Charter Schools:

To Implement or Not 

Dr. Thomas R. Harvey 

January, 2010 

There has been much written and said about the promise of charter schools (EdCal, 2009, Alexander 2004).  Even the Obama Administration is pushing the idea of charter schools (Maxwell, 2009).  But policy decisions must be made on the performance of charter schools not just on the promise.  In fact the Rand Corporation points out that there are four policy questions to be considered (Rand, 2006): 

1. How do you start a charter school?
2. Do charter schools perform better than Traditional Public Schools (TPS)?
3. What do they cost?
4. What are the keys to success?

 

This policy paper addresses these questions. 

As of 2009, there are a little over 800 charter schools in California, a quarter of which are in Los Angeles County alone.  Nearly 9% of LA public school children attend a charter school.  Charter schools represent only about 4% of the elementary and secondary students in the U.S. (Toch, 2009).  So such schools are a small but increasing piece of the puzzle of educating children. 

Starting  

To start a charter school, the petitioner should have a business plan detailing the vision, marketing plan, operations plan, and a financial plan.  The petitioners then submit a charter petition to the school district which includes a financial plan, information on how the charter school might affect the district and a reasonably comprehensive description of 16 topics.  The board of the charter granting agency (the school district, for the most part) must then hold a public meeting within 30 days and render a decision within 60 days of petition submission.  If approved, the charter school is launched. It is relatively easy to start a charter school. 

Charter School Performance 

Stanford University did a study in 2007 of 70% of the students in charter schools (Credo, 2009). They matched each charter school with a traditional public school (TPS) and analyzed their test scores for 2007.  They concluded: 

The group portrait shows wide variations in performance.  The study reveals that a decent fraction of charter schools, 17%, 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%, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their students would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools. 

Of the 15 states analyzed, five showed significantly higher gains for charter schools (Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, and Missouri).  Six showed lower than average for charter schools than TPS (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas) and four states showed no difference (California, Georgia, North Carolina, and the District of Columbia). 

These results are echoed in an earlier study by Hendrie (2003), wherein she found that charter schools do not perform as well as TPS.  When controlled for demographic variables, the gap narrowed but does not pass TPS. 

It also has been argued that the competition from charter schools leads to improvements in TPS.  This, however, was not supported by Zimmer and Beddin (2009) who found “little evidence of positive competitive effects from charter schools in California.” 

Who Does Better 

Charter schools scored with certain children and not others (Credo, 2009): 

• Children in high schools or multi-level schools do worse than their TPS counterparts.
• Children in elementary and middle schools have significantly higher learning.
• Blacks and Hispanics do worse in charter schools than their TPS counterparts.

 

• ELL students and those in poverty show better academic growth than their counterparts in TPS.
• Students do better in charter schools the longer they are in them.

 

The findings of the 2009 Stanford study give some sobering looks at charter school achievement and progress.  For only elementary and middle school children do charter schools work.  Also for only ELL students and children in poverty do charter schools work.  For other students, they don’t.  As Hutton (2009) reports, the performances at charter schools are somewhere in the middle.  Some do well, others don’t.  As a lead article in the LA Times says, “Citywide charter performance is so mixed that speaking broadly about it is like talking about the quality of fish.” It’s a mixed bag. 

What do they cost?

Charter schools do carry a large financial burden on public schools.  Charter schools are funded through five sources: 

• Charter School General Purpose Grant
• Charter School Categorical Block Grant
• Special Purpose Programs
• California Lottery
• Federal Categorical Programs

 

The largest of the sources is the first of these.  As of 2007-08, the money allotted per student was: 

Table 1

Charter School General Purpose Grant Rates

Estimated 2007-08 Funding Rates per ADA 

                                    (The California Dept. of Education, 2004) 

This is a sizable investment of money so that decisions about starting charter schools ought to be made very judiciously. 

 

Best Schools 

There are some examples of charter schools that make a difference. 

• Oakland Charter Academy in Oakland where they educate 6-8 grade students. 

            From 2004-07, API scores improved by 247 points and in 2008    OCA received the National Blue Ribbon School Award. 

• Synergy Charter Academy in Los Angeles where they educate K-5 grade students. 

            It went from 709 in its first year of operation to a score of 846    in its fourth year of operations.  Also African –American and    Latin students in the charter school outperformed their     Caucasian counterparts in elementary schools statewide. 

• Kipp Heartwood Academy in San Jose where they educate 5-8 grade students. 

            Serving traditionally low  performing students (82% qualifying    for Free or Reduced Lunch Program), Kipp Academy had an    API score of 903 in 2008. 

• Community School in North Hills where they educate K-6 grade students.

            It closed the achievement gap with Latino students (44% of the    population) scored 823 on the API and disadvantaged students    scored 810 on the API. 

(California Charter Schools Association 2008) 

These are indeed success stories that point to the potential of charter schools.  It is of interest to note that all the students of these successful schools were elementary, middle school or impoverished students. 

Keys to Success 

There are some factors that account for the success of these charter schools (California Charter Schools Assoc., 2008): 

• Empowerment of teachers, parents and community members to make     decisions about the direction of their schools

 

• Shared Vision of when they are going and how they to get there

 

• Culture of High  of students’ achievement and teacher instruction

Expectation 

• Flexibility   to use the advantages of the charter schools Model to     individualize instruction and decision-making

 

• Collaboration between all members of the academic community

 

• Hard Work  by the students and teachers.

 

These keys account for the success of these chartered schools.  

 

 

References 

Alexander, David   A Delphi Study of the Trends and Events That Will Influence the Future of California Charter Schools, unpublished dissertation, University of La Verne 2004 

California Charter Schools Association, 2008

      www.charterassociation.org 

California Department of Education

      www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/as/appcatbgguidtoc.asp 

Center for Research on Education Outcomes

      Credo National Charter Schools Study, Stanford University June, 2009 

Ed Cal “ACSA President Testifies on issues of Charter Schools” December 7, 2009 

Hendie, Carolyn  “Study Finds Charter Schools Achievement Near That of Regular Schools”   Education Week, Vol. 28, June 2009 

Hutton, Thomas, “Tripping Point or Turning Point”  American School Boards Journal, Nov. 2009 

LA Times “An Unplanned Revolution in LA’s Public Schools”  Jan. 20, 2010 

LA Times “Charter Schools Hold Promise, But No Magic Bullet”  Nov. 30, 2009 

Maxwell, Leslie “Obama’s Team’s Advisory Boosts Charter Movement.”  Education Week, Vol. 28, June 2009 

Toch, Thomas,  Education Week  10/28/2009, Vol. 29, Issue 9, pg. 32. 

Zimmer, Ron and Buddin, Richard  “Charter Schools Competition”  Public Administration Review Washington, Sept/Oct 2009