http://epx.sagepub.com/Educational Policy

http://epx.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/01/01/0895904813510776The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/0895904813510776

published online 3 January 2014Educational PolicyCierniak

Ellen L. Prusinski, Anne-Maree Ruddy, Jonathan A. Plucker and Katherine A.Charter School Community

Chartering New Waters: The Indianapolis Mayoral Transition and the  

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: 

Politics of Education Association

can be found at:Educational PolicyAdditional services and information for    

  http://epx.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://epx.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Jan 3, 2014OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Educational Policy201X, Vol. XX(X) 1 –28© The Author(s) 2013

Reprints and permissions:sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0895904813510776epx.sagepub.com

Article

Chartering New Waters: The Indianapolis Mayoral Transition and the Charter School Community

Ellen L. Prusinski1, Anne-Maree Ruddy1, Jonathan A. Plucker1,2, and Katherine A. Cierniak1

AbstractAs the first mayor in the United States to possess independent charter school authorizing authority, Mayor Bart Peterson oversaw the establishment and expansion of Indianapolis’s ambitious charter school initiative. In 2007, Democratic Mayor Peterson’s oversight of the initiative came to an end when he was unexpectedly defeated by Republican Gregory Ballard in the mayoral election. Despite this significant change in leadership, the transition between mayors and political parties was accomplished with minimal disruption to the operation of the charter school office, as well as to the schools themselves. Through the use of in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, this study investigates how the transition between administrations was undertaken to ensure continuity for Indianapolis mayor-sponsored charter schools and offers best practices for mayoral transitions. In addition, this study reveals that to provide continuity for charter schools, policies that insulate schools from political change must be developed and charter schools must be viewed apolitically.

Keywordscharter schools, organizational culture, leadership transitions

1Indiana University, Bloomington, USA2University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA

Corresponding Author:Ellen L. Prusinski, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, Indiana University, 1900 East Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN, 47406, USA. Email: eprusins@indiana.edu

510776 EPXXXX10.1177/0895904813510776Educational PolicyPrusinski et al.research-article2013

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Educational Policy XX(X)

Leadership transitions are a frequent occurrence in educational systems throughout the United States. Indeed, the leaders of higher education institu-tions (HEIs), local education agencies (LEAs), and independent chartering boards (ICBs) are all subject to change and replacement. However, while politics and education clearly intersect in all educational contexts, this inter-section has been especially pronounced in the charter school movement, par-ticularly in places where charter schools are directly linked to elected leaders. Because of the office’s unique blend of politics and responsibility for educa-tion, a mayoral change in Indianapolis, the first and only city to designate a mayor as an authorizer, had commonly been regarded with apprehension as a transition that could pose singular challenges to continuity in authorizing practices. More specifically, some observers noted that a mayor opposed to charter schools could certainly suspend the approval of new schools and hamper charter school growth. As Michele McNeil observed in an Education Week article published shortly after the election,

While school districts often get new superintendents or school board members, charter school advocates say this transition in mayors will be more significant, because the future of the nontraditional, largely autonomous, publicly funded schools that serve more than 4,000 Indianapolis students is at stake. (McNeil, 2007, p. 8)

When the consensus emerged across the city that the transition was accom-plished with minimal disruption to the operation of the charter school office, as well as to the schools themselves, an empirical examination of the factors influencing this transition appeared to be warranted.

By investigating how the transition from former Indianapolis Mayor Peterson to current Mayor Ballard was undertaken, this study contributes to the expanding conversation about the role of charter schools in public educa-tion. To date, Indianapolis remains the only city with a mayoral charter school authorizer that has undergone a change in mayoral leadership, but as federal support for charter schools continues to grow and as additional states consider granting mayors authorizing authority, it is critical to develop a deeper understanding of how transitions between mayors might affect a city’s charter schools. Through the use of interviews with key stakeholders in the Indianapolis charter school community, this study offers insight into the long-term viability of designating mayors as authorizers and focuses on inter-viewees’ perception that policy continuity is critical to the success of charter schools. This study also outlines how the transition process was undertaken in Indianapolis and explores the policies and practices that affected the char-ter school community’s widespread perception of continuity.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 3

Charter Schools and Leadership

The authorizer is often considered to be among the most important elements in the creation of a charter school community, thus research into authorizing practices is vital for improving our understanding of the factors that influence charter school operations. Although the precise nature of the authorizer’s role varies across the country, among the consistent responsibilities of an autho-rizer are evaluating and approving applications, monitoring charter schools’ performance, and overseeing the charter renewal process (Anderson & Finnegan, 2001; Bulkley & Fisler, 2003; Gau, 2006). Furthermore, because they serve as intermediaries between policy makers and charter schools, authorizers typically serve a vital role in the policy-making and implementa-tion process (Bulkley, 1999). In cities that may designate mayors as authoriz-ers, authorizers may also take on additional responsibility for developing financing plans and local support for charter schools (United States Department of Education [USDOE], 2007).

The USDOE (2007) identifies five practices common among particularly strong charter school authorizers that “approve and oversee their charter schools with an eye toward what will best serve students and families in their communities, and they constantly strive to improve their practices” (p. 49). While authorizers approach implementation in a number of ways, the nature of the practices is the same. These practices include building a strong organization of qualified staff members in the authorizing office, actively recruiting strong charter applicants, selecting schools based on quality, supporting new school operators, providing meaningful and trans-parent oversight, and holding schools accountable for meeting performance goals (USDOE, 2007). As part of recruiting strong applicants, the USDOE notes that successful authorizers seek out school models that align with their own mission, and that they use a variety of methods to assess the capacity of applicants. In addition, as part of supporting new school operators, exem-plary authorizers work with the operators as they develop measures of stu-dent performance. They also offer support to schools during their planning period, perhaps by providing a detailed list of tasks to be accomplished before the opening of the school or by providing leadership and manage-ment training for school leaders (USDOE, 2007). However, in providing support as well as oversight, the USDOE recommends authorizers to do this in a way that strikes a balance with respecting a school’s autonomy. Finally, in regard to holding schools accountable, the USDOE explains that interven-tion, if necessary, should happen as early as possible and that decisions regarding renewal, intervention, or closure should be grounded in solid evidence.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Educational Policy XX(X)

A number of different types of organizations and institutions can serve as charter school authorizers within the United States, with each state designat-ing which entities have the authority to authorize charter schools within their individual state. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (2012) identifies six types of authorizers that operate throughout the United States. These entities are HEIs, ICBs, school districts or LEAs, mayor/municipalities (MUNs), not-for-profit organizations (NFPs), and state educa-tion agencies (SEAs). LEAs account for nearly 90% of authorizing agencies in the United States, with an estimated 859 LEAs as charter authorizers (National Association of Charter School Authorizers [NACSA], 2012). In addition, LEAs have a long history of authorizing charter schools, beginning in the 1990s (Gau, 2006). HEIs constitute the second largest number of char-ter school authorizers in the United States numbering 46 institutions total in the 2011-2012 school year (NACSA, 2012). Other entities are much smaller in number, and some, such as non-profit organizations, are relatively new to the world of charter school authorization (Table 1).

