Charter School Autonomy: The Mismatch Between Theory and Practice
Abstract
In theory, the charter school concept is based on a trade-off or exchange: greater autonomy for increased accountability. Although charter schools have been operating for more than 10 years, little is known about charter school autonomy in practice. This mixed-methods study used survey and case study data to examine the degree of autonomy of charter schools across the country and the factors limiting school autonomy. The findings indicate that many charter schools do not have high levels of autonomy, with schools least likely to have control over budgetary decisions. In addition, school autonomy is influenced by state laws, relationships with authorizers, and partnerships with educational management organizations and community-based organizations. Finally, the levels of autonomy in some schools were dynamic, with schools experiencing less autonomy over time.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
1.
1. Fiore, Harwell, Blackorby, and Finnigan (2000) argued that innovation, whether organizational or curricular, must be considered within the local context. Thus, although schools in their study of 32 charter schools in 15 states were not always implementing innovative ideas and practices in an absolute sense (i.e., things that had never been attempted previously), they were frequently implementing approaches that were not available within the local public school systems.
2.
2. In the political science literature, this definition is more closely linked to flexibility (Wohlstetter et al., 1995). This study considers autonomy and flexibility as interchangeable, as does most of the literature on charter schools.
3.
3. For more details regarding limitations on teacher autonomy in charter schools, see Moore and Landman (2000) and Crawford (2001).
4.
4. For more details, see U.S. Department of Education (2004).
5.
5. A small number of “other” authorizers were not sampled.
6.
6. It is important to recognize that Nathan's point about an “up-front waiver” does not include health, accessibility, and safety regulations. In addition, charter schools must be non-sectarian, be open to all students, be free of charge, and not discriminate.
7.
7. Some traditional public schools do have waiting lists because they fall under a special category of schools (e.g., magnet schools) or because they are filled to capacity.
8.
8. One school was not following the EMO “package” because of misalignment with state standards. The other had been allowed to use a different math program because of its longstanding relationship with the EMO (no other sponsored school of this EMO was allowed this flexibility), although it continued to feel pressure to adopt the EMO's math program.
9.
9. In fact, some authorizers prohibit these relationships.
10.
10. Although Kolderie (1992) argued that charter schools must not only meet the performance objectives agreed to in their charters but also meet “state outcome requirements if they exist” (p. 30), this study (see U.S. Department of Education, 2004) found that charter schools were not always held to the same accountability policies as other public schools prior to the passage of the NCLB. For example, in New York, charter schools did not fall under the statewide accountability system at the time of the study.
11.
11. The case study schools with low levels of autonomy did not experience changes in autonomy, nor did they express an interest in having more.
12.
12. It is important to note that charter school governing bodies are distinct from school councils or other school-level bodies associated with site-based management reforms because of the wider range of decision-making authority they have in charter schools.
References
Anderson, L., & Finnigan, K. (2001, April). Charter school authorizers and charter school accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
Ascher, C., & Greenberg, A. (2002). Charter reform and the education bureaucracy: Lessons from New York State. Phi Delta Kappan, 83(7), 513-518.
Bulkley, K. (2003). Educational management organizations and the development of professional community (Occasional Paper No. 69). New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
Bulkley, K. (2004). Balancing act: Educational management organizations and charter school autonomy. In K. Bulkley & P. Wolhstetter (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What's happened and what's next (pp. 121-141). New York: Teachers College Press.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2002). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice (CPRE Policy Briefs). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Corwin, R. (1996). School autonomy: How much freedom do charter schools have? In R. Corwin & J. Flaherty (Eds.), Freedom and innovation in California's charter schools (pp. 17-41). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
Crawford, J. (2001). Teacher autonomy and accountability in charter schools. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 186-200.
David, J.L., & Shields, P.M. (1991). From effective schools to restructuring: A literature review. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International .
Elmore, R.F. (1990). Restructuring schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Fiore, T., Harwell, L.M., Blackorby, J., & Finnigan, K.S. (2000). Charter schools and students with disabilities: A national study (Final report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
Fuhrman, S. (1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Brief RB 27) . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Fuller, B. (2000) Breaking away or pulling together? Making decentralization work. In B. Fuller (Ed.), Inside charter schools: The paradox of radical decentralization (pp. 230-254). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hess, F. (2001). Whaddaya mean you want to close my school? The politics of regulatory accountability in charter schooling. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 141-156.
Kolderie, T. (1990). Beyond choice to new public schools: Withdrawing the exclusive franchise in public education. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
Kolderie, T. (1992). Chartering diversity. Equity and Choice, 9(1), 28-31.
Lubienski, C. (2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395-443.
Malen, B., & Ogawa, R.T. (1988). Professional-patron influence on site-based governance councils: A confounding case study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10(4), 251-270.
Marsh, J.A. (2002). Democratic dilemmas: Joint work, education politics, and community. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.
McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.
Moore, S., & Landman, J. (2000). Sometimes bureaucracy has its charms: The working conditions of teachers in deregulated schools. Teachers College Record, 102(1), 85-124.
Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Newmann, F. (1991). Linking restructuring to authentic student achievement . Phi Delta Kappan, 72(6), 458-463.
Scott, W.R. (1998). Organizations: Rational, natural, and open systems (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sen, A. ( 1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Year one evaluation report . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service, Elementary and Secondary Program Division. Available at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OUS/PES/chartschools/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary.
Vergari, S. (2001). Charter school authorizers: Public agents for holding charter schools accountable. Education and Urban Society, 33(2), 129-140.
Wells, A.S. (1998). Charter school reform in California: Does it meet expectations? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(4), 305-312.
Wells, A.S., Artiles, L., Carnochan, S., Cooper, C.W., Grutzik, C., Holme, J.J., et al. (1998). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts. Los Angeles : University of California, Los Angeles, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
Wohlstetter, P., & Chau, D. (2004). Does autonomy matter? Implementing research-based practices in charter and other public schools. In K. Bulkley & P. Wolhstetter (Eds.), Taking account of charter schools: What's happened and what's next (pp. 53-71). New York: Teachers College Press.
Wohlstetter, P., & Griffin, N. (1998). Creating and sustaining learning communities: Early lessons from charter schools. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
Wohlstetter, P., Wenning, R., & Briggs, K. (1995). Charter schools in the United States: The question of autonomy. Educational Policy, 9, 331-358.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published: July 2007
Issue published: July 2007
Keywords
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Article usage*
Total views and downloads: 659
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 50 view articles Opens in new tab
Crossref: 58
- Charter School Autonomy and Centralized Student Transportation: How Contextual Factors Influence Perspectives in Three Cities
- The relationship between regulation and charter school innovation
- Accountable to Whom and for What? Charter Regulation in the Era of ESSA
- How context shapes the relationship between school autonomy and test-scores. An explanatory analysis using PISA 2015
- Contemporary Economic Issues in Asian Countries: Proceeding of CEIAC 2022, Volume 2
- Managerial, professional and collective school autonomies: using material semiotics to examine the multiple realities of school autonomy
- Understanding the interactions between multiple actors in network governance: Evidence from school turnaround in China
- Is more autonomy better? How school actors perceive school autonomy and effectiveness in context
- The conditions of opportunity recognition in schools: an investigation of how entrepreneurial teachers discover new educational opportunities
- Empowering the frontline: internal and external organizational antecedents of teacher empowerment
- View More
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
I am signed in as:
View my profileSign out
I can access personal subscriptions, purchases, paired institutional access and free tools such as favourite journals, email alerts and saved searches.
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
