Spokane7
55°
January 29, 2012 in Opinion
Pro-Con: Charter Schools - Con: Statistics show no significant advantage over regular public education
Advocates assert that charter schools are a key reform for raising the achievement of African-American, Latino and low-income students in Washington state. The problem is that the research evidence does not support this assertion.
Take for instance the study done by Mathematica, done with assistance from a pro-charter, conservative research institution, the Center for Reinventing Public Education, formally housed at my own institution, the University of Washington-Bothell.
The Mathematica study found that, “Although overall average two- and three-year test score impacts are positive in all four subjects, they are not statistically significant” (p. 56). When something is “not statistically significant,” that’s research-speak for “there is no difference.” The charters in the Mathematica study simply performed the same as regular public schools. And this was true even though the charters in the study had significant advantages for higher test scores such as having higher-performing African-American and Latino students, fewer English Language Learners, fewer students with disabilities and smaller class sizes.
Or, as another example, take the study completed by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), a research group at Stanford’s conservative, and pro-charter, Hoover Institute. This study found that charter schools performed worse than public schools 36 percent of the time, performed better 17 percent of the time, and performed no differently the rest of the time. The CREDO study suggests that charter schools are twice as likely to make student achievement worse as they are to improve it.
Research on charter schools in New York City, California, Idaho, Indiana, Minnesota and New Jersey, among others, are all consistent with both the Mathematica and CREDO studies: Charters do not increase student achievement compared to regular public schools.
In response to such research, charter advocates often suggest that we can just replicate the few high-performing charters on a large scale. Again, there is no research to support this idea. It simply has never been done successfully anywhere.
Even the success of Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) charters, which have been offered as a model of success, is misleading. One major study found that KIPP test scores and college entrance rates were artificially inflated because KIPP schools have kicked out or lost African-American and Latino students at up to three and four times district averages.
Research has also revealed other important points to consider about charter schools: They are underserving English Language Learners and students with disabilities; they do not keep accurate track of student demographics (e.g., how many of their students are on free and reduced lunch); their governing boards regularly lack oversight or public accountability of their operations; they have reached levels of racial segregation not seen since before the 1954 Brown v. Board ruling that legally ended “separate but equal” schooling, prompting the NAACP to issue a statement in 2010 expressing its opposition to charter schools.
One point that is lost in the debate about charter schools is that, according to multiple studies, in-school factors make up only about 20 percent of a student’s achievement, while out-of-school factors account for about 60 percent (with 20 percent measurement error).
If we want to close the achievement gap we need to look beyond the classroom and recognize that effective schools and teachers are just one important part of a network of social services required for student success.
Yes, we absolutely have to improve the achievement of African-American, Latino and low-income students. However, as the Washington state Legislature considers charters as a possible option in our state, I hope they understand that the charter school reform agenda is based on politics and not what works for kids.
Wayne Au is an assistant professor in the Education Program at the University of Washington – Bothell, and he is an editor for the social justice teaching magazine Rethinking Schools.
MAC firing begs explanation 
gmorton on January 29 at 10:06 a.m.
Wayne Wu wrote,
“One major study found that KIPP test scores and college entrance rates were artificially inflated because KIPP schools have kicked out or lost African-American and Latino students at up to three and four times district averages.”
No. That does not represent “artificially inflating” test scores and admission rates. If those students were not performing to expectations or misbehaved, kicking them out is exactly what the school should do. Similarly, if the students simply withdrew because they were failing or because they found the environment too demanding, good riddance to them. Perhaps they can find a better use of their time.
If the rest of the district followed KIPP’s policies it would likely raise those averages, and also see higher test scores and college admission rates.
But of course you are committed to the misguided egalitarian notion that everyone “deserves” a taxpayer-funded, equal education. That is biologically and psychologically impossible and a fool’s errand.
WillyPeter on January 29 at 10:43 a.m.
An assistant professor of Education at U-Dub tells us not to mess with our schools, ‘cause they’re doing just fine……HOOT!
richardch on January 29 at 9:12 p.m.
Where is the PRO. Without the pro of pro and con this is propoganda
dorainseattle on January 30 at 4:21 a.m.
Check out Bay Area KIPP schools lose 60% of their students, study confirms in the SF Examiner, http://www.examiner.com/education-in-san-francisco/bay-area-kipp-schools-lose-60-of-their-students-study-confirms and in Education Week, Study Finds High Dropout Rates for Black Males in KIPP Schools, KIPP charter middle schools enroll a significantly higher proportion of African-American students than the local school districts they draw from, but 40 percent of the black males they enroll leave between grades 6 and 8, says a new nationwide study by researchers at Western Michigan University. See: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2011/03/31/27kipp_ep.h30.html?tkn=XQPFx%2FM2fyLmh1AhzEKg0PYNIqV0SkZ1DeSj&cmp=clp-edweek.
RLake on February 02 at 10:34 a.m.
With respect to my UW colleague, Wayne Au’s op-ed is a mis-read of the evidence on charter school research. Of course he is right that charter school performance varies from state to state. This is necessarily true given that states have taken very different approaches to charter law and implementation. Despite that, the charter record for urban and low-income kids is actually quite good and consistent. Au’s assertion that low-income students do not benefit from charters is not correct.
There are inappropriate interpretations all over the place in Au’s commentary. For example, he says that results from New York show that charters don’t perform well, but Hoxby and Raymond (CREDO) both found that charters outperformed districts schools in NYC. He dismisses KIPP’s results on the assertion that students who leave KIPP may be lower performing. All of the recent KIPP studies and our CMO study have accounted for student attrition and still show unprecedented results for low-income students. Mathematica’s study found that, three years after entering KIPP schools, many students are experiencing achievement effects that are approximately equivalent to an additional year of instruction, enough to substantially reduce race- and income-based achievement gaps.
It’s easy and tempting to get pulled into the drama of one study or another to support one’s point. But to inform policy, it’s essential to look at the body of evidence from rigorous studies. When that’s done, it’s clear that, nationally, low-income and urban kids benefit from charters. And in some cities, it’s by very, very significant margins. Even the CREDO study that Au cites shows that low-income/urban kids benefit from charters. You need to read past the press release to find it, but it’s clearly there. We recently commissioned a meta-analysis (a review of all rigorous studies) from the University of California San Diego’s Julian Betts, one of the top evaluation experts in the country. Dr. Betts found that charter schools tend to outperform district schools, particularly for low-income students: http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/news/152. The Betts review found ample evidence that charter elementary schools on average outperform traditional public schools in both reading and math, and that charter middle schools outperform in math.
In the end, the record on charter school outcomes points to an important conclusion: state law and implementation matter hugely. Done right, charters can overcome most of the out-of-school factors Dr. Au cites, something that has rarely been achieved before in public education.