Indiana law allows four types of entities to authorize charter schools: the mayor, the Indiana Charter Schools Board, local school boards, and HEIs such as not-for-profit four-year institutions and public state universities (Indiana Code § 20-24-1-9, 2005). In fact, Ball State University (BSU) is one of the largest authorizers in Indiana. As of December 2012, BSU had autho-rized a total of 42 charter schools throughout the state of Indiana, including 7 in Indianapolis. By comparison, the mayor’s office had authorized 26 charter schools in Indianapolis since 2001. The Indiana Charter Schools Board is the most recent addition to the list of charter school authorizers. Currently

Table 1. Number of Charter School Authorizers by Type.

Authorizer type 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012

HEI 38 42 47 49 46ICB 5 7 7 8 10LEA 624 726 776 857 859MUN 2 2 2 2 2NFP 20 21 20 20 20SEA 23 21 20 19 20Total 712 819 872 955 957

Note. Adapted from The National Association of Charter School Authorizers, 2012, p. 4, Copyright 2012 by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. HEIs = higher education institutions; ICBs = independent chartering boards; LEAs = school districts or local education agencies; MUNs = mayor/municipalities; NFPs = not-for-profit organizations; SEAs = state education agencies.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 5

“incubating” in the Indiana Department of Education in its initial stages, the Indiana Charter Schools Board was created in May 2011(Indiana Charter Schools Board, n.d.-a). It is an independent state agency, whose mission is “to authorize and hold accountable a portfolio of high-performing charter schools in which students achieve high levels of growth and graduate pre-pared for college and careers” (Indiana Charter Schools Board, n.d.-b). The Indiana Charter Schools Board should not be confused with Indianapolis Charter School Board, which directly serves the Mayor of Indianapolis.

Authorization by the mayor’s office involves collaboration between the mayor, the charter school office, and the Indianapolis Charter School Board. The charter schools office is assigned the key tasks of reviewing and evaluat-ing charter applications, informing the mayor about the academic and opera-tional performance of each school, communicating with board chairs and school leaders on school performance, and sharing information with Indiana citizens. In addition to the core role of the charter schools office, the mayor’s office is advised by the Indianapolis Charter Schools Board, which guides the mayor on application and renewal decisions (Center on Educational Governance, 2008). This board has assisted with the development of criteria by which to judge charter school applicants, reviewed and approved the char-ter school application process the mayor’s office uses, and continues to pro-vide oversight and evaluation of charter schools authorized by the mayor’s office. In the final stages of authorization, the City-County Council votes to ratify the mayor’s decision (USDOE, 2007). The mayor’s office may make authorizing decisions without interference from the state or district. The Indiana State Board of Education can overturn the mayor’s decision, but it cannot grant its own charters (USDOE, 2007).

Although an authorizer undoubtedly plays a vital role in the operation of a city’s charter school initiative, charter schools are also clearly influenced by a host of other factors, including the culture of that city’s charter school office. The impact of the culture of the charter school office is important to consider since, as Alvesson (1990) proposes, organizations, which are com-prised of shared values, norms, and understandings, form local cultures of their own that are significant for their functioning. These cultures influence how the organization is able to adapt and respond to changes in the organiza-tional development, as well as affect the working lives of members of the organization (Grey & Densten, 2005; Lewis et al., 2003; Martin, 2004). Indeed, this research suggests that the culture of the Indianapolis charter school office played an important role in how the city-wide charter school initiative, including political leaders and the charter schools, dealt with the mayoral transition, as well as how the office itself was able to work through the transition.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Educational Policy XX(X)

Culture is widely recognized as important to organizational studies, but researchers have pointed out that developing comprehensive theories of orga-nizational culture is difficult because of the broad range of elements, includ-ing both tacit knowledge and visible artifacts, that are included in the idea of culture (Denison & Mishra, 1995; Williams, 2009). Organizations, too, pres-ent challenges to research as they encompass both individual and group-level phenomena, as well as formal and informal interactions (Aycan, Kanungo, & Sinha, 1999; Hallett, 2003; Harris, 1994; Jermier, Slocum, Fry, & Gaines, 1991). A review of the literature reveals that culture has been used in various ways by different authors, igniting debate about the appropriate use of the term (Denison, 1996; Frost, Moore, Louis, Lundberg, & Martin, 1991; Meek, 1988). Despite the challenges inherent in studying organizational culture, because of its potential to capture the tacit knowledge that can be a significant element of a social system such as the Indianapolis charter school commu-nity, many researchers have continued to pursue a theory of organizational culture (Hatch, 1993; Schein, 1992; Tierney, 1988).

Consideration of organizational culture may be particularly illuminating in studies of organizational transitions, in which questions about continuity in practices and goals arise. As Schein (2010) observes, organizational cul-ture “is always, by definition, a striving toward patterning and integration” (p. 18). Similarly, Hallett (2003) argues that stability in organizational cul-ture can favor reproduction of existing norms and values. These observa-tions help highlight the means by which stability in practices and beliefs can be maintained during periods of leadership and other types of transi-tions and suggest the critical role that organizational culture can play in transitional periods.

The importance of recognizing the impact of organizational culture is not to suggest, however, that a strong culture will ensure that transitions are smooth. Rather, if providing continuity is a goal, intentional strategies for facilitating a smooth transition must be undertaken, particularly because research suggests that how transitions are managed also has long-term con-sequences for leaders. In particular, the transitional phase requires leaders to clarify organizational direction, with a focus on procedural adaptations, accommodations, and activities (Goldring, Crowson, Laird, & Berk, 2003). According to Bear, Benson-Armer, and McLaughlin (2008), “Leaders who are effective during transitions are more likely to be effective throughout their tenure” (as cited in Manderscheid & Ardichvili, 2008, p. 114). It is hoped that the consideration of organizational culture in this study will encourage authorizers to reflect on how cultural processes must be negotiated.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 7

Method

This qualitative case study is based on data collected during in-depth, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders in the Indianapolis charter school movement. The case study approach is particularly appropriate for the mayoral transition in Indianapolis as it “allows investigators to retain the holistic and meaningful characteristics of real-life events” (Yin, 2008, p. 4). More directly, Lincoln and Guba (1985) argue, “No phenomenon can be understood out of relationship to the time and context that spawned, har-bored, and supported it” (p. 189). Furthermore, to the extent that this case study deals with organizational culture, qualitative methods are particularly valuable. As Denison (1996) asserts, “Studying culture required qualitative research methods and an appreciation for the unique aspects of individual social settings” (p. 621).

To assemble a group of interviewees that reflected the diversity and breadth of the Indianapolis charter school movement, as well as a group that could lend maximum insight into the transition, a purposive sampling strat-egy was employed (Patton, 1980). As Ritchie and Lewis (2003) explain, in purposive sampling, interviewees are “chosen because they have particular features or characteristics which will enable detailed exploration and under-standing of the central themes and puzzles which the researcher wishes to study” (p. 78). Study participants were selected based on their experience with, role in, or knowledge of the Indianapolis charter school initiative, as well as their willingness to participate in the study. Beginning in January 2010, 46 letters of invitation were sent to stakeholders across Indiana and the country. In an attempt to include as many participants as possible, follow-up letters and phone calls were made throughout the study period.

