Tag Archives: charter schools

Should SC Increase Charter School Investment?

Charter school advocates are calling for more investment from South Carolina, according to Jamie Self at The State (Columbia, SC):

South Carolina’s public charter schools struggle to find and pay for space, and often end up without access to kitchens, libraries, or places for kids to play – a problem the S.C. General Assembly needs to address, according to a new report.

The challenges that the state’s 49 brick-and-mortar public charter schools face are outlined in a new report, published with help from the Public Charter School Alliance of South Carolina by the Charter School Facilities Initiative, a partnership of federal and state charter school organizations. 

Charter schools in SC, however, are proving to match the growing body of evidence that charter schools produce similar patterns of measurable student outcomes when compared to public schools and that charter schools share and even increase the rising re-segregation of schools in the U.S.

Should SC increase charter school investment? The short answer is, No. But to answer this question fully a few factors should be considered.

First, charter school advocacy is itself a problem; as I have explained before:

Like medicine, then, education and education reform will continue to fail if placed inside the corrosive dynamics of market forces. Instead, the reform of education must include the expertise of educators who are not bound to advocating for customers, but encouraged, rewarded and praised for offering the public the transparent truth about what faces us and what outcomes are the result of any and every endeavor to provide children the opportunity to learn as a member of a free and empowered people.

Education “miracles” do not exist and market forces are neither perfect nor universal silver bullets for any problem – these are conclusions made when we are free of the limitations of advocacy and dedicated to the truth, even when it challenges our beliefs.

Next, if charter schools are a fiscally responsible investment, they should be producing outcomes that distinguish themselves from traditional public schools. However, analyses from two years of report cards for charter schools in SC reveal the clear picture that more investment is not justified (see below for complete analysis of both years’ comparisons):

  • Using 2011 SC state repost cards and the metric “Schools with Students Like Ours,” charter schools performed as follows: 3/53 ABOVE Typical, 17/53 Typical, and 33/53 BELOW Typical.
  • Using 2013 SC state repost cards and the metric “Schools with Students Like Ours,” charter schools performed as follows: 2/52 ABOVE Typical, 20/52 Typical, 22/52 BELOW Typical.

In other words, almost all charter schools in SC perform about the same or worse than the public schools they are intended to either motivate through market forces to perform better or offer parents better options; neither is likely occurring.

SC should not invest further in charter schools, but should begin decreasing charters while also seeking ways to fund fully and equitably our community public schools—while also abandoning wasteful investments in new standards and testing.

CHARTER SCHOOLS ANALYSIS AND LINKS TO DATA

How Do Charter Schools Compare to “Schools with Students Like Ours” in South Carolina?

2013 — SC Charter School Report Card Performance Compared to “Schools with Students Like Ours”

Above Typical 2/52, Typical 20/52, Below Typical 22/52 (N/A 6/52, * 2)

SOUTH CAROLINA CHARTER SCHOOLS (COMPOSITE) 2012-2013 

2013 State Report Card 

2013 SC CHARTER SCHOOL > DISTRICT

Overall Weighted Points Total 75.5
Overall Grade Conversion C
Points Total – Elementary Grades 76.6
Points Total – Middle Grades 76.8
Points Total – High School Grades 70.5 

 

Charter School or District

ABOVE Typical

Typical

BELOW Typical

SC Public Charter School District

 

 

X

CAPE ROMAIN ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION CHARTER SCHOOL
Summary   Full

 

X

 

EAST POINT ACADEMY
Summary   Full

 

X

 

IMAGINE COLUMBIA LEADERSHIP ACADEMY CHARTER
Summary   Full

 

 

X

LAKE CITY COLLEGE PREP ACADEMY
Summary   Full

 

 

X

Royal Live Oak Academy of the Arts and Sciences Charter
Summary   Full

 

 

X

SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMY
Summary   Full

 

 

X

SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOL
Summary   Full

 

 

X

SOUTH CAROLINA CALVERT ACADEMY
Summary   Full

 

 

X

SPARTANBURG CHARTER SCHOOL
Summary   Full

 

X

 

YORK PREPARATORY ACADEMY
Summary   Full

 

 

X

CALHOUN FALLS CHARTER
Summary    Full

 

X

 

PALMETTO SCHOLARS ACADEMY
Summary    Full

 

X

 

