Charter schools: The good, the bad, the ugly?

[Minoosh]

I can't make up my mind. In my area, school districts until fairly recently had a monopoly on education tax dollars. I never saw head-to-head competition coming when my state's charter school rules were passed.

That was a while ago, and now charters are a bigger threat to school district funding than I thought they'd be.

I just spent a year working at one, and I was impressed by the academic expectations.

Are charters a good thing, giving parents a choice, thus spurring competition, thus raising everyone's game?

Or are they a bad thing, splintering resources and draining much-needed funding from traditional school districts?

By charter I mean: Non-religious schools that receive state funding on a per-student basis, but which have more flexibility to be run as businesses (for example, hiring and firing; relaxed certification requirements for teachers), and typically have less overhead than traditional schools.

I loved the charter where I worked, and hope to return, and I liked that it was not a giant bureaucracy. However, it does divert funds from traditional schools, which are the default for students whose parents didn't shop around. Those students also have a right to equal opportunity in education. So can society have it both ways? School choice, but a sound alternative for children of parents who don't go out of their way to choose?

 

[Galois]

It is a difficult question. Word is that their quality is about level with public ed. Their supporters who claim to produce better performing students neglect the fact that their students are to a degree self-selected and will tend to become from advantaged homes, so I don't put much stock in that particular claim.

 

[blutoski]

It is a good question, and research is complicated by the selection factor Galois describes (there are some schools that use a lottery system, but this is not a truly random admission since it requires active parenting, which is a material bias), and also by the short timeframe for comparison. Charter schools that have failed and been closed are often not in a particular year's comparison. (Public schools can't "fail" so poor public schools will persist.)

My opinion is that there is more than enough potential benefit to maintain the experiment.

What I would like to see is better analysis by the stakeholders. My greatest concern is that since there are so many differences between charter schools vs public managed schools that isolating the beneficial differences from the detrimental differences might be impossible, so the focus-group-kitchen-sink formula gets copied over and over without any fine-tuning to improve results further.

 

[Minoosh]

It is a good question, and research is complicated by the selection factor Galois describes ...

Right - If a charter performs well is it due to better instruction, or correlated with the fact that parents shopped around?

I think I picked too big a topic. My main curiosity is, can a smaller, nimbler school operating with per-student state funding give taxpayers bigger bang for the buck? If so maybe we should shift to that model. But that leaves districts with big physical plants and higher overhead and the kids who came by default rather than as someone's conscious choice.

 

[Startz]

It is a difficult question. Word is that their quality is about level with public ed. Their supporters who claim to produce better performing students neglect the fact that their students are to a degree self-selected and will tend to become from advantaged homes, so I don't put much stock in that particular claim.

True in general. However, there are several studies of charter schools which were over subscribed so students were chosen by lottery. Comparisons are then made between applicants who got in and applicants who didn't. This eliminates the "self-selection" issue. Some of these schools appear to have done quite well.

 

[Minoosh]

My school purportedly had a waiting list. No lottery I'd heard of. Some but not all grades were filled to capacity. Class size was capped at 24, except kindergarten was less.

I think the fact that there was a waiting list made the school more willing to suspend students. My basic vibe at the big district is they were terrified of losing enrollment, and in that neighborhood the chance of a suspended kid never returning was pretty high.

Being more willing to suspend students made a difference in kids' behavior, IMO. There was definitely a culture of administrators backing up teachers in this regard. Very rarely did I kick anything up to an administrator but if it rose to that level they always did something. There weren't layers and layers of management.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

For example, a 2011 study of 14 Florida school districts found that more than 86 percent of charter schools didn't have a single student with a severe disability, compared to more than half of district public schools that did. The pattern is similar with homeless students. As education expert Diane Ravitch reported at a 2010 hearing, "New York City has 50,000 homeless students, but only about 100 are enrolled in a charter school. If a proportionate number were in charters, there would be 1,500, not 100.

In other words, charter schools on the whole take the students they want from public schools--preferably, those without special needs that cost more money--and leave the rest behind in a system that's even more starved for financial resources, thanks to the subsidies for charters.

And even so, charter schools can't demonstrate that they do any better at educating the students they do take. On the contrary, a 2009 study by the RAND Corporation, for example, analyzed charter schools in five major cities and three states, and found that in every location, students in the charter schools performed no better at best, and demonstrably poorer at worst.

Linky.

Adding to the growing debate and evidence base on the effects of charter schools, this evaluation was conducted in 36 charter middle schools in 15 states. It compares the outcomes of 2,330 students who applied to these schools and were randomly assigned by lotteries to be admitted (lottery winners) or not admitted (lottery losers) to the schools. Both sets of students were tracked over two years and data on student achievement, academic progress, behavior, and attitudes were collected. The study is the first large-scale randomized trial of the effectiveness of charter schools in varied types of communities and states. Among the key findings were that, on average, charter middle schools that held lotteries were neither more nor less successful than traditional public schools in improving math or reading test scores, attendance, grade promotion, or student conduct within or outside of school. Being admitted to a study charter school did significantly improve both students' and parents' satisfaction with school. Charter middle schools' impact on student achievement varied significantly across schools. Charter middle schools in urban areas--as well as those serving higher proportions of low-income and low achieving students--were more effective (relative to their nearby traditional public schools) than were other charter schools in improving math test scores. Some operational features of charter middle schools were associated with less negative impacts on achievement. These features include smaller enrollments and the use of ability grouping in math or English classes. There was no significant relationship between achievement impacts and the charter schools' policy environment. Because the study could only include charter middle schools that held lotteries, the results do not necessarily apply to the full set of charter middle schools in the U.S.

