Charter School Report

8/14/2019 Charter School Report

1/69

YEAR 3 REPORT:

EVOLUTION OF PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT

IN

ALBANY NY CHARTER SCHOO

CHARTER SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN NEW MEXICO

credo.stanford.edu

June 2009

Embargoed until June 15, 2009


2/69

I

r

c

t

i

c

s

i

I

s

t

s

s

r

NTRODUCTI

his report s

erformancehis state-sp

sed to estim

eport, they

redo.stanfor

his docume

nd concludi

re followed

hese are the

irtual compa

n competitor

ossible to cr

ath. This p

erformance

onfident tha

nd traditiona

cademic gr

hether stud

nder a varie

o that the

nfluences. E

n Figures 1

ignificant dif

hrough 8, th

aseline stud

chool perfor

irst, we exa

tudents lear

exico chart

eading and

ON

upplements

in 16 Statesecific analysi

ate the effec

will not be

.edu.

t reports on

g with the 2

for as many

grades that

rison student

traditional p

eate virtual

roportion as

of charter s

the tests of

l school stud

wth on stat

nts in chart

ty of scenari

ontribution

ach of the sc

and 2, the n

ference bet

e numbers i

ent. Where

ance is pre

mine whethe

, all other fa

r school le

athematics.

E

the CREDO

with an in-s follows th

s of charter

repeated

the analysis

007-2008 da

years as da

are covered

s are include

blic schools

atches for 7

ures that th

chools in th

effect will b

ents at the p

achieveme

er schools in

s. In all the

f the schoo

enarios is pr

umbers insid

een traditio

nside the ba

a statisticall

ent in Figur

r charter sc

ctors held co

rns significa

mbargoed

National C

epth examinapproach u

chooling on

ere. For t

of 4 years

ta. A total o

a are availa

by the stat

d in the anal

, known as t

percent of

results rep

state. Th

sensitive e

.05 level.

t tests is us

New Mexic

scenarios,

ls themselv

sented in th

e the bars a

al public sc

rs signify th

significant

s 3 through

ools differ o

nstant. The

ntly less tha

until June

arter Scho

ation of thesed for the

student aca

e intereste

of schooling,

f 7,554 char

ble. The st

achieveme

sis. The co

he charter s

he charter s

rted here ca

e total num

ough to det

ed as the o

o outperform

number of

s can be i

e following s

re the result

hool and ch

at the repor

difference b

8, the charte

verall from t

results appe

n their virtu

15, 2009

l Study Mul

results for cpooled natio

emic perfor

reader, th

beginning w

er school st

dents are d

t testing pr

mposite virtu

hools feede

hools stude

n be consid

er of obser

ect real diffe

tcome of in

their traditi

control facto

olated from

ctions of the

of a test on

arter school

ed effect is

tween traditi

bars have a

raditional pu

ar in Figure 1

l counterpa

tiple Choice:

harter schoonal study.

ance are de

e full repo

ith the 2004

dents from

rawn from G

gram. An i

al student is

r pool. In N

ts in reading

red as indic

ations is la

rences betw

erest. The

nal public s

s are applie

other poten

report.

whether the

performanc

significantly

onal public s

gradient sha

lic schools

. The typica

ts in their fe

Charter S

ls in New Mince the me

tailed in the

t is availab

-2005 schoo

3 charter sc

rades 3 - 9,

entical num

based on stu

ew Mexico, i

and 75 perc

tive of the o

ge enough

en charter s

nalysis exa

hool counte

to the esti

tially confou

re is a statis

. For Figu

different fro

chool and c

de.

in how much

l student in

eder pool in

2

chool

xico.thods

larger

le at

l year

hools

since

er of

dents

t was

ent in

verall

to be

chool

ines

rparts

ation

nding

tically

res 3

our

harter

their

New

both


3/69

c

Figure1:State

HARTER S

o delve dee

onsecutive

ho enroll in

nalysis to th

007-2008; a

vailable test

-.1

.0

Growth

(in

standard

deviations)

Effects

HOOL IMP

per into the

ears they w

a charter s

e charter stu

lthough the n

results align

E

CT BY STU

charter scho

re enrolled.

hool fluctuat

dents who e

umber of stu

with the yea

-.02*

Significant at

mbargoed

DENTS YE

ol effects in

This questi

es as they

rolled for th

dents includ

s of enrollm

verall Char

p 0.05

until June

RS OF ENR

New Mexico

n examines

ontinue thei

first time in

d will be sm

nt. The resu

-.05

ter Effect

* Significant

15, 2009

OLLMENT

, students w

whether the

r enrollment.

the charter

ller, it is the

lts appear in

**

t p 0.01

ere grouped

academic s

In this sce

chool betwe

only way to

Figure 2 bel

by the num

ccess of stu

nario, we lim

en 2005-200

ake sure th

w.

Reading

Math

3

er of

dents

it the

6 and

at the


4/69

F

s

s

i

i

s

igure2:Impa

he results s

ath compar

tudents cont

enefit or los

chool attend

HARTER S

ttention in U

n recent yea

mportant sin

his impact

resented in

irtual peers.

tudent who

nglish Lang

-.2

-.1

.0

.1

.2

Growth

(in

standard

deviations

)

tbyStudents

uggest that

ed to their

inue to have

in reading

ance compa

HOOL IMP

S public edu

rs. The ef

e so many

f charter sc

Figure 3 bel

The baseli

does not qu

age Learne

-.04**

First

E

YearsofEnr

new charter

ounterparts

a loss of le

nd the trend

ed to their c

CT BY RA

cation to ach

ectiveness o

harter scho

hools on ac

w. The gra

ne of compa

alify for Free

support.

-.08**

Year

* Signi

mbargoed

llment

school stude

in traditiona

arning in bot

is reversed i

unterparts in

E/ETHNICIT

ievement diff

f charter sc

ls are focus

ademic gain

hics show t

rison in eve

or Reduce

-.07

Se

ficant at p 0

Year

until June

nts have an

l public sch

h reading a

n math as ch

traditional p

Y

erences by r

ools across

d on servin

s of Black,

e difference

y compariso

Price Lunc

**-.09**

cond Year

.05 ** Sig

of Attendan

15, 2009

initial loss o

ols. In thei

d math. In

arter school

ublic schools

acial and eth

ethnic and

historically

Hispanic an

between c

n is the perf

h subsidies,

nificant at p

ce

f learning in

r second ye

the their thir

students gai

.

nic backgrou

racial dimen

underserved

Native Am

arter school

ormance of

Special Edu

.03

.1

Third Yea

0.01

both readin

ar, charter s

d year there

from their c

nds has incr

ions is esp

minority stu

erican stude

students an

he average

cation servic

**

4

and

chool

is no

arter

ased

cially

ents.

nts is

their

white

es or

Reading

Math


5/69

F

r

r

c

r

r

I

i

igure3:Impa

he results s

esult of cha

eading and

ispanics en

ompared to

imilar to the

esult of cha

eading and

MPACT OF

uch of the

ho are in po

ooled sampl

ncome hous

oth in terms

1 Claims b

unfounde

-

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

T

Pu

Growth

(in

standard

deviation

s)

tbyRace/Et

how that in

rter school

ath.

rolled in ch

heir counter

Hispanic po

rter school

ath.

HARTER S

otivation fo

verty. The e

le 49 percen

holds.1

Th

of student o

other researc

in our study.

.08*-.06

raditional

blic School

Blac

E

nicity

ew Mexico

ttendance c

rter schools

arts in traditi

pulation, Nat

ttendance c

HOOLING

r developing

nrollment pr

t of the stud

s, the impac

tcomes and

hers that chart

-.13*

-.16**

Charter

* Signif

mbargoed

lacks enroll

ompared to

do signific

onal public s

ive American

ompared to

N STUDEN

charter sch

files of chart

ents are elig

t of charter s

as a test of t

er schools und

-.07**

-.0

Traditio

Public Sc

cant at p 0.

until June

ed in charte

their counte

ntly worse

chools in bot

s enrolled in

their counte

S IN POVE

ols aims at

er schools a

ible for Fre

chools on th

e commitm

er-report their

-.13*

**

al

ool

Cha

05 ** Sign

ispanic

15, 2009

schools rec

rparts in tra

as a result

h reading an

charter sch

rparts in tra

TY

improving ed

ross the cou

or Reduce

learning of

nt of charter

roportions of

-.

-.14**

rter Tr

Pu

ificant at p

eive no signi

itional publi

of charter

d math.

ols do signif

itional publi

ucation outc

ntry undersc

Price Lunc

students in p

school leade

RPL eligible s

.01

-.07**

aditional

lic School

.01

Native Am

ficant benefi

c schools in

chool atten

icantly wors

c schools in

omes for stu

ore this fact;

h, a proxy f

overty is imp

rs and teach

tudents appear

-.16**

-.27**

Charter

erican

5

as a

both

ance

as a

both

dents

in the

r low

ortant

ers to

to be

Reading

Math


6/69

F

l

s

c

I

r

r

c

ddress the

ew Mexico.

igure4:Impa

s shown in t

oss in both r

HARTER S

he demogra

pecial Educ

chools. In s

alance of m

ew Mexico,

ompared to

is especiall

he most se

esult is that

equirement.

autionary no

-.1

.0

Growth

(in

standarddeviations)

eeds of the

tonStudent

he figure ab

ading and m

HOOL IMP

phic compari

ation studen

ome cases, t

eting the ne

the overall

13 percent in

difficult to c

ious proble

there is tre

Of all the f

te, the result

-.09**

Traditio

E

population in

inPoverty

ve, students

ath compare

CTS WITH

sons in the f

ts and in sm

his result is

eds of the st

proportion o

traditional p

ompare outc

is caused

endous vari

cets of the s

s are present

-.05*

al Public Sch

* Significant

mbargoed

better ways

in poverty e

d to their cou

PECIAL ED

ull report ind

aller proport

deliberate

udents and c

charter sc

blic schools.

omes of Spe

by small nu

ation when

tudy, this on

ed in Figure

*

ool

at p 0.05

until June

than in othe

rolled in cha

nterparts in t

UCATION

icate that ac

ions of their

nd coordina

onsideration

ool students

.

cial Educatio

bers and d

all categorie

e deserves t

5 below.