Youth Leadership Academy Charter
Summary    Full

 

X

 

Fox Creek High School
Summary    Full

 

X

 

PALMETTO STATE E-CADEMY
Summary    Full

 

 

X

PROVOST ACADEMY SOUTH CAROLINA
Summary    Full

 

 

X

SC WHITMORE SCHOOL
Summary    Full

 

N/A

 

Academy for Teaching and Learning

 

 

X

Academy of Hope

 

X

 

Aiken Performing Arts Academy

 

 

X

Anderson Five Charter School

 

N/A

 

Brashier Middle College

X

 

 

Bridgewater Academy

 

X

 

Carolina School for Inquiry

 

X

 

Charleston Charter School for Math & Science

 

 

X

Charleston Development Academy

 

X

 

Children’s Attention Home

 

*

 

CHOiCES

 

X

 

Coastal Montessori

 

 

X

Discovery School of Lancaster County

 

 

X

East Montessori Charter School

 

X

 

Legacy Charter School

 

 

X

James Island Charter High School

 

X

 

Langston Charter Middle School

 

X

 

LEAD Academy

X

 

 

Lloyd Kennedy Charter School

 

 

X

Meyer Center for Special Children

 

X

 

Midland Valley Preparatory School

 

 

X

Midlands Math and Business Academy

 

*

 

Orangeburg Consolidated School District Five Charter High School for Health Professions

 

 

X

Orange Grove Elementary Charter School

 

X

 

Palmetto Academy of Learning and Success

 

X

 

Palmetto Academy of MotorSports

 

N/A

 

Palmetto Youth Academy

 

X

 

Pattison’s Academy for Comprehensive Education

 

N/A

 

Phoenix Charter High School

 

 

X

Richland One Middle College

 

N/A

 

Richland Two Charter High School

 

N/A

 

Riverview Charter School

 

X

 

The Apple Charter School

 

 

X

Youth Academy Charter School

 

 

X

* no data found

2011 — SC Charter School Report Card Performance Compared to “Schools with Students Like Ours”

Using the South Carolina School Report Card system and the state Poverty Index, the tables below list charter schools within the SC Public School Charter District and additional charter schools within public school districts to identify how charter schools in SC compare with “Schools with Students Like Ours” (a metric established by the SC Department of Education, see notes).

Conclusions

• Charter schools in SC have produced outcomes below and occasionally typical of outcomes of public schools; thus, claims of exceptional outcomes for charter schools in SC are unsupported by the data (3/53 ABOVE Typical, 17/53 Typical, and 33/53 BELOW Typical).

• Charter schools in SC vary widely in student populations relative to the Poverty Index; but high-poverty charter schools appear to function below typical compared to high-poverty public schools, and thus, offer rare examples of meeting the needs of high-poverty students superior to outcomes found in public schools.

• Charter school advocacy in SC should be measured against the available data when that advocacy makes claims of exceptional outcomes or outcomes superior to similar public schools.

• Student populations served, stratification of students, enrollment, attrition, teacher status, and teacher turnover remain areas of concern for current charter schools and considerations of expanding charter schools in the state.

SC Poverty Index 2011

2012 ESEA – SC Public School Charter District

Overall Weighted Points Total 69.7
Overall Grade Conversion D
Points Total – Elementary Grades 80.6
Points Total – Middle Grades 79.1
Points Total – High School Grades 36.7

SC Public School Charter District – EAA School Report Cards 2011

District Summary    District Full

Elementary

Poverty Index

Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (1)

LAKE CITY COLLEGE PREP ACADEMYAt-Risk/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

96.63

BELOW Typical

87/161 Average

MARY L DINKINS CHARTERAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary   Full

100

BELOW Typical

93/115 Average, Below Average

SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMYAverage/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

64.7

BELOW Typical

68/83 Excellent, Good

SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLAverage/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

73.22

BELOW Typical

68/108 Excellent, Good

SOUTH CAROLINA CALVERT ACADEMYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

55.72

BELOW Typical

54/60 Excellent, Good

SPARTANBURG CHARTER SCHOOLGood/Good, AYP NM
Summary   Full

55.21

BELOW Typical

33/58 Excellent

YORK PREPARATORY ACADEMYGood/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

29.56

BELOW Typical

18/19 Excellent

Middle

Poverty Index

Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (2)

