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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The research team consisted of two senior researchers, a post-doctoral fellow, two doctoral students, and a master of public policy student. Throughout the study, the research team also benefited from the advice and guidance of a national advisory board that included charter school and CMO operators, university researchers, and charter school policy experts. The advisory board provided valuable feedback on the overall research design, data collection instruments, and drafts of publications.
Growth was conceptualized as a style, rather than a strategy, because the authors felt that style incorporated an over-arching approach but allowed for variation within these basic confines. Therefore, CMOs that approached growth in a premeditated manner could have sometimes capitalized on unexpected opportunities, but they did so in a premeditated way.
Until 2010, this grant program was limited to state education agencies in states with charter school laws and also to individual charter schools in states that chose not to apply or whose applications were unsuccessful (see www2.ed.gov/programs/charternonsea/eligibility.html).
Abbreviations
- CEO:
-
Chief Executive Officer
- CFO:
-
Chief Financial Officer
- CMO:
-
Charter management organization
- EMO:
-
Education management organization
References
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.
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.
Boyne, G. A., & Walker, R. M. (2004). Strategy content and public service organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 231–252.
Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17(1), 317–342.
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.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes.
Center for Education Reform. (2011). The accountability report: Charter schools. Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform.
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.
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.
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.
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.
EdSector. (2009). Growing pains: Scaling up the nation’s best charter schools. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
EdSource. (2009). California’s charter schools: 2009 update on issues and performance. Mountain View, CA: EdSource.
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.
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.
Hess, F. (Ed.). (2005). With the best of intentions: How philanthropy is reshaping K-12 Ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Hess, F. (Ed.). (2008). The future of educational entrepreneurship: Possibilities for school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
Higgins, M., & Hess, F. (2009a). Roundtable: Learning to succeed at scale. Journal of School Choice, 3, 8–24.
Higgins, M., & Hess, F. (2009b). The challenges for charter schools: Replicating success. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Lake, R., & Dusseault, B. (2011). Paying for scale: Results of a symposium on CMO finance. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
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.
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.
McNeil, M. (2010). 49 applicants win ‘i3’ grants. Education Week, Politics K-12 blog, August 4.
McNeil, M. (2013). District Race to Top winners turn to implementation. Education Week, 32(15), pp. 22, 25.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
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.
National Association for Charter School Authorizers. (2012). “One million lives campaign press release.” Available at http://www.qualitycharters.org/about-one-million-lives.
National Charter School Research Project. (2007). Quantity counts: The growth of charter school management organizations. Seattle, WA: National Charter School Research Project.
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.
NewSchools Venture Fund. (2006). Charter management organizations: Toward scale with quality. San Francisco, CA: NewSchools Venture Fund.
NewSchools Venture Fund. (2011). Inside our portfolio. Retrieved July, 2011, from http://www.newschools.org/portfolio/ventures.
Peltason, E. H., & Raymond, M. E. (2013). Charter school growth and replication. Palo Alto, CA: Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO).
Peyser, J. A. (2011). Unlocking the secrets of high-performing charters. Education Next, 11(4), 1–10.
Reckhow, S. (2012). Follow the money: How foundation dollars change public school politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Saltman, K. (2005). The edison schools. New York, NY: Routledge.
Scott, J. (2009). The politics of venture philanthropy in charter school policy and advocacy. Educational Policy, 23, 106–136.
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.
Stake, R. (2000). The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
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/.
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.
The Broad Foundation. (2012). The broad prize for public charter schools. Retrieved January 1, 2012, from http://www.broadprize.org/publiccharterschools.html.
The Michael and Susan Dell Foundation. (2011). Urban education initiatives. Retrieved July, 2011, from http://www.msdf.org/programs/urban-education.
Toch, T. (2009). Charter management organizations: Expansion, survival, and impact. Education Week, 29(9), 26–27, 32.
Toch, T. (2010). Reflections on the charter school movement. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(8), 70–71.
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.
U. S. Department of Education. (2010a). ESEA blueprint for reform. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.
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.
Wilson, S. F. (2006). Learning on the job: When business takes on public schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wilson, S. F. (2009). Success at scale in charter schooling. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.
Wohlstetter, P., Smith, J., & Farrell, C. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press.
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.
Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research (3rd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Zehr, M. A. (2011). Charter operators spell out barriers to ‘scaling up’. Education Week, 31, 1–3.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Farrell, C., Nayfack, M.B., Smith, J. et al. One size does not fit all: Understanding the variation in charter management scale-up. J Educ Change 15, 77–97 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9216-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-013-9216-7