Catalyst Notebook Blog
Return To Main Blog Page
Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't Posted By John Myers On Monday, June 15, 2009
In New Schools

Chicago’s charters look pretty good in a new study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University. But the study gives charters nationwide a bit of a black eye.  Already the American Federation of Teachers is using the results as a political battering ram.

The new report provides one of the most sweeping views of charter school performance to date, culling student-level test data from thousands of charters in 16 states, including Chicago’s charter schools. All told, nearly 70 percent of the nation’s charter school students are included in the analysis, which found wide ranging quality among charters and an overall lag in their test score gains.

The study compares test scores for every charter student with a “virtual twin” or demographically similar student who still attends the traditional public school that the charter student left behind. Only students in grades 3 through 8—testing grades required by No Child Left Behind—are included.

Researchers found that 37 percent of charters came up short in the student-to-student comparisons and 46 percent showed no statistically discernable difference. Only 17 percent posted gains that significantly exceeded those made by their twins.

Chicago was among the geographic areas where charters significantly outperformed traditional public schools in math. Reading gains were indistinguishable, statistically.

The researchers also looked at student performance by demographic groups and found higher gains for low-income students and English language learners in charter schools. But African American and Latino students, as a whole, performed better in traditional schools. Results were similar in Chicago, although English language learners did not post significant gains in Chicago’s charters.

The report also found evidence that charters did worse in states with multiple charter authorizing bodies, perhaps a result of what’s known in charter circles as “forum shopping.” That’s where a weak charter management organizer that is turned down by one authorizing body takes its pitch to another, more receptive one. In Illinois, school districts are authorizers, and the Illinois State Board of Education is a backup. A bill awaiting the governor’s signature would set up a task force to investigate the possible impact of a new state authorizer.

In good news for charter proponents, the researchers found that states with caps on charters also reported significantly lower academic results among their charters. Illinois lawmakers recently voted to dramatically increase the state’s charter caps in exchange for new accountability rules for charters.

But the American Federation of Teachers argued that “the inconsistencies in the quality of charter schools should give pause to those who want to lift charter caps, particularly when they are not matched with calls for legislatures to increase accountability.”

They go on to note that some of the better performing states have relatively fewer charters:

“The states with charter schools outperforming regular public schools have fewer charter schools: Arkansas, Illinois (Chicago), Missouri and Louisiana have less than 100 charters each, and Colorado has 140 charters. This pattern strongly suggests that students are not well-served by state or federal policies that encourage unchecked charter proliferation without a rigorous entry process, adequate oversight or speedy closure policies.”

For its part, the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has raised questions about the study’s methodology, contending it did not adequately match charter students to demographically similar students in traditional schools. Also, larger states were overrepresented in the study, it said.

The Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States report is available for download on the CREDO website.




Comments
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 9:35 AMBy: ok Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don?t what I don't understand is why the same group that complains about test scores alone not being a fair or accurate way to measure teachers, students, or schools in undeserved areas uses these same scores, and only these scores as evidence for why charter schools aren't successful.
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 9:38 AMBy: Marcia Williams Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don�t I'm not surprise about the study. I did research on this same issue 5 years ago when I worked for Dr. Allen Bearden. But, I wouldn't give kudos to the Chicago charters just yet. One of the advantages that charter schools have over public schools is that any student who is enrolled in a charter school, that charter school can drop a student if the school feels that student is not an "asset" to the school. They can transfer a student out of their school anytime of the school year and that happen before testing occurs. Believe me, this happens more than the press is aware of. Several students who sat in my classroom and were new to the school were dropped from the charter school they attended for a variety of reasons. But two of the main reasons were for academic or behavioral issues. So now these students enroll in the good old public schools. Public schools can't just decide to drop a students because of behavorial or academic problems. We have to accept them. Public schools are like the Statue of Liberty. Our motto is, "We accept all who to come to our shores."
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 9:43 AMBy: to Marcia Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don?t I am a fan of charters and I think the Statue of Liberty metaphor is the real beauty of the public education system. I wonder if there is some way to prevent charters from doing this because it's so out of line with their mission. I don't think this happens in Chicago nearly as much in Ohio though.
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 10:19 AMBy: Vern Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't "The American Federation of Teachers argued that the inconsistencies in the quality of charter schools should give pause to those who want to lift charter caps." "They go on to note that some of the better performing states have relatively fewer charters." ---- Hasn't the AFT noticed the vast inconsistencies in the quality of public schools? Those states that have effective public schools have no need for charter schools. Parents only demand charter school choices in cities that have ineffective public schools.
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 1:09 PMBy: Rod Estvan Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't I read through the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) report on charter schools. Basically I thought it supported what Access Living found in its report released last month “Renaissance 2010 and Students with Disabilities” [available at www.acceessliving.org] . What we found was that for the subgroup of students with disabilities there is no real academic improvement especially in reading as compared to traditional CPS schools. The CREDO report found the same thing for Chicago’s charters and charters nationally. Unfortunately the CREDO report does not really look for reasons why many charter schools are effective for low income students in general, but not for low income students who are disabled. One of the things we try to do in our report is to look at the why.

Part of the why relates to planning specifically targeting students with disabilities, another part of the why is to be found in resources available to charter schools. Fundamentally Chicago’s charters operate with the same or fewer resources than traditional schools. Therefore it is not surprising these schools can not produce on average better results for students who may require very intense services to show relatively moderate improvement.