-.

** Significa

15, 2009

r settings. F

rter schools

raditional pu

oss the char

enrollment

ed response

of cost-effec

who are S

n students, r

iverse typolo

are aggreg

he greatest

8**

-.

Charter

nt at p 0.01

igure 4 pres

receive no si

lic schools.

ter sector, s

ase than th

with local di

tive strategi

pecial Educa

egardless of

gies in use

ated, a nec

egree of sk

9**

nts the resu

gnificant ben

hools serve

traditional

stricts, base

s for doing s

tion is 8 pe

where they

across state

ssary and

pticism. Wit

Reading

Math

6

lts for

efit or

fewer

ublic

on a

o. In

rcent,

nroll.

; the

essy

h this


7/69

F

c

s

f

c

c

igure5:Impa

pecial Educ

harter scho

ath.

FFECTS O

tudents wh

chool stude

rom now. Si

ell behind t

oncern.

he comparis

ounterparts i

-.4

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

Growth

(in

standarddeviations)

twithSpecia

ation studen

l attendance

CHARTER

enroll in s

ts. Their s

nce their per

at of their E

on of learni

n New Mexic

-.30**

Tradition

E

lEducationSt

ts in charter

compared t

SCHOOLIN

hool withou

ccess in sc

formance as

nglish profic

g gains of c

o appears in

-.16*

al Public Sch

* Significan

mbargoed

dents

schools in

o their count

ON ENGLI

sufficient E

ool today wi

reflected by

ient peers, t

arter school

Figure 6.

ool

at p 0.05

until June

ew Mexico

erparts in tr

H LANGUA

nglish profic

ill greatly infl

National Ass

eir learning

English Lan

-.3

** Significa

15, 2009

receive no

ditional publ

E LEARNE

iency repres

uence their

essment of

gains are a

guage Learn

1**

-.

Charter

nt at p 0.01

ignificant b

ic schools in

RS

ent a growi

uccess in th

ducation Pr

matter of inc

ers and thei

6**

nefit or loss

both readin

g share of

e world a d

gress has l

reasing focu

traditional s

Reading

Math

7

from

and

ublic

cade

gged

s and

chool


8/69

F

c

r

li

s

s

r

igure6:Effect

nglish Lang

harter schoo

anguage Le

esult of chart

HARTER S

his study e

nderlying pr

rade-level c

imited; the b

nd the differ

etention pra

ectors. The

tudy sugge

egardless, i

umbers of

esults appea

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

Growth

(in

standard

deviations)

onEnglishLa

uage Learne

l attendance

arner studen

er school att

HOOL IMP

amined the

mise is that

ompetencies

eadth of sta

nce betwee

ctices differ

fact that ret

ts that cha

n both the n

atches wer

r in Figure 7.

-.21**

Tradition

E

nguageLearn

r students in

compared t

ts in charter

endance com

CTS WITH

outcomes o

additional ti

. Existing r

es included i

n charter sch

widely acros

ined charter

rter schools

tional and p

e found to e

-.14*

al Public Sch

* Si

mbargoed

rs

charter sch

their count

schools in

pared to thei

RADE-REP

f students

e in grade

esearch on

n this study

ool students

s the countr

students ha

are more l

oled data a

nable the le

ool

nificant at p

until June

ols in New

rparts in tra

ew Mexico

ir counterpar

EATING ST

ho were re

an help stud

the outcome

provides an

and those in

and betwe

e among th

ikely to ret

d in the obs

arning gains

-.1

0.05 **

15, 2009

exico do si

ditional publi

receive no

s in tradition

DENTS

ained. Ofte

ents by rem

s of studen

pportunity t

traditional p

en the chart

lowest mat

in academi

rvations of

following re

4**

-.

Charter

ignificant at p

gnificantly b

c schools in

ignificant b

al public sch

n a highly

diating defic

s who have

examine th

blic schools

r and traditi

h rates of a

ally low-pe

ew Mexico

tention to b

7**

0.01

tter as a re

reading. E

nefit or loss

ols in math.

harged topi

its and shori

been retain

e results gen

in particular.

onal public s

y subgroup

forming stu

tudents, suf

estimated.

Reading

Math

8

ult of

glish

as a

, the

ng up

ed is

erally

chool

in our

ents.

icient

The


9/69

F

t

c

igure7:Impa

etained stu

raditional pu

HARTER S

general te

urther, man

mphasis on

erformance

roduced eq

bserved for

o do this, st

ew Mexico

omputed an

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

Growth

(in

standard

deviations)

twithGrade

dents in ch

lic schools i

HOOL IMP

net of chart

charter sc

students w

is well belo

ivalent resu

quivalent st

udents were

achieveme

compared.

-.29**

Traditio

E

RepeatingStu

rter schools

both readin

CT BY STU

r schools is

ools, includi

o have not

average.

lts across th

dents in tra

grouped into

nt tests. Th

The results

-.22*

al Public Sc

* Signific

mbargoed

dents

in New M

g and math.

DENTS ST

a commitm

ng several i

thrived aca

We examin

e spectrum

itional public

deciles bas

e average g

ppear in Fig

*

ool

nt at p 0.0

until June

xico do sig

RTING DEC

ent to the e

New Mexic

emically in

ed the perf

of student s

schools.

ed on their b

rowth of stu

ures 8.a and

.

** Signif

15, 2009

nificantly be

ILE

ducation an

o, have as

traditional p

rmance of

arting points

aseline test

dent achieve

8.b below.

00

-

Charter

cant at p 0.

ter than the

d developme

art of their

blic schools

harter scho

and in rela

scores in re

ment in eac

.05

01

ir counterpa

nt of every

mission a s

and whose

ls to see if

tion to the r

ding and m

h decile was

Reading

Math

9

rts in

child.

ecific

early

they

sults

th on

then


10/69

F

F

igure8.a:Imp

igure8.b:Im

oth figuresattern of lar

ith higher

agnitudes a

ublic school

igh end of th

.45*

-.5

-.4

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

Growth

(in

standard

deviations)

.48*

.

-.6

-.5

-.4

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

Growth

(in

standarddeviations)

actbyStuden

actbyStuden

emonstrateer learning

tarting scor

re what is im

? If so, the

e distribution

*

.22**

.37**

.14*

1 2

*

.22**

40**

.17*

2

E

tsStartingD

tsStartingD

he expectedgains for stu

es, a phen

portant: Do c

charter curv

.

.15***

.07**

3* Si

.12**

*

.03

3

* Si

mbargoed

cile Reading

cile Math

S-shapedents with lo

menon kno

harter schoo

e would hav

.04*.0

.04

4nificant at p

.06** .0

-.03

4

gnificant at p

until June

urve to the rwer prior sc

n as regr

ls produce re

larger gain

-.06**

.00

-.07

5 60.05 **

-.03-.03

-.06

5 6

0.05 **

15, 2009

esults. Theres and larg

ssion to th

latively bette

s on the low

-.09****-.11**

7ignificant at

-.07****-.12**

7

Significant at

verall curveer learning l

e mean.

r growth res

end and sm

-.16**

-.2

-.14**

8 0.01

-.11** -.1-.10**

8

0.01

reflects the tsses for stu

ere, the re

lts than tradi

ller losses

**

-.37**

-.23**

-.4

9 10

**

-.18**-.15**

-.2

9 10

10

picaldents

lative

tional

n the

**

TPSCharter

**

TPSCharter


11/69

s

t

or students

chools in m

he lower de

orse results

eciles.

in New Mexi

st respects.

iles compar

in math fo

E

o, Figures 8

The effect

ed to their t

students c

mbargoed

.a and 8.b s

f charter sc

aditional pu

mpared to

until June

ow that cha

ool attenda

lic school p

heir virtual

15, 2009

rter schools

ce on growt

eers. Chart

eers from t

o worse tha

h results in r

er school at

raditional pu

n traditional

eading is wo

endance lea

blic schools

11

ublic

rse in

ds to

in all


12/69

t

s

t

UMMARY O

ith the stud

he following

eading

nglish Lang

etained Stu

t the same ti

tudents:

eading

ll Students

tudents enr

tudents enr

ispanics

ative Ameri

tudents in th

or the remai

raditional pu

F FINDINGS

ents they ha

roups of stu

age Learne

ents

ime, the anal

lled for 1 ye

lled for 2 ye

ans

e lowest sta

ning groups i

lic school p

E

ve enrolled,

dents:

s

ysis showed

r

rs

ting deciles

n the analysi

rformance.

mbargoed

New Mexico

they perform

s, there was

until June

charter sch

ath

tudents enr

etained Stu

ed significa

ath

ll Students

tudents enr

tudents enr

ispanics

ative Ameri

tudents in t

tudents in t

no discernab

15, 2009

ols provide

lled for 3 ye

ents

tly worse w

lled for 1 ye

lled for 2 ye

ans

e lowest sta

e highest st

le difference

significantly

rs

ith the follow

r

rs

ting deciles

rting deciles

between cha

better resu

ing groups o

rter school a

12

lts for

nd


13/69


14/69

2009CREDO

CenterforResearchonEducationOutcomes(CREDO)

StanfordUniversity

Stanford,CA

http://credo.stanford.edu

June2009

CREDOgratefullyacknowledgesthesupportofthefollowingorganizations

forthisproject:

TheStateEducationAgenciesandSchoolDistrictswhocontributedtheirdatatothispartnership

Michael&SusanDellFoundation ThePackardHumanitiesInstitute TheWaltonFamilyFoundation UnitedStatesDepartmentofEducation

Theviewsexpressedhereindonotnecessarilyrepresentthepositionsorpoliciesofthe

organizationslistedabove.Noofficialendorsementofanyproduct,commodity,serviceor

enterprisementioned

in

this

publication

is

intended

or

should

be

inferred.

