter movement nationwide. By establishing charter schools that 

become recognized as models for excellence, 

SUNY Institute seeks to help raise the standard to 

which public schools across the state are held.

In New York state, where there has been 

strong opposition to the charter school movement, it helps to be the only authorizer in the 

state having final say in selecting new charter 

schools. Once a decision has been made by 

the Board of Trustees of the State University of 

New York (SUNY), it cannot be overturned by 

the Board of Regents. Another enormous advantage is the highly vocal and concrete support that Governor Pataki, Mayor Bloomberg, 

and Chancellor Klein give charters across the 

state and particularly in New York City, where 

21 of the 50 SUNY Institute-authorized schools 

are located.

The SUNY trustees created the Charter Schools 

Institute in 1999 as a single-purpose entity devoting all of its time and resources to quality authorizing practices. The institute seeks 

to open charters that will successfully serve 

students at risk for academic failure and to 

promote change from compliance-based to 

performance-based accountability systems. 

While meeting rigorous criteria about academic quality and capable governance, every charter applicant must show sufficient community 

support for its proposed school to achieve its 

goals. The SUNY Institute takes pains to see 

that applicants envision the program from the 

student’s point of view and that the school is 

really about the children, not the adults.
82

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Just as the SUNY Institute has a single focus, 

each staff member also has a singular focus. Staff 

members are divided by core functions rather 

than by schools or geographic area, allowing 

each staff member to offer his or her particular expertise to all schools. While this structure 

works well—even with 50 schools—the institute augments its own capacity by collaborating 

with others. For example, it uses external evaluators to help review applications, drawing on 

fresh perspectives and the best thinking about 

charter schools from across the country. It also 

contracts with outside organizations to conduct prescribed third-year site visits, to provide 

a check on procedures, also allowing schools 

to be more candid during the visit. SUNY Institute views its role as more evaluative than 

supportive and is careful to balance these roles 

when its own staff members conduct site visits. Because they are not in a position to make 

decisions about closure or renewal, external 

contractors are able to step out of this delicate 

balance somewhat and offer more technical assistance, when necessary, as compared to what 

institute staff members can offer.

Like other authorizers in New York, SUNY Institute is fortunate to have close working relationships with the New York Charter Schools 

Association (NYCSA), a statewide membership 

organization providing technical assistance and 

advocacy for all New York charter schools; and 

the New York City Center for Charter School 

Excellence, an independent, not-for-profit organization that serves as “advocate, bridge, and 

catalyst”30 for the success of charter schools in 

the city. The center helps with services that a 

charter authorizer may not be able to provide; 

for example, the institute counts on the center’s 

efforts to help increase awareness and support 

for charter schools. Most importantly, SUNY 

Institute staff members can feel confident that 

their schools in the city are receiving technical 

support, without the institute having to provide 

that support.

Ongoing evaluation of the institute’s work “permeates the organization,” according to former 

director James Merriman. While the institute 

does not formally collect data to direct its internal operations, most of its policies—such as 

the application process, renewal benchmarks, 

and ongoing monitoring—have been revised as 

a result of experiences with schools. For example, institute-required measures of student performance have replaced schools’ choice of their 

own norm-referenced tests because schools 

were not providing meaningful and reliable information about students’ improvement under 

the former measures. Also, staff members noticed over the years that they were consistently 

seeing weak school governing boards that often 

threatened the schools’ success. In response, 

the staff built into each school’s contract the 

power to disapprove board members.

Schools are required to develop an accountability plan during the first year of their charter that 

defines their specific performance goals. All 

SUNY Institute-authorized schools are required 

to administer all state examinations in all state 

test grades (3–12). Progress toward these goals 

must be measured in absolute terms, using 

value-added measures (an assessment model 

that measures students’ academic growth), and 

in comparison to their local district overall. All 

schools must expect ultimately 75 percent of 

their students to score at proficiency levels on 

state reading and math exams.
83

All New York authorizers share oversight duties 

with the New York State Education Department 

(SED). SUNY Institute has refined this relationship to make it useful for schools rather than burdensome. The SED takes the lead on data collection, for example, because it has procedures in 

place. SUNY Institute, on the other hand, takes 

the lead on ongoing oversight of schools’ academic, organizational and fiscal systems.

