The last word: Charter authorizers’ oversight role is critical 

As the president of CSBA, it is my privilege to introduce a new California Schools column: the Last Word. Here I will seek to shed light on issues of particular interest or concern to CSBA and its members, with the goal of providing valuable guidance that board members can use in their deliberations. This inaugural column focuses on one of the more notable (and sometimes controversial) issues of our day—charter schools.

There are now nearly 800 charter schools operating in California. As with any type of school, there are high-achieving charter schools and those that are struggling academically and financially. Much attention has been recently focused on the need for quality charter schools, but just as important is the need for failing charters to be revoked—and the role that local boards play in that revocation process.

Being the primary authorizer of charter schools, which local school boards are, brings with it the enormous responsibility of oversight over those schools. Under state law, it falls to authorizers to determine whether a charter school is succeeding, and if not, whether its charter should be revoked or not renewed.

Although they have not exercised it, the Education Code grants the State Board of Education and state superintendent of public instruction the authority to revoke locally approved charter schools. However, the State Board is currently engaged in a review of the revocations and appeals process that has many implications for charter authorizers. Not only is the State Board creating regulations that the local boards would have to follow, it is also preparing regulations that would guide its own efforts to revoke locally approved charter schools. Essentially, the board believes that local authorizers have not adequately performed their oversight duties and is preparing to perform those duties for them.

The law describes two types of charter schools: start-ups and conversions. Two other terms, not contained in statute but which have been coined to describe charter school governance, are dependent and independent. As used in the field, dependent charters are those that the authorizing board have created and usually treat as they would any other school. Independent charter schools are those that are developed and operated independently from the authorizing board, especially in their governance structure.

Because the law does not recognize these terms of art, the oversight responsibilities do not differ between these two types of schools. Local authorizers must perform the same oversight of both types of schools. Unfortunately, because of their tendency to treat them like other schools, many authorizing boards are not adequately fulfilling their oversight responsibilities over dependent charters. The State Board and state superintendent are prepared to examine these schools and recommend revocation of any dependent charter that is low-performing. In their examination of achievement data, they will not take into account how those schools are governed.

Therefore, special attention must be given to student achievement data at all charter schools. Governing boards should receive regular comprehensive achievement reports on each charter, and just as important, look at the specific goals listed in each charter. Every petitioner must list the school-specific goals it plans to achieve throughout the term of the charter, and the school must meet these goals in order to be renewed. If the goals are not met, this can be used as a condition for revocation.

Another important aspect of charter school oversight is that state law ties an authorizer’s oversight responsibility to the authorizer’s liability for the charter school. Therefore, if an authorizer is not performing its oversight duties in a proper manner, it can be held liable for the errors, acts or omissions of the charter school.

As the revocation regulations move through the regulatory process, it is important for governance teams to review their charter school oversight policies and processes to determine if they are performing the proper oversight, particularly at their dependent charter schools. If a charter is failing students, local authorizers need to either take steps to ensure they improve, or proceed with revocation. If they don’t, they may see the State Board performing this duty for them.

Frank Pugh is president of the California School Boards Association.