Category Archives: Uncategorized

Should leaders give praise to teammates?

Managing people didn’t come naturally to me. I struggled early on. I eventually became competent at it. But it’s not something I’m exceptional at.

I now work in a partnership. We don’t use a traditional hierarchical management structure, but I still have management duties. And I try to do them well.

The Best Managers of People I Know 

I’m close friends with two exceptional managers of people. If the United States somehow created an accurate national ranking of managers, I’d be shocked if they were not in the top .1%.

So I listen to them when they talk about managing people. And when I’m struggling with something, I often reach out to them. Both have a knack of telling me truth I wasn’t willing to tell myself because it would cause pain.

These two people strongly disagree on the role of praise. I don’t know who I agree with.

Praise as a Signal 

One of my friends strongly believes that praise is one of the most effective ways to incentivize mission aligned behavior.

According to this friend, if a manager knows what behaviors will lead to team success (and they should), then the manager should praise those behaviors whenever she sees it. And she should attempt to build a culture where others do this to.

The psychology behind this is fairly simple: people want to be praised, so if you praise people for something, they will do more of it.

My friend believes praise is one of the best reenforcement mechanisms a manager can use – and that it should be used frequently, at least weekly.

Praise as Sugar

Another friend says praise is like sugar: it gives you a quick dopamine hit, then you want more of it, and the more you get the you need to get high again.

According to this friend, a manager should try to create a culture where people are constantly trying to figure out what it will take for the organization to succeed, and then they do these things because they deeply care about the organization and have an internal desire to be the best version of themselves.

This friend also believes that praise gets the incentives all wrong. Because a manager can easily be fooled, if team members are just seeking out praise, they may act in ways that gets praise from the manager but is not actually in the best interest of the organization.

The psychology here is simple: people should have a deep ownership of the organization’s mission and their own personal self-actualization, and external praise short circuits this ownership.

When Brilliant People Disagree

My two friends are both brilliant managers of people and they disagree on this issue. Whenever two brilliant people disagree, and they are experts on the issue, and they have every incentive to be right on the issue because their mission depends on it…. then my first thought is that it’s a really really hard problem, and my second thought is that the answer might be situation specific and they might both be right.

Operational Clarity vs. Operational Uncertainty

I sometimes wonder if praise is most useful in organization’s with a lot of operational certainty and least useful in organization’s with a lot of operational uncertainty.

In other words, the less the manager actually knows what should be done, the less useful praise is.

If, for example, you’re managing a team to create a strategy for a complicated product launch, you probably don’t know what the right answer is for everyone on your team. If you give a lot praise, you could very well praise bad ineffective actions.

If, on the other hand, you’re managing 1,000 people to do the exact same job, and this is the third year in a row these people have executed on this task, you probably know exactly what you want to see. So it’s probably pretty easy to praise a good performance.

I’m not sure that this distinction matters for using praise, but I think it might.

Should Leaders Give Praise?

I don’t really know where I land on this.

My guess is that I significantly praise each person I work with 3-5 times a year.

I think my model for this is:

(1) I do want people to know when I think they did something pretty amazing, both because I care deeply about them and I want to signal that those types of accomplishments will help us succeed for children; and

(2) I do kind of think praise is like sugar, so I don’t do it too much.

Perhaps I’m trying to have my cake and it eat it too. I’m not sure.

One last thought: I sometimes think people confuse praise with care. I think it’s very important for leaders and colleagues to care for one each other. Care is the foundation for trust and trust is the foundation for good conflict. Also, life is short, and it’s better lived by surrounding yourself with people who care about you and who you care about.

But praise isn’t the only way to show care. It’s probably not in the top five. I would rather work for someone who cares deeply but praises sparingly rather than someone who praises effusively but cares shallowly.

The City Fund

While there are amazing public schools across the country, few cities have been able to increase educational opportunity for all children.

Over the past fifteen years, this has begun to change. Denver, Washington D.C., and New Orleans have made their entire public education systems better. Other cities, like Indianapolis and Camden, have taken these breakthroughs, tailored them to their local contexts, and seen promising early results. Because of this work, hundreds of thousands of children have benefited from a better public education. These students are more prepared than ever to further their education, get good jobs, and lead lives filled with opportunity. We are now creating a new non-profit organization, The City Fund, to expand on this work.

