In 2003 Granada Hills Charter High School became the largest charter school in the United States
Charter schools in the United States are primary or secondary education institutions that do not charge fees to pupils who take state-mandated exams. These charter schools are subject to fewer rules, regulations, and statutes than traditional state schools, but receive less public funding than public schools,
typically a fixed amount per pupil. There are both non-profit and
for-profit charter schools, and only non-profit charters can receive
donations from private sources.
As of 2016-2017 there were an estimated 6,900 public charter
schools in 42 states and the District of Columbia (2016–17) with
approximately 3.1 million students, a sixfold increase in enrollment
over the past 15 years.
In 2015 alone, more than 400 new charter schools opened while 270
schools closed due to low enrollment, lack of finances or low
performance. Waiting lists grew from an average of 233 in 2009 to 277 in 2012, with places allocated by a lottery. They educate the majority of children in New Orleans Public Schools. Some charter schools provide a specialized curriculum (for example in arts, mathematics, or vocational training). Charter schools are attended by choice.
They may be founded by teachers, parents, or activists although state-authorized charters (schools not chartered by local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, or government entities. School districts may permit corporations to manage multiple charter schools. The first charter school law was in Minnesota in 1991.
They sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education
agencies, and unions. Public-school advocates assert that charter
schools are designed to compete with public schools.
History
The charter school idea in the United States was originated in 1974 by Ray Budde, a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers,
embraced the concept in 1988, when he called for the reform of the
public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice." Gloria Ladson-Billings called him "the first person to publicly propose charter schools." At the time, a few schools already existed that were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles, such as H-B Woodlawn.
As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school
(without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student
admissions) that would operate much like a private business—free from
many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for
student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).
Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991. California was second, in 1992. As of 2015, 43 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws, according to the Center for Education Reform.
As of 2012 an authorizer other than a local school board has
granted over 60 percent of charters across the country. Between 2009 and
2012, the percent of charter schools implementing
performance-based compensation increased from 19 percent to 37 percent,
while the proportion
that is unionized decreased from 12 percent to 7 percent. The most
popular educational focus is college preparation (30 percent), while 8
percent focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics.
Another 16 percent emphasize Core Knowledge. Blended Learning (6
percent) and Virtual/Online learning (2 percent) are in use. When
compared to traditional public schools, charters serve a more
disadvantaged student population, including more low-income and minority
students. Sixty-one percent of charter schools serve a student
population where over 60 percent qualify for the federal Free or Reduced
Lunch Program. Charter schools receive an average 36 percent less
revenue per student than traditional public schools, and receive no
facilities funds. The number of charters providing a longer school day
grew from 23 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2012.
General structure and characteristics
The
rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing
legislation and differ from state to state. A charter school is
authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract
detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served,
methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time
for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3–5
years.
Operational autonomy
Charter
schools operate as autonomous public schools through waivers from many
of the procedural requirements of district public schools. These waivers
do not mean a school is exempt from the same educational standards set
by the state or district. Charter advocates believe this autonomy can be
critically important for creating an environment where operators can
focus on a strong academic program. Many schools develop a school
culture that maximizes student motivation by emphasizing high
expectations, academic rigor, discipline, and relationships with caring
adults.
Affirming students, particularly minority students in urban
school districts, whose school performance is affected by social
phenomena including stereotype threat, acting white, non-dominant cultural capital, and a "code of the street"
may require the charter to create a carefully balanced school culture
to meet peoples' needs in each unique context. Most teachers, by a 68
percent to 21 percent margin, say schools would be better for students
if principals and teachers had more control and flexibility about work
rules and school duties.
