Charters, laws, and school accountability: A multi-state perspective

The charter school movement has been the most prominent and controversial education reform in the United States in the last fifteen years. Advocates believe that by granting more autonomy to charter schools, they are subject to higher accountability standards and could provide better education. Thus the public schools are forced to compete and the deteriorating public school system will be revitalized. Charter school accountability is the centerpiece of charter school reform, which is based on the premise of the "autonomy for accountability" bargain. Although numerous studies have evaluated the education outcomes of charter schools, very few have examined the relationship between charter school autonomy and accountability in a systematic way. This dissertation examines the impact of charter school autonomy on school accountability empirically, through both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Under the current charter schooling system, the operation autonomy enjoyed by charter schools varies based on different charter school laws across states. Further, within the framework of state charter laws, charter school autonomy also differs at site level as specified by individual school charter, which is the ultimate legal document that governs school operation. Thus the qualitative case study explores the effect of different charter designs on school success by comparing the charters of sixteen individual schools; and the quantitative study utilizes panel data in thirteen states to examine the impact of state charter laws on charter school achievement. The findings suggest that fewer entry barriers or more operation autonomy do not necessarily lead to higher charter school performance, while the authorizing agencies' selection of the charter school candidates is more important for school success. The conclusion part further discusses the importance of implementation in policy outcomes.