Previously, several of us operated within a dual structure supporting the education giving for both the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the Hastings Fund. We are  in the process of changing this structure and have added new team members to create The City Fund. The Laura and John Arnold Foundation and the Hastings Fund will continue their support of the work as anchor funders.

The new organization includes leaders from Education Cities, as well as expert practitioners from the state, district, charter and non-profit sectors. This new team will help us provide better support to local leaders. We are just getting started and will have a website up in short order, but now that our team is hired, we wanted to share the news.

All of us are united by a common perspective. First, right now, too many students do not have access to a great public school. Second, we believe this can change.

We share this belief because we have seen better schools improve the lives of families in all of our respective work. We’ve seen awesome teachers inspire children to build the knowledge, skills, and values needed to make the world a better place. We’ve seen world class public schools provide rich educational experiences to all their students, regardless of race or economic circumstances.

___

Our nation’s education system is a complicated patchwork of thousands of local school districts. Improvements will not happen overnight, nor should they.

Rather, cities across the country are constantly innovating, and when a few cities do something that seems to be working, philanthropy can help shine a light on these local successes. If other cities are interested, philanthropy can help test these breakthroughs at a little larger scale.

The cities we have supported have made things better in their own way, but several commonalities stand out: each city increased the number of public schools that are governed by non-profit organizations; each city created an easy to use enrollment system that helps families find a great public school for their children; and each city provides families with transparent information about public school quality. We believe these strategies hold promise.

While we are optimistic that the work we’re supporting will succeed at the next level of scale, much more work, innovation, and research is needed. Over the coming years, we’ll continue to support a small set of local education leaders. We’ll also work with university researchers to study these local efforts. If cities show progress, we hope other cities will follow. If they don’t, we hope other promising innovations are able to scale, so that all students can have access to amazing public schools.

Chris Barbic

Gary Borden

Ken Bubp

Beverly Francis-Pryce

Ethan Gray

David Harris

Kevin Huffman

Noor Iqbal

Neerav Kingsland

Jessica Pena

Liset Rivera

Kevin Shafer

Kameelah Shaheed-Diallo

Gabrielle Wyatt

Senior signing day: from a bar in Houston to the White House

Chip and Dan Heath are brothers and co-authors. Chip teaches at the Stanford Graduate School of Business. Dan teaches at Duke.

The most recent book is called The Power of Moments.

The book opens with a story. The story begins with Chris Barbic (a friend and a colleague) and Donald Kamentz sitting in a bar after another long day in the founding of YES Prep, a charter school network serving low income students in Houston. They were watching ESPN’s coverage of “senior signing day” – the event where star high school athletes announce where they’ll be attending college.

Chris and Donald believed what their students were accomplishing was every bit as impressive as what these star college athletes had accomplished.

So a few months later (charter schools founder work quickly), Yes Prep held it’s first senior signing day. Each senior took the stage and announced where he or she would attend college in the fall, dropping a t-shirt or pennant with their chosen school’s mascot. Leading up to the day, students kept their final school decision a secret from friends. After each announcement, the room erupted with applause. Everyone cried, and a tradition was born.

You can watch a YES Prep senior signing day highlight reel here:

Soon other schools charter school began to hear about YES Prep’s amazing event.  If YES Prep could create an amazing moment to celebrate their students, why couldn’t other schools do the same?

So steal they did.

Here’s Achievement First’s signing day (grab a tissue).

Here’s IDEA’s signing day video (grab some more tissues):

Then, in New Orleans, Josh McCarty, a friend and colleague of mine at New Schools for New Orleans, stole the idea for the whole city, and, I believe, we had the country’s first citywide signing day.

But we were soon out scooped, with senior signing day going to another (national) level: Michelle Obama made college signing day a signature part of her Reach Higher campaign. My guess is that Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education under Obama, spread the idea, as he had spoken at YES’ signing day in 2010. In the video below, Michele Obama asks high school seniors to take selfies with their new college gear and tweet it with the hashtag #reachhigher.

Here’s a picture of her and her husband celebrating signing day together:

Screen Shot 2018-06-08 at 5.36.44 PM.png

Charter schools have been an incredible source of innovation for public schools. From Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion to Summit’s personalized learning platform to Achievement First’s open curriculum to Valor’s social learning program – great public charter schools are making all public schools better.

