Charter Schools Might Not Be Better
On average, charter schools are not performing as well as their traditional public-school peers, according to a new study that is being called the first national assessment of these school-choice options. The study, conducted by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University, compared the reading and math state achievement test scores of students in charter schools in 15 states and the District of Columbia—amounting to 70 percent of U.S. charter school students—to those of their virtual "twins" in regular schools who shared with them certain characteristics. The research found that 37 percent of charter schools posted math gains that were significantly below what students would have seen if they had enrolled in local traditional public schools. And 46 percent of charter schools posted math gains that were statistically indistinguishable from the average growth among their traditional public-school companions. That means that only 17 percent of charter schools have growth in math scores that exceeds that of their traditional public-school equivalents by a significant amount.
In reading, charter students on average realized a growth that was less than their public-school counterparts but was not as statistically significant as differences in math achievement, researchers said.
"We are worried by these results," Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO and lead author of the report, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States, said at a news conference. "This study shows that we've got a 2-to-1 margin of bad charters to good charters."
Charter schools, free public schools that operate under their own mandate ("charter") rather than the overall district policies, are a staple of education reform agendas across the United States. Supporters say they improve public education by giving parents options and forcing schools to compete for students. The Stanford report already is riling up these schools' most ardent advocates.
The Washington-based Center for Education Reform disputed the findings, saying that they're based on uncorrelated variables, contradictory demographics, and a virtual methodology. The organization said that comparing the test scores of charter-school students to their "virtual" peers in regular public schools—students who match the charter students' demographics, English language proficiency, and participation in special education or subsidized lunch programs—is simplistic and is a fundamental flaw in the research because no two students are the same.
"More than 16 years of charter school research and analysis from CER shows that charter schools are outpacing their conventional public school peers with fewer resources and tremendous obstacles," the nonprofit group said in a news release.
The CREDO report identified five states—Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, and Missouri—where charter schools had significantly higher learning gains than traditional schools. But the report contended that if charter schools are to flourish, their supporters must be willing to establish accountability in exchange for flexibility. The reluctance to close underperforming charters because of powerful community supporters hurts students and reflects poorly on charter schools as a whole, the report said.
The research comes on the heels of a recent pledge by President Barack Obama's education secretary, Arne Duncan, to use $5 billion of the $100 billion in federal stimulus funds for education to press states on charter schools. "States that don't have charter school laws, or put artificial caps on the growth of charter schools, will jeopardize their application" for federal grant money, Duncan said in a call with reporters last week. Currently, 10 states lack laws that allow charter schools, and 26 others cap their enrollment.
The Stanford report may offer some encouraging news for charter schools: Students in poverty and English-language learners outperformed their public-school peers in both reading and math. However, learning gains for black and Hispanic charter-school students were significantly lower than those of their traditional-school twins. But critics said those results demonstrated the flaws in the Stanford research: The overlap between low-income/English-learner students and black/Hispanic students is so great, CER said, that it should be impossible to get such contradictory results.
Tags: public schools | students | education | charter schools | education reform
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (12) | Print
Reader Comments
To Muser of NM
While I agree with much of what you said I take exception to number three, "no elected school board." Neither did you provide another way for parents' input to be considered. I hope you do not feel that way but this sounds a little elitist. You seem to be saying we don't need the parents and especially their ideas. I, for one, am tired of the "provide the money and the children and keep out" attitude that is growing in public education. They are, after all, our children. Please don't tell me the experts no best. I 57 years old, I seen what "experts" can do. Listen to ideas but never trust experts blindly.
On the article itself, they seemed to be measuring improvement but I am not sure what they were using as a baseline. I would like to know what the average scores were and how that compared to the public schools. That says more about the ultimate result. We learned long ago to question all studies. There are often assumptions in the studies that are incorrect and therefore bring the conclusions into question.
PleaseDon't Privatize our Schools
Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't Unfortunately, because of powerful state charter organizations and the undying support from Arne Duncan who launched the infamous Renaissance 2010 with the "Hang em' All You Get the Guilty" turnaraound school policy, the whole story is not being presented. First, there are many state and national reports that show test scores are no better in charters than in regular schools. Even the U.S. Department of Education has such a report on their website. Second, using test data is a faulty anyway. Charter organizations staunchly oppose attendance boundaries (which presents numerous safety issues) because they want the kids from higher income neighborhoods with better elementary resources to come into low-income neighborhoods and raise the test scores for those charter schools. This gives the false impression that the charters are doing better than their neighborhood counterparts. A school's progress under federal guidelines is usually measured by attendance and graduation rates along with test scores and other measures that account for numerous variables. But charters seem to be only interested in looking at test scores. If you look at qualitative studies, you find a lot of discontent with charters among parents, students, and teachers, particularly special needs and ESL students. Given the current economy, is it really a good idea to rely on the private sector to educate our children? Shouldn't the needs of the community-at-large be addressed over the needs of the corporations that fund charters? Shouldn't charters have to prove their success before replicating rather than the current system of unchecked proliferation? Isn't it a huge red flag that this whole "reform" movement was born out of George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind? Make no mistake, the privatization of our public schools is about money NOT about education. It saves school districts and state education boards lots of money. And with the very top-down authoritarian approach of denying states educational funding if they do not raise the cap on charters, state educational boards who actually want to proceed with caution to ensure charters are doing what they are supposed to be doing are being bullied by Arne Duncan. Essentially more charters equals more money. Disgusting. So much for the community-based approach we heard so much about during the election. Just like with parking meters, airports, and in some places even rainwater, privatization benefits a few while hurting many more. Privatization schemes are short-term budget solutions with long-term societal consequences. Let's really think this through here because it is a lot harder to de-privatize (you'll get called a socialist) than to simply sell off everything that was paid for by tax dollars. If Ren 10 goes national, we will undoubtedly pay a high societal cost by infiltrating our schools with uncertified and underpaid teachers.
Re: Muser of NM
There are plenty of schools just like you describe. They are called private or independent schools. High quality teaching, competent but limited administration, small class sizes and caring students and faculty.
advertisement