The institute’s unusual strengths start with its 

position within the university. The institute is 

funded primarily through sources from within 

the university. While institute staff members are 

able to draw upon a range of university resources, answering directly to the Board of Trustees 

affords them a good deal of autonomy, allowing 

staff to undertake K–12 education reform with 

an open mind about what type of programs will 

work. Acting as a statewide authorizer provides 

greater insulation from state and local politics, 

allowing staff to make application and renewal 

decisions that inevitably would be more difficult for a district authorizer. The single-purpose 

focus of the SUNY Institute ensures that staff 

members are chosen for expertise that matches 

their job responsibilities and are less likely to 

be distracted by issues and tasks not related to 

the institute’s core mission as an authorizer.

Signs of Success: State University 

of New York Charter Schools 

Institute

•	 On the 2005–06 administration of the state’s

standardized exam in mathematics, 19 of

26 (72 percent) operating SUNY Institute-authorized charter schools—open for at least

one year at the time of the test administration—outperformed their local districts.

•	 On the 2005–06 administration of the state’s

standardized exam in English language arts,

18 of the 26 (69 percent) operating SUNY

Institute-authorized charter schools open for

one year or more outperformed their local

districts.31
84

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

Volunteers of America of Minnesota Charter School Sponsorship Program

Authorizer Profile: Selected Characteristics (as of 2005–06 school year)

First year of operation Number of staff Total number of 

schools Number of students Total number of school closures

2000 2 12 1,260 0

Minnesota State Charter Law: http://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?type=s&year=current&num=124D.10 

ginalized students, feature service learning, fill 

a void in the community, and embrace racial, 

ethnic, and socioeconomic diversity.

The portfolio of schools that VOA of MN authorizes is quite diverse. For example, it authorizes 

a high school for deaf students that offers a bilingual program in English and American Sign 

Language; a K–8 school located on the White 

Earth Reservation in northern Minnesota; a duallanguage immersion Spanish and English K–8 

school that also promotes conflict resolution; a 

K–8 school that combines rigorous college preparatory courses with a focus on outdoor education; and a grades 7–12 school that features 

project-based learning that is facilitated online.

Because VOA of MN’s charter office is so small, 

it often draws on the larger VOA of MN organization for help with legal, financial, or fund-raising issues. It also takes advantage of what has 

been developed by other authorizers. “A lot of 

what we use is replicating what we see as good 

practices elsewhere,” says Justin Testerman, director of VOA of MN’s Charter School Sponsorship Program. “When I started, I went out and 

looked at the places I thought were doing the 

best work, then borrowed what they were doing and changed it to fit our environment.”

As the first nonprofit in the nation to become a 

charter school authorizer, Volunteers of America of Minnesota (VOA of MN) focuses on developing education options that will fill a targeted 

void. VOA of MN’s Charter School Sponsorship 

Program stands out for its efforts to authorize 

schools that address the genuine needs of the 

communities where they are located. Several 

VOA of MN schools serve high populations of 

students with special needs as well as students 

who come from low-income families.

VOA of MN has a 110-year history of providing 

services to the most marginalized populations. 

The organization has about 4,000 volunteers and 

700 paid staff members, but its Charter School 

Sponsorship Program is only a small part of the 

organization, with only two full-time staff members: a director who handles four schools and 

the policy-related activities of the work, and a 

charter school liaison who is the direct contact 

for VOA of MN’s other eight schools and works 

to develop a network among existing schools.