The senior signing day story, which begins in a bar in Houston and goes all the way to the White House, is an amazing example of what happens when you let great educators open new public schools.

Every once in a while, a school opening is the origin of a new national tradition.

So please: go to a senior signing day. And while you’re celebrating incredible students, give a silent thanks to Chris and Donald.

 

 

Response to Matt Ladner and Jay Greene

Over at Jay’s blog, Jay and Matt wrote two critical posts of portfolio management and harbormasters (our team calls them quarterbacks).

Jay and Matt think differently than I do, have different political orientations, and are sharp. Their writing makes me smarter.

I also find their post titles, writing tone, and evidence analysis to be a bit over the top. They sometimes overstate their claims and under appreciate the other side of the argument.

In these two posts, Jay and Matt use NAEP charter sector gains in Arizona, Michigan, and Texas – as well as the mediocre NAEP scores seen in Louisiana’s charter sector – to argue that portfolio management and quarterbacks aren’t working.

I found their analysis to be overly narrow. Instead of taking some new evidence in and synthesizing this with the broad set of evidence available, they anchored on to one set of data points and made too strong of claims (especially in the titles of their posts).

Don’t Look at NAEP in Isolation 

Matt is right to point out that some states with fairly loose charter regulations saw a lot of charter gains in NAEP between 2009 and 2017.

I think this should modestly increase our belief that being loose on charter openings and closings can lead, over time, to a healthy charter sector.

But the story is not that clean.

This CREDO paper, which looked at charter school performance in Texas between 2011 and 2015, found a small positive effect in reading and no effect in math. Given that CREDO tracks individual students across time, and NAEP does not, the CREDO data should make us cautious in interpreting the NAEP gains as a huge victory.

Screen Shot 2018-04-24 at 9.57.03 PM

Another study found that it took Texas charters ten years to achieve the performance gains of their traditional school peers.

While it’s great to see the sector improving in Texas, perhaps with better regulation the sector wouldn’t have had to improve for ten years just to achieve neutral effects.

The story of the Texas charter sector is much more complicated than Matt’s piece indicated. The same is true for Arizona and Florida, where quasi-experimental research has found muted test score effects.

Given the different results of NAEP and CREDO, we should be trying to figure out the puzzle rather than claiming victory, as Matt tends to do.

Don’t Look at States in Isolation 

Looking at state level gains is not a great measure of whether portfolio and quarterbacks are working, as portfolio (to some extent) and quarterbacks (almost always) are city based endeavors.

For city based data, this CREDO study measured student learning effects in a bunch of cities across the country.

Washington D.C., Denver, New Orleans, and Newark all did very well. These cities are also some of the most mature portfolio cities.

Phoenix, Austin, El Paso, Forth Worth, Mesa, and San Antonio did not do well. These cities are all found in loose regulation states.

It hardly seems like a slam dunk to me that portfolio / quarterbacks are bad and loose regulation is good.

Of course, the CREDO analysis is not perfect: test scores aren’t everything and the virtual twin methodology may miss unobserved differences between students.

But looking at state based NAEP scores to make broad judgements on portfolio and quarterbacks is unwise, especially with so much other evidence available.

The portfolio / quarterback model seems to be doing some good in many cities.

Quarterbacks are a Step in the Right Direction  

Jay and Matt often criticize quarterbacks as vehicles for people who think they are smarter than everyone else (especially educators and families). I find this to be an overly simple critique.

Quarterback originated as a way to use expertise to aggregate and allocate philanthropy.

In many cities, philanthropists were funding low impact activities, often wasting it on the  pet projects of district leadership. A lot of money was spent for very little academic gain.

Quarterbacks have helped improve philanthropy: instead of just passively giving money to the district, philanthropists partner with expert management teams to try and launch and grow great non-profits.

I think this is a major improvement on the status quo. Of course, there are some drawbacks, and too much centralization of philanthropic capital poses risks. This is why I don’t think all of a city’s philanthropic capital should flow through one organization.

But quarterbacks are increasing, not decreasing, educator entrepreneurship and family choice. Yes, they do often use test score results selecting who to fund, but I suspect this will change if a better way to invest is developed over time.