In total, 22 interviews were conducted, including one interviewee who responded to interview questions via email. The interviewees included four current and former Indianapolis Charter Schools Board members (including the current board chair); five current or former consultants or Indianapolis Mayor-sponsored Charter School Office staff members (hereafter referred to as Charter Office staff); two members of the transition team; four school leaders; six state-level educational stakeholders, including two Indiana Department of Education staff members; and the current Mayor of Indianapolis, Gregory Ballard. Throughout this article, with the exception of Mayor Ballard, interviewees are referred to by their roles rather than their names. Interviews began in February 2010 and concluded in June 2010. Interviews were conducted via phone or in person according to the prefer-ence of the interviewee; in total, four interviews were conducted in person, and the remainder were conducted over the phone. Prior to each interview,

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Educational Policy XX(X)

interviewees were given the option of remaining anonymous or permitting their names to be used in conjunction with the data they provided. All inter-views were, with permission from the interviewees, audio-recorded and transcribed. Interview lengths ranged from approximately 25 to 80 min (Table 2).

Analysis of interview transcripts was rooted in an inductive approach. According to Patton (1980), “Inductive analysis means that the patterns, themes, and categories of analysis come from the data; they emerge out of the data rather than being imposed on them prior to data collection and analysis” (p. 306). Transcripts were coded using NVivo according to emergent themes. Correlations between themes and interviewee characteristics were consid-ered and analyzed. Particular attention was paid to how stakeholder position affected perception of the transition (cf. Silvester, Anderson, & Patterson, 1999). In addition, emergent themes were considered in light of relevant lit-erature on leadership change, political transitions, and mayoral control of education decisions, with a particular focus on literature on organizational culture and research that specifically addressed Indianapolis’s charter school initiative. As it emerged that school leaders, as a whole, appeared to be less satisfied with the transition than were other stakeholders, additional attempts to include school leaders and stakeholders with diverse perspectives were made. However, despite efforts to include a diversity of stakeholders with a wide range of opinions and repeated attempts to find disconfirming evidence by, for example, focusing specific recruitment efforts on school leaders, the fact that the majority of the participants in this study appear to hold relatively similar opinions about the transition may represent a limitation to the study. In addition, it is important to keep in mind that this study focused on the transition itself and not the post-transition period. Thus, this study is not meant to suggest conclusions about the long-term effectiveness of the Indianapolis mayor’s charter school initiative.

Table 2. Interviewees and Their Roles.

Role Number of interviewees

Mayor 1Charter schools board members 4Charter office staff 5Transition team 2School leaders 4State-level education stakeholders 6Total 22

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 9

The Mayoral Transition

As the first mayor in the United States to possess independent charter school authorizing authority, Mayor Bart Peterson oversaw the establishment of Indianapolis’s charter school law in 2001 and the subsequent expansion of the ambitious charter school initiative from 2000 to 2008. During his two terms in office, Mayor Peterson, Indianapolis’s first Democratic mayor since 1967, became known as an advocate for charter schools and celebrated the establishment of 16 charter schools throughout the country’s 14th largest city. Education commentators and scholars throughout the country praised the innovative Indianapolis model, arguing the city’s experience demon-strated that designating a mayor as authorizer could bring unique benefits to charter school initiatives and expand educational options in cities struggling to improve student outcomes (Hassel, 2004; Skinner, 2007; USDOE, 2007).

Mayor Peterson’s oversight of Indianapolis’s charter school initiative came to a surprising end when, in what has been described as one of the big-gest upsets in Indiana political history, Mayor Peterson was defeated by Republican Gregory Ballard in the 2007 mayoral election. When Mayor Ballard, a relative newcomer on the Indianapolis political scene, took office in January 2008, stakeholders in both the Indianapolis charter school com-munity and throughout the country wondered what this unexpected and sig-nificant change in leadership would mean for Indianapolis’s widely respected, but not yet fully developed, charter school system. As a former staff member explained, “It’s an unusual political dynamic because charter schools were maybe Peterson’s most visible success story . . . And he got beaten by Ballard, so it wasn’t just a transition, but a [political] transition that wasn’t optimal for having a smooth [educational] transition.”

Yet despite fears about how the mayoral transition could pose challenges for the Indianapolis charter school community, the transition was widely per-ceived as having minimal impact on the city’s charter schools. According to the majority of stakeholders interviewed for this study, the transition was managed so as to provide charter schools with a sense of continuity and sta-bility, both of which interviewees emphasized were vital for the fledging charter school initiative. In this section, we will offer an overview of the transition, including explanation of how interviewees described the transi-tion, focusing in particular on the campaign and election process and the role of the transition team, as well as a discussion of how interviewees perceived the level of continuity during and immediately following the transition.

In the 2007 Indianapolis mayoral campaign, educational issues were largely overshadowed by highly contentious discussions of crime and prop-erty taxes. Although Mayor Ballard recollected that he had made his support

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

10 Educational Policy XX(X)

for charter schools clear during his campaign, interviews revealed significant variation in how stakeholders perceived the level of attention candidates paid to charter schools. One school leader, for example, shared,

What was also helpful in this . . . when Mayor Ballard was running for office, in the debates and in his narrative and on his website, he made it very clear that he was pro-charter schools . . . So we had that information going into election night.

In contrast, a state-level educational stakeholder explained,

I know that after the election when [charter school leaders] knew there was a transition, there was a lot of question about what exactly this mayor thought about charter schools because it hadn’t necessarily been part of the campaign and so when he was elected there was just sort of this collective question of “Okay, now what?”

According to the Mayor’s charter school office staff, because they were cognizant of the level of unease in the charter school community following the election, they took extra steps to communicate with school leaders. One assistant director explained, “I had multiple conversations with my school leaders about [the transition], especially right after the election happened.” She continued,

I think given that [the other assistant director] and I had really worked hard to develop strong relationships with our school leaders, that was seen after the election because they reached out to us and we had open lines of communication.

With the encouragement of several key leaders in the charter school com-munity, Mayor Ballard met with all of the school leaders shortly after the election. This meeting, which one school leader characterized as being imbued with “a general sense of advice” proved to be particularly crucial for ensuring that everyone understood the Mayor’s commitment to Indianapolis’ charter school initiative. Many school leaders explained that they appreciated the opportunity the meeting gave them to share their opinions regarding the charter school initiative, particularly their belief that the Mayor’s charter school office staff should remain in their positions.

As part of his strategy for managing his transition into office, Mayor Ballard appointed a charter school transition team comprised of community members who were highly familiar with both Indianapolis and the city’s charter school initiative. The team endeavored to gather as much information as possible about the Charter Office’s practices, policies, and Indianapolis

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 11

Charter School’s board and staff roles during the approximately six weeks between the election and when Mayor Ballard took office. Critically, the transition team was charged with making recommendations about whether existing staff should remain in their positions as well as who should replace the director after he stepped down from his position following the election. After an extensive search process, the transition team concluded that although many applicants had both “good intentions and sincere interest,” the staff’s “high quality work ethic and commitment to the process” meant that they should remain in office, with a staff member who had been in the office since January 2007 being promoted to director.