The VOA of MN charter office’s mission is closely aligned with the mission of its parent organization. The mission is most evident in the criteria that the office uses to choose which schools 

to authorize: VOA of MN’s charter office gives 

priority to schools that are small, focus on mar-
85

As an active member of the National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA), 

VOA of MN’s charter office has taken advantage 

of NACSA’s tools and resources and has adopted tools from other authorizers and organizations—including accountability and monitoring 

tools from Indianapolis, a five-step intervention process from the District of Columbia Public Charter School Board,32 and a checklist for 

opening schools from the Northwest Regional 

Educational Laboratory.33

One of the VOA of MN charter office’s biggest 

problems is limited funding. Minnesota’s charter 

law severely restricts funding for charter school 

authorizers. For this reason, VOA of MN’s charter office has had to get additional funding from 

the larger VOA of MN organization, and it saves 

on costs by having only two staff people and by 

not having to pay rent—VOA of MN provides 

the office space. The charter office also has 

leveraged local resources by directing schools 

to the services of local and statewide organizations, such as the Center for School Change, the 

Minnesota Association of Charter Schools, and 

the state department of education.

As another approach to its funding challenge, 

VOA of MN actively works to influence statelevel policy and to increase funding for highquality authorizers. In particular, the director 

of the VOA of MN authorizing office is heavily 

involved in statewide charter policy organizations and has worked to improve the quality of 

charter authorizing across the state by introducing more rigorous standards.

Being active at the state level in other chartering organizations also has helped VOA of MN

staff members cultivate contacts among people 

who get a lot of inquiries from potential school 

operators. In turn, these contacts refer appropriate school applicants to VOA of MN, and the 

VOA of MN charter office has not needed to 

recruit applicants actively.

The VOA of MN charter office director and 

school liaison consider their school selection 

process to be one of their main strengths. In 

their review, they first make sure the proposal 

aligns with VOA of MN’s mission and principles. 

Second, they look at the capacity of the applicant 

to implement its plan. Not all applicants must 

have an education background, but according 

to Testerman, VOA of MN staff members look 

for applicants to be “sincere and realistic” and to 

have the “stamina and determination” needed to 

open and successfully run a school.

Applicants submit a proposal and business plan 

to the VOA of MN charter office, and these 

materials go to a group of reviewers who then 

have three weeks to evaluate the applications. 

Reviewers include the two VOA of MN charter 

office staff members and six or seven advisors, 

usually including charter school leaders, business leaders, representatives from charter support organizations, and a lawyer who has been 

on several charter school boards. The reviewers 

provide extensive written feedback and score 

the applications using a rubric. All applicants, 

regardless of whether VOA of MN chooses 

to authorize them or not, get extensive feedback—three or four pages of comments—about 

their plans.

After discussing each application, the review 

group makes a recommendation and the VOA 

of MN charter office director then makes a decision on whether to invite the applicant in for 
86

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

further conversations. (So far, the director has 

always agreed with the review group’s recommendations.) The applicants who are invited for 

an interview receive more feedback on their applications, and VOA of MN staff members have 

a chance to further evaluate the applicants.

If VOA of MN decides to approve the proposal, 

the applicant has one month to revise its application before it is submitted to the state by VOA 

of MN. In Minnesota, there is a two-tiered application process with applications first approved 

by an authorizer, who then takes the application to the Minnesota Department of Education 

for final approval. In only one case has an applicant gone through VOA of MN’s process and 

received approval from VOA of MN but failed 

to get a charter from the state. However, this 

group was successful in getting a charter from 

the state the next year because it reworked its 

curriculum plans significantly.

According to VOA of MN’s charter office staff 

members, another strength of their approach is 

the alignment they have achieved between different parts of their process, from application 

review to contract, to accountability and monitoring. They have learned that a lack of alignment can confuse and disorient schools. For 

this reason, VOA of MN staff members makes 

sure that everything they ask for in biannual 

reports, for example, is directly tied to VOA of 

MN’s statutory authority and is in the school’s 

accountability plan.

One advantage of the VOA of MN charter office’s 

small size and personalization is that its two staff 

members are able to develop and maintain strong 

relationships with their schools. These staff members require schools to submit two reports per 

year; the reports assess academic performance, 

identify strategies for meeting challenges, and 

include information on fiscal management, governance, operations, and compliance. The second report also serves as the annual report that 

is required by the state, although the VOA of MN

report requires more information.