The

analysis

and

conclusionscontainedhereinareexclusivelythoseoftheauthors,arenotendorsedbytheanyof

CREDOssupportingorganizations,theirgoverningboards,orthestategovernments,state

educationdepartmentsorschooldistrictsthatparticipatedinthisstudy.


15/69

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. ExecutiveSummary 1

II. Introduction 9

III. StudyApproach 13

IV.

CharterSchool

Effects

on

Student

Learning

21

V. CharterSchoolEffectbyState 35

VI. CharterSchoolPerformancebyMarket 43

VI. SummaryofFindings 45

VII. PolicyImplications 49


16/69

TABLE OF TABLES

Table1:PercentofCharterSchoolStudentswithMatches 18

Table2:DemographicProfileofCharterSchoolStudentsIncludedinModel 19

Table3:

Charter

School

Student

Starting

Values

20

Table4:SummaryofStateSpecificResults,CharterEffectonSpecialEducationStudents 25

Table5:SummaryofStateSpecificResults,CharterEffectonBlackStudents 26

Table6:SummaryofStateSpecificResults,CharterEffectonHispanicStudents 27

Table7:SummaryofStateSpecificResults,CharterEffectonStudentsinPoverty 28

Table8:SummaryofStateSpecificResults,CharterEffectonEnglishLanguageLearners 29

Table9:MarketFixedEffectsPercentageofCharterSchoolsbySignificance 44


17/69

TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure1:CREDOVCRMethodology 17

Figure2:OverallCharterSchoolEffect 22

Figure3:

Charter

School

Effect

by

Grade

Span

23

Figure4:CharterSchoolEffectonSpecialEducationStudents 25

Figure5:CharterSchoolEffectonBlackandHispanicStudents 26

Figure6:CharterSchoolEffectonStudentsinPoverty 28

Figure7:CharterSchoolEffectonEnglishLanguageLearners 29

Figure8:CharterSchoolEffectbyStudentsStartingDecile Reading 30

Figure9:CharterSchoolEffectbyStudentsStartingDecile Math 31

Figure10:CharterSchoolEffectbyStudentsYearsofEnrollment 33

Figure11:

Charter

School

Effect

by

State

AR,

AZ,

CA

and

CO

36

Figure12:CharterSchoolEffectbyStateDC,FL,GAandIL 36

Figure13:CharterSchoolEffectbyStateLA,MN,MOandNC 37

Figure14:CharterSchoolEffectbyStateNM,OHandTX 37

Figure15:CharterSchoolEffectofPolicyVariables 40

Figure16:CharterEffectsComparedto2007NAEPScorebyStateReading 41

Figure17:CharterEffectsComparedto2007NAEPScorebyStateMath 42

Figure18:MarketFixedEffectsQualityCurve 44


18/69


19/69

1

I. ________________________________________________________

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION

As charter schools play an increasingly central role in education reform agendas across the

UnitedStates, itbecomesmore important tohavecurrentandcomprehensibleanalysisabout

howwell they do educating their students. Thanks to progress in student data systems and

regularstudentachievementtesting,itispossibletoexaminestudentlearningincharterschools

andcompare ittotheexperiencethestudentswouldhavehad inthetraditionalpublicschools

(TPS) theywouldotherwisehaveattended. This reportpresentsa longitudinalstudentlevel

analysisofcharterschoolimpactsonmorethan70percentofthestudentsincharterschoolsin

theUnitedStates. The scopeof the studymakes it the firstnationalassessmentof charter

schoolimpacts.

Charter schools are permitted to select their focus, environment and operations and wide

diversity exists across the sector. This study provides an overview that aggregates charter

schools in different ways to examine different facets of their impact on student academic

growth.

Thegroupportraitshowswidevariationinperformance. Thestudyrevealsthatadecentfraction

of charter schools, 17 percent, provide superior education opportunities for their students.

Nearlyhalfof thecharter schoolsnationwidehave results thatarenodifferent from the local

publicschooloptionsandoverathird,37percent,deliver learningresultsthataresignificantly

worse than their studentwouldhave realizedhad they remained in traditionalpublic schools.

These findingsunderlie theparallel findingsof significant statebystatedifferences in charter

schoolperformanceand inthenationalaggregateperformanceofcharterschools. Thepolicy

challengeis

how

to

deal

constructively

with

varying

levels

of

performance

today

and

into

the

future.

PROJECT APPROACH

CREDO has partneredwith 15 states and theDistrict of Columbia to consolidate longitudinal

studentlevelachievementdata for thepurposesof creatinganationalpooledanalysisof the

impactofcharterschoolingonstudentlearninggains. Foreachcharterschoolstudent,avirtual

twin is created based on students who match the charter students demographics, English

languageproficiencyandparticipationinspecialeducationorsubsidizedlunchprograms. Virtual

twinsweredevelopedfor84percentofallthestudentsincharterschools.Theresultingmatched

longitudinalcomparison

is

used

to

test

whether

students

who

attend

charter

schools

fare

better

thaniftheyhadinsteadattendedtraditionalpublicschoolsintheircommunity. Theoutcomeof

interestisacademiclearninggainsinreadingandmath,measuredinstandarddeviationunits.

Studentacademiclearninggainsonreadingandmathstateachievementtestswereexaminedin

threeways: apoolednationwideanalysisofcharterschoolimpacts,astatebystateanalysisof

charterschoolresults,andanexaminationof theperformanceofcharterschoolsagainst their

localalternatives.


20/69

2

Inallcases,theoutcomeof interest isthemagnitudeofstudent learningthatoccurs incharter

schoolstudentscomparedtotheirtraditionalpublicschoolvirtualtwins. Eachanalysislooksat

theimpactofavarietyoffactorsoncharterschoolstudentlearning: thestatewherethestudent

resides, the schools gradespan, the students background, time in charter schools, and a

numberofpolicycharacteristicsofthecharterschoolenvironment.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Charter school performance is a complex and difficultmatter to assess. Each of the three

analyses revealed distinct facets of charter school performance. In increasing levels of

aggregation, from the headtohead comparisonswithin communities to the pooled national

analysis,theresultsarepresentedbelow.

When the effect of charter schools on student learning is compared to the experience the

studentswouldhaverealizedintheirlocaltraditionalpublicschools,theresultcanbegraphedin

apointintimeQualityCurvethatrelatestheaveragemathgrowthineachcharterschooltothe

performancetheirstudentswouldhaverealized intraditionalpublicschools intheir immediate

community,as

measured

by

the

experience

of

their

virtual

twins.

The

Quality

Curve

displays

the

distributionofindividualcharterschoolperformancerelativetotheirTPScounterparts. Ascore

of0meansthere isnodifferencebetweenthecharterschoolperformanceandthatoftheir

TPS comparison group. More positive values indicate increasingly better performance of

charters relative to traditional public school effects and negative values indicate that charter

schooleffectsareworsethanwhatwasobservedforthetraditionalpublicschooleffects.

Charter School Market Fixed Effects Quality Curve

Comparedto TPS,CharterSchoolsare:

Worsethan Exactlythesame BetterThan


21/69

3

TheQualityCurveresultsaresobering:

Ofthe2403charterschoolsreflectedonthecurve,46percentofcharterschoolshavemathgainsthatarestatisticallyindistinguishablefromtheaveragegrowthamongtheir

TPScomparisons.

Charterswhosemath growth exceeded their TPS equivalent growth by a significantamount

account

for

17

percent

of

the

total.

The remaining group, 37 percent of charter schools, posted math gains that weresignificantly below what their students would have seen if they enrolled in local

traditionalpublicschoolsinstead.

Thestatebystateanalysisshowedthefollowing:

Theeffectivenessofcharterschoolswasfoundtovarywidelybystate. Thevariationwasoverandaboveexistingdifferencesamongstatesintheiracademicresults.

Stateswith significantlyhigher learning gains for charter school students thanwould

haveoccurredintraditionalschoolsinclude:

o Arkansaso Colorado(Denver)o Illinois(Chicago)o Louisianao Missouri

The gains in growth ranged from .02 Standard deviations in Illinois (Chicago) to .07

standarddeviationsinColorado(Denver).

Statesthatdemonstratedloweraveragecharterschoolstudentgrowththantheirpeers

intraditionalschoolsincluded:

oArizona

o Floridao Minnesotao NewMexicoo Ohioo Texas

Inthisgroup,themarginalshiftrangedfrom .01inArizonato .06standarddeviations

inOhio.

