



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).

[Smarick's suggests the "potentially fertile districts" of Albany, Buffalo, Denver, 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 foundation 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.

If you view Smarick's 2008 article , you will see a chart listing the dominant providers at that time. (Figure 2: Replicating Charter Success"). Just two years later, we now know that the #2 and #4 ranked charter managers, White Hat Management and

Imagine Schools, Inc





So much for a fine and upstanding history of charter school "success." . , have been embroiled in lawsuits and scandal. The #1 ranked EMO, Edison Schools, ended up failing. It folded and has re-emerged with a new name and plan (Edison Learning).So much for a fine and upstanding history of charter school "success."

As clearly outlined by Andy Smarick in Wave of the Future (2008):