For Grades or Money? Charter School Failure in North Carolina

Abstract

Purpose: Charter schools are unique public schools in part because this type of school can close if it fails to meet objectives set forth by the chartering body that approved it. Thus far, however, little research has been conducted into the causes of charter school closures. In this article, we examine charter school accountability. Research Design: We consider four types of accountability to guide our event history analysis of environmental influences that affect charter school closures in North Carolina. In addition, we present two case studies of schools that closed in North Carolina to better illustrate the differing micro-level processes that can lead to the closure of a school. Findings: We find evidence that market, bureaucratic, and financial accountability processes influence the likelihood that a school will close. The initiation of closure procedures, however, is more complex than our quantitative model alone suggests and our two case studies illustrate the key role that financial accountability plays in charter school closures in North Carolina.

Closure and the roles of student performance and enrollment characteristics: A survival analysis of charter schools in Ohio’s largest urban counties

“…However, although many closed due to financial issues, most of those schools were underperforming when compared to other TCS. Paino et al (2014) found that reading scores, but not math scores, are significant predictors of closures. As a reading scores increase, the likelihood that it will close decreases.…”

“…Paino, Renzulli, Boylan and Bradley (2014) conducted a mixed-methods analysis that explored how "macro" and "micro-level processes" that affect TCS closure in North Carolina (p. 500). Using event history analysis, Paino et al (2014) found that a poor financial condition increased the likelihood that a TCS would close, while market and bureaucratic accountability has less of an effect. They found that nearly 63% of closures were due to financial reasons followed by 29% for mismanagement.…”

Public-private partnerships, accountability, and competition: Theory versus reality in the charter schools of Bogotá, Colombia

“…The available evidence, however, suggests that accountability and competition often do not function in practice as they are presented in theory (Bulkley, 2001;Paino, Renzulli, Boylan, & Bradley, 2014;Rotherham, 2005). For example, on the issue of accountability, Crew and Anderson (2003), in their study of 103 charter schools in Florida, found that state law required charter schools to produce annual reports that contained information on school finances, faculty and staff, and the attainment of performance goals.…”

“…In terms of the former, it is important to note that legal requirements for accountability vary greatly across political contexts (NACSA, 2015a;Vergari, 2001). 3 Relatedly, some scholars working on charter schools have emphasized four dimensions of accountability: performance (based, e.g., on academic outcomes), market (based on the provision of a distinct service to the community served), bureaucratic (based on compliance with relevant rules and regulations), and financial (based on acceptable use of public tax dollars) (Paino et al, 2014).…”

“…These actions are also more frequently based on financial and bureaucratic compliance reasons because there is less room to dispute infractions as compared to language around academic performance (CREDO, 2009). The latter can be debated "until the cows come home," particularly by community supporters and charter school advocacy coalitions (Rotherham, 2005, p. 47; see also Au & Ferrare, 2014;Henig et al, 2003), especially since the language in contracts is often vague or ambiguous (Bulkley, 2001;Paino et al, 2014;Ziebarth, 2015). Ironically, then, where charter oversight agencies do have the necessary staff and funding to monitor these schools, the typical rationale for closure "contradicts the general perception that the success and accountability of a charter school is primarily measured in terms of academic achievement" (Paino et al, 2014, p. 530).…”