A previous article defined charter schools and how they differed from district-run public schools. Because charters reflect the communities they serve, they differ from one another as much as they differ from public schools. Thus, data about their performance can be difficult to extrapolate. Determining which types of schools provide a higher level of student success varies, depending on the criteria used. “A well-publicized study of charter schools by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) in 15 states and the District of Columbia studied 70% of the students enrolled in charter schools in the U.S. They found 17 percent of charters posted academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools, 37 percent of charter schools were significantly worse, and 46 percent were statistically indistinguishable.” According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, charter schools serving predominantly disadvantaged students demonstrated positive student outcomes, on average. The data on student outcomes often seems contradictory: A January 2019 report by Bellwether Education Partners stated, “ Nationally, charters outperform traditional public schools in reading and underperform in math.”
However, when viewed at a district rather than national level, the results are more interesting. Comparing schools within particular areas of a city appears to provide more meaningful comparisons than trying to compare disparate communities. These more local studies indicate that charter schools demonstrate “Positive results in low-income city neighborhoods, zero to negative results in relatively affluent suburbs.” CREDO at Stanford University clearly states the positive outcomes of charters that serve inner city disadvantaged youth. “Overall, students enrolled in urban public charter schools gained 40 additional days of learning in math and 28 additional days in reading compared to their traditional public school peers.”
While public schools must admit all applicants, charter schools have an enrollment cap. Since most inner city charters receive more applications than available seats, they use a lottery system for admission when demand exceeds supply. A study of the New York City charter schools done by a member of the Hoover Institute in 2009 used the results of their admission lotteries to compare the student outcomes between admitted and non-admitted students. The findings indicated “that charter schools in New York City, on average, significantly outperformed the traditional counterparts.” In fact, they improved so much that their performance significantly closed the gap with an affluent Westchester suburb by about 86 percent in math and 66 percent in English, scoring 30 points higher than their counterparts in the district schools on state math tests.
A similar study using the lottery system results of Boston charter schools found results that parallel those in New York: Charters improved student achievement significantly more than traditional public schools. “The impact on middle school math was particularly dramatic . . . an effect large enough to move a student from the 50th to the 69th percentile in student performance in one year. In fact, the effect of a single year spent in a charter school was equivalent to half of the black-white achievement gap. At the high school level, charter students showed stronger performance scores in English Language Arts, math, writing topic development, and writing competition.”
What accounts for the different outcomes? What factors contribute to the disparities: curriculum, teacher preparation and quality, discipline, motivation? Parents and educators still need answers to improve the overall quality of the American public school experience.