Accountability for student achievement
Charter schools are accountable for student achievement by their sponsor—a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity—to produce positive academic
results and adhere to the charter contract. While this accountability
is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, evidence gathered by
the United States Department of Education
suggests that charter schools may not, in practice, be held to higher
standards of accountability than traditional public schools. Typically,
these schools are allowed to remain open, perhaps with new leadership or
restructuring, or perhaps with no change at all. Charter school
proponents assert that charter schools are not given the opportunities
to restructure often and are simply closed down when students perform
poorly on these assessments. As of March 2009,
12.5% of the over 5000 charter schools founded in the United States had
closed for reasons including academic, financial, and managerial
problems, and occasionally consolidation or district interference. A 2013 Study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University
institute linked overall improvement of the charter school sector to
charter school closures, suggesting that charter schools as a whole are
not getting better, but the closure of bad schools is improving the
system as a whole.
Many charter schools are created with the original intent of
providing a unique and innovative educational experience to its
students. However, charter schools are still held accountable for test
scores, state mandates, and other traditional requirements that often
have the effect of turning the charter school into a similar model and
design as the public schools.
Although the U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the National Education Association
(NEA), their study points out the limitations of such studies and the
inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that
"study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional
public schools are more effective than charter schools."
Chartering authorities
Chartering
authorizers, entities that may legally issue charters, differ from
state to state, as do the bodies that are legally entitled to apply for
and operate under such charters. In some states, like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Maryland,
only the local school district may issue charters. Some school
districts may authorize charter schools as part of a larger program for
systemic improvement, such as the Portfolio strategy. States including Arizona and the District of Columbia
have created independent charter-authorizing bodies to which applicants
may apply for a charter. The laws that permit the most charter
development, as seen in Minnesota and Michigan,
allow for a combination of such authorizers. As of 2012, 39% of
charters were authorized by local districts, 28% by state boards of
education, 12% by State Commissions, with the remainder by Universities,
Cities and others.
Charter operators may include local school districts,
institutions of higher education, non-profit corporations, and, in some
states, for-profit corporations. Wisconsin, California, Michigan, and Arizona allow for-profit corporations to manage charter schools.
Caps
According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have some type of limit or cap on charter schools.
These states restrict the number of charter schools that may be
authorized or the number of students a single school can enroll.
Andrew Rotherham, co-founder of Education Sector and opponent of
charter school caps, has written, "One might be willing to accept this
pent-up demand if charter school caps, or the debate over them, were
addressing the greater concern of charter school quality. But this is
not the case. Statutory caps as they exist now are too blunt a policy
instrument to sufficiently address quality. They fail to differentiate
between good schools and lousy schools and between successful charter
school authorizers and those with a poor track record of running charter
schools. And, all the while, they limit public schooling options and
choices for parents."
Demographics
The U.S. Department of Education's
1997 First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters,
was based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states. The report
found charters tended to be small (fewer than 200 students) and
represented primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to
charter status. Charter schools often tended to exist in urban
locations, rather than rural. This study also found enormous variation
among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially
diverse, and to enroll slightly fewer students with special needs or
limited English proficiency than the average schools in their state.
In 2012, the annual survey produced by the Center for Education Reform,
a pro-charter school group, found that 60% of charter school students
qualified for free or reduced lunches. This qualification is a common
proxy for determining how many low-income
students a given school enrolls. The same survey found that half of all
charter school students fall into categories that are classified as 'at
risk'."
Funding
Charter
school funding is dictated by each state. In many states, charter
schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school
district where the charter school student resides. Charters on average
receive less money per-pupil than the corresponding public schools in
their areas, though the average figure is controversial because some
charter schools do not enroll a proportionate number of students that
require special education or student support services. Additionally,
some charters are not required to provide transportation and nutrition
services.
The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502–511 authorizes funding grants for charter schools.
In August 2005, the Thomas B. Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group, published a national report of charter school finance.
It found that across 16 states and the District of Columbia —which
collectively enrolled 84 percent of that year's one million charter
school students—, charter schools receive about 22 percent less public
funding per-pupil than the district schools that surround them, a
difference of about $1,800. For a typical charter school of 250
students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts
that the funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school
districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student, and that in
cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than
traditional public schools. The funding gap was largest in South
Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin and Missouri. The report
suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is
charter schools' lack of access to local and capital funding.