VOA of MN staff members also do two formal 

visits per year and two informal visits to each 

school. Site visits allow the authorizer to monitor and provide feedback as well as to follow up 

on any particular information from the written 

reports. The formal site visits include classroom 

observations and interviews with students, the 

business manager, teachers, board members, 

and parents, as well as meetings with the principal and staff.

In addition to the formal and informal site visits, 

VOA of MN staff members attend four board 

meetings per year at each school and collect 

board minutes from every board meeting. These 

minutes act as an early warning sign, with VOA 

of MN staff members using them to look for 

potential problems, such as financial concerns, 

personnel issues, or enrollment concerns.

As part of VOA of MN’s efforts to develop a 

knowledge-sharing network among its schools, 

the VOA of MN charter office holds annual 

meetings and provides strong online resources.

The schools that VOA of MN authorizes have performed well so far in terms of student achievement—only one school in the past year did not 

make AYP. A few schools have had other kinds of 

struggles, such as attracting the anticipated number of students, but, for the most part, parents are 

satisfied and the students are doing well.
87

Signs of Success: Volunteers of 

America of Minnesota

•	 Six out of eight VOA of MN-authorized

schools operating in 2005–06 for which

there were comparison data available

performed as well or better than schools

with similar demographic data in reading

or math on state standardized tests.

•	 Seven out of the 11 VOA of MN-authorized

schools operating in 2005–06 got four stars

on the Minnesota Star Rating System in

either reading or math. The Minnesota Star

Rating System is determined by AYP and

other achievement benchmarks, and five

stars is the highest number possible, on a

scale of one to five.

•	 Five out of 12 VOA of MN-authorized

schools earned the Minnesota Department of Education School Finance Award

for fiscal year 2005. VOA of MN was the

only authorizer with multiple charter

schools earning the award.
88

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 
89

The research approach used to develop this 

guide is a combination of case study methodology and benchmarking of “best practices.” 

Used in businesses worldwide as they seek to 

continuously improve their operations, benchmarking has more recently been applied to education. Benchmarking is a structured, efficient 

process that targets key operations and identifies promising practices in relationship to traditional practice, previous practice at the selected 

sites (lessons learned), and local outcome data. 

This methodology is further explained in a 

background document34 that lays out the justification for identifying promising practices based 

on four sources of rigor in the approach:

• Theory and research base;

• Expert review;

• Site evidence of effectiveness; and

• Systematic field research and cross-site 

analysis.

The steps of the research process were: defining 

a study scope, seeking input from an advisory 

group of experts to refine the scope and inform 

site selection criteria, screening potential sites, 

selecting sites to study, conducting site visits, 

collecting and analyzing data to write case reports, and writing a user-friendly guide. 

Study Framework and Data Collection

This study builds upon a fairly robust, though 

incomplete body of research on charter school 

authorizing. Because the field of charter school 

authorizing is fairly new (the first charter school 

opened in Minnesota in 1991), there is not a 

large and conclusive body of evidence related 

to best practices. The majority of studies rely 

on surveys and practitioner expertise as well as 

expert opinion. Based on the current research, a 

conceptual framework was developed to guide 

the study. Those variables that the research suggests contribute most to effective authorizing 

are highlighted in the conceptual framework, 

which was designed to guide both site selection 

and data collection. Feedback from an advisory 

group of experts in the field and from the Office 

of Innovation and Improvement staff further 

informed the scope of the project. The dimensions of the conceptual framework were:

1. Authorizer Ability to Negotiate Policy Context

Working effectively within the existing political and bureaucratic environment.

2. Authorizer Capacity

Developing an effective organization.

3. Recruiting and Selecting Applicants

Establishing and running an application 

process that yields high-quality charter 

schools.

A P P E N D I X A

Research

Methodology
90

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

4. Contracting Process

Delineating rights and responsibilities, 

defining ambitious performance goals, and 

establishing consequences for performance.

5. Oversight

Engaging in rigorous and transparent performance monitoring and providing appropriate support and intervention. 

6. Accountability for School Performance

Making decisions about intervention, renewal and closure that increase the quality 

of charter schools over time.