CALHOUN FALLS CHARTERBelow Average/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

89.34

BELOW Typical

30/58 Average

LAKE CITY COLLEGE PREP ACADEMYAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary    Full

96.63

BELOW Typical

37/62 Average, Below Average

MARY L DINKINS CHARTERAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary    Full

100

BELOW Typical

18/37 Average, Below Average

PALMETTO SCHOLARS ACADEMYExcellent/Good, AYP M
Summary    Full

31.82

Typical

10/11 Excellent

SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMYAverage/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

64.7

BELOW Typical

27/48 Excellent, Good

SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLAverage/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

73.22

Typical

37/57 Average

SOUTH CAROLINA CALVERT ACADEMYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

55.72

BELOW Typical

26/34 Excellent, Good

YORK PREPARATORY ACADEMYGood/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

29.56

BELOW Typical

10/11 Excellent

High

Poverty Index

Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (3)

CALHOUN FALLS CHARTERAverage/N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

89.34

Typical

18/42 Average

MARY L DINKINS CHARTERN/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

100

N/A

PALMETTO STATE E-CADEMYAt-Risk/N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

65.06

BELOW Typical

38/40 Excellent, Good, Average

PROVOST ACADEMY SOUTH CAROLINAN/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

71.82

N/A

SC CONNECTIONS ACADEMYBelow Average/N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

64.7

BELOW Typical

38/40 Excellent, Good, Average

SC VIRTUAL CHARTER SCHOOLAt-Risk/N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

73.22

BELOW Typical

23/40 Average

SC Charter Schools (outside SCPCSD)

School

Poverty Index

Relative to “Schools with Students Like Ours” (1, 2, 3)

FOX CREEK HIGHExcellent/Good, AYP M
Summary    Full

45.07

Typical

17/21 Excellent

CHARTER ACADEMY FOR TEACHING AND LEARNINGAverage/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

57.41

BELOW Typical

30/38 Excellent, Good

BRIDGEWATER ACADEMY CHARTERAverage/Excellent, AYP NM
Summary   Full

74.36

BELOW Typical

65/110 Excellent, Good

PALMETTO ACADEMY OF LEARNING (E)Excellent/Average, AYP M
Summary   Full

57.25

Typical

30/65 Excellent

PALMETTO ACADEMY OF LEARNING (M)Good/Average, AYP M
Summary    Full

57.25

Typical

16/37 Good

AIKEN PERFORMING ARTS CHARTERAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP M
Summary    Full

76.27

BELOW Typical

23/33 Average

KENNEDY/LLOYD CHARTER SCHOOLAt-Risk/Below Average, AYP M
Summary    Full

93.75

BELOW Typical

51/72 Average, Below Average

MIDLAND VALLEY CHARTER PREPARATORY SCHOOLBelow Average/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

79.63

BELOW Typical

43/59 Average

BRASHIER MIDDLE COLLEGE CHARTERExcellent/Good, AYP M
Summary    Full

18.86

Typical

5/5 Excellent

LANGSTON CHARTER MIDDLE SCHOOLExcellent/Excellent, AYP M
Summary    Full

16.15

Typical

4/4 Excellent

LEAD ACADEMYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

88.16

BELOW Typical

97/129 Average

MEYER CENTER FOR SPECIAL CHILDRENExcellent/Good, AYP M
Summary    Full

94

Typical

8/10 Excellent

CAROLINA SCHOOL FOR INQUIRYBelow Average/Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

85.22

BELOW Typical

89/124 Average

LEGACY CHARTER (ELEM)Below Average/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary   Full

87.31

BELOW Typical

97/125 Average

LEGACY CHARTER (MID)At-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary    Full

87.31

BELOW Typical

46/49 Average, Below Average

GREENVILLE TECHNICAL CHARTERExcellent/Excellent, AYP M
Summary    Full

27.49

Typical

5/5 Excellent

GREER MIDDLE COLLEGE CHARTER SCHOOLExcellent/N/A, AYP M
Summary    Full

21.48

Typical

5/5 Excellent

RICHLAND 1 CHARTER MIDDLE COLLEGEN/A
Summary    Full

78.87

N/A

MIDLANDS MATH & BUSINESS CHARTER ACADEMY (E)Below Average/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary   Full