Rod Estvan
Access Living of Chicago
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 2:54 PMBy: works at a charter Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't High school charters have a lottery for freshmen enrollment - but the 'open' admissions end there. Many (most) charters use the acceptance of sophomore + level students on a 'case-by-case' basis as a means to pad enrollment with selectively chosen students. Russo - want to a little real muckraking? Research how many students accepted via lottery as freshmen are the ones who actually walk across that stage for graduation. Want to go deeper - analyze the test scores of those students dropped vs. those transferred in.
Tue Jun 16, 2009 at 6:55 PMBy: also a charter teacher re: works at a charter I, too, work at a charter school (CICS Northtown Academy) and the number of students who graduate are not dominated by sophomore or later students. Our graduation was this past weekend, and out of 100+ students, only 2 were accepted into the school as sophomores as far as I know. Our school does not take in juniors or seniors due to the credits required for graduation -- there is simply no way for a transfer junior or senior to graduate in time.

Sorry to hear that other Charters do not operate in the same manner. It'd be nice to have a rigorous set of standards for all Charters in Illinois to follow, but that would defeat the beautiful flexibility that a Charter school allows.
Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 4:07 PMBy: Julie Woestehoff Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't It's truly hard to understand why you say that Chicago charters "fare well" and "look pretty good" given the fact that the report finds the following:

Illinois Blacks enrolled in charter schools do significantly worse in reading compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools. Black students receive no significant benefit or loss as a result of charter school attendance compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools in math.

Hispanics enrolled in charter schools do significantly worse in reading and math compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools.

Special education students and English-language learners in Illinois receive no significant benefit from charter school attendance compared with their counterparts in traditional public schools in reading or math.

Charter schools are not creating significantly different results for students compared to their virtual peers from traditional public schools in reading.

New charter school students have an initial loss of learning in reading and math compared with their counterparts in traditional schools. In subsequent years, charter school students continue to incur a loss of learning in reading from charter school attendance while the impact on math becomes insignificant. By the third year of attendance, there is no significant impact from charter school attendance on either reading or math.
***

But at least you didn't characterize the report as a "thumbs up " for Chicago charters as D299 did.
Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 5:47 PMBy: Charters: Neo-Con haven Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't The implementation of charters is not sustainable unless money is stolen from the neediest children and neighborhood schools are torn down. The abomination is watching neighborhood schools not getting the necessary resources that charters are hailed for having!!!
Thu Jun 18, 2009 at 9:47 PMBy: Response to Julie Chicago charter schools fare well in new study but charters nationwide don't Julie,
Did you read the report that ONS did on charters? They are rocking and rolling with about $7800/child all in from state and feds. CPS is spending $11,300/child. If anyone is 'stealing $' it is CPS from kids in charter schools. The reason that teachers get less in charter is not that charters are evil, charters get $2,500 less per kid enrolled. If the charters got the same funding, imagine how even more high performing they would be.

Julie,
You're slicing and dicing numbers to prove a point. Go see charters. Since you love parents, you'll love them, because charter parents generally love their child's school!
Tue Jun 23, 2009 at 11:42 AMBy: Coffee 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 rather than using a common sense and less draconian "best-practices" approach.
Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 1:57 PMBy: In Search of Clarity charter school truths As a teacher at a charter school, I do not seethe with venom at the mention of traditional public schools, but many teachers in traditional public schools find their blood boiling when charter schools are mentioned. Some opinions posted about charter schools on this page are too emotional to be considered credible.

I work for a charter school where all staff are told it is against Chicago Public Schools policy for us to expell or transfer a student out of our school. Whether or not that policy truly exists, the only students who leave our school are students who choose to leave our school voluntarily. Our student body is not a select group of children who could meet a set of academic or behavioral standards. I say this with extreme confidence about my charter school.

I point to the post above that states truthfully the amount of money per pupil alotted to charter schools by the State of Illinois. It is far below the amount alotted to traditional public schools. In addition to operating on this financial deficit, my charter school must pay an exhorbitant lease (about one-third of our total budget) for the CPS building in which we work. Traditional public schools do not pay leases for their facilities. So, we receive less public funding AND have to pay rent for our buildings. The odds are stacked against us, economically. Does anyone know why this is the case? I'm very interested in trying to rectify this abomination. At the moment, parents who choose to send their children to charter schools in Chicago are choosing vastly underfunded institutions. They should be offered equally funded institutions.

I don't know how to answer the claim that charter schools steal resources. I don't even know what that claim means. We use fewer resources and educate the same students. Some resources are moved around to follow the students, but as has been stated, the resources that follow a student to a charter school are less than the ones alotted for that same student at a traditional public school.

Coffee: You have piqued my interest with this talk of privatization. Can you elaborate? As a teacher at a charter school, I consider myself a public employee. My school is not privately funded or managed. We are publicly funded and managed. What do you mean about the privatization of schools? How do charter schools rely on private funding?

top
Add Your Comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Catalyst-Chicago reserves the right to delete or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule, and to ban anyone who violates this rule. Reader comments are limited to 500 words.





Comment:
Just so we know you're a human and not a spammer, please answer the following question: + =
Search