Fourstateshadmixedresultsorwerenodifferentthanthegainsfortraditionalschool

peers:

o Californiao DistrictofColumbiao Georgiao NorthCarolina


22/69

4

The academic success of charter school students was found to be affected by thecontoursofthecharterpoliciesunderwhichtheirschoolsoperate.

Statesthathavelimitsonthenumberofcharterschoolspermittedtooperate,knownascaps,realizesignificantly loweracademicgrowththanstateswithoutcaps,around .03

standarddeviations.

States that empower multiple entities to act as charter school authorizers realizesignificantly lowergrowth inacademic learning in their students,on theorderof .08standard deviations. Whilemore research is needed into the causalmechanism, it

appears that charter school operators are able to identify and choose the more

permissiveentitytoprovidethemoversight.

Wherestatecharter legislationprovidesanavenueforappealsofadversedecisionsonapplicationsorrenewals,studentsrealizeasmallbutsignificantgainin learning,about

.02standarddeviations.

Toputvariationinstateresultsincontext,theaveragecharterschoolgainsinreadingandmath

wereplottedagainstthe20074th

GradeNAEPstateaverages. Thepositionofthestatesrelative

to

the

national

NAEP

average

and

relative

to

average

learning

gains

tees

up

important

questions

aboutschoolqualityingeneralandcharterschoolqualityspecifically.


23/69

5

Charter Growth Compared to 2007 NAEP State by State Reading

Charter Growth Compared to 2007 NAEP Score by State Math

2007NationalNAEPAverage

2007

National

NAEP

Average


24/69

6

Theanalysisoftotalcharterschooleffects,pooledstudentleveldatafromalloftheparticipating

statesandexaminedtheaggregateeffectofcharterschoolsonstudent learning. Thenational

pooledanalysisofcharterschoolimpactsshowedthefollowingresults:

Charterschoolstudentsonaverageseeadecreaseintheiracademicgrowthinreadingof .01 standarddeviationscompared to their traditional schoolpeers. Inmath, their

learninglags

by

.03

on

average.

While

the

magnitude

of

these

effects

is

small,

they

are

bothstatisticallysignificant.

Theeffects forcharter school studentsareconsistentacross the spectrumof startingpositions. Inreading,charterschoollearninggainsaresmallerforallstudentsbutthose

whose starting scores are in the lowest or highest deciles. Formath, the effect is

consistentacrosstheentirerange.

Charterstudentsinelementaryandmiddleschoolgradeshavesignificantlyhigherratesof learning than theirpeers in traditionalpublic schools,but students in charterhigh

schoolsandchartermultilevelschoolshavesignificantlyworseresults.

Charterschoolshavedifferent impactsonstudentsbasedontheirfamilybackgrounds.ForBlacksandHispanics,their learninggainsaresignificantlyworsethanthatoftheir

traditionalschooltwins. However,charterschoolsare foundtohavebetteracademic

growthresultsforstudentsinpoverty.

EnglishLanguageLearners realizesignificantlybetter learninggains incharterschools.

StudentsinSpecialEducationprogramshaveaboutthesameoutcomes.

Studentsdobetterincharterschoolsovertime. Firstyearcharterstudentsonaverageexperienceadeclineinlearning,whichmayreflectacombinationofmobilityeffectsand

theexperienceofacharterschool in itsearlyyears. Secondandthirdyears incharter

schoolsseeasignificantreversaltopositivegains.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Asof2009,morethan4700charterschoolsenrollover1.4millionchildren in40statesandthe

DistrictofColumbia. The ranksof chartersgrowbyhundredseach year.Even so,more than

365,000names lingeroncharterschoolwait lists.1 Aftermore than fifteenyears, there isno

doubtthatbothsupplyanddemandinthechartersectorarestrong.

In someways, however, charter schools arejust beginning to come into their own. Charter

schools have become a rallying cry for education reformers across the country, with every

expectationthattheywillcontinuetofigureprominentlyinnationaleducationalstrategyinthe

months and years to come. And yet, this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the

aggregate, charter students are not faring as well as their TPS counterparts. Further,

tremendousvariation

in

academic

quality

among

charters

is

the

norm,

not

the

exception.

The

problemofqualityisthemostpressingissuethatcharterschoolsandtheirsupportersface.

Thestudyfindingsreportedheregivethefirstwideangleviewofthecharterschoollandscapein

theUnited States. It is the first time a sufficiently large body of studentlevel data hasbeen

1NationalAllianceforPublicCharterSchoolsAsofJune3,2009:

http://www.publiccharters.org/aboutschools/benefits


25/69

7

compiledtocreatefindingsthatcouldbeconsidered"national"inscope. Moreimportant,they

provide a broad common yardstick to support ongoing conversations about quality and

performance. For the first time, the dialog about charter school quality can bemarried to

empirical evidence about performance. Further development of performance measures in

forums like the Building Charter School Quality initiative could be greatly enhanced with

complementary

multi

state

analysis

such

as

this

first

report.

It is important tonote that thenews forcharter schoolshassomeencouraging facets. Inour

nationallypooledsample,twosubgroupsfarebetter inchartersthan inthetraditionalsystem:

studentsinpovertyandELLstudents. Thisisnosmallfeat. Inthesecases,ournumbersindicate

thatcharterstudentswhofallintothesecategoriesareoutperformingtheirTPScounterpartsin

both reading and math. These populations, then, have clearly been well served by the

introductionofchartersintotheeducationlandscape.Thesefindingsareparticularlyheartening

forthecharteradvocateswhotargetthemostchallengingeducationalpopulationsorstriveto

improveeducationoptionsinthemostdifficultcommunities. Charterschoolsthatareorganized

aroundamissiontoteachthemosteconomicallydisadvantagedstudents inparticularseemto

have developed expertise in serving these communities. We applaud their efforts, and

recommendthat

schools

or

school

models

demonstrating

success

be

further

studied

with

an

eye

toward thenotoriouslydifficultprocessof replication. Further,even for student subgroups in

chartersthathadaggregate learninggains laggingbehindtheirTPSpeers,theanalysisrevealed

charterschoolsinatleastonestatethatdemonstratedpositiveacademicgrowthrelativetoTPS

peers. Thesehigherperformersalsohavelessonstosharethatcouldimprovetheperformance

ofthelargercommunityofchartersschools.

The flipsideofthis insightshouldnotbe ignoredeither. Studentsnot inpovertyandstudents

whoarenotEnglishlanguagelearnersonaveragedonotablyworsethanthesamestudentswho

remain in the traditional public school system. Additionalwork is needed to determine the

reasonsunderlying thisphenomenon.Perhaps these studentsare "offmission" in the schools

they

attend.

Perhaps

they

are

left

behind

in

otherwise

high

performing

charter

schools,

or

perhaps these findings are a reflection of a large pool of generallyunderperforming schools.

Whateverthereason,thepolicycommunityneedstobeawareofthisdichotomy,andgreater

attention should be paid to the large number of students not being well served in charter

schools.

In addition,we knownow that first year charter students suffer a sharpdecline in academic

growth. Equippedwiththisknowledge,charterschooloperatorscanperhapstakeappropriate

stepstomitigateorreversethis"firstyeareffect."

Despitepromisingresultsinanumberofstatesandwithincertainsubgroups,theoverallfindings

of this report indicateadisturbingand farreaching subsetofpoorlyperformingcharter

schools.

If

the

charter

school

movement

is

to

flourish,

or

indeed

to

deliver

on

promises

made

by

proponents,adeliberateandsustainedefforttoincreasetheproportionofhighqualityschoolsis

essential. Thereplicationofsuccessfulschoolmodelsisoneimportantelementofthiseffort. On

theothersideoftheequation,however,authorizersmustbewillingandabletofulfilltheirend

of theoriginal charter schoolbargain:accountability inexchange for flexibility. When schools

consistentlyfail,theyshouldbeclosed.

Thoughsimple informulation,thistaskhasproventobeextremelydifficult inpractice. Simply

put,neithermarketmechanismsnor regulatoryoversightbeena sufficient force todealwith


26/69

8

underperforming schools. At present there appears to be an authorizing crisis in the charter

schoolsector.Foranumberofreasonsmanyofthemunderstandableauthorizers find it

difficulttoclosepoorlyperformingschools. Despitelowtestscores,failingcharterschoolsoften

havepowerfulandpersuasivesupporters in theircommunitieswho feelstrongly thatshutting

down thisschooldoesnotserve thebest interestsofcurrentlyenrolled students. Evidenceof

financial

insolvency

or

corrupt

governance

structure,

less

easy

to

dispute

or

defend,

is

much

more likelyto leadtoschoolclosuresthanpooracademicperformance. Andyet,asthisreport

demonstrates, theapparent reluctance of authorizers to close underperforming

chartersultimately reflects poorly on charter schools as awhole. More importantly, it hurts

students.

Charterschoolsarealreadyexpected tomaintain transparencywithregardtotheiroperations

andacademicrecords,givingauthorizersfullaccess. Weproposethatauthorizersbeexpected

todothesame. Trueaccountabilitydemandsthatthepublicknowthestatusofeachschool in

an authorizer's portfolio, and that we be able to gauge authorizer performance just as

authorizers currently gauge charter performance. To this end,we suggest the adoption of a

nationalsetofperformancemetrics,collecteduniformlybyallauthorizersinordertoprovidea

commonbase

line

by

which

we

can

compare

the

performance

of

charter

schools

and

actions

of

authorizersacrossstate lines. Usingthesemetrics,AuthorizerReportCardswouldprovide full

transparencyandputpressureonauthorizerstoactinclearcasesoffailure.