Site Selection Process

The first step in site selection was to compile a 

comprehensive list of known authorizers from 

every state with a charter school law. This initial list, which included 852 authorizers from 

40 states and the District of Columbia, was compiled through online research and information 

gathered from state-level officials and other national resources. This initial list provided a limited range of information about each authorizer, 

including state, authorizer type, and volume of 

schools authorized. 

In order to narrow the list of authorizers that 

could potentially be included in the guide, the 

Office of Innovation and Improvement sent out 

a memo inviting people to nominate authorizers that they believed met the initial set of criteria identified by research and confirmed by 

the advisory board. This e-mail memo was sent 

out on several listserves that target state charter 

school directors, charter school support organizations, charter authorizers, and others. Nominations were received from schools, states, 

experts, and authorizers.

From all of the nominations, a pool of 29 authorizers was identified for further screening. In 

narrowing the list, the research team considered 

several factors, including the number of nominations sent in for a particular authorizer, whether a 

particular authorizer was nominated by a variety 

of sources, such as school leaders, charter support organizations, and state-level directors; and 

finally, whether the nomination suggested that 

the authorizer meets several of the indicators for 

success defined by the advisory group of experts 

in the field that was convened for the study. 

Using report card data from state department 

of education Web sites, school Web sites, and 

Schoolmatters.com, the research team gathered 

preliminary information about student achievement in the schools authorized by each of the 

29 authorizers. The researchers also contacted 

authorizers directly and asked them to provide 

achievement information. In addition, they 

gathered preliminary information online about 

the level of impact charter schools authorized 

by a particular authorizer have had on public 

education in their jurisdiction, as measured by 

the percentage of students in the district that attend charter schools, the total number of charter 

schools, or some other indication. Where readily available, the team also gathered information 

about traditional school performance in these 

same districts. 

In addition, a phone interview was conducted 

with each of the 29 authorizers. Information 

from this interview was used to complete a 

screening matrix that reflected the selection criteria recommended by the advisory group. 
91

Selection Criteria

Based on recommendations from the advisory 

group, the selection of sites included two levels 

of screening: the characteristics that each individual authorizer should have in order to be 

included and the overall characteristics of the 

pool of authorizers. 

In order to be considered, each individual 

authorizer had to meet the following criteria: 

1) strong performance of the schools chartered 

by the authorizer, as compared to traditional 

schools within its jurisdiction; 2) some impact 

on public education in their jurisdiction; 3) experience responding to school failure, school 

renewal issues, or both; and 4) evidence that 

the authorizer engages in the effective practices 

outlined in the conceptual framework.

Once individual authorizers were assigned a 

rating based on these criteria, they were then 

sorted by various characteristics that the advisors felt should be represented in the overall 

pool of authorizers to be included in the guide. 

These “pool” characteristics included: 1) diversity by type of authorizer (ideally including one 

or two local school boards, a college or university, a nonprofit organization, a state-level 

board, a special-purpose charter board, and a 

mayor or city council); 2) diversity by volume of 

authorizing; and 3) diversity of authorizing approaches (to the extent this can be ascertained 

in the screening process). The advisors also 

urged having a balance between well-known 

authorizers and “rising stars” and to consider 

geographic diversity. 

The final pool of sites was determined by selecting eight high-scoring authorizers who collectively create the desired diversity in the case 

study pool, as outlined above.

A two-day site visit was conducted to each of 

the case study sites. Semi-structured interviews 

were supplemented with more informal conversations with a range of stakeholders—authorizer staff, school site administrators from at least 

two schools, and evaluators. An interview protocol was developed based on the study framework and adapted to each role group. That is, 

separate but overlapping sets of questions were 

developed for authorizer staff, school site staff, 

and others. Key interviews were tape-recorded 

to ensure lively descriptions and quotes using 

natural language. A written survey was used to 

collect standard quantitative information, such 

as number of schools, and renewal rates. While 

conducting the case studies, staff also obtained 

copies of local documents, such as applications, review criteria, outreach materials, and 

site visit protocols.