94.19

BELOW Typical

110/191 Average

MIDLANDS MATH & BUSINESS CHARTER ACADEMY (M)Below Average/Below Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

94.19

Typical

31/71 Below Average

CHARLESTON CHARTER SCHOOL FOR MATH AND SCIENCE (H)N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

57.91

N/A

CHARLESTON CHARTER SCHOOL FOR MATH AND SCIENCE (M)Average/Average, AYP NM
Summary    Full

57.91

BELOW Typical

33/41 Excellent, Good

CHARLESTON DEVELOPMENTAL ACADEMY CHARTER (E)Good/Excellent, AYP M
Summary   Full

91.96

ABOVE Typical

104/166 Average

CHARLESTON DEVELOPMENTAL ACADEMY CHARTER (M)Average/Average, AYP M
Summary    Full

91.96

ABOVE Typical

43/70 Below Average, At-Risk

GREG MATHIS CHARTERAt-Risk/Below Average, N/A
Summary    Full

98.94

Typical

6/14 At-Risk

JAMES ISLAND CHARTER HIGHExcellent/Excellent, AYP NM
Summary    Full

47.22

Typical

18/26 Excellent

EAST COOPER MONTESSORI CHARTER (E)Excellent/Excellent, AYP M
Summary   Full

13.54

Typical

7/7 Excellent

EAST COOPER MONTESSORI CHARTER (M)Excellent/Excellent, AYP M
Summary    Full

13.54

Typical

3/3 Excellent

ORANGE GROVE CHARTERExcellent/Excellent, AYP NM
Summary   Full

61.26

ABOVE Typical

32/68 Good

PATTISONS ACADEMY (E)N/A, AYP NM
Summary   Full

100

N/A

PATTISONS ACADEMY (M)N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

100

N/A

THE APPLE CHARTER SCHOOLAt-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary   Full

95.73

BELOW Typical

99/187 Average

CHILDREN’S ATTENTION CHARTER (E)At-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary   Full

96.77

BELOW Typical

87/171 Average

CHILDREN’S ATTENTION CHARTER (M)N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

96.77

N/A

CHOICES (M)At-Risk/At-Risk, AYP NM
Summary    Full

92.73

BELOW Typical

47/65 Average, Below Average

CHOICES (H)
N/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

92.73

N/A

DISCOVERY CHARTER OF LANCASTERExcellent/Excellent, AYP M
Summary   Full

39.81

Typical

23/25 Excellent

PHOENIX CHARTER HIGH SCHOOLAt-Risk/Excellent, N/A
Summary    Full

87.5

BELOW Typical

19/40 Average

PALMETTO YOUTH ACADEMYBelow Average/Good, AYP M
Summary   Full

93.22

BELOW Typical

109/182 Average

RICHLAND TWO CHARTER HIGHN/A, AYP NM
Summary    Full

N/A

N/A

RIVERVIEW CHARTER SCHOOLGood/Good, AYP M
Summary   Full

35.31

BELOW Typical

22/23 Excellent

YOUTH ACADEMY CHARTERN/A, AYP NMSummaryFull

100

N/A

(1) Ratings are calculated with data available by 11/09/2011.  Schools with Students Like Ours are Elementary Schools with Poverty Indices of no more than 5% above or below the index for this school.

(2) Ratings are calculated with data available by 11/09/2011.  Schools with Students Like Ours are Middle Schools with Poverty Indices of no more than 5% above or below the index for this school.

(3) Ratings are calculated with data available by 11/09/2011.  Schools with Students Like Ours are High Schools with Poverty Indices of no more than 5% above or below the index for this school.

When a “Visit” Trumps Expertise and Experience: A New Deal

I have already addressed the distortions and outright misinformation in a new piece on Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charter schools. But a few issues raised in this claim of a “softer” side to “no excuses” practices need to be addressed more fully.

I have discovered that “no excuses” advocates now routinely push any critic about whether or not the critic has visited a KIPP school; note this paragraph early in the Education Next piece:

Also not surprisingly, KIPP and other No Excuses schools have no shortage of critics. Furman University education professor P. L. Thomas, who admitted in a recent speech at the University of Arkansas to never having been in a No Excuses charter school, complains in a widely referenced 2012 Daily Kos post that in such schools, “Students are required to use complete sentences at all times, and call female teachers ‘Miss’—with the threat of disciplinary action taken if students fail to comply.” Regarding KIPP in particular, Cambridge College professor and blogger Jim Horn, who admits to having never been inside a KIPP school, nonetheless has referred to KIPP as a “New Age eugenics intervention at best,” destroying students’ cultures, and a “concentration camp” at worst.

