Student achievement is mixed... so now what?

Charter school performance has been a popular topic in education research for years.  Research results are mixed -- one can find support for whatever position one wishes to take on the issue.  My opinion is that the diversity of outcomes in charter schools means that they aren't the panacea some advocates claim, but they can serve a useful purpose as laboratories for experimentation.  The schools are as varied as our students and we should seek a policy framework that provides them their essential freedom to experiment while simultaneously recognizing that they must exist within the community of public schools: they have an important though limited role in that community.  They must serve their students and the larger purpose too.

Ideally, charter school experimentation will find new solutions to larger educational problems, but currently the competition for funds, space, students, and public attention has fouled the atmosphere of cooperation that should exist within the community of schools.  We need policies that provide charters with adequate resources without making them compete with existing schools are necessary -- some sort of recognition that "good fences make good neighbors".  And equally important, we need more inter-school collaboration so that experiences can be usefully shared and all parties can benefit from the charter school work.

Links

Why Charter Schools Fail the Test (NYT Opinion)

How to measure student performance?  A charter schools advocate explains why charter schools don't necessarily do any better on standardized tests.

Despite Push, Success at Charter Schools is Mixed (NYT)

"But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research."

How Does Unionization Affect Charter Schools?

As unionization in charter schools across the country continues, differing views regarding the effects of unionization on charter schools come to light.

“…unionization effort raises questions about whether unions will strengthen the charter movement by stabilizing its young, often transient teaching force, or weaken it by preventing administrators from firing ineffective teachers and imposing changes they say help raise achievement, like an extended school year” (New York Times, July 26, 2009).

Among the reasons of one Chicago charter school teacher for opting to unionize were frustration with staff turnover, “lack of teacher input, with working longer and harder than teachers at other schools and earning less.” Additionally, some teachers note a sense of empowerment in unionizing.

Jay Greene, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute (April 16, 2009), holds the view that unionization does not have a positive affect on charter schools’ rates of academic achievement. “… students accepted by lottery at charters run by the school district with unionized teachers experienced no benefit.” He cites economist Caroline Hoxby’s work, which states that “students accepted by lottery to charter schools were significantly outpacing the academic progress of their peers who lost the lottery and were forced to return to district schools.” “When charter schools unionize, they become identical to traditional public schools in performance.”

It seems that those who see positive potential of unionization focus on consistency of the work force and its assumed benefits in terms of teacher’s voice and the stability provided within a school community. Those who argue against unionization do so based on concerns over academic success.

As unionization in charter schools continues to grow, further studies will have to be done to see what characteristics are present in schools (both charter and non-charter) that provide both stability and teacher empowerment as well as high academic achievement. I don’t believe that the answer to the question “To unionize, or not to unionize?” has to focus on one over the other.

Do NYC Charters Improve Performance?

In 2009, Caroline Hoxby published her report on charter school performance for the "New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project". While Hoxby looked at many variables in her report, I am going to focus on two. The first is the population a charter school in New York City serves; Hoxby found that schools are more likely to serve African American students than either Asian or Caucasian students. The second finding in the 85 page report is that student continuously enrolled in a charter school are out performing students who either left the school, or were not accepted in the lottery.

The first is important because it addresses the the accusation placed on charter schools for separating African American and Hispanic students from Asian and Caucasian students. Hoxby finds this trend in New York City, based upon the location of the charter school, and is not an intentional result of the lottery process.

The second topic is important because, the lottery (which Hoxby finds to be truly random), works. Furthermore, if the lottery works then charter schools in New York City are performing their role be increasing student achievement for continuously enrolled students.

This finally begs the question: If charter schools are to co-exist with public schools, yet out perform public schools, what are the charters doing that the city can emulate?

To read this publication in full: How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievemnt

Categories of Charter Schools

As part of the think tank's research into school privatization I have started researching the most common organizational forms used by charter schools.  There are large non-profit and for-profit charter school organizations, university-backed charter schools, schools backed by community groups like ACORN, and finally, independent "mom-and-pop" charter schools.  To what extent should we be differentiating among them in our research and advocacy?  With the exception of for-profit school networks which I feel deserve special scrutiny, I don't yet have an answer.

My initial searching failed to uncover any comprehensive listing of different organizational forms running charter schools.  Since New York state law (like law in nearly all other states) grants chartering authority to a variety of state and local institutions, it generally leaves open the question of what type body can receive such a charter.  The chartering authorities examine each application individually, and though some restrict for-profit entities from receiving charters, they don't otherwise limit who can apply.