In Sum

The NAEP data should not be ignored. It’s made me more open to the idea that looser regulations can lead to charter scale and quality, especially at the state level. And I found Matt’s data analysis to be quite helpful. I love it when smart people who think differently than me play with complex data sets and come to novel conclusions.

But I think there’s plenty of other state based evidence that should make us cautious, such as the CREDO Texas study.

I also think there’s a lot of evidence that the charter sectors in portfolio / quarterback cities are making a lot of gains. The NAEP data Matt and Jay site, which is state based and does not track individual students, is not convincing enough to make me deeply question our city based work.

All that being said, I look forward to reading more from Jay and Matt in the future.

I don’t take smart, critical friends for granted.

The Case Against My Own Education

Bryan Caplan just released a new book: The Case Against Education: Why the Education System is a Waste of Time and Money.

Instead of a doing a regular review of Bryan’s book, I thought I’d do a little introspection. Bryan’s argument is that education is a major waste of time and money.

Does this hold true for parts of my own education? If so, which parts?

Pre-K: Not wasteful!

My formal education started at a Montessori pre-k. It’s a little difficult to use introspection to determine whether this was a waste of time and money, as I don’t remember much about pre-k. I do have a vague memory of being confused most of the time. I didn’t understand what I was supposed to do there. But perhaps this is the point of Montessori. I don’t know.

But I don’t view this as a waste of time (what else was I supposed to do at the age of 3?) or a waste of money (the pre-k was not that fancy so I assume it was priced just a bit above the cost of babysitting). So seems like a decent use of mine and my parent’s resources. It allowed me to be confused in a safe environment and it allowed my parents to work.

Elementary School: Not wasteful!

At Parkview Elementary, I learned to read and write and do math, which have all been very useful in my life. Me being at school also allowed my parents to work, which provided our family with a home, food, and the comforts of a middle class lifestyle, which made for a happy childhood. If I had not been at school, I can’t really think of many productive uses of my time, so I don’t see many trade-offs in having attended Parkview Elementary. The combination of the school teaching me the basics and providing cost-effective babysitting (Indiana is not an extravagant spender on elementary schools) seem well worth the time and money.

Middle School: Not wasteful! 

At Ben Franklin Middle School, I honed my basic writing and math skills, as well as picked up some basic science and social studies, which probably helped ground me in the modern / liberal world order (science, democracy, etc.). I also was put in an orderly environment which helped prepare me for a society that values conscientiousness, agreeableness, and the maintenance of civilized social coalitions. If I had not been a school, I suppose I could have worked in nearby farms (labor laws permitting), which would have also reinforced conscientiousness, but probably have been lacking in math, writing, and more advanced form of social coalition building. I don’t think I was prepared to work at the types of firms that would have developed my professional skills, nor do I think that most firms would have found it cost effective to teach me math and writing, which would have been hard to teach myself.

Early High School: Not sure 

9th and 10th grade at Valparaiso High School were also good educational  years: I learned Algebra (which I still use) and further practiced writing, with an additional emphasis on research (which I still use).

However, at this age there were some real trade-offs in going to school. By the age of 14, I could have started contributing to companies at a rate that would have been worth paying me a minimum wage (if not more!) for roles that would have both helped the company and helped me build a lot skills. This is probably true at free market rates, and definitely true if the government took some of the money they were spending on me in education and used it subsidize employers paying my wages.

On average, I think you learn more about how to succeed in skilled jobs rather than in school, so I imagine I would have picked up a lot of useful soft and hard skills (goal setting, data analysis, project management, giving and receiving feedback, etc.) that I didn’t really pick up at school. And while I doubt most employers would have taught me Algebra, I imagine I could have taught myself in the future if the job required it.

So this feels like a toss up: I was learning things in schools that have helped me, but I also could have learned a lot by working at interesting jobs.

Late High School: Waste of time and money!

Most subjects I learned in high school (advanced math, science, literature, etc.) have been of very little use to me in life. Of course, I didn’t know what I would end up doing for a career at the time, but taking a bunch of advanced coursework seems like a pretty inefficient way to keep doors open for a wide breadth of future careers. For the most part, given my strong foundation in reading and math, I could have learned many subjects down the road if my chosen career had required it.

Probably 90% of what I learned in late high school I’ve forgotten and don’t really use.