Ultimately, the mayor’s decision to retain key Charter Office staff was among the most commonly cited reasons for the sense of continuity after the transition. As many interviewees explained, the fact that the majority of the staff remained in the office after the transition served to preserve much of the organizational culture and reassure them that the initiative would con-tinue in largely the same way. As a school leader shared, “Because the staff stayed the same, from our point of view, it was really smooth.” At the same time, another school leader explained, “I know that the transition was a bit rough because the leadership in the charter school office also changed. And so there have been some different thought processes.”

However, the transition did yield significant changes at the level of the Indianapolis Charter Schools Board, which was created “to advise the mayor on which charter school applications to approve and to assist the mayor in holding resulting schools accountable” (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2009b). All but two board members appointed by Mayor Peterson chose to step down after Mayor Ballard’s election. As the current Indianapolis Charter Schools Board chair explained, such transi-tions in leadership are considered a natural part of changes in political administration: “This is what happens in every administration except for those who are protected employees of one kind or another. All the leader-ship resigns.”

Interviewees also suggested that the philosophies of the two mayors regarding charter schools were highly compatible, a perhaps surprising con-clusion given the two mayors’ differing political orientations. For example, like Mayor Peterson, Mayor Ballard has also stressed the benefits that charter schools can bring to the local communities in which the schools are located. At the same time, interviews revealed a number of key differences between the mayors. According to many interviewees, while Mayor Ballard is highly supportive of charter schools, the issue has not been as central to his agenda as it was to Mayor Peterson. As one interviewee who has been close with both mayors suggested,

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

12 Educational Policy XX(X)

The only thing that was different is that it was such a central part of what Peterson did and I think Ballard has a variety of priorities. And so it may not have had the same visibility but I don’t think that reflects any lack of commitment.

Although uncertainty and nervousness were unquestionably part of how many stakeholders experienced the election, and changes in leadership did occur, the majority of stakeholders argued that, overall, the transition was characterized by a high level of stability and continuity. As one state-level educational stakeholder commented, “The transition was about as smooth as it could have been.” Interviewees emphasized that they felt this continuity was critical for the continued success of the Indianapolis charter schools.

Within Indianapolis’s charter schools themselves, data suggest that the mayoral transition was smooth. Indianapolis’s charter schools did not experi-ence a dramatic change in terms of school demographics or the rate of school authorization. During his tenure, Mayor Peterson authorized 16 charter schools and revoked one. In Mayor Ballard’s first year, he authorized two charter schools. By 2011, Ballard had authorized a total of nine charter schools. In addition, enrollment in Indianapolis charter schools continued to increase following the election of Mayor Ballard. From a total enrollment of 3,855 in 2006-2007 to an enrollment of 5,323 in 2008-2009, the number of children in Indianapolis charter schools increased by nearly 1,500 (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2007, 2010). Furthermore, between the school years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, charter school enrollment experi-enced yet another substantial increase, this time by approximately 1,100 stu-dents or 22.5% (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2010). The number of students in waiting lists for charter schools in Indianapolis remains steady, consistently around 700 since the 2007-2008 school year (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2009a, 2010).

In addition, student demographics in the charter schools looked very simi-lar before and after the transition. Prior to the transition, the student body of Indianapolis mayor-sponsored charter schools was 66% African American, 25% White, and 5% Hispanic. Following the transition, the student body was 66% African American, 24% White, 5.6% Hispanic, and 3.6% multi-racial. Similarly, the percentage of Limited English Proficient and Special Education students remained the same, at 3% and 11%, respectively. The percentage of students receiving free and reduced lunch, however, increased 5%, from 67% in 2007 to 72% in the 2008-2009 school year (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2007, 2010). The continuity experienced in the schools reflects the sentiments of stakeholders involved with the transition. Thus, in the next section of this article, we will turn to the elements of the transition that sup-ported continuity that emerged during this research, both through internal

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 13

practices adopted by the mayor’s office as well as external practices which reflected efforts to depoliticize the nature of charter schools within the larger community.

Transition Practices

The consensus that emerged among the interviewees that the transition was ultimately relatively smooth, despite the initial period of unease and anxiety, suggests that the way transitions are managed has a direct impact on how the charter school community will experience a change in leadership. In this article, these practices are considered internal practices, as they focus specifi-cally on practices utilized by the mayor’s office and between the mayor’s office, charter office, charter board, and the schools. Five of the transition practices that emerged from this research that appeared to contribute to con-tinuity are as follows: create a transition team, utilize sources of support, maintain open lines of communication, retain professional staff, and codify practices.

Transition Team

The appointment of transition teams is widely considered to be a standard practice for political transitions. However, the case of Indianapolis suggests that having a team dedicated to charter schools is equally as important as hav-ing a team dedicated to other city departments and cabinet positions. The appointment of a transition team allows information to be gathered systemati-cally and from a wide variety of sources, thus ensuring that incoming mayors have a consistent source of advice and information. By speaking with a variety of stakeholders about the history of the initiative, the transition team was able to develop a report that not only provided a record of the initiative’s past obstacles, but also hinted at future challenges for Indianapolis mayor-spon-sored charter schools. As a member of the transition team described it, having the opportunity to speak with a wide variety of stakeholders allowed the tran-sition team to create a “roadmap” for incoming staff. In addition, as one school leader explained, students and parents have a keen sense of the mayor’s level of familiarity with their schools and are likely to gain respect for the mayor if he or she is clearly familiar with, and prepared to visit, the schools.

Utilize Sources of Support

Although the transition team and Charter Office staff members may hold pri-mary responsibility for gathering information and identifying critical issues in a charter school initiative, interviewees suggested that other stakeholders

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

14 Educational Policy XX(X)

could also play a supportive role for a new mayor and contribute to a smooth transition. Among the stakeholders suggested as potential sources of support was the state department of education, which often has a uniquely broad view of both a charter school initiative and a state’s educational landscape. A mem-ber of the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) staff shared,

In terms of the role that we played, I think, or the role that any state education agency could play is perhaps just to reach out to the new mayor and see what, if any, of the focus is changing or maybe what the state education agency can do to ease the transition.

Another potential source of support during the transition period is the Charter Schools Board. While the role of the board may generally be consid-ered to be primarily related to approving new schools, it is clear that, given their wealth of education knowledge and experience, board members also have the potential to contribute to continuity during the transition. As a for-mer board member explained, in her opinion, meeting soon after the election with the board may have “helped [Mayor Ballard] with “his ‘learning curve.’” The board member added, “I really do think the board role needs to be devel-oped. That could be the piece that would ensure a smooth transition.”In addition to helping a new mayor prepare for the role of charter school authorizer, utilizing the charter schools themselves as a source of support during the transition period helped prepare the mayor to take office as well as demonstrate the commitment to learning about charter schools. A state-level educational stakeholder shared that during Indianapolis’s mayoral transition, the schools played a particularly important role in educating the mayor about the issues facing charter schools. The interviewee elaborated,

[Mayor Ballard] made a commitment, he started visiting schools . . . he got to see real living people and kids and teachers and that his philosophical support of charter schools was undergirded by an emotional attachment to them that was based on a real sense of what they were doing and the need for charter schools.