Analysis and Reporting

A case report was written about each site, and 

reviewed by authorizers for accuracy. From 

these case reports, artifacts, and transcripts 

of interviews, the project team identified 

common themes that contributed to success 

across the sites. This cross-site analysis built 

on both the research literature as reflected in 

the study scope and also emerging patterns 

in the data.

This descriptive research process suggests 

promising practices—ways to do things that 

other educators have found helpful, lessons 

they have learned—and practical “how-to” 

guidance. This is not the kind of experimental 
92

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

research that can yield valid causal claims about 

what works. Readers should judge for themselves the merits of these practices, based on 

their understanding of why they should work, 

how they fit the local context, and what happens when they actually try them. Also, readers should understand that these descriptions 

do not constitute an endorsement of specific 

practices or products.

Using the Guide

Ultimately, readers of this guide will need to select, 

adapt, and implement practices that meet their 

individual needs and contexts. Authorizers may 

continue the study, using the ideas and practices 

from these sites as a springboard for their own 

action research. In this way, a pool of promising 

practices will grow, and authorizers can support 

each other in implementation and learning.
93

The following list provides a sample of organizations, 

Web sites, essays, and research studies that address 

elements of successful authorizing and oversight of 

charter schools.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) offers newsletters, reports, and policy 

briefs on a wide range of issues related to charter authorizing. NACSA also maintains an online library of 

resources that includes policies, protocols, and tools 

created and used by authorizers across the country in 

all areas and phases of chartering practice. 

http://www.qualitycharters.org

The Center for Charter Schools at Central Michigan University (CMU) Web site offers several materials related to oversight and accountability, including information about the Authorizer Oversight 

Information System (AOIS), a charter school board 

orientation guidebook, charter reauthorization procedures, site and facilities reviews, and individualized performance reviews. 

http://cmucso.org

The National Charter School Research Project

(NCSRP) at the Center on Reinventing Public Education aims to bring rigor, evidence, and balance to the 

national charter school debate. The NCSRP Web site offers research and information aimed at improving the 

charter school and broader education communities. 

http://www.ncsrp.org

The NCSRP produced a 2006 report entitled Hopes, 

Fears, & Reality: A Balanced Look at American 

Charter Schools in 2006. This second annual review 

of the national charter school movement explores 

current and controversial issues facing the movement, 

including a chapter on charter authorizing and how it 

might be improved. 

http://www.ncsrp.org/cs/csr/print/csr_docs/pubs/

hopes06.htm

The NCSRP also published a white paper in 2006 

entitled, Holding Authorizers Accountable: Why 

It Is Important and How It Might be Done. The 

paper presents arguments for scrutiny and accountability for chartering agencies and offers ideas for 

how accountability could be improved through private and government initiatives. 

http://www.ncsrp.org/cs/csr/view/csr_pubs/4

The US Charter Schools Web site provides a wide 

range of information and links to resources for both 

charter schools and their authorizers. 

http://www.uscharterschools.org

The Education Commission of the States offers 

issue and policy briefs about charter authorizing, 

including a state policymaker’s guide to alternative 

authorizers of charter schools. 

http://www.ecs.org

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

provides several online resources designed to address 

issues affecting charter growth and quality, as well as 

overviews of federal and state policy initiatives. 

http://www.publiccharters.org

The Thomas B. Fordham Foundation provides 

links to major studies and over 50 other Web sites 

that address charter schools and choice. 

http://www.edexcellence.net

A P P E N D I X B

Resources
94

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 
95

1 National Association of Charter School Authorizers. 

2005. Principles and Standards for Quality Charter 

School Authorizing. Chicago, Il.: Author.

2 Central Michigan University Center for Charter Schools. 

2006. NCLB Charter Schools Leaders’ Guide. Mount Pleasant, Mich.: Author. Available at http://www.­cmucso.org/

charter.asp?link=administrators/index.htm. Last accessed 

on May 22, 2007.

3

 Central Michigan University Center for Charter Schools. 

