Advertisement

Journal of Educational Change

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 77–97 | Cite as

One size does not fit all: Understanding the variation in charter management scale-up

  • Caitlin Farrell
  • Michelle B. Nayfack
  • Joanna Smith
  • Priscilla Wohlstetter
Article
First Online:

Abstract

The prevalence of charter management organizations (CMOs)—networks of charter schools overseen by a home office—has exploded in recent years but there is a paucity of research into how CMOs approach growth and the factors that influence their growth plans. In this qualitative study, we examine how a set of 25 older, more established CMOs approached growth. Findings suggest that strategies for scale-up varied depending on the external policy environment and the internal organizational capacity of the CMO. In addition, CMOs approached growth from one of three styles: premeditated, opportunistic, or organic. Finally, longitudinal data reveal that CMOs often struggled to meet their growth targets; fewer than half of the sample CMOs met or were on track to meet their projected scale-up targets. From these findings emerged a key source of tension: On one hand, CMOs are facing pressure from policymakers and foundations to grow and expand rapidly. On the other hand, scaling-up too quickly or in ways that fall outside of the CMO’s mission can lead to serious consequences for the organization, its schools, and students. Our research aims to contribute to this debate by demonstrating that “one size does not fit all” for CMO scale-up, a lesson important for policymakers, educators, and researchers alike.

Keywords

Charter schools School choice Scale-up Organizational growth Organizational change 