Linky.

Using a long panel with broad grade coverage, I assess how charter schools affect test scores, attendance, and discipline in order to establish whether these schools affect cognitive and non-cognitive skill formation. Schools that begin as charters generate large improvements in discipline and attendance but not test scores, with the exception of math scores in middle schools. I interpret this as reflecting improvements in non-cognitive skills but not cognitive skills. These improvements do not persist if students return to regular public schools. Charters that convert from regular public schools have little impact on cognitive or non-cognitive skill formation. These results are robust to potential bias from selection off of pre-charter trends, attrition and persistence.

Linky.

All the data I've read has shown them to be primarily feel-good reforms. Very underwhelming, at best, to "curious" public-private corporate relations at worst. And of course the selective nature means that they depend on public schools to take on the special needs and undesirables.

The media salivating over these developments is what puts me off too. Ever hear of the Urban Prep miracle? It got national attention as being an all-black, all-male school with a 100% graduation rate. Turns out that is far from the truth, as basic fact checking reveals:

I was stunned to learn that the celebrated Urban Prep Charter School failed to make its state mandated Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) goal. Furthermore, only 15 percent of its 450 students met state standards in reading and mathematics. I could pile on a bunch off other grim test statistics that paint a much more different picture of UP than their recent press coverage but there is no point in doing so. Why? Because those that prefer to live within the walls of a dark lie that is politically convenient here in Chicago will not be moved by the facts in this case anymore than they were moved by the facts in others. Chicago is a voluntary gulag populated by low intensity leftists that do not understand that corrupt government is not a midwest birthright. Furthermore, those who do want the truth have only to go to the Report Card website to verify the data for themselves.

Linky.

According to this article, it was not the ‘same children’ attending Urban Prep as would have attended Englewood High School. They had the typical lottery which excludes certain families. It also had a mandatory three week program for students who got accepted, which eliminated even more students. And then, they did the typical ‘weeding out’ of kids who weren’t performing. Also, how could it be, literally, the ‘same children’ if Urban Prep is all-male while Englewood High was co-ed?

Duncan seems to imply that the 107 students who graduated was a 100% graduation rate. Then this article points out that the 107 does not account for the fact that the original group was not 107 but, according to the Illinois Interactive Report Card, 166 students. Suddenly 107 out of 166 doesn’t sound quite as good. It’s about 64% which is a lot better than 40%, I know, but considering they had ‘creamed’ to begin with, I don’t know how good even that is. Here’s another good post about the Urban Prep myth.

Then it gets worse when you look at what their test scores (and I know that test scores don’t tell the whole story of what’s going on in a school). You can see their results at the official Illinois site. This is the bar graph from the site showing a 15% in 2009 and 17% in 2010. In my original post I had checked the ‘All Tests’ radio button which made the district and state scores seem higher. I hope everyone believes that this was an honest mistake and not some attempt to ‘pull a Duncan.’

Linky.

Now, I'm sure people can find studies that say charter schools are successful. And then we will talk about duelling studies or ignoring contrary information and so on. I just want to establish that there is legitimate reason to be skeptical.

Having read about many school reforms in history, I think of this as more of a "management reform".

 

[Startz]

I agree that the results for average charter schools are no better than average. There does not appear to be any magic about charter schools. A somewhat different question is whether they have produced some experiments with positive results. The answer appears to be yes--KIPP schools being a likely example of success.

A fair question in response would be to ask whether the successful experiments can be scaled up.

 

[Minoosh]

Having read about many school reforms in history, I think of this as more of a "management reform".

Thank you for digging all that stuff up.

Quoting one study:

Charter middle schools in urban areas--as well as those serving higher proportions of low-income and low achieving students--were more effective (relative to their nearby traditional public schools) than were other charter schools in improving math test scores.

The school where I worked had only 2 administrators on site. Instructional (and other) issues were addressed quickly and efficiently. We were all on the same page.

In teaching freshman algebra at a mainstream school I found many kids had very shaky arithmetic skills.

At the charter there was basically a double math period every day. There were "fun" activities but also a lot of drills. The third-graders were more fluent with fractions than the 9th-graders I'd taught.

I was a paraprofessional, providing instructional support and a lot monitoring. The kids weren't prodigies, but the directors were so big on data that it was hard to fall through the cracks. They would hunt kids down and make them learn math if that's what it took.

I don't know if being a charter was the critical difference. Parents were certainly on board with an intensive math and science curriculum.

 

[shuize]

I just spent a year working at one ...