Thecharterschoolmovementtodatehasconcentrateditsformidableresourcesandenergyon

removingbarrierstocharterschoolentry intothemarket. It istimetoconcentrateequallyon

removingthebarrierstoexit.


27/69

9

II. ________________________________________________________ I

I. INTRODUCTION

Withover4700schoolsoperating in40statesandtheDistrictofColumbia,charterschoolsare

thelargest

vehicle

for

school

choice

in

US

public

education

today.

Since

their

arrival

on

the

landscape in1991, charter schoolshaveoperated inaheavily layered contextofpoliciesand

expectations.Theyareatonceeducators, innovators,entrepreneurs, reformersandagentsof

community change. Despite their heterogeneity, they share a common footing in their

separatenessanintentionalmovetojuxtaposecharterschoolswithtraditionalschools.Their

differentoperatingparametersareclaimednotonlytodeliverqualityeducationtostudentsbut

also to produce other outcomes as a byproduct: opportunities for parental choice, new

approachestocurriculumandinstructionandcompetitivepressureonexistingschoolsystems.

Charterschoolsandtheirperformanceplayanincreasinglycentralroleintheeducationagenda

intheUnitedStates.TheneedforUSschoolreformhasneverbeensowidelyrecognized.Never

havetheeconomic,politicalandsocialpressuresforimprovingeducationoutcomesforstudents

beenso

concentrated

and

aligned.

The

current

political

climate

intensifies

the

pressure

and

scrutinythatcharterschoolsface.ThecampaignpromisesofBarackObamatoenhancefunding

forcharterschoolshavebeen translated into statementsbyEducationSecretaryArneDuncan

thatcharterswillfeatureprominentlyinreformpolicies.Charterschoolsareexpectedtohavean

importantrole intheeducationfundingprioritiesoftheAmericanReconstructionandRecovery

Act.Iftherightfactorsalign,wecouldseeaperfectstormofpoliticalandeconomiccircumstance

leadingtoaneweraincharterschoolpolicy.Yetafteroneandahalfdecadesofcharterschool

experience,thebodyofevidenceoncharterschoolperformance,thoughgrowing,remainsthin.

Thisreportpresentsthefirstresultsofanationalanalysisofcharterschool impactsonstudent

achievement. CREDO at StanfordUniversity and our partnering state education departments

havecollaborated

to

use

statewide,

student

level

data

to

conduct

in

depth

analyses

of

academic

outcomes forboth charter schooland traditional school students.Our statepartners include:

Arkansas, Arizona, California, Colorado (Denver), the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia,

Illinois (Chicago),Louisiana,Massachusetts,Minnesota,Missouri,NewMexico,NorthCarolina,

OhioandTexas.2Together,thesestateseducateoveronehalfoftheK12studentsintheUnited

Statesandmorethan70percentofthenationscharterschoolstudents.

Thisanalysisshowsthatintheaggregatecharterschoolsarenotadvancingthelearninggainsof

theirstudentsasmuchas traditionalpublicschools.Theresultsaresignificant inboth reading

andmath, though theeffectsare small in size.Thenationalpooled results show that charter

studentsimprovethelearninggainsofstudentsinpovertyandamongEnglishLanguageLearners

comparedtotheirpeersintraditionalpublicschools.CharterstudentswhoareBlackorHispanic

experiencelowerlevelsofacademicgrowththantheirpeersintraditionalpublicschools.Special

educationstudentsfareaboutthesame.Theresultsvarystronglybystateandareshowntobe

influencedinsignificantwaysbyseveralcharacteristicsofstatecharterschoolpolicies.

2AnalysisonlyincludescharterschoolsinDenverPublicSchoolsforColoradoandChicagoPublic

SchoolsforIllinois.


28/69

10

Twoshiftsinstateeducationpolicieshavepresentednewopportunitiestostudycharterschools

andtheireducationalandsystemeffects.Thefirstistheadoptionofannualachievementtestsin

readingandmath forgrades38,providinga common setofperformancemeasures forall

students ineach state.Putting the limitationsof such tests aside, they are invaluable from a

policyevaluationstandpoint.Thesecondchangeistheassignmentofuniquestudentidentifiers

that

permit

students

experience

over

time

to

be

measured

and

evaluated.

Given

this

newfound

ability to follow students over their education careers and compare their performance on a

standardizedbasis,anumberofresearchquestionsbecomeviableforthefirsttime.

We recognize thatmany factors influence the choiceof schools: curricular focus, geographic

location, size, safety and school culture are often cited as considerations. By choosing to

examinestudentlearninggains,weleaveotherfactorsunexplored,andarethereforeunableto

reflect how overall academic performancemight be traded off against any other features of

charterschools. Theaiminthisstudyistoprovidedetailedinsightintooneareaarguablythe

mostimportantareaofcharterschoolimpactsonstudentoutcomes.

Thisstudyincludesanumberofsignificantfirsts.Itisthefirsttimesomanystateshavejoined

together

to

pursue

a

common

research

design.

Many

states

with

large

charter

school

populationsaremembersof thepartnership, so the snapshotof charter school experience is

broaderthaninpriorresearch.Manyofthestatesthatagreedtosharedataforthisstudyhave

notbeen represented in longitudinal analyses before, so thepoolof students is expanded in

importantways.3Includingmultiplestatesdatainthestudyallowslighttobeshedonstateto

statedifferencesincharterschoolpoliciesinanovelway.Third,thedataonstudentsiscurrent

asofthe20072008schoolyear,providingupdatesonanumberofearlierstudies.4Thestudy

designalso incorporatesanewmethodtocomparetheeducationalachievementandacademic

growth resultsof charter school students to equivalent students in schools that the students

used toattendprior toenrolling incharter schools.This innovationproducesa levelheadto

head assessment of the performance of charter schools, something that has challenged the

usefulness

of

several

earlier

studies.

3NationalAllianceofPublicCharterSchools.CharterSchoolAchievement:WhatWeKnow,5

th

Edition.April,2009.

http://www.publiccharters.org/files/publications/Summary%20of%20Achievement%20Studies%

20Fifth%20Edition%202009_Final.pdf

4Teasley,Bettie.(2009).Charterschooloutcomes.InBerends,Mark,MatthewG.Springer,Dale

Ballou,andHerbertJ.Walberg(Eds.).Handbookofresearchonschoolchoice.Taylor&Francis,Inc.pp.209225

Weusedatathroughthe20072008schoolyearinallstateswhereitwasavailableatthetime

ofthestudy. InMassachusetts,NorthCarolinaandTexas,studentleveldatawasonlyavailable

throughthe20062007schoolyear.


29/69

11

Thisreport isthefirstofthreetobereleased in2009byCREDOstudyingthe impactofcharter

schools. In this first report,we examine the effect of charter schools on the learning of the

students they enroll. Here, we present the composite national picture of charter school

performance; separate reports on the performance of charters for each state have been

preparedandarepostedon theCREDOwebsiteathttp://credo.stanford.edu.The first report

also

presents

a

separate

examination

of

the

effect

of

policy

on

school

effectiveness.

The

second

report will examine the influence of operational characteristics of charter schools on their

performance. The third and final reportwill examine the effect of charter schools on other

schoolsintheirimmediatesurroundings.

Thisreportpresentstheresultsofouranalysisoffivequestions.Theyare:

1. Whatistheoverallimpactofcharterschools?2. Dotheimpactsofcharterschoolsdifferbyschooltype?3. Whataretheimpactsofcharterschoolsfordifferentstudentsubgroups?4. Doeslongerenrollmentincharterschoolsaffectstudentlearning?5. Whataretheimpactsofcharterschoolpoliciesonstudentresults?


30/69

12


31/69

13

III.________________________________________________________

III. STUDY APPROACH

Thisstudyofcharterschoolperformanceattemptstoadvanceourknowledgeofcharterschool

effectivenessontworelatedfronts.Thefirstistobegintoconsolidatestudentleveldatafroma

varietyof

states

in

such

away

that

it

can

be

submitted

to

acommon

analytic

approach.

The

second is to create a study design that provides a fair and reliable comparison of student

achievementbetweencharterschoolstudentsandstudentsintraditionalpublicschools.Eachis

discussedbrieflybelow;greaterdetailisprovidedintheTechnicalAppendixtothisreportwhich

canbefoundathttp://credo.stanford.edu.

CONSOLIDATING STUDENT DATA FROM MULTIPLE STATES

Our studyapproachprovidesconsistentanalysesacross states,whichup to thispointhasnot

beenacommonoccurrence.Recently,astudycompletedby researchersatRANDCorporation

attempted to simultaneously study charter school effects in multiple states.5 A common

methodology with parallel data from many states removes one common topic of debate

concerningtheresults,aswasdone intheRANDstudy.Studyingthesameeffects inthesame

wayputs all theparticipating stateson a common footing,which is valuable for comparative

purposes. This study extends the RAND methodology by creating a pooled dataset and

estimatinganationaleffectofcharterschoolsonstudentacademicgrowth.

Thisstudyalsostartstocreateanaggregatepictureofperformance, which isusefulasawide

anglesnapshotof thestateofcharterschools in2009.Thestates included inthisstudyenroll

more than half the charter school students in theUnited States, so the consolidated results

begin,forthefirsttime,totellthestoryofthepolicyofcharterschoolingatamacrolevel.

