Building human capital in charter school networks
By Jenn Hatfield and Ian Lindquist
The number of charter schools nationally has grown significantly in the last decade and a half, and currently charters serve 6% of students — up from 2% in 2000. But there have been, and still are, major challenges to charter growth. After interviewing several people from three very different high-performing charter networks for a forthcoming paper, we found that the most significant barrier to growth is human capital recruitment and training.
Andrew Ellison, head of upper schools for Great Hearts Academies, an operator with nearly 30 schools in the southwest, says that “the $65,000 question” is whether “you can find the people.” But finding the people is only half the battle. Training teachers is also a major ongoing challenge. To that end, Great Hearts recently announced a new “Headmaster College” that will pay future school leaders a full salary during a year of training before they run a school. The network’s leadership is also considering innovative ways of training teachers — many of whom come to Great Hearts straight out of college.
Sara Batterton, chief operating officer of Uncommon Schools, an operator with over 40 schools in the northeast, says that principals used to regularly hire teachers with several years of experience. Those days are no more. Competition has grown for teachers in the charter sector and many principals now end up hiring rookie teachers. While this places the burden on the network to construct proper training, it’s a burden Uncommon is happy to shoulder because they are so invested in crafting a specific culture at the classroom, school, and network levels.
State policymakers could also play a large role in addressing this impediment to growth by allowing high-performing charter operators to certify their own teachers. For years, credentialing bodies have looked for teachers that fit the traditional public school model. While these bodies generally assess training, teacher competence, and subject area mastery, they do not assess coachability or “mission fit” — two important considerations for charters. Given that there are successful schools that look very different from traditional public schools, teachers trained for alternative models should be certified with as much legitimacy as those in the traditional public schools. States already know they can trust successful charter operators to hire and train competent teachers; credentialing is the formal recognition of that ability.
It would be encouraging to see policymakers move in this direction for three reasons. First, given the challenge of recruiting and training new teachers, it would be a huge help for operators to be trusted to train their own teachers if they have a demonstrated track record of performance. Second, an agreement of this sort would be another example of the fundamental logic behind charter schools, offering operators autonomy and room to innovate in exchange for accountability. Finally, it could be a win for all parties: operators could recruit more broadly and creatively, authorizers could reward and attract high-quality operators to their region, traditional credentialing bodies could move some work off their plates, and aspiring teachers could seek out the schools and training programs that are the best fits for them. Just as students benefited from the increased flexibility in pedagogy and curriculum in the early years of the charter school movement, students would benefit if operators were given more flexibility in selecting and training their teachers.
There is room to extend the autonomy-accountability bargain between charter operators and states. Why not start with what’s critical to both operators and students: teachers?
First published at: https://www.aei.org/publication/building-human-capital-in-charter-school-networks/
