Results - Recent Findings
Whether properly done studies support or criticize the
effectiveness of charter schools has been debated. Charter schools
are not without some controversy and both supporters and critics
have cited studies for their side. Additionally, such studies
themselves often have both critics and supporters.
A report issued by a pro-charter school group[12],
released in July 2005, looks at twenty-six studies that make some
attempt to look at change over time in charter school student or
school performance. Twelve of these find that overall gains in
charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find
charter schools’ gains higher in certain significant categories of
schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools
serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and
traditional public schools; and, four find that charter schools’
overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at whether
individual charter schools improve their performance with age (e.g.
after overcoming start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven
studies find that as charter schools mature, they improve. The other
two find no significant differences between older and younger
charter schools.
In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance[13]
found that across 16 states and the District of Columbia—which
collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation’s one million charter
school students—charter schools receive about 22 percent less in
per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that
surround them. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that
amounts to about $450,000 per year. The funding gap is wider in most
of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to
$2,200 per student. In cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters
receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The fiscal
inequity is most severe in South Carolina, California, Ohio,
Georgia, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The primary driver of the
district-charter funding gap is charter schools’ lack of access to
local and capital funding.
On
August 16,
2004, the Department of Education released the first national
comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and
regular public schools as part of the National Assessment of
Educational Progress of 2003[14].
These results, from a study of 6000
4th grade pupils in 2003, were reported, most prominently by the
New York Times, it showed that charter school students
perform worse in both mathematics and reading than students in
regular public schools. These results were the most comprehensive so
far, studying such factors as race, neighborhood, and income.[citation
needed] The study shows that charter school students
scored lower than traditional public school students in virtually
all categories. The study's conclusions have been criticized for
ignoring the demographic differences between the charter and
conventional public schools compared.
Rod Paige, the U.S.
Secretary of Education, issued a statement saying (among other
things) that, "according to the authors of the data the Times cites,
differences between charter and regular public schools in
achievement test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity."[15]
Additionally, a number of prominent research experts called into
questioned the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of
the data.[16]
Harvard economist
Caroline Hoxby also criticized the report and the sample data,
saying "An analysis of charter schools that is statistically
meaningful requires larger numbers of students."[17]
At a December 2004 workshop held by the National Assessment
Governing Board (NAGB) to discuss the findings of the 2003 National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) pilot study on charter
schools, government officials urged charter opponents and proponents
alike to use caution in making "sweeping" conclusions from the NAEP
report. NAGB Chairman Darvin Winick called attention to what he
called the "fine print" of the study - that is, "one snapshot in
time cannot determine the achievement of students."
A study by the Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby[17]
was released in December 2004 and included 99 percent of fourth
grade charter school students. (By comparison, the NAEP/AFT study
mentioned above selected only about 3 percent of charter students in
the fourth and eight grades.[17][18])
The study compared these students "to the schools that their
students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular
public school with a similar racial composition."[17]
It reported that the students in charter schools performed better in
both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter
school had been in operation, the more favorably its students
compared. This study has its critics as well, however. One criticism
is that the "assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of
students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average
test score of the students. That’s like knowing the poverty rate but
not the average income of a community -- useful but incomplete."[19]
On August 22, 2006, the U.S. Department of Education released a
report which found that students in charter schools performed
several points worse than students in traditional public schools in
both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational
Progress test.[20]
Critics of the study argue that its demographic controls are highly
unreliable, as percentage of students receiving free lunches does
not correlate well to poverty levels, and some charter schools don't
offer free lunches at all, skewing their apparent demographics
towards higher income levels than actually occur.[21] |