A 2010 study found that charters received 64 percent of their
district counterparts, averaging $7,131 per pupil compared to the
average per pupil expenditure of $11,184 in the traditional public
schools in 2009/10 compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools. Charters raise an average of some $500 per student in additional revenue from donors.
However, funding differences across districts remain considerable
in most states that use local property taxes for revenue. Charters that
are funded based on a statewide average may have an advantage if they
are located in a low-income district, or be at a disadvantage if located
in a high-income district.
Virtual charter schools
In
November 2015, the first major study into online charter schools in the
United States, the National Study of Online Charter Schools, was
published. It found "significantly weaker academic performance" in maths
and reading in such schools when they were compared to conventional
ones. The study was the result of research carried out in 17 US states
which had online charter schools, and was conducted by researchers from
the University of Washington, Stanford University and Mathematica Policy Research.
It concluded that keeping online pupils focused on their work was the
biggest problem faced by online charter schools, and that in mathematics
the difference in attainment between online pupils and their
conventionally educated peers equated to the cyber pupils missing a
whole academic year in school.
State-specific structure and regulations
State laws follow varied sets of key organizing principles based on the Citizens League's recommendations for Minnesota, American Federation of Teachers
guidelines, or federal charter-school legislation (U.S. Department of
Education). Principles govern sponsorship, number of schools, regulatory
waivers, degree of fiscal/legal autonomy, and performance expectations.
Center for Education Reform ranking
Current
laws have been characterized as either "strong" or "weak." "Strong-law"
states mandate considerable autonomy from local labor-management
agreements and bureaucracy, allow a significant number of charter
schools to be authorized by multiple charter-granting agencies, and
allocate a level of funding consistent with the statewide per pupil
average. According to the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter
group, in 2015 the District of Columbia, Michigan, Indiana, Minnesota, and Arizona had the "strongest" laws in the nation. Maryland, Virginia and Kansas are home to the nation's "weakest" laws, according to the same ranking.
National evaluations
Multiple
researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for
students who attend charter schools. In general, urban charter schools
may appear to be a good alternative to traditional urban schools for
urban minority students in poor neighborhoods, if one looks strictly at
test scores, but students in suburban charter schools do no better than
those in traditional suburban schools serving a mostly middle-class
white population.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes
CREDO
studies charter schools and has completed two national reports for 2009
and 2013. The report is the first detailed national assessment of
charter schools. The reports analyze the impact of charter schools in 26
states and find a steady improvement in charter school quality since
2009.
The authors state, "On average, students attending charter
schools have eight additional days of learning in reading and the same
days of learning in math per year compared to their peers in traditional
public schools."
Charter schools also have varying impacts on different demographic
groups. Black students in charters get an extra 7 days of learning in
reading. For low-income charter school students the advantage is 14 days of extra learning in reading and 22 days in math.
English Language Learner students in charter schools see a 43-day
learning advantage over traditional public school students in reading
and an extra 36 days advantage in math.
Charter schools showed a significantly greater variation in
quality between states and within states. For example, Arizona charter
school students had a 29-day disadvantage in math compared to public
school students but charter school students in D.C. had a 105-day
advantage over their peers in public schools.
While the obvious solution to the widely varying quality of charter
schools would be to close those that perform below the level of public
schools, this is hard to accomplish in practice as even a poor school
has its supporters.
Criticism and debate
Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby
criticized the study, resulting in a written debate with the authors.
She originally argued the study "contains a serious statistical mistake
that causes a negative bias in its estimate of how charter schools
affect achievement," but after CREDO countered the remarks, saying Hoxby's "memo is riddled with serious errors" Hoxby revised her original criticism. The debate ended with a written "Finale" by CREDO that rebuts both Hoxby's original and revised criticism.
