Charter School Authorizing Standards Matter: They Should be Treated as Such
By Alex Medler
Every CACSA member knows that authorizing charter schools is tricky and that doing it well matters. When authorizers use best practices, they increase the chances that charter schools they oversee will have high-quality operations, effectively serve all students, and fulfill their obligations as public schools. CACSA’s mission is to promote and support best practices in charter school authorizing and to help all Colorado charter school authorizers develop, adopt, and implement practices that improve results for all students.
The state’s standards for charter school authorizing codify those expectations. It would help if more high-stakes decisions – including charter approvals and renewals, as well as appeals before the State Board of Education – were anchored on these standards. Doing so would help students, schools, districts, and the state.
Like the national standards they are based on, Colorado’s authorizing standards provide a roadmap to the charter school life-cycle, including:
- Charter applications, rubrics, and review procedures;
- Contracts that allow oversight and respect charter autonomy;
- Oversight mechanisms to ensure public obligations are honored; and
- Renewal procedures that ask the hard questions before renewing a school’s charter.
When schools succeed and authorizing is handled well, things go smoothly in local communities. This has the added benefit of letting school districts focus their energy on their other goals and initiatives.
Strong authorizing is also important when things go badly. Strong authorizers cultivate good working relationships with their schools. This helps districts provide schools with feedback and guidance in time to address emerging challenges. And when things go completely off the rails, strong authorizers leverage charter contracts that include tiered interventions. These contracts certainly support non-renewal or revocation when necessary. Still, much more often, districts and charters work together to address pressing problems that are unacceptable and must be fixed immediately but that fail to constitute a sufficient reason to close any school.
School board elections and superintendent transitions can lead to major shifts in a district’s orientation toward charter schools. Best practices are flexible enough to reflect a district’s distinct priorities and philosophies within parameters shaped by law and professional expectations. Ultimately, this keeps decision-making focused on the merits of a charter proposal or a school’s outcomes while communicating the local community’s values. This gives all parties transparency and predictability.
Aligning local practices with state standards also makes it more likely district decisions will withstand legal challenges. When judging an appeal, the State Board asks whether “the local board’s decision was contrary to the best interests of the pupils, school district, or community“ (CRS 22-30.5-108 (3) (a)). The state board clarifies its expectations about how it will determine whether a district decision meets this standard in the preamble to state authorizing standards:
The following standards for Charter School Authorizers shall be considered by the State Board as guiding principles when considering an appeal from an already operating Charter School and when making decisions concerning exclusive chartering authority. These standards also shall serve as guiding principles to Charter Schools and Charter School Authorizers when developing a charter contract.
Anyone observing a recent appeal could be forgiven for asking if the schools, districts, or the State Board are aware of this language. The standards just don’t come up much. We should elevate our authorizing standards during these procedures.
During appeals, the State Board should inquire about the authorizers’ practices and how well they align with state standards. When districts can demonstrate that a decision was based on these practices, the state can be more confident the authorizer truly weighed the best interests of the pupils, the school district, and the community. Without a focus on those procedures, and the data and evidence a district brings to bear through them, these hearings can frustrate all parties.
Equally important, if the State Board applied these standards during appeals, districts would pay attention. Eventually, more districts would align their work with the standards – in case they eventually end up in front of the State Board.
Under Colorado law, initially judging whether proposed or operating charter schools meet the best interest of pupils and the community remains the prerogative of Colorado districts. But acting politically rather than based on evidence helps no one: whether that means approving a charter application that will ultimately fail or trying to shutter a successful charter. Best practices focus on a middle-ground attuned to each charter proposal’s merits and each school’s evidence of success, while ensuring districts have the tools to address problems and to ensure all student’s rights are met.
Many authorizers are doing a great job now. Those with excellent practices should protect and leverage them. Even in today’s State Board hearings, inflamed local debates can undermine appropriate district decisions. Colorado has many tools to anchor our charter authorizing on these standards. Increasing attention to these standards and asking whether authorizers align their practices to them would be great next steps. CACSA exists to help districts do this. The organization and its members are eager to help everyone understand the power of these standards and how to reach them.