A willingness to look to the schools themselves as sources of support is particularly important as many interviewees suggested that mayors need to demonstrate that they are committed to learning about schools. One school leader added that in addition to speaking with school leaders and teachers, mayors would be well advised to hear from students themselves about their experiences with charter schools.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 15

Communication

School leaders, in particular, explained that the frequent communication they received from the office during the transition period was vital. As one leader shared, “[The director] . . . did a really good job of communicating the changes and sort of forecasting things that may be coming down the road for us. That was very helpful and that frequent communication is pretty impor-tant.” Similarly, another school leader explained,

Mayor Ballard did a very good job of letting all the charter schools know, right after he was elected, that he was very supportive of charters, that he did not foresee any major shifts in the way he worked with them, that he wanted to continue to work with them. That was reassuring. Absent that, it would have been a very difficult time.

In addition, according to research participants, the more information school leaders have from the mayor’s office, the more easily they are able to communicate effectively with their constituents. As one school leader explained,

I did have staff and families that were worried. And the fact that I was able to reassure them early on really helped. I called a meeting. I wrote to the parents and said that we’ve been assured. I actually quoted the Mayor and said that there will be consistency and continuity.

However, although many school leaders agreed that the organizational culture of the charter school office is such that they are able to communi-cate openly with the office, a number of school leaders observed that this may not be a universal feeling among the school leaders. One school leader shared,

I believe I can always pick up the phone and get different people within the mayor’s office and I can talk and be heard. But there may be other schools that don’t have relationships or connections and they may not feel that way.

Indeed, another school leader shared, “It’s kind of difficult for a school that is authorized by the mayor to speak up and disagree with the mayor.” It may be challenging to ensure that all schools feel the same level of openness regarding their relationship with the mayor’s office, and staff should be par-ticularly cognizant of schools’ need for clear, consistent communication dur-ing transition periods.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

16 Educational Policy XX(X)

Professional Staff

As discussed above, mayors may choose to replace charter office staff after an election, but the experience of the Indianapolis Charter Office suggests that even if a mayor chooses to replace staff in the long term, they may con-sider retaining staff during the initial transition period for the sake of continu-ity. When asked whether staff kept practices such as regular monitoring in place during the transition, one staff member shared, “We had internal con-versations about that and we decided we wanted to keep it as normal as pos-sible for the schools. We wanted to make sure that in case we were not kept, there wasn’t a break for the schools.” According to school leaders, having core staff remain in place during the transition period was reassuring, particu-larly because lines of communication were already in place.

The retention of the majority of the charter office staff was widely per-ceived as one of the primary factors that contributed to a smooth transition and a sense of continuity after the election. However, one of the paradoxes that emerged from the interviews is that although charter office staff are pro-fessionals who are expected to remain apolitical, they are also officially members of the mayor’s personal staff and could therefore be dismissed with a change in mayoral leadership. Some interviewees suggested that to further insulate charter schools and provide continuity, charter school staff should be no longer be classified as political appointees on the Mayor’s personal staff. As one former staff member suggested,

. . . you need to at least consider whether [charter office staff] should be part of the mayor’s office or whether that should be spun off in some way that insulates the staff from that transition. Some kind of policy that makes everyone know they are professional staff and that’s what they’re there for.

As one school leader shared,

. . . there would probably be some wisdom in thinking about moving some of the employees to non-political appointees who would retain their job based on merit as opposed to politics. That way a new leader could come in but have some continuity with staff below him.

Another school leader explained,

I believe it is very difficult to have the charter school staff be a political office . . . I mean Mayor Ballard could have come in and cleaned out all the offices, put his own people in there and he would have been well within his rights to do

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 17

that, but it would have been very, very difficult from a school perspective to react to that.

On the other hand, a number of interviewees argued that removing the staff from the mayor’s office could be unnecessary or even detrimental. For example, a board member stressed that because of the importance of building trust between a mayor and charter office staff, mayors must retain power over the appointments. Rather than removing the staff from the mayor’s direct control, some interviewees suggested that policies protecting professional staff could be developed. One school leader argued,

If more states are thinking of letting mayors be authorizers, I think there need to be steps in place so that if we get a new mayor at election time there needs to be some stability so that that doesn’t mean the whole charter office can be revamped every time, too.

Promoting Continuity: Depoliticizing the Nature of Charter Schools

In addition to utilizing key internal practices to ensure a smooth transition, stakeholders emphasized the importance of more broad-based efforts to insu-late schools from political shifts. It is clear that politics and schools are unlikely to remain entirely separate, particularly when the mayor is the autho-rizer. As a member of the transition team shared, “As long as the mayor, who is a publicly elected official, is the chartering authority you have to be realis-tic - you can’t completely separate [schools] from the reality of politics.” However, many interviewees suggested that to provide continuity to a charter school initiative, efforts must be undertaken to establish a reputation for char-ter schools that is nonpolitical. In other words, externally oriented transition practices, those which reach beyond practices internal to the charter and may-or’s offices and encompass the movement’s larger aims, are equally impor-tant for continuity. As a board member observed,

You have to keep politics out of it. You have to keep the “to the victor goes the spoils” politics out of it. I think that if those kinds of things surface in the transition, it’s going to hurt the whole movement.

Many interviewees, particularly school leaders, shared similar fears about the extent to which a mayor’s personal opinion regarding charter schools could disrupt an initiative.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

18 Educational Policy XX(X)

Indeed, while the reality of designating mayors as charter school autho-rizers is that doing so exposes schools, as well as a city’s entire charter school initiative, to additional political pressures and shifts, many inter-viewees suggested that action can be taken to develop a culture that sup-ports the development of continuity in charter school practices. As one school leader stated, offering consistency means that changes should arise from a commitment to driving the charter school initiative forward and in response to the needs of school leaders, not from political pressures. Specifically, interviewees in this study emphasized that charter schools should be framed as an additional educational option, rather than as a politi-cal tool. In addition, interviews suggested that steps that can be taken to cultivate such a culture include developing broad coalitions of support; emphasizing student needs; developing high-quality schools; maintaining transparency from the mayor’s office; and appointing a bipartisan staff and board.