The National Education Policy Center has criticized the methods
that CREDO has used in its studies. They criticized the CREDO studies
for: "over-interpreting small effect sizes; failing to justify the
statistical assumptions underlying the group comparisons made; not
taking into account or acknowledging the large body of charter school
research beyond CREDO's own work; ignoring the limitations inherent in
the research approach they have taken, or at least failing to clearly
communicate limitations to readers."
National Bureau of Economic Research study
In
2004, the National Bureau of Economic Research found data that
suggested Charter Schools increase competition in a given jurisdiction,
thus improving the quality of traditional public schools (noncharters)
in the area. Using end-of-year test scores for grades three through
eight from North Carolina's state testing program, researchers found
that charter school competition raised the composite test scores in
district schools, even though the students leaving district schools for
the charters tended to have above average test scores. The introduction
of charter schools in the state caused an approximate one percent
increase in the score, which constitutes about one quarter of the
average yearly growth. The gain was roughly two to five times greater
than the gain from decreasing the student-faculty ratio by 1. This
research could partially explain how other studies have found a small
significant difference in comparing educational outcomes between charter
and traditional public schools. It may be that in some cases, charter
schools actually improve other public schools by raising educational
standards in the area.
American Federation of Teachers study
A
report by the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers' union,
stated that students attending charter schools tied to school boards do
not fare any better or worse statistically in reading and math scores
than students attending public schools. This report was based on a study conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003. The study included a sample of 6000 4th grade pupils and was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools. Rod Paige, the U.S. Secretary of Education
from 2001 to 2005, issued a statement saying (among other things) that,
"according to the authors of the data the Times cites, differences
between charter and regular public schools in achievement test scores
vanish when examined by race or ethnicity."
Additionally, a number of prominent research experts called into
question the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of the
data in an advertisement funded by a pro-charter group. Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby
also criticized the report and the sample data, saying "An analysis of
charter schools that is statistically meaningful requires larger numbers
of students."
Caroline Hoxby studies
A
2000 paper by Caroline Hoxby found that charter school students do
better than public school students, although this advantage was found
only "among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent
with at least a high school diploma".
Hoxby released a follow up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, Assistant
Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Graduate School of
Business, claiming to have again found that charter school students do
better than public school students.
This second study compared charter school students "to the schools that
their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular
public school with a similar racial composition."
It reported that the students in charter schools performed better in
both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter
school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared.
Criticism
The
paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant
professor Jesse Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby's
methodology in this study has also been criticized, arguing that Hoxby's
"assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of students who
are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the
students. That's like knowing the poverty rate but not the average
income of a community—useful but incomplete." How representative the study is has also been criticized, as the study is only of students in Chicago.
Learning gains studies
A
common approach in education evaluation research is to compare the
learning gains of individual students in charter schools to their gains
when they were in traditional public schools. Thus, in effect, each
student acts as his/her own control to assess the impact of charter
schools. A few selected examples of this work find that charter schools
on average outperform the traditional public schools that supplied
students, at least after the charter school had been in operation for a
few years. A possible limitation of this type of study is that it does
not automatically distinguish between possible benefits of how the
school operates (e.g. school structure) and possible peer effects, that
is, effects of students on each other. At the same time, there appears to be a wide variation in the effectiveness of individual charter schools.
Meta-analyses
A report issued by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,
released in July 2005 and updated in October 2006, looks at twenty-six
studies that make some attempt to look at change over time in charter
school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall
gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four
find charter schools' gains higher in certain significant categories of
schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools serving at
risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional
public schools; and, four find that charter schools' overall gains
lagged behind. The study also looks at whether individual charter
schools improve their performance with age (e.g. after overcoming
start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as
charter schools mature, they improve. The other two find no significant
differences between older and younger charter schools.
A more recent synthesis of findings conducted by Vanderbilt
University indicates that solid conclusions cannot be drawn from the
existing studies, due to their methodological shortcomings and
conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.
National Center for Education Statistics study
A study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
found that students in charter schools performed several points worse
than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on
the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.
