Burdensome regulations are limiting the freedom of charter schools and diverting their resources toward paperwork, according to a report published by the American Enterprise Institute. The report highlights the various hoops charter school leaders must jump through just to get their school opened.
Some applications require intricate information that is best handled on a case-by-case basis rather than with one overarching policy. For example, potential charter schools in Colorado have to describe exactly what the school will do if a student forgets his or her lunch. Potential charter school leaders in Louisiana have to describe a time in the past when each board member made a difficult decision.
These questions might be helpful in a job interview, but in the charter school authorization process, they’re clear examples of micromanagement.
A majority of charter school authorization requirements are unnecessary or inappropriate, the report found. Only 43 percent of the requirements were clearly appropriate. Cutting inappropriate requirements could shorten the length of a charter school application by one-third. That could save 700 hours of paperwork per school, time that would be better spent on students.
To some extent, long applications ensure that only those who are serious about opening a charter school will attempt the process. But the right level of rigor can be achieved without forcing applicants to answer page after page of mundane questions. By including only necessary questions, authorizers can focus review time on the most important parts of an application.
The good news is that charter authorizers can cut useless sections of their applications without giving up quality control. “By refocusing applications on the charter bargain, both authorizers and applicants can benefit,” the authors wrote. “It would also help realign authorizing with the original intent of the charter bargain: giving charter operators autonomy in exchange for accountability.”
Besides time, another victim of overly-burdensome applications is the freedom to innovate. The risk-averse nature of the application process discourages charter schools from applying new educational methods. The main point of expanding charters is to offer a learning environment different from the ones students receive in a traditional public school setting. “It is impossible to know what quality innovation looks like before it exists,” the authors wrote. “Trying to regulate innovation ultimately precludes applicants from developing and testing truly innovative ideas.”
As with most regulations, well-established organizations that already run charter schools are most able to overcome the burdens of invasive government. “Our real concern is for the smaller, community-based operators who do not have the same resources,” the authors wrote. For example, parent or teacher groups dissatisfied with their local public schools would have a hard time handling a complex charter authorization process. Qualified groups shouldn’t have to hire a charter consultant to get help navigating the system.
The report was co-authored by Michael McShane, Jenn Hatfield and Elizabeth English. The three authors analyzed applications from 40 authorizers, who combined oversee more than two-thirds of the charter schools in the country.