Horn and I are immediately marginalized because of the claims that we have never visited a KIPP school (for the record, I responded to a question about whether I have visited an Arkansas KIPP school, which I have not).

The push on the need to visit KIPP schools has raised two issues for me.

First, there are now abundant publications offering detailed evidence from many different people who have visited KIPP schools: Sarah Carr’s excellent Hope Agains Hope, Gary Rubinstein’s series on his visits, and Russ Walsh’s blog post, just to note a few.

Visiting a KIPP or “no excuses” school, it seems, doesn’t really change anything for those of us who hold foundational stances that reject the central ideology of “no excuses” practices. I reject authoritarianism regardless of the type of school in which it is practiced, and I abhor deficit perspectives, again regardless of the school type.

Whether I visit a school or rely on my analysis of other people’s details or data from “no excuses” schools, I am quite capable of drawing valid and evidence-based conclusions. And, frankly, I don’t have to ever set a foot in an actual school.

My best proof of this is the Education Next piece itself. While the authors believe they are discrediting the concerns of “no excuses” critics, the piece reinforces my central reasons for rejecting the policies, including the disturbing picture of three students participating in “Stereotypical Geek Day.” The picture itself feels exploitive and the activity, ridiculous.

That “no excuses” start out strict and ease off doesn’t excuse the abusive nature of the practices. And the larger concerns I have are not addressed at all: that minority and high-poverty students are disproportionately served and segregated from privileged and white students, that students wear uniforms, that “no excuses” schools tend to be selective and create a great deal of attrition, that KIPP schools are prone to hire Teach for America recruits (inexperienced and uncertified teachers for minority and impoverished students).

I remain opposed to all charter schools, not just “no excuses” charter schools, as well, and I reject any form of school choice.

Nothing in the Education Next article addresses that “other people’s children” are being served and treated in ways that affluent children are not; and that is my biggest complaint.

All children should have access to the sorts of schools and policies that affluent children enjoy. Period.

Second, however, is the more urgent issue I see with the insistence that “no excuses” critics visit “no excuses” schools: “no excuses” advocates and education reformers are overwhelmingly people who have never taught in public schools.

Is the new reformer message that visiting a school trumps having actually taught in a school?

If so, I propose a compromise:

No one can criticize a “no excuses” school unless she/he has visited the school and no one can lead education reform unless she/he has taught in public school.

“No excuses” advocates and reformers, deal?

Recommended: Hope Against Hope, Sarah Carr

I just read and reviewed Hope against Hope: Three Schools, One City, and the Struggle to Educate America’s Children by Sarah Carr, to be released February 26, 2013. I urge you to pre-order it.

Books on education tend to be deeply misguided and self-promoting or trapped in the “miracle” school/ “no excuses” memes that also dominate flawed education reform.

Diane Ravitch’s recent and upcoming books as well as Kathleen Nolan’s Police in the Hallways are rare exceptions.

I am surprised, then, and eager to recommend Carr’s wonderful narrative of post-Katrina education reform in New Orleans, a crucible of the keynotes of the newest reform movement invested in charter schools and Teach for America.

If you are skeptical of the new reforms and frustrated with the status quo of public education’s failure to address children and neighborhoods most in need, Carr’s book is a perfect story of three people living the reality of both.

See an excerpt at The Atlantic: “The Real Reason More Low-Income Students Don’t Go to College”

While reading, I also compiled a companion reading list, below:

Police in the Hallways: Discipline in an Urban High School, Kathleen Nolan

http://www.upress.umn.edu/book-division/books/police-in-the-hallways

“More Challenges to Kirp’s ‘Miracle’ Narrative,” @ The Chalk Face, P. L. Thomas

http://atthechalkface.com/2013/02/15/more-challenges-to-kirps-miracle-narrative/

“Final Words of Advice,” “Where Do We Go from Here?” Martin Luther King Jr. (1967)

http://www.wealthandwant.com/docs/King_Where.htm

Other People’s Children: Cultural Conflict in the Classroom and “Multiplication Is for White People”: Raising Expectations for Other People’s Children, Lisa Delpit

http://thenewpress.com/index.php?option=com_catalog&task=author&author_id=P14893

“Murky Waters: The Education Debate in New Orleans,” Truthout, Adam Bessie and Dan Archer