I do think going straight to the work force would have been a much better education than school, but I worry a bit about making career decisions at such a young age. But a bunch of 3-12 months internships / travel experiences / short-term jobs likely would have been much better than learning Calculus, both terms of intellectual and social development.

Had I been working, I would have become a better person (in all senses of the word) faster.

College: Complete waste of money!

I was an English major at Tulane. I learned very little. Writing papers about novels is not a very transferable skill; the courses weren’t that rigorous; and most of the good novels I read I probably would have read eventually throughout my lifetime. I would have learned so much more (and been happier) had I been working at a few great companies over this time.

People also always argue that college is a time for intellectual exploration, but I don’t buy that. Life is a time for intellectual exploration, and you either enjoy being curious or you don’t. Even if I had been working, I would have still read a ton and had a bunch of great conversations, which probably would have allowed me to explore more topics at deeper levels than I did at Tulane.

1st Year of Law School: Not wasteful!

The first year at Yale Law School is basically a one year bootcamp in a mental model (how lawyers think) and logic (outline the arguments of legal cases). Even though I don’t practice law, both of these things have been helpful to me. I’m a big believer that mastering professional mindsets (lawyer, entrepreneur, teacher, VC, etc.) helps you solve a diverse set of problems as you move up in your career, and I do think that logically ordering arguments is a generalizable skill in the modern day workforce.

I sometimes wonder if schooling from ages 16 to 20 should alternate between internships and 3-6 months of curriculum from a variety of graduate degrees that provide useful mental frameworks. This would also be a great way to meet a lot of interesting people.

2nd and 3rd Years of Law School: Wasteful

I just got deeper and deeper into a knowledge base that I never use.

In Sum

My personal experience has been that school was really valuable until about 10th grade, and then, save for the first year of law school, was pretty wasteful relative to what I could have learned in a bunch of internships and jobs.

Of course, what is true for me might not be true for others.

One last point: from a policy perspective, I do think that grades K-10 are very important for both individuals and society, and I’m grateful to be working at a job that is trying to make that experience more pleasant and productive for millions of children.

Did a federal grant to turnaround failing schools in New Orleans and Tennessee work?

Back when I worked at New Schools for New Orleans, we applied for a $30m federal grant to turnaround failing schools in New Orleans and scale the model to Tennessee.

CREDO just came out with a research study on our efforts. Their findings, and my analysis, are below.

The New Schools Were Much Better than the Ones They Replaced 

Here’s what CREDO found when they compared the schools we created to the schools we replaced:

In New Orleans, we replaced schools (“closing schools”) that were at 26th percentile in the state with new schools (“CRM schools”) that performed at the ~33rd percentile in the state at the end of the study.

In Tennessee, schools went from the ~17th percentile to the ~23rd percentile by the end of the study.

To quote the CREDO report: “the CRM schools in both New Orleans and Tennessee showed significantly higher academic growth compared to the Closing schools they replaced.”

Translated into days of learning, these are large effects: “Closing school students experience 63 fewer days of learning in reading and 86 fewer days of learning in math when compared to students in non-CRM schools… students in CRM schools make comparable academic growth to non-CRM students.”

The New Schools Performed About the Same as Other Schools in the City

When CREDO compared the new schools to other existing schools (rather than the failing schools they replaced), they found no statistically significant effects:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 12.07.57 PM.png

In other words, the new schools that replaced the failing schools performed no better or worse than other existing schools in the city.

On one hand, this is disappointing. Our most ambitious targets included having the new schools be amongst the highest performing schools in the city.

On the other hand, this is still a major improvement: the new schools replaced failing schools and ended up achieving at the same level of most other schools in the city.

Building a System that Keeps Getting Better 

Replacing failing schools with new schools is a process, not a one-time intervention.

Ideally, a subset of the schools you created will do really well, and then, overtime, these schools will continue to grow. The ones that don’t do well will not be supported to do additional turnarounds.

Over the long-haul, gradually increasing the number and scale of high-quality school operators is more important than the average effect of the first wave of replacements.

Here’s what CREDO found across the new schools when they compared them to existing schools:

Screen Shot 2018-02-15 at 12.11.36 PM.pngIn New Orleans, 50% of the new schools had positive effects in both Math and Reading. This is really positive: half of our turnaround schools in New Orleans achieved significantly better results than existing schools across the city.

