Education Cities is a nonprofit network of thirty-one city-based organizations in twenty-four cities that works to “dramatically increase the number of great public schools across the country.” As a practical matter, that means they champion, convene, and court high-quality charter schools to open or come to their respective burgs. They call the local folks who do the courting “harbormasters.” Like their nautical namesakes, these figures “facilitate safe and cooperative navigation in a challenging space.” Thus, this report functions as advice. It seeks to answer a few questions: “What do operators want? What roles and activities of local harbormasters are most, and least, helpful to those running great schools?” The answers, although not particularly surprising, are worthwhile. Good charter operators want to go where there’s a need, where they are wanted (e.g., a pro-charter political climate), and where they can reliably attract talent in the form of both teachers and leaders. Funding support, either directly or through opened doors, doesn’t hurt either.
So what does an education harbormaster do, exactly? One or more of the following: They invest in high-quality school growth, strengthen talent pipelines, advocate for choice-friendly policies, and/or rally community support. The report is based on interviews with eighteen charter operators in eight member cities who discuss these strategies and evaluate how they help or hinder high-quality charters to launch, grow, and persist.
The report’s greatest added value is in the brief sections that enumerate the challenges these groups face (or inflict upon themselves) in their roles as supporters, funders, and advocates. Harbormasters tend to be well-heeled and well-connected, or at least have such folks on speed dial. Charter operators are naturally reluctant to speak truth to powerbrokers, whose support and political cover they depend on. But that doesn't mean they're above reproach. “In the planning year, they forgot about us,” gripes one. Another frets that their harbormaster’s relationship to the broader community is polarized. “It has inhibited our success. Our brands are super-blurred. By and large, people know [us], like our schools, they like me and our school leaders, and so they don’t hate us, but there is hate for [unnamed harbormaster], and that carries over.” And another: “Once we launched, I never heard from them again...there’s so much more work we could have done together.” These are the kinds of constructive criticisms that charter advocates need to hear more often.
The authors’ recommendations are valid and widely applicable: Harbormasters should “build a strong brand” to strengthen their advocacy for excellent schools and “avoid making empty promises at all costs,” particularly on nonexistent funding or “ecosystem gaps.” They are also encouraged to “empathize with operators’ point of view” and “have a citywide plan.”
“According to operators, harbormasters serve multiple roles that are essential to their ability to launch, grow, and be successful,” the authors conclude. “There are also cautionary tales of overstepping boundaries, inconsistent communication, and disjointed support.” Yes, indeed. More of the former, and less of the latter, is what the sector needs in its next twenty-five years.
SOURCE: “What Schools Want: How City Leaders Can Help or Hinder Great School Growth,” Education Cities (December 2015).