Developing Broad Coalitions of Support

First, although charter schools regularly incite passionate opinions among voters and representatives, they also often receive strong support among urban reformers in both parties. While certainly not without controversy, charter schools are generally considered to be a non-partisan issue. Furthermore, recent polls suggest that their support is growing among Indiana residents. For example, in a 2008 survey of Indiana residents, 54% of respon-dents who indicated at least some familiarity with charter schools expressed support for the creation of additional charter schools (up from 48% in 2007) and only 26% opposed more charter schools (down from 31% in 2007; Center for Evaluation and Education Policy, 2009, p. 28). Many interviewees emphasized the role of broad, bipartisan coalitions of support that include community members, community organizations, and high-profile civic and political leaders in depoliticizing the public image of charter schools. Specifically, interviewees explained that when the charter schools are visibly supported by a range of people from across the political spectrum, charter schools begin to shed their reputation as a politically partisan issue. As a state-level educational stakeholder explained,

I guess I would advise building as much public will for what you are doing as possible. Because there will constantly be detractors who will try to do in the process. It’s still pretty fragile. So build in as much support as you can.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 19

Emphasizing Student Needs

Interviewees also emphasized the importance of developing a narrative for charter schools that centers on student needs and outcomes rather than politi-cal goals or philosophies. One state-level educational stakeholder suggested that to minimize the perception that charter schools are a vehicle for political agendas, charter school supporters should avoid speaking negatively of the existing school system. Instead, the interviewee argued that charter school supporters should emphasize the idea that charter schools represent a new way of meeting student needs. “You create the public will for new options and you do it under the umbrella of educational opportunity for students.”

Developing High-Quality Schools

Perhaps unsurprisingly, many interviewees suggested that the most direct way to ensure that charter schools will remain a part of the city’s educational landscape is to develop high-quality schools. As a state-level educational stakeholder shared, being of high quality will “insulate [charter schools] from a transition because a mayor probably isn’t going to come in and get rid of a bunch of high-performing schools.” An external consultant explained that the link between high-quality schools and continuity has been explicitly consid-ered since the beginning of the initiative:

Have good schools and strong performance and happy parents and all of that would make it difficult for the mayor to come in and really change things in a bad way . . . the theory was that if things were going well, it would be hard to say “this is over.”

In the case of Indianapolis, the fact that more than 700 students appear in mayor-sponsored charter school waiting lists each year suggests that an incoming mayor opposed to charter schools would be hard-pressed to explain a refusal to approve new schools (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2009a, 2010).

Maintaining Transparency

In Indianapolis, shifting the charter school conversation away from political agendas appears to have been facilitated by a commitment in the Mayor’s office to ensure that information regarding the schools is made public. As a former staff member suggested, “I think by [making the review process pub-lic], the general public really did get a sense that the process was rigorous,

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

20 Educational Policy XX(X)

comprehensive, and thoughtful, and clear rationale for why decisions were made.” The annual accountability report released by the Mayor’s office, in particular, was widely cited in interviews as important. As a former staff member argued, the high public profile of the Mayor’s office facilitated a public dialogue about the report and the potential for charter schools to meet student needs. He explained,

I think the Mayor remains uniquely positioned to draw attention to that report. Both Mayors would have press conferences and say here are the results, here are the findings. And we would always give the press advance copies and they did stories. They wrote about good stuff and bad stuff. That was helpful for helping people really understand how these schools are doing.

By making information about student outcomes and school performance public, interviewees shared that the accountability report reinforced the mes-sage that the movement was driven not by political willpower but instead by student needs.

In addition to the annual report, all meetings of the charter school board are open to the public and broadcast for the public to watch. Many interview-ees agreed that creating a culture that emphasizes transparency about all deci-sions regarding charter schools is vitally important for insulating schools from political shifts. Specifically, interviewees suggested that submitting all decisions to public scrutiny guards against the possibility that decisions could be made for reasons of political expediency rather than in the interests of students and schools. As a board member articulated, part of the way Mayors Ballard and Peterson withstood criticism in regard to charter schools has been by “being very transparent about the successful and the not so successful charter schools in terms of student achievement . . . and that gives a lot of credibility and frankly answers those critics directly.”

Bipartisan Staff and Board

Among the most consistent themes regarding depoliticizing charter schools that emerged during the interview process was the importance of developing an organizational culture that values staff and board members because of their experience in, and knowledge of, education, rather than their personal political beliefs. According to many interviewees, having a staff comprised of professionals with education expertise rather than political allies contrib-utes significantly to efforts to depoliticize charter schools and helps build a strong charter school movement. In the case of Indianapolis, political affilia-tions of staff members do not appear to have played a role in appointments. As a former Director of Charter Schools recalled, when he interviewed a potential staff member for a position in 2007, he told the candidate, “I don’t

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 21

need to know anything about your politics.” Staff members confirmed that they view their work in the Mayor’s Charter School office as apolitical. As one staff member explained, “You know none of us were motivated to serve any political party or serve any political figure. We were excited to work with charter schools.” According to the staff members themselves, the decision to stay was natural because of their personal commitments to the charter school initiative. As one staff member articulated, “I think for all of us, it’s not about Democrats or Republicans but it’s about kids. And we were very clear about that during the transition time. For us, we just wanted to continue serving.” In addition to reinforcing the message that charter schools are apolitical, hiring professional staff also increases the likelihood that charter office staff will remain in office even if a new mayor is hired.

The Indianapolis Charter Schools Board, as described above, can also play a role in depoliticizing the image of charter schools (Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis, 2009b). As one board member suggested, “I think that cities should really take a look and make sure they have a bipartisan board and that the people who are on their board are people who are not perceived as being overly political.” Certainly, in the case of Indianapolis, board mem-bers who were interviewed indicated that in their experience, appointments were made without regard for political affiliations. As one former board member shared,

The first mayor, when he asked me to serve on the board, he didn’t ask my political persuasion or involvement. And there were others on the board who I know were not of his party. And with Mayor Ballard, I believe that is also true. He was interested in keeping board members who were not in his party. Both showed some nonpartisanship that helped with the transition.

Diversity on the Indianapolis Charter Schools Board, many interviewees suggested, should include not only political diversity, but demographic and professional diversity as well. A charter school office staff member explained, “One of the things that the mayor talked about with both myself and the per-son who does a lot of the vetting was we want a board that is broadly repre-sentative of the Indianapolis community.” Another board member stressed that this diversity should also include a variety of perspectives on, and experi-ence with, education. He explained, “I think that charter school board mem-bership should be as varied as it can be.”

Discussion

When asked what advice should be offered to Charter Office staff charged with supporting schools, one school leader responded, “It’s kind of like when

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

22 Educational Policy XX(X)

you are teaching kids. As much consistency as the mayor’s office could offer to schools the better.” Indeed, the evidence that emerged during this study suggests that in the still relatively uncertain environment of charter schools, interviewees believe that providing continuity in the face of changes in the political landscape is crucial for developing and maintaining successful schools. For charter school leaders who may feel that their schools are operat-ing in an uncertain political climate, consistency from the mayor’s office can help provide reassurance that schools are supported, respected, and secure. For nascent charter school movements, offering continuity helps ensure that parents feel confident enrolling their children in charter schools.

Interviewees described internal transition practices adopted by the may-or’s office and within the charter office in addition to more broad-based, external efforts to depoliticize the nature of charter schools, all of which they felt provided continuity and facilitated a successful transition. These prac-tices may offer guidelines for districts considering adding a mayor as a char-ter school authorizer, and how to approach a similar political shift. Participants in this study suggested effective practices adopted within the mayor’s office and charter office, including maintaining open lines of communication, codi-fying practices, and creating a transition team.