2005. Individualized Performance Reviews Assessment.

Mount Pleasant, Mich.: Author. Available at http://www.

cmucso.org/Lead/oversight/Model/IPRAssessment.pdf. 

Last accessed on Feb. 26, 2007.

4 Central Michigan University Center for Charter Schools.

1999. Educational Service Provider Policies. Mount Pleasant, Mich.: Author. Available at http://www.­cmucso.org/

Lead/oversight/Model/ESPPolicies.pdf. Last accessed 

on Feb. 26, 2007.

5

 More information about the Authorizer Oversight 

I­nformation System is available from the Central 

Michigan University Center for Charter Schools at http://

cmucso.org/charter.asp?link=Lead/Accountability/aois

.htm&Menu=a=3+b=2. Last accessed on Feb. 26, 2007.

6 Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis. Charter 

Schools Operating Procedures. Available at http://www

.indygov.org/eGov/Mayor/Education/Charter/Schools/

Operating. Last accessed on Jan. 24, 2007. 

7 Ley, J. 1999. Charter Starters Leadership Training Workbook 1: Start-up Logistics. Portland, Ore.: Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory. Available at http://

www.nwrel.org/charter/Workbook/cs_­workbook1.pdf. 

Last accessed on Jan. 24, 2007.

8 This internal policy is not available in published 

form.

9 Smarick, A. 2005. Original Intent: What Legislative History Tells Us About the Purposes of Chartering. Washington, D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

Notes

10 Mark Mills (Executive Producer). 2004, December 

21. “Greater Boston with Emily Rooney: Eye on Education: Roxbury Charter High Faces Closing” [Television 

broadcast]. Boston: WGBH. Available at http://www

.greaterboston.tv/features/eoe_20041221_rchs.html. 

Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007.

11 Massachusetts, Charter School Law, Massachusetts 

General Law (1993), chap. 71, sec. 89.

12 Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004. Guidelines for Writing Charter School Accountability Plans. 

Malden, Mass.: Author. Available at http://www.doe

.mass.edu/charter/guides/acctplan_guidelines.pdf. Last 

accessed on Jan. 24, 2007.

13 Massachusetts Department of Education. 2006. Opening Procedures Handbook: A Guide for Boards of Trustees and Leaders of New Charter Schools. Malden, Mass.: 

Author. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/

guides/ophandbook.pdf. Last accessed on Jan. 24, 2007.

14 Central Michigan University Center for Charter Schools. 

1999. Educational Service Provider Policies. Available at http://www.cmucso.org/Lead/oversight/Model/ESPPolicies.pdf. Last accessed on Feb. 26, 2007.

15 Depending on a particular state’s charter school law, 

these regulations might include requirements regarding health and safety, reporting, student admission, 

curriculum, length of school day or year, teacher certification, and so on. For more on this issue, see U.S. 

Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary. 2004. Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Author. Available 

at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/pcsp-final/finalreport.pdf. Last accessed on Jan. 24, 2007.

16 Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004. Guidelines for Writing Charter School Accountability Plans. 

Malden, Mass.: Author. Available at http://www.doe

.mass.edu/charter/guides/acctplan_guidelines.pdf. Last 

accessed on Jan. 24, 2007.

17 For example, see Minutes of the Regular Meeting of 

the Massachusetts Board of Education, May 24, 2005.

Available at http://www.doemass.org/boe/minutes/05/

0524reg.doc. Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007. Also see 

Hooper, K. 2005, Oct. 6. “City orders a charter school 

shut.” Indianapolis Star, p. A01.
96

Supporting Charter School Excellence Through Quality Authorizing

Innovation s i n Edu cation 

18 Massachusetts Department of Education. 2004, Dec. 14. 

“Commissioner to Recommend Immediate Closure of 

Roxbury Charter High School” [press release]. Available 

at http://www.doe.mass.edu/news/news.asp?id=2162. 

Last accessed Jan. 25, 2007. Also see Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, Board of Education. 2005. Hearing Officer’s Initial Decision In the Matter of Roxbury Charter 

High School for Business, Finance, and Entrepreneurship. Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/

news/2005/rchs_hearingdecision.doc. Last accessed on 

Jan. 25, 2007.

