Charter school advocates are understandably pleased with some recent news out of New York City. A new study has concluded that charters
schools--a controversial innovation in public education--have a more positive effect on student test scores than do traditional public schools. (In fact, the report's authors claim that charters are closing the "Scarsdale-Harlem achievement gap" in math and English, or the divide in test scores between affluent suburban schools and those in the inner city.) Charter advocates are particularly touting how the study reached its conclusion: As The Washington Post puts it, the study meets the "gold-standard" of education research methodology because it was randomized, looking only at students who applied to charter schools through an admissions lottery. The report compares the test scores of students who were accepted to charters via lotteries to the scores of those who didn't get in--and, thus, remained in public schools.
Randomly choosing a sample this way does have many strengths. For instance, it significantly reduces a "self-selection bias"--the possibility that students who apply to charter schools share personal characteristics, including parents who might be more involved in their children's education. Consequently, if charter students test well, it might be due in part to their parents' motivation and assistance, not necessarily just because of their schools' strengths. (This method thus addresses a common complaint made by charter school opponents in evaluating their effectiveness.)
But we shouldn't be so quick to embrace the study's conclusions. Not all charters are equally popular and, thus, should not be considered as a single group, points out Alexander Hoffman of the website Gotham Schools, who lists several valid concerns about the study. "The most important problem is that not all charter schools are oversubscribed [with applications], so not all charter schools can be included in these studies," he writes. "Clearly, the 'better' charter schools are far, far, far more likely to be oversubscribed than the 'worse' charter schools."
Another of Hoffman's critiques ventures into different territory: "If parents do not get their choice of schools for their students, are they going to be as supportive of their child's teachers?" This represents an ironic shift away from the standard assumption and criticism in charter studies about the impact of parental motivation--usually, parental motivation is the cause of higher test scores, not lower ones. (Other criticisms of the new report can be read here and here.)
Indeed, just because a study focuses on students in charter lotteries doesn't mean it's perfect. Some past lottery-based studies have had to acknowledge gaps in their data; this report on Boston charters, for instance, admits that "lottery records are missing or incomplete," allowing for methodological flaws.
Yet the praise for the New York City study in the media reflects the fact that reports even of this caliber have been few and far between up until now. According to Robin Lake, associate director of the Center on Reinventing Public Education, most national studies on charters "lack in rigor." Her organization's white paper on these studies covers the faults with various research methodologies. Comparing school test scores from a single point in time is an example of one of the "worst research designs possible," Lake says, since many variables are left uncontrolled. And even some better measurements, such as tracking the average test score of a class of students over time, don't always account for issues like changes in a student body. What's more, some schools, public and charter, don't have good records of students' scores and other pertinent research data.
At the very least, hopefully the new study will nudge policymakers to examine what charters do well and, from there, to develop best practices for how they should be run. And perhaps it will serve as an impetus for launching new research in other cities, since charters in Washington D.C., Chicago, and California, among other places, also employ lotteries to select their students.
Print
COMMENTS (7)
But even if charter schools could be shown to be more effective than regular public schools in closing the gap, how is that a solution for the problem in general? Can all schools be made into charter schools? By definition, no.
But even if charter schools could be shown to be more effective than regular public schools in closing the gap, how is that a solution for the problem in general? Can all schools be made into charter schools? By definition, no.
What definition are you using? Maybe it's because I don't really follow school reform, but I don't see why that would be definitionally impossible.
Regardless, though, I don't see why a program has to be a magic bullet to count. If more charter schools helps then there should be more charter schools. If additional charter schools stop helping then we shouldn't charter any more schools.
What definition are you using? Maybe it's because I don't really follow school reform, but I don't see why that would be definitionally impossible.
Regardless, though, I don't see why a program has to be a magic bullet to count. If more charter schools helps then there should be more charter schools. If additional charter schools stop helping then we shouldn't charter any more schools.
Charter schools are a way to syphon taxpayer dollars from public education and to run end around the wall separating church and state. They can also be a way to entrench class and racial segregation, especially in the American South. Public education has, through most of American history, done a tremendous job of educating immigrants and the poor and integrating them into American society. I can understand the frustration of parents with poorly managed public school systems today, but the solution to that lies in political action. Either they become engaged citizens of the polis or engaged in the management of their children's charter schools. There's no way out of it.
We've seen some ethnic ... view full comment
Charter schools are a way to syphon taxpayer dollars from public education and to run end around the wall separating church and state. They can also be a way to entrench class and racial segregation, especially in the American South. Public education has, through most of American history, done a tremendous job of educating immigrants and the poor and integrating them into American society. I can understand the frustration of parents with poorly managed public school systems today, but the solution to that lies in political action. Either they become engaged citizens of the polis or engaged in the management of their children's charter schools. There's no way out of it.