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/10061-the-disaster-capitalism-curriculum-the-high-price-of-education-reform-episode-2

“The Teaching Profession as a Service Industry,” Daily Censored, P. L. Thomas

http://www.dailycensored.com/the-teaching-profession-as-a-service-industry/

“Is There a Christmas Miracle in School Reform Debate?” The Answer Sheet/The Washington Post, P. L. Thomas

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/is-there-a-christmas-miracle-in-school-reform-debate/2011/12/21/gIQA4FocCP_blog.html

“Unpacking TFA Support: Twisted Logic and Assumptions,” Schools Matter, P. L. Thomas

http://www.schoolsmatter.info/2011/12/unpacking-tfa-support-twisted-logic-and.html

“Current Education Reform Perpetuating, Not Curbing, Inequity,” the becoming radical, P. L. Thomas

https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/02/19/current-education-reform-perpetuating-not-curbing-inequity/

“Lessons from the Zombie Apocalypse,” the becoming radical, P. L. Thomas

https://radicalscholarship.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/lessons-from-the-zombie-apocalypse/

“Reconsidering Education ‘Miracles,’” OpEdNews, P. L. Thomas

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Reconsidering-Education-M-by-P-L-Thomas-100816-438.html

“The New Layoff Formula Project,” The Shanker Blog, Matthew Di Carlo

http://shankerblog.org/?p=2377

The Mis-Education of the Negro, Carter Woodson

http://www.amazon.com/Mis-Education-Negro-Carter-Godwin-Woodson/dp/1440463506

“Poor Teaching for Poor Children in the Name of Reform,” Education Week, Alfie Kohn

http://www.alfiekohn.org/teaching/edweek/poor.htm

“The Pedagogy of Poverty Versus Good Teaching,” Phi Delta Kappan, Martin Haberman

https://www.ithaca.edu/compass/pdf/pedagogy.pdf

“’They’re All Our Children,’” AlterNet, P. L. Thomas

http://www.alternet.org/education/theyre-all-our-children

Charter Schools: A Primer

Stakeholders in education include virtually everyone in a democracy—students, parents, teachers, politicians, business leaders, the media, and more.

Historically, public education in the U.S. has experienced two continual popular narratives: (1) public schools are failing, and (2) [insert reform here] is needed to overhaul schools for (a) international competitiveness and (b) a stronger workforce.

Recently, charter schools have seen a significant rise in advocacy and implementation as a complex mechanism for reform. Along with that rise has come a new wave of research on the effectiveness of those charter schools, particularly as they compare with traditional public schools (TPS).

Most stakeholders in education receive their information about charter schools from the media; thus, when the media covers the charter school debate and research, the influence of those media accounts can be disproportional to the quality.

For example, The Post and Courier (Charleston, SC) has taken a strong position for charter schools in SC: “But there is one area where the state has taken bold steps to improve education: charter schools.” However, an analysis of charter schools in SC that compares state report card data between those charter schools and  TPS using the state metric of “Schools with Students Like Ours” revealed in 2012:

Charter schools in SC have produced outcomes below and occasionally typical of outcomes of public schools; thus, claims of exceptional outcomes for charter schools in SC are unsupported by the data (3/53 ABOVE Typical, 17/53 Typical, and 33/53 BELOW Typical).

Since the pattern of advocacy and implementation of charter schools includes a significant amount of support from political leaders, business leaders, the media, and advocates (such as charter-based organizations and think tanks), most stakeholders need a clear and accurate primer addressing what we currently know about charter school effectiveness, and that must be guided by this caution from Matthew Di Carlo:

There’s a constant barrage of data, reports and papers flying around, and sifting through it with a quality filter, as well as synthesizing large bodies of usually mixed evidence into policy conclusions, are massive challenges. Moreover, we all bring our pre-existing beliefs, as well as other differences, to the table. There are no easy solutions here.

But, one useful first step, at least in education, would be to stop pointing fingers and acknowledge two things. First, neither ‘side’ has anything resembling a monopoly on the misuse of evidence. And, second, such misuse has zero power if enough people can identify it as such.