19 For example, see Lake, R. 2006, Feb. Holding Charter 

Authorizers Accountable: Why It Is Important and How 

It Might Be Done. National Charter School Research Project (NCSRP) White Paper Series, No 1. Seattle, Wash.: 

Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available at 

http://www.ncsrp.org/downloads/NCSRP_AuthAcct_

WPno1_Feb06web.pdf. Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007. 

Also see Palmer, L.B. and Gau, R. 2003, June. Charter School Authorizing: Are States Making the Grade?

Washington, D.C.: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

20 For a discussion of these issues, see Lake, R. 2006, 

Feb. Holding Charter Authorizers Accountable: Why It Is 

Important and How It Might Be Done. National Charter 

School Research Project (NCSRP) White Paper Series, 

No 1. Seattle, Wash.: Center on Reinventing Public Education. Available at http://www.ncsrp.org/downloads/

NCSRP_AuthAcct_WPno1_Feb06web.pdf. Last accessed 

on Jan. 25, 2007.

21 See Ziebarth, T. 2006. Stunting Growth: The Impact 

of State-imposed Caps on Charter Schools. Washington, 

D.C.: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

22 Michigan Revised School Code (1996), sec. 380.502.

23 City of Indianapolis, Office of the Mayor. 2005. Charter 

School Accountability Handbook for Mayor-sponsored 

Charter Schools, 4th Edition. Indianapolis, Ind.: Author. 

Available at http://www.indygov.org/NR/rdonlyres/

3B3431BC-A372-49C2-A2BF-465C73C6309A/0/Indy

AccountabilityHandbook121506.pdf. Last accessed on 

June 13, 2007.

24 Massachusetts Department of Education. 2006. Massachusetts Charter School Achievement Comparison 

Study: An Analysis of 2001-2005 MCAS Performance. 

Malden, Mass.: Author. Available at http://www.doe

.mass.edu/charter/reports/datastudy/report.pdf. Last 

accessed on May 18, 2007. 

25 Ibid.

26 For further information about how Massachusetts defines these criteria, see Massachusetts Department of 

Education. 2006. Massachusetts Charter School Common 

School Performance Criteria. Malden, Mass.: Author. 

Available at http://www.doe.mass.edu/charter/guides/

commoncriteria.pdf. Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007.

27 Massachusetts Department of Education. 2006. 

Massachusetts Charter School Achievement Comparison 

Study: An Analysis of 2001-2005 MCAS Performance. 

Malden, Mass.: Author. Available at http://www.doe

.mass.edu/charter/reports/datastudy/report.pdf. Last 

accessed on May 18, 2007. 

28 New York City Center for Charter School Excellence. 

2005. 2004/2005 Annual Report. New York: Author. 

Available at http://www.nycchartercenter.org/annual_

report.pdf. Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007.

29 The University of the State of New York and the State 

Education Department. 2003. Report to the Governor, 

the Temporary President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the Assembly on the Educational Effectiveness of 

the Charter School Approach in New York State. Available at http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/psc/5yearreport/

fiveyearreport.htm. Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007.

30 See the Web site of New York City Center for Charter 

School Excellence at http://www.nycchartercenter.org/

about.html. Last accessed on Jan. 25, 2007.

31 Charter Schools Institute of the State University of 

New York. 2006, May/June. Charter Facts. New York: 

Author.

32 For more information, contact the D.C. Public 

Charter School Board at 202-328-2660 or dcpublic@dcpubliccharter.com.

33 Ley, J. 1999. Charter Starters Leadership Training 

Workbook 1: Start-up Logistics. Portland, Ore.: Northwest 

Regional Educational Laboratory. Available at http://

www.nwrel.org/charter/Workbook/cs_workbook1.pdf. 

Last accessed on Jan. 24, 2007.

34 Filby, N. 2006. Approach to Methodological Rigor in 

the Innovation Guides. Working paper. San Francisco: 

WestEd.

Our mission is to ensure equal access to education 

and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation.

www.ed.gov