I loved the charter where I worked ...

Slightly off topic, but as you have experience working in a charter school, I thought I'd ask. I've worked in a Japanese university for many years and I'm considering returning to the States in the next few years. I do not have a teaching license, but I thought working at a charter school might be a way to bridge the gap until I fulfilled the licensing requirements for my state. I've heard different stories about the hiring situation at charter schools. Do they really hire people without any teaching credentials and, if so, are they are anywhere as competitive as public schools? Money is not really an issue, but I'd be curious about salaries as well.

Thanks in advance for whatever information you can offer.

 

[Minoosh]

Slightly off topic, but as you have experience working in a charter school, I thought I'd ask.

In my state you don't have to have a teaching certificate to teach at a charter school; however, many schools like to advertise that their teachers are all certified, and beyond that have met the rubric for "highly qualified."

The pay and benefits are comparable to mainstream public schools.

To have a competitive edge over someone who has a teaching certificate, you would probably need exceptional life or professional experience - a strong background in math or science would help, as would notable success in handling large groups of children.

It is very different from teaching college. American kids' default mode is not to sit down and listen. Teaching freshman algebra was the hardest thing I'd ever done. I had no idea how unprepared I was.

 

[shuize]

In my state you don't have to have a teaching certificate to teach at a charter school; however, many schools like to advertise that their teachers are all certified, and beyond that have met the rubric for "highly qualified."

The pay and benefits are comparable to mainstream public schools.

To have a competitive edge over someone who has a teaching certificate, you would probably need exceptional life or professional experience - a strong background in math or science would help, as would notable success in handling large groups of children.

It is very different from teaching college. American kids' default mode is not to sit down and listen. Teaching freshman algebra was the hardest thing I'd ever done. I had no idea how unprepared I was.

Thank you for your response.

I had heard that although many charter schools advertise teaching certificates, it is not always so. I would get the license, of course, but I was hoping to work along the way.

As to classroom behavior, Japan sells its image abroad very well. Not all Japanese kids are angels. In fact, back in my old English teaching days, one of the very worse classes I'd ever seen in my life was a rural Japanese middle school where the kids used to run across the classroom on top of the desks, climb in and out of the widows during class, and make such a racket that it was nearly impossible to hear anyone across the room. Fortunately, as the foreign assistant, I was not responsible for discipline. Unfortunately, the Japanese teachers were unable to impose any sense of order and the class ran riot.

Even my university students are often little better than high school kids. But, unlike the middle school teachers I worked with, I can usually keep them in line. I actually really like my job in Japan but, as I plan to eventually retire in the U.S., I'd like to give my kids a chance to live there before they get too old.

 

[Minoosh]

In fact, back in my old English teaching days, one of the very worse classes I'd ever seen in my life was a rural Japanese middle school where the kids used to run across the classroom on top of the desks, climb in and out of the widows during class, and make such a racket that it was nearly impossible to hear anyone across the room. Fortunately, as the foreign assistant, I was not responsible for discipline.

This is why I am happier as an instructional assistant. I've heard middle school called hormonal quarantine zones. And I'm not surprised to hear the behavior continues into young adulthood (maybe beyond).

Teaching K-12 is a pretty tough racket. I know people who make it look relatively easy, but it's not.

ETA: To bring it back to charters, I do believe the fact that a kid who knew that his parent/guardian chose a certain school might positively affect behavior, because the parent is more invested and the kids know it. Not as much as at a private school, but the culture at some charters mimics private school.

 

[LSSBB]

I think that although the overall stats may not come out in favor of charter schools, if you look around you can find some innovative ones that, if nothing else, provide an opportunity to work with something new and creative. I mentored a team of middle school students from ChicagoQuest, and they seemed pretty sharp. The school is based on a game design concept, and the kids I works with seemed to have a pretty good grasp of problem solving and were pretty creative.

 

[Minoosh]

I think that although the overall stats may not come out in favor of charter schools, if you look around you can find some innovative ones that, if nothing else, provide an opportunity to work with something new and creative.

I have job interviews scheduled with some that sound creative. My last job, which I hope to return to, was at a pretty "back to basics" school. That didn't preclude creativity, but the curriculum itself was very traditional.

These places I'm about to interview are so small I don't know how they afford the staff they've advertised for.

How big was the group of middle school students you mentored? I like the team-mentoring thing - middle school students can be fun, but you might as well give them plenty of opportunities to socialize because they will anyway. As long as it's about *them* they're interested.

 

[LSSBB]

I have job interviews scheduled with some that sound creative. My last job, which I hope to return to, was at a pretty "back to basics" school. That didn't preclude creativity, but the curriculum itself was very traditional.

These places I'm about to interview are so small I don't know how they afford the staff they've advertised for.

How big was the group of middle school students you mentored? I like the team-mentoring thing - middle school students can be fun, but you might as well give them plenty of opportunities to socialize because they will anyway. As long as it's about *them* they're interested.

There were 9 kids. They were competing against high school teams in designing a balloon control device. They came in 2nd place.

 

[LSSBB]

Duplicate post.