One overarching point needs to be made about the charter school debate first. Charter advocacy and criticism both too often fail in their use of data, as Di Carlo warns, but both also make another mistake, ignoring the evidence base entirely.

What, then, is the current state of evidence on charter school effectiveness? [1] And, how do charter schools address, or not, clearly identified problems and goals of TPS—including what questions and concerns remain in the context of what the evidence suggests about charter school effectiveness?

• Research has repeatedly shown that measurable outcomes (test scores, graduation rates, college admissions rates, etc.) from charter schools produce about the same range of quality as TPS (and private schools) and that the type of school structure (charter v. TPS) appears not to be a determining factor in the outcomes with the demographics of the students and the community remaining powerful correlations with those outcomes.

• Claims of “miracle” schools fail to stand up under close scrutiny, but even if outliers exist in charter schools, outliers exist in TPS and private schools as well, and thus, outliers may prove to be ineffective models for scaling any success.

• Charter schools do not appear to address and often seem to mirror or increase key problems with TPS: (a) teacher assignment (high-needs students assigned to inexperienced and un-/under-certified teachers), (b) class and racial segregation, (c) selectivity and attrition of students, (d) teacher turnover and retention [“churn”], (e) concerns about excluding the most difficult sub-categories of high-needs students [English language learners, special needs students, highest-poverty students, students from home that cannot or will not pursue choices].

• Charter school student outcomes are often complicated by issues of selectivity, attrition, and scalability.

• Some charter school ideologies—notably “no excuses” policies—trigger concerns about classism and racism that are rarely weighed against data.

• Charter schools (along with school choice and home schooling) introduce problems concerning athletic participation as well as a wide range of extracurricular participation in TPS.

• Charter schools also complicate already stressed and controversial TPS funding policies and agendas.

The charter school debate seems to warrant a similar caution that many other reforms now deserve, including VAM-style teacher evaluation. As Di Carlo explains:

As discussed in a previous post, there is a fairly well-developed body of evidence showing that charter and regular public schools vary widely in their impacts on achievement growth. This research finds that, on the whole, there is usually not much of a difference between them, and when there are differences, they tend to be very modest. In other words, there is nothing about “charterness” that leads to strong results.

With commitments to charter schools, many policy makers are moving too quickly and failing to examine the evidence so far along with weighing that evidence against clearly defined problems with TPS and specifically identified goals for the reforms.

—–

[1] A number of studies inform the list above. Readers are invited to examine a wide array of research and reports listed below, but also urged to search for new evidence:

Charter Schools Not the Answer, Especially if We Fail to Identify the Question, P. L. Thomas

Comparing Teacher Turnover In Charter And Regular Public Schools, Matthew Di Carlo

Charter Schools posts at The Shanker Blog

Search “charter schools” at NEPC

Charter Schools posts at School Finance 101 (Bruce Baker)

Charter Schools research at NCSPE

Search “charter schools” at EPAA

Revisiting Legend of the Fall Series

With the seemingly never-ending media attention paid to Michelle Rhee, I want to share my Legend of the Fall series first posted at Daily Censored during late 2010 and early 2011 (posts confront Rhee [see Parts II and III], Bill Gates, and Geoffrey Canada’s roles in corporate/”no excuses” reform). I regret that much of this remains relevant:

Legend of the Fall

Part I

Thomas, P. L. (2010, October 19). Legend of the fall: Snapshots of what’s wrong in the education debateThe Daily Censored.

Part II

—–. (2010, December 2). The education celebrity tour: Legend of the fall, pt. II. The Daily Censored.

Part III

—–. (2010, December 17). Fire teachers, reappoint Rhee: Legend of the fall, pt. IIIThe Daily Censored.

Part IV

—–. (2010, December 28). Wrong questions = wrong answers: Legends of the fall, pt. IVThe Daily Censored. 

Part V

—–. (2011, January 10). Supermen or kryptonite?—Legend of the fall, pt. VThe Daily Censored. 

Part VI

—–. (2011, February 27). Celebrity “common sense” reform for education–Legend of the fall pt. VIThe Daily Censored.

Part VII

—–. (2011, May 14). Maher’s “Real Time” education debate failure redux: Legend of the Fall, pt. VIIThe Daily Censored.