While appointing a transition team is often considered a standard practice for political transitions, the case of Indianapolis illustrates that developing a transition team dedicated specifically to charter schools can facilitate a smooth transition for incoming mayors. This team can systematically gather necessary and relevant information from a wide variety of sources to share with the mayor as he takes on responsibilities as a charter school authorizer. Developing a comprehensive picture of the charter school initiative that cap-tures the organizational culture, as well as lays out both the past and the expected future, may be a particularly important objective for transition teams assisting incoming mayors who have limited educational experience or for offices that are likely to have a significant number of new staff members.

In addition to creating a transition team, communication between the may-or’s office and the charter school leaders can play a crucial role in ensuring a smooth transition and providing continuity. Given the uncertainty that many stakeholders felt during the initial stages of the transition, an openness to sharing information and advice among charter school leaders may also be valuable. As Briggs (1999) observes regarding the importance of communi-cation among coalition members and peers, “Transitions are often charged with politics, communication breakdowns, and anxiety about the unknown. What is key is that alliance members work together during this stage, sharing information and ideas” (p. 7). Although the charter school office or mayor

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 23

may not explicitly facilitate such information sharing between schools, they may choose to encourage schools to communicate with one another or host information sessions that provide school leaders the opportunity to interact in a supportive, non-competitive setting.

Within the charter office itself, professional staff who remain through a transition must also be prepared for the challenge of building relationships with new staff in the mayor’s office as they begin working together in a new climate. To facilitate transitions in leadership, Goodyear and Golden (2008) suggest that both new leaders and remaining staff must make a conscious effort to develop a working relationship. They write, “Successful transitions require understanding both parties’ needs and building communication and trust between them as quickly as possible” (p. 53). To do so, Goodyear and Golden (2008) suggest paying particular attention to four areas of interaction: “Partnering in decision making; Focusing on the successful implementation of new directions; challenging the new leader as appropriate; and understand-ing and providing the unique support that the new leader requires” (p. 53). Again, communication plays a pivotal role in forging positive working rela-tionships among staff and promoting successful transitions.

This study also revealed that the reality of operating in an uncertain politi-cal climate necessitates particular attention to the codification of policies and practices, sometimes referred to as knowledge management. Knowledge management, or the “framework for designing an organization’s goals, struc-tures, and processes so that the organization can use what it knows to learn and to create value for its customer and community,” can be critical for facili-tating smooth transitions between incoming leaders and remaining staff members (Dalkir, 2005, p. xiii). Having practices and procedures codified and recorded in written form promotes continuity when new leadership takes over. Certainly, knowledge management is key in relation to structuring the advisory board, given its potential for dramatic change under new political leadership. The development of written processes and procedures regarding board appointments and responsibilities appears to be an important element of facilitating continuity during periods of transition, as well as for helping to insulate the board from political shifts.

When a mayor serves as a charter school authorizer, political shifts impact not only the mayor’s office, charter office and charter board, but also the public and the larger charter school community. Although the political dispo-sition of the mayor is certainly a central factor in the extent to which charter schools are perceived as a political issue by both the public and political lead-ers, proactive measures can be taken to ensure that the charter school com-munity develops a culture that prevents charter schools from becoming a political tool. Most interviewees agreed that because of their direct ties with

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

24 Educational Policy XX(X)

the Indianapolis Mayor’s Office and the City-County Council, it is impossi-ble to completely insulate charter schools from political shifts. However, interviewees in this study indicated that continuity can be promoted through externally oriented practices that insulate charter schools from political shifts, depoliticize their nature, and maintain accountability to the city’s citizens. The most commonly discussed suggestions for achieving this were develop-ing broad coalitions of support, emphasizing student needs, cultivating high-quality schools, remaining transparent, and appointing a bipartisan charter school staff and board.

Given the strong support charter schools receive among urban reformers across the political spectrum, building broad coalitions of support including community members, community organizations, and civic and political lead-ers can help a charter school initiative shed or avoid a politically partisan reputation. In addition, charter school supporters, including the mayor’s office, may choose to emphasize the notion that charter schools represent one educational option and are a new way of meeting student needs. Similarly, cultivating student and parent demand through developing high-quality schools as educational options appears likely to sustain charter school initia-tives and to ensure their resilience in the face of potential changes a mayor politically opposed to charter schools may bring. Furthermore, related to cul-tivating high-quality schools, openly sharing about the progress of these schools can also help in promoting continuity. Transparency from the may-or’s office regarding student outcomes and school performance reinforces the message that the charter school movement is not driven by political will-power but by student needs. Finally, among the most consistent themes that emerged from this study was the importance of developing an organizational culture that values diverse staff and board members because of their experi-ence in, and knowledge of, education, rather than their personal political beliefs.

When the Indiana legislature passed the law granting the Mayor of Indianapolis authority to authorize charter schools in 2001, many stakehold-ers in the charter school community wondered how this unique intersection of politics and education would develop. In particular, many stakeholders wondered how the inevitable mayoral transition would impact the direction and strength of the charter school initiative. As Todd Ziebarth, a policy ana-lyst for the Washington-based National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, questioned after the 2007 election, “If you allow mayors to be authorizers, what’s going to happen when someone else comes in?” (McNeil, 2007, p. 8). Indeed, as authorizers stand at the center of the charter school movement, it is unsurprising that many members of the charter school community have struggled with the knowledge that although granting a mayor authorizing

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 25

power yields considerable benefits for charter school initiatives, there remains a significant danger in exposing charter schools to the shifts in leadership and philosophy that are a natural element of politics.

Encouragingly, this study of the 2008 Indianapolis mayoral transition sug-gests that although having a mayor serve as a chartering authority may indeed expose charter schools to political shifts, this need not prevent other cities from considering granting their mayors authorizing power. In fact, the high degree of continuity experienced in Indianapolis suggests that giving a mayor authorizing power may not leave charter schools as vulnerable to political vicissitudes as many had feared. Our findings suggest that Indianapolis pro-vides a model of how cities can develop a strong organizational culture that guards against the risks inherent in having a political leader as charter school authorizer and benefit from having an authorizer with a high degree of visi-bility and direct accountability to a city’s residents. Specifically, by carefully managing transition periods, emphasizing the place of charter schools in a city’s educational landscape, and developing means of insulating schools from politics, stakeholders can help guard against the potential for schools to experience discontinuity during a mayoral transition and ensure that charter schools receive the support necessary for stable operations.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by funding from The National Center on School Choice, Vanderbilt University.

References

Alvesson, M. (1990). On the popularity of organizational culture. Acta Sociologica, 33, 31-49.

Anderson, L., & Finnegan, K. (2001, April). Charter school authorizers and charter school accountability. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.

Aycan, A., Kanungo, R. N., & Sinha, J. B. (1999). Organizational culture and human resource management practices: The model of culture fit. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30, 501-526.