Consolidating experience across states is notwithout its challenges.As noted by the Charter

SchoolAchievementConsensusPanel in2006,statesvary in importantways intheirtreatment

and support of charters. In recognition of this fact, our study seeks to examine common

elementsofcharterschoolperformancewhilesimultaneouslyrecognizingthatstatesmayplaya

role inhowtheseschoolsperform.Othershavesuggestedthatstateaccountabilitytestsdiffer,

suchthatscoresonagradeleveltest inonestatemaynotalignwithsimilarscores inanother.

Ourstudydesigncircumventsthesepotentialdifficultiesbystandardizingtestresultsfromeach

participating state.Minordifferencesmay remainafter theseadjustments,but their influence

willbesmallcomparedtothepredominantdegreeofoverlapthatexistsamongthetests.

5Zimmer,Ron,BrianGill,KevinBooker,StephaneLavertu,TimR.Sass,JohnWitte.Charter

SchoolsinEightStates:EffectsonAchievement,Attainment,Integration,andCompetition.RAND

Corporation.AsofJune2,2009:http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG869/.


32/69

14

On a practical note, this study required an approach thatmeets themultiple and conflicting

interpretations across states of the Family Education Records Privacy Act (FERPA). The only

realisticavenuetoconductastudyofthisscopeistonegotiateagreementswithstateeducation

agencies for permission to use administrative datasetswith studentlevel records. In spite of

changes to the implementation regulations in late 2008, the law remains unclear about the

permissibility

of

providing

independent

researchers

access

to

student

level

data.

Several

accommodations were imposed as conditions of agreement though curiously, each was

imposedbyonlyonestate.Forexample,evenafterallidentifyinginformationwasremoved,one

state declined to provide gender on the theory that it prevented identification of individual

students.Lackingthatinformationinonestatemeantthatthisvariablecouldnotbeincludedin

thepooledmodelforanystate,sothisstudyisunabletocontrolforgendereffects.

FAIR ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON STUDENT ACADEMIC PROGRESS

Researcherstodaygenerallyagreethattestsofschooleffectivenessneedtobebasedonvalue

added analysis. Since students can differ inmany respects, including their starting score on

standardizedtests,

the

fairest

analysis

examines

what

increment

of

growth

aschool

contributes

once a variety of individual factors are taken into consideration. This study follows that

approach:we lookatstudentachievementgrowthonstateachievement tests inbothreading

and math after imposing controls for student demographics and eligibility for categorical

programsupportsuchasfreeorreducedpricelunchandspecialeducation.

This study takes additional steps to ensure that charter school students are examined under

conditions thatareboth strictand fair.Thereare competing frictions ina study like this that

researchersmustworktobalance.One isthechancethatcharterschoolstudentsaredifferent

thanTPSstudents inwaysthatarenotobviousormeasurable.Themostcommonclaim isthat

there is a risk of selection bias that is, that students enrolled in charter schools are not

comparabletotheirTPSpeers.Thiscouldbetheresultoftheirparentsdecisiontoutilizetheir

choiceofschools,andwhateverunobservedcharacteristicsforwhichthischoicemayserveasa

proxy.

One common approach tominimize the risk of selection bias is the use schools that employ

randomlotteriesforadmission.Thisapproach,whichnarrowstheanalysistoonlythosestudents

whoseparentsputthemona lottery listforcharterschools,doesmitigatemuchofthe impact

on student learning associatedwith the exercise of school choice.6 However,by limiting the

analysis to only students at oversubscribed charter schools, this cohort of both schools and

studentsmaynotbereflectiveofthegeneralcharterschoolpopulation.

6Hoxby,CarolineM.andSonaliMurarka.NewYorkCity'sCharterSchoolsOverallReport,

Cambridge,MA:NewYorkCityCharterSchoolsEvaluationProject,June2007.


33/69

15

Asecondandincreasinglycommonapproachtomitigatetheimpactofselectionbiasistheuseof

studentfixedeffects.Despitetheirpotentialtoprovideapurersignalofcharterschooleffect,we

reject this approach for multiple reasons. First, student fixed effects only control for the

unobservedcharacteristicsofstudentsthatdonotchangeovertime.Second,wefeelthatthere

ismuchvalueinourwideangleview,utilizingtheindividualdataofhundredsofthousandsof

students

across

fifteen

states

and

the

District

of

Columbia.

The

use

of

student

fixed

effects

would

limitouranalysistoonlythosestudentsthatmovedfromTPStocharterschools(orviceversa),

significantlyreducingboththeuniversalityandexternalvalidityofourresults.

Even ifoneacceptsthepresenceofselectionbias,theprocessbywhichweselectstudentsfor

comparison likely works to mitigate its impact. By only comparing students from the same

feederschools,thatis,theTPSpreviouslyattendedbythestudentsataparticularcharter,we

reduce the risk of information asymmetrywith respect to charter school knowledge, among

other potential sources of bias. In otherwords, by predominantly selecting charter and TPS

studentsforcomparisonwhopreviouslyattendedthesamepoolofschools,wealsoeliminatea

significantportionoftheselectionbias,at leastas itrelatesto localcharterschoolknowledge

andotherneighborhoodeffects.Forcommunitiesinwhichchartersexist,recentpollingshowsa

majorityof

citizens

and

parents

are

sufficiently

informed

about

charter

schools

to

express

an

opinion,suggestingconsistentpenetrationwithrespecttocharterschoolfamiliarity.7

Further, thepresumptionof apositive selectionbiasmaybe speculative forother reasons. It

implies that parents of TPS students do not themselves exercise choice as to where their

students attend school. While the proportion of choosers to nonchoosers among TPS

parents isunknown,thenotionofanentirelypassiveparentalpopulation inTPSschoolsseems

inappropriate.Intheabsenceofharddata,thebestestimate isthatthetwogroupsareevenly

split.

Our challenge is to create a comparison population that reduces as much as possible the

differencesbetween charter school students and TPS studentsapart fromdifferences in their

enrollment.To

do

that,

we

create

virtual

twins

for

each

of

the

charter

school

students

in

our

study. Furtherstepstoeliminatedifferencesbetweenthetwogroupsarepursuedinthecourse

ofstatisticalmodeling.

7OnMessage,Inc.Pollingresultsfrom2008and2009householdsurveysinfoururban

communitiesshowthatineachlocaleover60percentofgeneralcitizenshaveopinionsabout

charterschools;forparentsofschoolagedchildren,theproportionsarehigher.Email

correspondencewithRickHeynofOnMessage,June3,2009.


34/69

16

SELECTION OF COMPARISON OBSERVATIONS

To createa reliable comparisongroup forour study,weattempted tobuildaVirtualControl

Record(VCR)foreachcharterschoolstudent. TheVCRapproachbuildsonworkfromHarvard

UniversityandworkdoneindependentlybytheNorthwestEvaluationAssociation(NWEA).8Both

groups have explored the use of synthetic control groups in comparative research. This

techniquecreatesanaggregaterecordbydrawingontheavailablerecordsthatmatchwiththe

record of interest, in this case a charter school student. TheHarvard approachweights each

potentialcontrolrecordintermsofhowcloselytherecordmatchestheprofile,whileNWEAsets

the conditionofa successfulmatch inadvance so thatonly trueor near true recordsare

selected.

CREDOsmethodologyparallelsthatofNWEA.OurapproachisdisplayedinFigure1.Weidentify

all the TPS that have studentswho transfer to a given charter school;we call each of these

schoolsfeederschools.Onceaschoolqualifiesasafeederschool,allthestudentsintheschool

becomepotentialmatches fora student inaparticularcharterschool.All thestudent records

from all the feeder schools arepooled thisbecomes the sourceof records for creating the

virtualmatch.

Using

the

records

of

the

students

in

those

schools

in

the

year

prior

to

the

test

year

ofinterest,CREDOselectsalloftheavailablerecordsthatmatcheachcharterschoolstudent.

Matchfactorsinclude:

Gradelevel Gender9 Race/Ethnicity FreeorReducedPriceLunchStatus EnglishLanguageLearnerStatus SpecialEducationStatus Priortestscoreonstateachievementtests

8Abadie,Alberto,AlexisDiamondandJensHainmueller.(2006)SyntheticControlMethodsfor

ComparativeCaseStudies:EstimatingtheEffectofCaliforniasTobaccoControlProgram.Harvard

University.Working

Paper.

As

of

June

2,

2009:

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=958483

NorthwestEvaluationAssociation.WhyistheGrowthResearchDatabaseSignificant?AsofJune2,2009:http://www.nwea.org/support/details.aspx?content=1053

Berends,Mark,CarolineWatral,BettieTeasleyandAnnaNicotera.CharterSchoolEffectson

Achievement.inBerends,Springer,Walberg(Eds.)CharterSchoolOutcomes.NewYork:

LawrenceErlbaumAssociates,2009,p.260.

9GenderisusedasamatchfactorinallstatesexceptFlorida.


35/69


36/69

18

Table1:PercentofCharterSchoolStudentswithMatches

Reading MathPooledAverage 83.7% 84.4%

Arizona

82.1

%

81.0%

Arkansas 88.3% 87.3%California 77.0% 81.3%Colorado(Denver) 73.8% 78.4%DistrictofColumbia 86.3% 84.8%Florida 93.2% 93.1%Georgia 93.5% 92.8%Illinois(Chicago) 92.2% 92.4%Louisiana 84.6% 84.7%Minnesota 70.3% 70.6%Missouri 80.9% 79.0%New

Mexico 76.1% 75.2%

NorthCarolina 81.9% 75.7%Ohio 75.0% 75.6%Texas 86.3% 89.0%

VCRsarereexaminedineverysubsequenttestperiodtoensurethattheconditionsofmatchstill

apply namely that the students included in theVCR record are still enrolled in traditional

public schools and have not left the state. Where the conditions are violated, the VCR is

reconstructedtodeletethedisqualifiedstudentrecords.Whatresultsarematchedpairsthatare

followedover

as

many

years

as

are

supported

by

available

data.