We've seen some ethnically/religiously based charter schools in New York City. American taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize ethnic separatists. The purpose of publicly funded education should be to impart values and skills needed for effective American citizenship.
You are correct that there is no uniform defintion of "charter" schools. And I am no expert either, but, at minimum, I understand a charter school to be one that is exempted from some of the rules and regulations that are generally applicable to public schools in exchange for being accountable to produce certain results. It is further my understanding that charter schools have access to resources that are not available to public schools generally. So, if someone can articulate a scenario in which the successes of charter schools, such as they are, can be generalized to all public schools, then I am all ears. But otherwise, it seems to be a formula for providing higher quality education t ... view full comment
You are correct that there is no uniform defintion of "charter" schools. And I am no expert either, but, at minimum, I understand a charter school to be one that is exempted from some of the rules and regulations that are generally applicable to public schools in exchange for being accountable to produce certain results. It is further my understanding that charter schools have access to resources that are not available to public schools generally. So, if someone can articulate a scenario in which the successes of charter schools, such as they are, can be generalized to all public schools, then I am all ears. But otherwise, it seems to be a formula for providing higher quality education to a selected few.
My experience with a spouse who worked at a charter school (as the business and finance director, not as a teacher) is that charters are a way to end-run the teachers unions and be able to hire and fire staff "at will". It is also, as Amidut points out, a way for essentially private schools to tap into public money. In my state, many of the vocal proponents of charter schools are Ayn Rand devotees and see the charters as a way to get the foot in the door for a private school voucher program and more privatization, which the voters of my state rejected overwhelmingly. The charter school people actively promoted and championed the school voucher effort and were very disillusioned and critic ... view full comment
My experience with a spouse who worked at a charter school (as the business and finance director, not as a teacher) is that charters are a way to end-run the teachers unions and be able to hire and fire staff "at will". It is also, as Amidut points out, a way for essentially private schools to tap into public money. In my state, many of the vocal proponents of charter schools are Ayn Rand devotees and see the charters as a way to get the foot in the door for a private school voucher program and more privatization, which the voters of my state rejected overwhelmingly. The charter school people actively promoted and championed the school voucher effort and were very disillusioned and critical of its eventual failure at the polls.
That being said, I do believe charters can have a positive effect on the public school system in general, but they must be closely monitored and regulated so as to prevent sliding down that slippery slope to school privatization at taxpayer expense. Every year, it seems, the charter school interest groups do battle for more budget support with the legislature and the school districts. Unfortunately, there are many in state elected office who would like to fund increases to the charters at the same time they de-fund public schools. Taxpayers have to be ever vigilant.
Desertdog, exactly. As far as I can tell, charter schools (and school vouchers) are just a way of privileging the few and letting everyone else go to hell. In what way do you think charter schools can have a positive effect on the public school system in general? (And how ironic is it that Ayn Rand devotees want public money to finance their perceived superiority?)
Desertdog, exactly. As far as I can tell, charter schools (and school vouchers) are just a way of privileging the few and letting everyone else go to hell. In what way do you think charter schools can have a positive effect on the public school system in general? (And how ironic is it that Ayn Rand devotees want public money to finance their perceived superiority?)
dhurtado.........The charter school my wife worked at did a few positive things for the community, so I don't want it to sound all bad. They can specialize in certain subjects, like Latin, sciences, or classical philosophy that regular public schools just can't devote the resources to. Hers specialized in classical education, for example. They also MUST accept students based on a lottery system to make it fair to all in the community, but the system can be gamed to a degree because families that were part of the original charter or who already have kids at the school get an advantage over regular Joe or Jane at random. They also take some of the pressure off the overcrowded public system ... view full comment
dhurtado.........The charter school my wife worked at did a few positive things for the community, so I don't want it to sound all bad. They can specialize in certain subjects, like Latin, sciences, or classical philosophy that regular public schools just can't devote the resources to. Hers specialized in classical education, for example. They also MUST accept students based on a lottery system to make it fair to all in the community, but the system can be gamed to a degree because families that were part of the original charter or who already have kids at the school get an advantage over regular Joe or Jane at random. They also take some of the pressure off the overcrowded public system.
The Ayn Randish stuff is kinda creepy, though and their obsession with privatizing the schools at public expense were the reasons my wife finally left. She was their token lefty even though she knew far more about business and finance than any of the so-called laissez-faire capitalists she had to work with. She really didn't fit in very well politically, as you can imagine.
The idea that they can bypass the public teachers merit system and their anti-teacher's unionism really got to be quite hard to tolerate, too.