Working list of charter school models:

• Non-profit organization (ACORN, UFT, etc.)
• Independent university
• Non-profit school network (Harlem Children's Zone, Green Dot, Success Charter Network, etc)
• For-profit Education Management Companies (EMOs) - not allowed in NYC?
• Independent "mom-and-pop"

Resources

• The question of which chartering authorities are most effective is addressed in the report A Sum Greater Than the Parts: What States Can Teach Each Other About Charter Schooling (Mead and Rotherham).
• A list of New York City charter schools, along with their chartering authority, is available on the New York City Department of Education website.

School Choice

While Friedman wrote this article his article in 1997, "Public Schools: Make them Private" it remains heavily cited in other publications. Milton Friedman was one of the original advocates for school vouchers in the late 1900s, and after the advent of charter schools in 1991 he continued to promote school choice. In the 1997 publication Friedman further his support for school privatization when he claims school vouchers are the only method of promoting educational success in urban areas, where the worst schools continue to under-educate students. Yet, he has also received criticism for his inability to go further than his vague claim for universal success when he states he can't predict where a free-market education might lead the country. My final criticism of Friedman's article is in his support for local community control over schools. Yet, the charter schools, which continue to gain national support, have become a far cry from community organizations as national EMOs continue to proliferate the educational market.

Friedman's article can be found in Education Economics Dec 97, vol 5 issue 3, p 341, 4pages

Our Plan

The question: What policy changes need to happen for the peaceful co-existence between charter schools and traditional schools?

The product: A platform offering recommendations for policy issues affecting the current relationship between traditional schools and charter schools that create conflict or work harmoniously.

Charter School Association continues fight to raise cap in hopes of collecting federal cash

clipped from www.nydailynews.com Squabbling lawmakers couldn't reach agreement Tuesday on raising the current cap beyond 200 charter schools, missing the deadline to apply for up to $700 million in federal education money. Gov. Paterson wants lawmakers to increase the cap to 460, arguing it's needed to score maximum points with Uncle Sam. Legislative leaders back a rival measure that would raise the cap to only 400 schools and, among other things, strip the city schools chancellor of the power to issue new charters.

Teachers at NYC charter high school to join UFT

clipped from www.uft.org AECI educators seek formal coice in school policy and more collaborative work environment Teachers and staff at the NYC Charter High School for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industries (AECI) in the Bronx announced on Jan. 13 their intention to join the UFT as a new collective-bargaining unit. Seventeen of 19 teachers and other pedagogical staff at the school have signed union authorization cards. AECI is run by Victory Schools, a for-profit educational management company based in New York City. The New York City Charter High School for Architecture, Engineering and Construction Industries (AECI) opened in the fall of 2008, and currently serves approximately 240 students in grades 9 and 10. The school employs 17 teachers, as well as a guidance counselor, a social worker, a director of student culture and a handful of administrators. UFT operates two unionized charter schools, and co-operates a third UFT also represents educators at nine other charter schools

Charter advocates block charter bill to shirk fairness, accountability

clipped from www.uft.org Charter school advocates, including the New York Charter School Association and Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, this week blocked legislation that would have made charter schools more transparent and more accessible to high-needs students. Lawmakers were under pressure to pass legislation by Jan. 19, the deadline for New York State to apply for the first round of federal Race to the Top funds. new restrictions on how charter schools are created and managed to make them more fair and transparent. Charter schools would have been required to admit and retain high-needs students. The bill would also have taken the power to approve charters away from the New York City schools chancellor and the board of trustees of the State University of New York. For-profit companies would have been prohibited from running the schools and charter schools would have been placed inside district public schools only if the parents of the students already attending those schools approve.

Non-Partisan Analysis of Arizona’s Charter School Plan.

clipped from www.ncspe.org Arizona’s charter school plan has been called the “gold standard” for charter school plans. The plan has been ranked 1st for its policy environment by researchers, and has received an “A+” for financial audits. It is highly deregulated and includes a huge number of charter schools, the most per capita in the nation. Arizona policymakers have stressed efficiency in intent and on paper, but there is little available evidence that levels of this dimension are high. Together with likely low levels of equity and debatably similar or lower levels of social cohesion, the conclusion is that on balance there is little basis upon which Arizona’s charter schools could claim any significant general advantage over their non-charter public counterparts.