Anumberofthingscancontributetoacharterschoolstudentnotfindingamatch. Studentswho

arenewtoacommunityandhavenopriorhistorywillnotbematched for the firstyear. For

somestudents,allthe initialmatchesare invalidated insubsequenttimeperiodsduetoschool

changesamongtheTPSstudents. Thetightlimitsthatareplacedonstartingscoresalsocreatea

hindrancetomatches: byensuringthatourstudentsareclosetogetherinstartingpoint,weend

upnarrowingthefieldofpossiblematches.

Ourgoal istocreateavirtualtwinstudywhereallpairsofstudentsaremirror imagessavefor

the fact that they are schooled in different places. By combining the exact observed

characteristicsof the charter twinandaveragingall theunobservedcharacteristicsof theTPS

contributorsto

the

virtual

TPS

twin,

the

differences

between

the

two

are

minimized

to

agreater

degreethaniscurrentlyavailablewithothertechniques. Aprofileoftheresultingstudentlevel

databaseispresentedinTable2.


37/69

19

Table2:DemographicProfileofCharterSchoolStudentsIncludedinModel

% Black %Hispanic %SpecialEducation%English

Language

Learners%Free/

Reduced

LunchPooled

Average

26.6%

30.4%

7.0%

6.5%

48.6%

Arizona 4.8% 29.6% 11.3% 11.3% 49.0%Arkansas 55.9% 1.6% 8.8% 0.2% 60.3%California 10.3% 42.9% 4.1% 14.8% 44.4%Colorado(Denver) 30.6% 54.3% 5.4% 10.8% 67.0%DistrictofColumbia 93.5% 4.4% 12.1% 1.8% 71.6%Florida 24.9% 28.3% 9.9% 2.2% 39.0%Georgia 50.6% 9.1% 10.0% 3.3% 50.6%Illinois(Chicago) 73.1% 24.6% 11.1% 0.5% 90.6%Louisiana 76.7% 1.0% 4.3% 0.7% 65.4%Minnesota 21.3% 3.9% 8.9% 12.5% 45.6%Missouri 90.8% 4.1% 7.3% 2.4% 72.2%NewMexico 1.7% 60.0% 8.2% 6.7% 48.4%NorthCarolina 30.5% 1.7% 5.8% 0.4% 23.4%Ohio 61.0% 1.5% 11.6% 0.5% 70.8%Texas 25.1% 54.7% 1.5% 4.2% 65.0%

IncludedinTable3below,wecomputedthestartingvaluesofstudentsbasedonastandardized

test score for their baseline year in the study. Their scorewas 0 if they scored at the state

averageontheachievementtestforthatyearandsubject.Negativescores indicatetheirscore

wasbelow the stateaverage (witha 1 showing theywereone standarddeviationbelow the

stateaverage)andpositiveiftheirscorewasabove.

ThevaluesinTable3clearlyshowthatcharterschoolsdrawfromdifferentpartsoftheirstates

distributionofstudents.


38/69

20

Table3:CharterSchoolStudentStartingValues

Reading MathPooledAverage 0.00 0.05Arizona 0.15 0.06Arkansas 0.10 0.23California 0.11 0.05Colorado(Denver) 0.37 0.47DistrictofColumbia 0.11 0.12Florida 0.05 0.04Georgia 0.14 0.02Illinois(Chicago) 0.33 0.39Louisiana 0.04 0.07Minnesota 0.14 0.16Missouri 0.56 0.65New

Mexico 0.10 0.02

NorthCarolina 0.19 0.10Ohio 0.41 0.54Texas 0.17 0.32

Studentsdrawnfromthesameschoolmaybesubjecttocommoninfluences,sotheanalysisof

school impactsmustconsiderthiswhenevaluatingthecontributionofschools.Accordingly,we

usethemorestringentthresholdsforstatisticaltests intheanalysesthatarepresented,known

asrobuststandarderrors.


39/69

21

IV. _______________________________________________________

IV. CHARTER SCHOOL EFFECTS ON STUDENT LEARNING

Over1.7millionrecordsfrommorethan2400charterschoolsare included intheanalysis.The

estimatesofcharterschool impactsonstudent learningare remarkablystableacrossdifferent

views.Our

findings

show

that

the

effectiveness

of

charter

schools

varies

widely

across

the

country,differingacrossstatesandevenwithinstates.Consistentwithotherresearch,we find

thathowevervalid the simple storyabout theaverageeffectof charter schools is, itmasks

moreinsightfulbutalsomoresubtleresults.

Forouranalysis,we reliedonordinary leastsquares (OLS) regression.Mathand readingwere

analyzedseparately.Thedependentvariablewasthestandardizedgrowthscoreineitherreading

or math for each student. The basic model included controls for student characteristics

standardized starting score, race/ethnicity, specialeducationand lunchprogramparticipation,

Englishproficiencyand repeatingagrade.10

Indicators foreach stateand for scores thatwere

affectedbyHurricaneKatrinainAugust2005werealsoincluded. Thebasicmodelwasadjusted

bychanging

variables

or

by

altering

their

form

as

we

examined

particular

features

of

charter

schoolperformance.11

Thestudentlearninggainsofcharterstudentsarecomparedtothoseforequivalentstudentsin

traditionalpublicschools in threedifferentways. The resultsstartwithananalysisofcharter

schoolsintheaggregatetocreatecomprehensivemeasuresofeffectsonstudentlearning. The

national resultsare thendisaggregatedby state to illustrate thevariationacross statesand to

posittheinfluenceofanumberofpolicyfactorsinthosestatespecificresults. Thethirdanalysis

is done with further disaggregation to examine the results of charter schools against their

specificcommunityschools.

It is certainly tempting to examine thepooled effectof charter schools on student academic

performanceas

away

of

seeing,

on

average,

How

are

charters

doing?

The

national

composite

measures theaverage effectivenessof charter schools in creating learninggains compared to

theirTPSvirtualtwins.Forthisfirstmodel,we includedasimplecharterschoolindicator inour

regression.Becausethenationalcompositepoolsallcharterschoolstudentresultsandcompares

themtotheresultsofalltheirvirtualtwinsinTPS,itsignalsthecompositeeffectatthispointin

time. In this respect, the national statistic functions much like the national averages that

accompanythevariousNationalAssessmentofEducationProgress(NAEP)examinations.

10Wecouldnotcontrolforstudentgenderinourmodelsbecauseitwasnotavailableforall

states.

11ThefullsetofresultsarepresentedintheTechnicalAppendix.


40/69

22

Figure2:OverallCharterSchoolEffect

In reading, charter students on average realize a growth in learning that is .01 standard

deviations less than their TPS counterparts. This small difference less than 1 percent of a

standarddeviation issignificantstatistically,but ismeaningless fromapractical standpoint.

Differencesofthemagnitudedescribedherecouldarisesimplyfromthemeasurementerror in

thestateachievementteststhatmakeupthegrowthscore,soconsiderablecautionisneededin

theuseoftheseresults.

Inmath, the analysis shows that students in charter schools gain significantly less than their

virtual twin.Charter studentsonaveragehave learninggains thatare .03 standarddeviations

smallerthantheirTPSpeers. Unlikereading,theobserveddifference inaveragemathgains is

bothsignificantandlargeenoughtobemeaningful.Inbothcases,however,theabsolutesizeof

theeffectissmall.

Thenationalcompositescanbeconsideredaveragemeasuresataparticularpointintime.They

tellnothingabouttheshapeoftheunderlyingdistributionof individualstudentgains.Theyare

alsosilentaboutwhichunderlying factorsaccount for the results.These insights requiremore

structuredapproaches.


41/69

23

CHARTER SCHOOL EFFECT BY SCHOOL CHARACTERISTICS

Considerableinterestinrecentyearshasfocusedontheeffectivenessofcharterschoolsserving

particulargradespans.Manyof thecircumstancescharters facealsoapply totheircompetitor

traditionalpublicschools;however,theemphasisforchartersislikelytobeintensifiedaspartof

theirreformmission.Charterelementaryschoolsarescrutinized for theirability toattractand

retainstudentsongradelevelearlyintheireducationexperience.Chartermiddleschoolsfacea

mixofexpectations.Sincestudentscanenterwithawiderangeofpreparations,theseschools

arepressedtorecoverexistingdeficits,maintainmomentumforstudentswhoarealreadydoing

well,andprepareallstudentsfortherigorsofsecondaryeducationandbeyond.Thepressures

for charter high schoolsmay be themost severe of all, including awider potential range of

student academic histories and the need to foster awareness and access to postsecondary

options for theirstudents.Toseehow thevariousgradespansofcharterschoolsmanaged to

meet their respectivechallenges, theoverallcharterschooleffectwasdisaggregatedbygrade

span.Figure3presentstheresults.

Figure3:

Charter

School

Effect

by

Grade

Span


42/69

24

The reading results for all the grade spans were found to be statistically significant. For

elementarycharters,studentsrealizeasmallpositivegainovertheirTPSpeersof .01standard

deviations a year. The impact of charter middle schools is also positive, their students

experiencing a .02 standard deviation increase in growth over their TPS peers.However, the

effectforcharterhighschoolsandmultilevelschoolsisnegativecomparedtoTPSstudents,with

.02

and

.04

standard

deviation

reductions

in

overall

gain,

respectively.