Abbreviations

CEO

Chief Executive Officer

CFO

Chief Financial Officer

CMO

Charter management organization

EMO

Education management organization

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Anfara, V. A., Jr., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 28–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Booker, K., Sass, T. R., Gill, B., & Zimmer, R. W. (2011). The effects of charter high schools on educational attainment. Journal of Labor Economics, 29(2), 377–415.Google Scholar
  3. Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 231–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17(1), 317–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, C., & Gross, B. (2008). Working without a safety net: How charter school leaders can best survive on the high wire. Bethel, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  6. Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.Google Scholar
  7. Center for Education Reform. (2011). The accountability report: Charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform.Google Scholar
  8. Chakravarthy, B. S., & White, R. E. (2002). Strategy process: Forming, implementing, and changing strategies. In A. Pettigrew, H. Thomas, & R. Whittington (Eds.), Handbook of strategy and management (pp. 182–205). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Davis, D. H., & Raymond, M. E. (2012). Choices for studying choice: Assessing charter school effectiveness using two quasi-experimental methods. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. DeArmond, M., Gross, B., Bowen, M., Demeritt, A., & Lake, R. (2012). Managing talent for school coherence: Learning from charter management organizations. Bethel, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  11. Doyle, D., & Steiner, l. (2011). Developing education talent: A citywide approach. Washington, DC: National Charter School Resource Center. Retrieved from www.charterschoolcenter.org/resource/developingeducation-talent-citywide-approach.
  12. EdSector. (2009). Growing pains: Scaling up the nation’s best charter schools. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  13. EdSource. (2009). California’s charter schools: 2009 update on issues and performance. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.Google Scholar
  14. Farrell, C. C., Wohlstetter, P., & Smith, J. (2012). Charter management organizations: An emerging approach to scaling-up what works. Educational Policy, 26(4), 499–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Furgeson, J., Gill, B., Haimson, J., Killewald, A., McCullough, M., Nichols-Barrer, I., et al. (2012). Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student impacts. Bethell, WA: University of Washington and Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  16. Hess, F. (Ed.). (2005). With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hess, F. (Ed.). (2008). The future of educational entrepreneurship: Possibilities for school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  18. Higgins, M., & Hess, F. (2009a). Roundtable: Learning to succeed at scale. Journal of School Choice, 3, 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Higgins, M., & Hess, F. (2009b). The challenges for charter schools: Replicating success. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  20. Lake, R., & Dusseault, B. (2011). Paying for scale: Results of a symposium on CMO finance. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  21. Lake, R., Dusseault, B., Bowen, M., Demeritt, A., & Hill, P. (2010). The national study of charter management organization effectiveness. Seattle, WA: Mathematica Policy Research & Center on Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McNeil, M. (2010). 49 applicants win ‘i3’ grants. Education Week, Politics K-12 blog, August 4.Google Scholar
  24. McNeil, M. (2013). District Race to Top winners turn to implementation. Education Week, 32(15), pp. 22, 25.Google Scholar
  25. Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  26. Miron, G., Urschel, J. L., Yat Aguilar, M. A., & Dailey, B. (2012). Profiles of for-profit and nonprofit education management organizations—2010–2011. Bounder, CO: National Education Policy Center.Google Scholar
  27. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2011). CMO and EMO Public Charter Schools: Dashboard Data from 2007–08, 2008–09, and 2009–10. Washington, DC: National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.Google Scholar
  28. National Association for Charter School Authorizers. (2012). “One million lives campaign press release.” Available at http://www.qualitycharters.org/about-one-million-lives.
  29. National Charter School Research Project. (2007). Quantity counts: The growth of charter school management organizations. Seattle, WA: National Charter School Research Project.Google Scholar
  30. Nayfack, M. (2010). Scaling up charter management organizations: Understanding how policies, people, and places influence growth. Unpublished dissertation, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
  31. NewSchools Venture Fund. (2006). Charter management organizations: Toward scale with quality. San Francisco, CA: NewSchools Venture Fund.Google Scholar
  32. NewSchools Venture Fund. (2011). Inside our portfolio. Retrieved July, 2011, from http://www.newschools.org/portfolio/ventures.
  33. Peltason, E. H., & Raymond, M. E. (2013). Charter school growth and replication. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO).Google Scholar
  34. Peyser, J. A. (2011). Unlocking the secrets of high-performing charters. Education Next, 11(4), 1–10.Google Scholar
  35. Reckhow, S. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saltman, K. (2005). The edison schools. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  37. Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith, J., Farrell, C. C., Wohlstetter, P., & Nayfack, M. (2009). Mapping the landscape of charter management organizations. Los Angeles, CA: Center on Educational Governance, University of Southern California.Google Scholar
  39. Stake, R. (2000). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2011a). Five California public charter networks receive $60 million to promote effective teaching and prepare more students to succeed in college. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://www.thecollegereadypromise.org/five-california-public-charter-networks-receive-60-million-to-promote-effective-teaching-and-prepare-more-students-to-succeed-in-college/.
  41. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. (2011b). Investing in progressive school networks. Retrieved July, 2011, from http://www.gatesfoundation.org/press-releases/Pages/investing-in-progressive-school-networks-090326.aspx.
  42. The Broad Foundation. (2012). The broad prize for public charter schools. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://www.broadprize.org/publiccharterschools.html.
  43. The Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. (2011). Urban education initiatives. Retrieved July, 2011, from http://www.msdf.org/programs/urban-education.
  44. Toch, T. (2009). Charter management organizations: Expansion, survival, and impact. Education Week, 29(9), 26–27, 32.Google Scholar
  45. Toch, T. (2010). Reflections on the charter school movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 70–71.Google Scholar
  46. Tuttle, C. C., Te, B., Nicholas-Barrer, I., Gill, B. P., & Gleason, P. (2010). Student characteristics in 22 KIPP middle schools. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.Google Scholar
  47. U. S. Department of Education. (2010a). ESEA blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Department of Education. (2010b). Charter schools program (CSP) grants for replication and expansion of high-quality charter schools. From http://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/leg/recovery/implementation.html.
  49. Wilson, S. F. (2006). Learning on the job: When business takes on public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Wilson, S. F. (2009). Success at scale in charter schooling. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.Google Scholar
  51. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.Google Scholar
  52. Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., Farrell, C. C., Hentschke, G. C., & Herman, J. (2011). How funding shapes the growth of charter management organizations: Is the tail wagging the dog? The Journal of Education Finance, 37(2), 150–174.Google Scholar
  53. Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  54. Zehr, M. A. (2011). Charter operators spell out barriers to ‘scaling up’. Education Week, 31, 1–3.Google Scholar
  55. Zimmer, R. W., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T. R., & Witte, J. (2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  56. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2012). Examining charter student achievement effects across seven states. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 213–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Caitlin Farrell
    • 1
  • Michelle B. Nayfack
    • 2
  • Joanna Smith
    • 3
  • Priscilla Wohlstetter
    • 4
  1. 1.University of California, BerkeleyBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.American Institutes for ResearchSan MateoUSA
  3. 3.University of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  4. 4.Teachers CollegeColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options