From Ken Libby at Schools Matter http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2009/11/from-vault_06.html
This is part of an essay <http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-172292777/wave-future-why-charter.html> written in early 2008 by AEI/Fordham's Andy Smarick <http://www.edexcellence.net/detail/bio.cfm?id=483&name=Andy-Smarick&page_id=>, a former Bush II Domestic Policy Council member tasked with K-12 and higher education issues (my bolds):
Here, in short, is one roadmap for chartering's way forward: First,
commit to drastically increasing the *charter market share in a few
select communities* until it is *the dominant system* and the
district is reduced to a *secondary* provider. The target should be
75 percent. Second, choose the target communities wisely. Each
should begin with *a solid charter base* (at least 5 percent market
share), a policy environment that will enable growth *(fair funding,
nondistrict authorizers, and no legislated caps*), and a favorable
political environment (friendly elected officials and *editorial
boards*, a positive experience with charters to date, and
*unorganized opposition*). For example, in New York a concerted
effort could be made to site in Albany or Buffalo a large percentage
of the 100 new charters allowed under the raised cap. Other
potentially fertile districts include *Denver*,*Detroit*,*Kansas
City*, *Milwaukee*, *Minneapolis*, *New Orleans*, *Oakland*, and
*Washington, D.C*.
Third, secure proven operators to open new schools. To the greatest
extent possible, growth should be driven by replicating successful
local charters and recruiting high-performing operators from other
areas. Fourth, engage key allies like *Teach For America, New
Leaders for New Schools*, and* national and local foundations* to
ensure the effort has the *human and financial capital* needed.
Last, commit to rigorously assessing charter performance in each
community and working with authorizers to close the charters that
fail to significantly improve student achievement.
In total, these strategies should lead to rapid, high-quality
charter growth and the development of a *public school marketplace*
marked by parental choice, the regular startup of new schools, the
improvement of middling schools, the replication of high-performing
schools, and the shuttering of low-performing schools.
As chartering increases its *market share* in a city, the district
will come under growing* financial pressure*. The district, despite
educating fewer and fewer students, will still require a large
administrative staff to process payroll and benefits, administer
federal programs, and oversee special education. With a lopsided
adult-to-student ratio, *the district's per-pupil costs will skyrocket.*
*At some point along the district's path from monopoly provider to
financially unsustainable marginal player*, the city's investors and
stakeholders--taxpayers, foundations, business leaders, elected
officials, and editorial boards--are likely to demand fundamental
change. That is, eventually the financial crisis will become a
political crisis. If the district has progressive leadership, one of
two best-case scenarios may result. The district could voluntarily
begin the *shift to an authorizer*, developing a new relationship
with its schools and reworking its administrative structure to meet
the new conditions. Or, believing the organization is unable to make
this change, the district could gradually* transfer its schools to
an established authorizer*.