12

Formath,theperformanceofstudentsincharterelementaryschoolswasnotdifferentthanfor

theirtwinsinTPS.Amorepositiveresultwasseenforstudentsinchartermiddleschool,whose

averagegainswere .02standarddeviations largerthantheircomparisonstudents.Thereverse

wasfoundforcharterhighschoolstudents;theirgainswere .05standarddeviationslowerthan

was the case for TPS high school peers. Multilevel schools turn in the worst comparative

performance,producing .08standarddeviationslowergainsthansimilarstudentsinTPS.

CHARTER SCHOOL EFFECT BY STUDENT CHARACTERISTICSAlthoughthenationalpooledmodelsuggeststhatthere is littledifferenceonaveragebetween

charterschool

effects

and

those

of

traditional

public

schools,

additional

analyses

can

investigate

whetherchartershavebettereffectswithsomesubsetsofstudents.

For many charter school supporters, improving education outcomes for historically

disadvantagedstudentgroups istheparamountgoal. Notonly is it importanttothefuturesof

the students involved, but changing the learning trajectories for underserved studentswould

also provide important evidence that successful results are feasible, widespread and within

reach.Ifshown,itwouldestablishnewperformanceexpectationsforallschools,charterandTPS

alike.Inaddition,thefutureeconomicwellbeingofthecountrywillbemateriallyaffectedbythe

successorfailureofminorities,studentswithinitiallanguagechallengesandstudentsinpoverty.

Tomeasuretheeffectofcharterschoolingongroupsofstudents,weuseaconsistentstandard

ofcomparison

for

academic

growth.

In

all

of

the

analyses

that

follow,

we

compare

the

average

growthofvariousstudentgroups to theperformanceofanaverageTPSwhitestudentwho is

proficientinEnglish,notreceivingSpecialEducationservicesandisnotinpoverty.Thisprofileis

thearchetypeforeachoftheachievementgapcomparisonsandservesthesamepurposehere.

Todothis,variableswerecreatedto indicatecharterstudentswithineachstudentsubgroup in

lieuofageneralcharterschool indicator.Thiswasdone for race/ethnicityvariablesaswellas

specialeducation,Englishproficiencyandlunchstatusindicators.

Thebargraphsthatfollowshowtwocomparisonssimultaneously.Thesizeanddirectionofeach

bar represents the average differences between the student subgroup and the archetypical

average TPS student. Where appropriate, confidence levels for statistical significance are

included.The

second

comparison

looks

at

the

differences

between

TPS

and

charter

schools

in

howwelltheyeducatethesamestudentsubgroup.Wherethebarsforcharterschoolresultsare

shaded, itsignifiesastatisticallysignificantdifference inperformancebetweencharterandTPS

students.

12Multilevelschoolsrepresentamixtureofschools,somecombiningelementary/middlegrades,

othersmiddle/highgradesandstillothersofferingK12grades.


43/69

25

Figures4through7presentthecomparisonsofcharterschoolstudentresultstotheirTPSvirtual

twins.However,theaggregatepictureofthepooledsampledoesnotdisplaythestrongvariation

ineffectsthatareseeniftheresultsbystudentsubgroupsareexaminedatthestatelevel.States

differwidely inhowwelltheyservevarioussubgroups,asshown intheTables4through8. In

thesetables,whereastateisnotlisted,thecharterimpactwasnotsignificant.

Charterschool

students

with

special

education

designations

on

average

perform

about

as

well

in

readingassimilarstudents inTPS. Bothhave inferiorgainscomparedtostudentswhoarenot

receiving Special Education services. Special Education students find significantly better

outcomesformathrelativetotheirtwinsinTPS.

Figure4:CharterSchoolEffectonSpecialEducationStudents

Table4:SummaryofStateSpecificResults,

CharterEffectonSpecialEducationStudents

ReadingGrowth MathGrowthNegative

and

Significant Positive andSignificant Negative andSignificant Positive andSignificantArizonaCalifornia


44/69

26

SpecialEducationstudentswhoattendcharterschoolsdonotreceiveanysignificant impact in

reading in any state included in this study compared to their TPS peers. However, Special

Educationstudentsincharterschoolsdobetter inmathinArizonaandCaliforniathantheirTPS

peers.

Charter schools show distinctly different results forminority students. As shown in Figure 5,

Blackand

Hispanic

charter

students

do

not

fare

as

well

in

reading

gains

as

their

TPS

peers.

Both

groupsofminoritystudentshavesignificantlylowergainsthantheirTPScomparisonstudents.As

withreading,BlackandHispanicstudentswereseentorealizesignificantly lower learninggains

inmath.

Figure5:CharterSchoolEffectonBlackandHispanicStudents


CharterEffectonBlackStudents

ReadingGrowth MathGrowthNegative and

SignificantPositive and

SignificantNegative and


SignificantFlorida California Arizona ArkansasGeorgia Louisiana Florida LouisianaIllinois Minnesota Georgia MinnesotaTexas Missouri NorthCarolina Missouri

Texas


45/69

27

BlackcharterschoolstudentsdobettercomparedtotheirTPSpeersinbothmathandreadingin

Louisiana, Minnesota and Missouri. In addition, Black charter school students do better in

readinginCaliforniaandbetterinmathinArkansasthantheirTPSpeers.


CharterEffect

on

Hispanic

Students


Significant Positive andSignificant Negative andSignificant Positive andSignificantGeorgia Missouri Arizona ArkansasIllinois California Colorado

NewMexico Georgia LouisianaOhio Illinois MissouriTexas NewMexico

OhioTexas

HispaniccharterschoolstudentsdobettercomparedtotheirTPSpeersinbothmathandreading

inMissouri.Inaddition,HispaniccharterschoolstudentsdobetterinmathinArkansas,Colorado

andLouisianathantheirTPSpeers.

We see positive results for charter school students in poverty these students realized

statisticallysuperiorlearninggainsinreadingcomparedtotheirTPSpeers,asshowninFigure6.

Themagnitudeofthedifferencewasaboutthesameaswasseenfortheoverallreadingeffect,

.01standarddeviations, thoughhere thesign ispositive. Whilesignificant,theeffect issmall.

Thesame

relative

outcome

was

realized

in

math

learning

gains;

students

in

poverty

who

attendedcharterschoolsseesuperiorresultsovertheirTPScounterparts.


46/69

28

Figure6:CharterSchoolEffectonStudentsinPoverty


CharterEffectonStudentsinPoverty





SignificantLouisiana Arkansas Arizona ArkansasMissouri California Louisiana California

Georgia Missouri GeorgiaIllinois Illinois

NorthCarolina OhioOhio TexasTexas

Students inpovertythatattendcharterschoolsdobettercomparedtotheirTPSpeers inboth

math and reading inmany states, including: Arkansas, California, Georgia, Illinois, Ohio and

Texas.Inaddition,charterschoolstudentsinpovertydobetterinreadinginNorthCarolinathan

theirTPSpeers.

Theanalysisrevealeda favorablesetofoutcomes forcharterschoolstudentswhoareEnglish

LanguageLearners.ForstudentswithEnglishlanguagedeficiencies,schooling incharterschools

accelerated learninggainsinreadingbyasignificantamount.Thesameresultwasobservedfor

math learninggains;charterschoolstudentshadsignificantlyhighergainsthanthoseobtained

bysimilarTPSstudents.


47/69

29

Figure7:CharterSchoolEffectonEnglishLanguageLearners


CharterEffectonEnglishLanguageLearners





SignificantArizona Missouri CaliforniaCalifornia GeorgiaNewMexico

TexasEnglishLanguageLearnersthatattendcharterschoolsdobettercomparedtotheirTPSpeers in

bothreadingandmathinCalifornia.Inaddition,EnglishLanguageLearnersincharterschoolsdo

betterinreadinginArizona,NewMexicoandTexasandbetterinmathinGeorgia.


48/69

30

CHARTER SCHOOL EFFECT BY STARTING DECILEOneway todecompose the charter schooleffect is toexaminewhatcontributions to student

learningcharterschoolsmakeacrossthespectrumofstartingabilities.Giventheirmandateto

have

open

enrollment

policies,

there

is

no

telling

what

kind

of

student

may

enroll

in

a

charter

school;theschoolsmustbecapableofpromoting learninggains ineverystudent,regardlessof

startingpoint.Theanswermightusefullyinformfurtherpolicydiscussions,ifitwereshownthat

chartershaveabetterimpactonstudentswhostartoutinparticularrangesoftheperformance

spectrum.

Thecomparison isdonebygroupingstudentsaccordingtotheir initialscoresontheirbaseline

stateachievementtests.Theachievementtestsforeachstate,yearandsubjectaredividedinto

deciles and the students baseline scores are sorted accordingly. Studentswere then further

dividedintocharterandTPSgroupswithineachdecile.13

This computation does not revealwhat the distributionof starting scores looks like it only

shows

the

range

of

growth

for

however

many

students

are

in

each

of

the

starting

deciles.

The

averagegrowth for charter school students in the same startingdecile are then compared to

equivalentgrowthfortheirTPSvirtualtwin.TheresultsappearinFigures8and9.

Figure8:CharterSchoolEffectbyStudentsStartingDecile Reading

13Thegene

Documents

Charter School Report