In Tennessee, only one school had positive effects in both Math and Reading, though a few other schools had positive effects in only reading.

This makes me optimistic that the school operator base in New Orleans will continue to have the capacity to replace more failing schools over time.

The early results in Tennessee are a bit more worrying on the operator quality front, and the next few years will be extremely important in ensuring that a healthy operator base emerges.

Lastly: CREDO found that replacing failing schools with fresh start schools (that opened one grade at a time) had a higher success rate than whole school turnarounds. My takeaway here is that you need a mature operator base to do a lot of whole school turnarounds, and no city had enough capacity to really do whole school at scale. In hindsight, we should have done more fresh starts and less whole school turnarounds.

Was the Effort a Success?

At the outset of the project, I remember debating with our research partners at CREDO about how to set-up the evaluation.

I argued that we should ultimately be judged on whether or not the new schools we created were better than the failing schools we replaced.

I didn’t think we should be primarily judged on whether or not the new schools were better than other existing schools that weren’t failing.

Yes, we did include language in the grant application that had goals of schools performing much better than existing schools. And as we executed the project we tried to pick school operators that we thought could deliver top tier results. Our highest aspirations weren’t met. This is disappointing, but it does not mean the project was a failure.

Rather, I consider the project to be a positive step forward in improving public education in these cities.

Making Things Better

The result of the project strikes at the heart of what’s so difficult about education reform: our aspirations for our most at-risk children are incredibly high, but making progress in creating better educational opportunities is very difficult.

In roughly a five year period, we replaced failing schools with new schools that were on average 7 percentile points higher in state performance, which translates to an extra 60-90 days of learning per year.

If the process of opening and replacement continues, what is a modest success right now may eventually become a great success.

I hope that this occurs and that New Orleans continues on its impressive track record of increasing student achievement. As a reminder, the federal grant was just one piece of an overall effort that has radically reduced failing schools in the city:

Screen Shot 2018-02-20 at 5.47.30 PM

SaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSaveSave

To renew or to relinquish? That is the question for New York City

DB

Sometimes the research gods shine down upon us. In this case, they gave us two NYC studies, each on a different strategy, within a few months of each other.

The studies tell us much about what’s happening in New York City. They also illuminate the rational for why I believe in relinquishment.

What to do with struggling schools?

Some people believe you should give struggling schools more support. Others believe you  should either replace them with charter schools or close them.

Bill de Blasio is spending $582 million on 78 Renewal Schools, a model built upon the support strategy.

Charter school supporters tend to support the replacement strategy.

Early evidence on Renewal Schools

Marcus Winters of the Manhattan Institute authored a recent study that found that Renewal Schools have seen around a .1 standard deviation increase in math and ELA scores. This is a healthy bump and it’s great to see modestly positive effects.

Winters also notes, however, that Mike Bloomberg’s closure strategy achieved about the same results at little to no cost.

Recent CREDO study on NYC charter schools

CREDO’s research found that charters in NYC achieved about .1 standard deviation effects as well.

And while CREDO did not put a price tag on the charter reforms, most estimates I’ve seen have charters coming in at a lower per school cost than the ~$8 million per Renewal School.

Is it worth it?

It can be painful to close schools and grow charter schools. This process undoubtedly causes some disruption to families and educators.

If I believed the Renewal Schools would continue to improve, I’d be open to the idea that they were worth it. Perhaps spending a few hundred million more dollars is worth the cost to avoid significant disruption to communities.

The Renewal Schools will not keep improving

Sometimes these blog posts write themselves.

Elizabeth Harris ended her NY Times piece on Renewal Schools with the following quotation:

“The thing we’re nervous about is losing any of these resources,” said Mr. Bradley of Renaissance School of the Arts. “Renewal is the bomb. I want to be renewed forever.”

I’m sure receiving $5 to $10 million to improve your school is the bomb.

But of course these resources will not last.

Additionally, because these schools are subject to the whims of changes in district policies, the strategies they implemented will likely fall out of the favor of a future administration.

Charter schools, on the other hand, receive most of the philanthropic support for start-up costs, not continuing costs.

Additionally, charter schools are governed by non-profit boards which can maintain strategic consistency through self-perpetuating boards.

To renew or to relinquish? In the long-run, relinquishment will deliver sustained gains for students. Renewal will not.