Another study, and more bad results for charter schools

[beachmouse]

Okay, so you're twice as likely to see decreased academic achievement rates as academic improvement. So why are we allowing to bad charters to stay in business if they're worse for the kids than traditional publics?

Clarence Page: Failing charter schools hurt reputation of successes | Viewpoints, Outlook | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Only 17 percent of charter schools produced results that were significantly better than traditional public schools, CREDO found, and 37 percent performed worse.

Similar results had been uncovered in studies sponsored by the American Federation of Teachers, a major adversary since teachers unions stand to lose clout as charters take over. But unlike the unions, CREDO is affiliated with the conservative Hoover Institution, a think tank that looks kindly on free-market solutions like charters. Hoover's thinkers are not often quoted favorably by union chiefs, but this time they were.

The energy of charter schools is in their accountability. As long as a charter school produces good results, it is allowed to function with great autonomy from the central bureaucracy. If not, it is supposed to be closed down or handed over to give some other educational entrepreneur a chance.

But in the real world, that's not so easy. Parents and communities often don't know their school is failing. When they find out, they tend to show amazing love and loyalty to their school, even when it is failing. They want to mend it, not end it.

 

[hkem1]

Only 17 percent of charter schools produced results that were significantly better than traditional public schools, CREDO found, and 37 percent performed worse.

I have question regarding this statistic and could not find the answer in the article so maybe someone on here can enlighten me.

It says that 17 percent produced results "significantly better" than public schools and it compares that number to the 37 percent that performed "worse" than public schools.

I don't know, but I have a feeling there are some more categories the Chronicle is leaving out. Why are they comparing "significantly better" to "worse"?

Why not "better" to "worse" or "significantly better" to "significantly worse"?

37 percent of the schools fall into the "worse" category, but we don't know how many fall into the "better" category.

 

[beachmouse]

Here's the CREDO website with full reports:

CREDO

And the direct wording from the executive summary:

The group portrait shows wide variation in performance. The study reveals that a decent fraction of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students. Nearly half of the charter schools nationwide have results that are no different from the local public school options and over a third, 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.

Some big result variations by state- California charters do well, while the Texas and Florida charter systems should probably be regarded as failures.

 

[hkem1]

Interesting study, I think these are some of the key points directly from the study

"States that have limits on the number of charter schools permitted to operate, known as caps, realize significantly lower academic growth than states without caps, around .03 standard deviations"

"Charter students in elementary and middle school grades have significantly higher rates of learning than their peers in traditional public schools, but students in charter high schools and charter multi-level schools have significantly worse results"

"Charter schools have different impacts on students based on their family backgrounds. For Blacks and Hispanics, their learning gains are significantly worse than that of their traditional school twins. However, charter schools are found to have better academic growth results for students in poverty."

"English Language Learners realize significantly better learning gains in charter schools. Students in Special Education programs have about the same outcomes."

"Students do better in charter schools over time. First year charter students on average experience a decline in learning, which may reflect a combination of mobility effects and the experience of a charter school in its early years. Second and third years in charter schools see a significant reversal to positive gains".

"The news for charter schools has some encouraging facets. In our nationally pooled sample, two traditionally disadvantaged subgroups fare better in charters than in the traditional system: students in poverty and ELL students. This is no small feat. In these cases, our numbers indicate that charter students who fall into these categories are outperforming their TPS counterparts in both reading and math. These populations, then, have clearly been well served by the introduction of charters into the education landscape."

It sounds to me like in a lot of situations charter schools are a great option. That just supports the idea that it works out better when states and localities have more power over what works in their specific situation.

 

[Douglas the Intrepid]

I personally believe our local schools are at par or better then private schools. Bay Elementary in particular is amazing!

 

[hkem1]

I personally believe our local schools are at par or better then private schools. Bay Elementary in particular is amazing!

Well, since there are no private secondary schools in the immediate area that I know of, I suppose it would be difficult to compare.

We do have an excellent charter school though in Seaside that personally was much better than anything Emerald Coast could have offered.


And while Bay's test scores are above the state average, and I am sure it is a very good school as I know my younger brother had a great experience there, Seaside's test scores are out of the ballpark (in 2008 100% of 8th graders were proficient in math, compared to the 68% state average).

 

[scooterbug44]

Sorry this is so vague - while channel surfing I caught part of a news report on how one school had insane improvements in their failure rate and test scores.

It seemed that the key was making the kids read and write CONSTANTLY - even as part of gym class and sports.

The kids and parents thought it was dumb - until the students ended up going to college instead of getting a paper hat.

Did anyone else catch the show?

 

[LuciferSam]

Sorry this is so vague - while channel surfing I caught part of a news report on how one school had insane improvements in their failure rate and test scores.

It seemed that the key was making the kids read and write CONSTANTLY - even as part of gym class and sports.

The kids and parents thought it was dumb - until the students ended up going to college instead of getting a paper hat.

Did anyone else catch the show?

I think kids need a break from the academics. That sounds like a little too much multitasking. It reminds me of this commercial:

 

[30ashopper]

Good or bad, they offer parents more control and choice over the education their kids get. I'm 100% for charter schools based on this alone.

 

[hkem1]

Good or bad, they offer parents more control and choice over the education their kids get. I'm 100% for charter schools based on this alone.

While parental choice is important, I think schools need to have accountability to the state as well. I worry that if you give complete control to the parents the child's interest will get left out.