Bryan C. Hassel and Meagan Batdorff, Public Impact
February 2004
When the pressure is on, do charter authorizers make the right decisions about the fate of charter schools? The latest Public Impact study, written by Bryan Hassel and Meaghan Batdorff, says yes, most of the time, though not always for the right reasons or as a result of sound procedures. Out of 50 cases studied involving high-stakes sponsor life/death decisions about charter schools, only one shows an authorizer failing to close a school despite evidence of underperformance. Since authorizers have only recently come into the spotlight as a key component of the success or failure of charter schools, scant attention has been paid to how they make their decisions. Hassel and Batdorff's research confirms that many authorizers' activities lack transparency. Even when researchers could find details on decision-making, in many instances they found no measurable merit-based systems in place to help them make informed decisions. What should be done? The authors say that authorizers should design dependable systems that measure progress, protect the decision making process from political pressure, and most important, make their own workings transparent. To access the report for yourself, surf to www.publicimpact.com/highstakes.
"The Charter School Debate", Brookings Institution, February 18, 2004