Briggs, D. (1999). Managing leadership transitions in education partnerships. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED). (ERIC Document Number: ED444221)

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

26 Educational Policy XX(X)

Bulkley, K. (1999). Charter school authorizers: A new governance mechanism? Educational Policy, 13, 674-697.

Bulkley, K., & Fisler, J. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17, 317-342.

Center for Evaluation and Education Policy. (2009). 2008 public opinion survey on K-12 education in Indiana. Bloomington, IN: Author.

Center on Educational Governance. (2008). Harnessing resources through mayor-authorized charter schools (Promising Practice Profile). National Resource Center on Charter Schools Finance & Governance. Retrieved from http://www .usc.edu/dept/education/cegov/focus/charter-schools/publications/other/Mayor-Authorized_Charter_Schools.pdf

Dalkir, K. (2005). Knowledge management in theory and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Butterworth-Heinemann.

Denison, D. R. (1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and organizational climate? A native’s point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The Academy of Management Review, 21, 619-654.

Denison, D. R., & Mishra, A. (1995). Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organizational Science, 6, 204-223.

Frost, P. J., Moore, L. F., Louis, M. R., Lundberg, C. C., & Martin, J. (Eds.). (1991). Reframing organizational culture. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

Gau, R. (2006). Trends in charter school authorizing. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Goldring, E., Crowson, R., Laird, D., & Berk, R. (2003). Transition leadership in a shifting policy environment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 473-488.

Goodyear, M., & Golden, C. (2008). Leadership transitions: Keys for success. Educause Quarterly, 1, 52-55.

Grey, J. H., & Densten, I. L. (2005). Towards an integrative model of organizational culture and knowledge management. International Journal of Organisational Behaviour, 9, 594-603.

Hallett, T. (2003). Symbolic power and organizational culture. Sociology Theory, 21, 128-149.

Harris, S. G. (1994). Organizational culture and individual sensemaking: A schema-based perspective. Organization Science, 5, 309-321.

Hassel, B. C. (2004). Fast break in Indianapolis: A new approach to charter school-ing. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.

Hatch, M. J. (1993). The dynamics of organizational culture. The Academy of Management Review, 18, 657-693.

Indiana Charter School Board. (n.d.-a). About us. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/icsb/2389.htm

Indiana Charter School Board. (n.d.-b). About us: Vision & mission. Retrieved from http://www.in.gov/icsb/2395.htm

Indiana Code § 20-24-1-9, 2005.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Prusinski et al. 27

Jermier, J. M., Slocum, J. W., Fry, L. W., & Gaines, J. (1991). Organizational subcul-tures in a soft bureaucracy: Resistance behind the myth and façade of an official culture. Organizaitonal Science, 2, 170-194.

Lewis, D., Bebbington, A. J., Batterbury, S. P., Shah, A., Olson, E., Siddiqi, M. S., & Duvall, S. (2003). Practice, power and meaning: Frameworks for studying organizational culture in multi-agency rural development projects. Journal of International Development, 15, 541-557.

Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.Manderscheid, S., & Ardichvili, A. (2008). A conceptual model for leadership transi-

tion. Performance Improvement Quarterly, 20, 113-129.Martin, J. (2004). Organizational culture (Research Paper No. 1847, Research Paper

Series). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Graduate School of Business.McNeil, M. (2007, November 14). Indianapolis mayor, supporter of charters, loses

race. Education Week, p. 8.Meek, L. (1988). Organizational culture: Origins and weaknesses. Organization

Studies, 9, 453-473.National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2012). The state of charter

school authorizing 2011: Fourth annual report on NACSA’s authorizer survey. Chicago, IL: National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis. (2007). Accountability report on mayor-sponsored charter schools: Fall 2007. Retrieved from http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Mayor/programs/education/Charter/Documents/PDF/Accountability%20Report%20USE.pdf

Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis. (2009a). Education.Innovation.Results: Indianapolis mayor-sponsored charter schools 2007-2008 accountability report. Retrieved from http://www.indy.gov/OEI/Accountability/2008/Documents/Indianapolis%20Charter%20Schools%20Report%20(updated%20Christel%20House).pdf

Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis. (2009b). Indianapolis charter schools board. Retrieved from http://oei.indy.gov/?page_id=1028

Office of the Mayor, City of Indianapolis. (2010). A new school of thought: 2008-2009 accountability report. Indianapolis, IN: Mayor’s Office. Retrieved from http://www.indy.gov/OEI/Accountability/2009/Documents/08-09%20Executive%20Summary%20Web.pdf

Patton, M. Q. (1980). Qualitative evaluation methods. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.Ritchie, J. & Lewis, J. (Ed.). (2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social

science students and researchers. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.Schein, E. H. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.Schein, E. H. (2010). Organizational culture and leadership (4th ed.). San Francisco,

CA: Jossey-Bass.Silvester, J., Anderson, N. R., & Patterson, F. (1999). Organizational culture

change: An inter-group attributional analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 1-23.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from

28 Educational Policy XX(X)

Skinner, D. (2007). Indianapolis Mayor Bart Peterson: The Peyton Manning of char-ter schools. Education Next, 7(3), 33-39. Retrieved from http://educationnext .org/indianapolis-mayor-bart-peterson/

Tierney, W. (1988). Organizational culture in higher education: Defining the essen-tials. The Journal of Higher Education, 59, 2-21.

United States Department of Education. (2007). Supporting charter school excel-lence through quality authorizing. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education.

Williams, A. (2009). Leadership at the Top: Some insights from a longitudinal case study of a UK business school. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 37, 128-146.

Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverley Hills, CA: SAGE.

Author Biographies

Ellen L. Prusinski is a doctoral candidate in international and comparative educa-tional policy at the Indiana University School of Education. Her research interests include nonformal education, gender, and the influence of political pressures on edu-cational policy making. She completed her BA in Political Science and German at Grinnell College and her MPA in Public Affairs at the School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana University.

Anne-Maree Ruddy’s research background and interests are in analysis of policy, and its development and implementation. Her experience in the United States and internationally has been in education systems with an emphasis on school environ-ments and higher education using quantitative and qualitative approaches. She holds degrees from Edith Cowan University (Perth, Western Australia) BEd, The University of Western Australia (Master of Educational Administration) with an emphasis on Educational Policy, and a PhD from Murdoch University (Perth, Western Australia) with an emphasis on International and Comparative Educational Policy.

Jonathan A. Plucker is an endowed professor of education at the University of Connecticut’s Neag School of Education. His research interests include creativity and intelligence, school reform, and talent development. He holds degrees from the University of Connecticut (BS in chemistry education; MA in educational psychol-ogy) and the University of Virginia (PhD in educational psychology with an emphasis in statistics and research methodology).

Katherine A. Cierniak is a graduate research assistant at the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP), and is currently working toward a PhD in Education Policy Studies with a concentration in International and Comparative Education at Indiana University–Bloomington. She is interested in urban education in the United States and abroad, with a particular focus on access to schooling.

at UNIV OF CONNECTICUT on May 6, 2014epx.sagepub.comDownloaded from All in-text references underlined in blue are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.