Some proponents consider this the best study as they believe by
incorporating basic demographic, regional, or school characteristics
simultaneously it "... has shown conclusively, through rigorous,
replicated, and representative research, whether charter schools boost
student achievement ...", while they say that in the AFT study "...
estimates of differences between charter schools and traditional public
schools are overstated."
Critics of this study argue that its demographic controls are highly
unreliable, as percentage of students receiving free lunches does not
correlate well to poverty levels, and some charter schools do not offer
free lunches at all, skewing their apparent demographics towards higher
income levels than actually occur.
United States Department of Education study
In
its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report
released in 2003, the U.S. Department of Education found that, in the
five case study states, charter schools were out-performed by
traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards, but
noted: "It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because
of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the
students, or some other factor."
Local evaluations of charter schools
Boston
A study in the Boston Public Schools (BPS) District
compared Boston's charter schools to their district school peers as
well as Boston's pilot schools, which are public schools that have been
granted the flexibility to determine their own budgets, staffing,
curricula, and scheduling but remain part of the local school district
and subject to collectively bargained pay scales and seniority
protections. The report performed analyses using both statistical
controls and using pilot and charter applicant lotteries.
The results using statistical controls to control for demographic
and baseline state test scores found a positive effect among charter
schools similar to a year spent in one of Boston's selective exam
schools, with math scores, for instance, showing positive effects of
0.18 and 0.22 standard deviations for charter middle and high schools
respectively compared to an effect of 0.20 and 0.16 standard deviations
for exam schools. For pilot schools, the report found that in the
middle school grades pilot school students modestly underperform
relative to similar students attending traditional BPS schools (-0.05
standard deviations in ELA and -0.07 in math) while showing slightly
positive results in the high school grades for pilot schools (0.15
standard deviations for writing and 0.06 for math).
The results using a sub-sample of schools with random lottery
results found very large positive effects in both math and ELA scores
for charter schools, including 0.16 and 0.19 standard deviations in
middle and high school ELA scores respectively and 0.36 and 0.17
standard deviations in middle and high school math scores respectively.
Boston's pilot schools, however, showed a concerning negative effect in
middle school math and ELA and a slightly positive effect in high
school.
Los Angeles
CREDO evaluated the impact of charter schools in Los Angeles from 2008 to 2012.
The study found that over 48% of Los Angeles charters outperform local
public schools in reading and 44% percent of Los Angeles charters
outperform local public schools in math. The study concludes they
believe not every charter will outperform traditional public schools,
but that conditions are well suited for growth.
An evaluation of Los Angeles charter schools from 2002 to 2008,
published in the American Journal of Education, contends that a rapidly
diversifying group of schools in the period did not improve charter
school student's performance relative to their public school peers.
New Orleans
A 2010 case study by the Harvard Business School examined the charter school reform efforts in New Orleans. Since Hurricane Katrina, the district is now composed of 70 Recovery School District
(RSD) schools managed by the state (including 37 RSD charter schools)
and 16 schools managed by the local Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB)
(including 12 OPSB charter schools). Charter schools now account for
more than 60% of the public schools in New Orleans. RSD Schools are a
result of Act 9 of the Louisiana State Legislature passed in 2003 to
manage under-performing schools throughout the state.
When evaluating New Orleans' schools against the 200 point index
called the State Performance Index (SPI),19 of the 20 highest performing
non-selective schools were charter schools. Charter schools affiliated
with charter management organizations such as KIPP
tended to perform better than stand-alone schools. The overall
percentage of schools performing below the failing mark of 60 fell from
64% in 2005 to 36% in 2009.
A 2015 study contends that although charter schools may seem to
be improving the system overall, these metrics do not take into account
race, as many of the underperforming charters primarily educate
African-American students.
It offers significant concern that current metrics for evaluation are
ignoring significant portions of the population and that the media is
not taking this into account when considering the impact of charter
schools on New Orleans.
Policy and practice
As
more states start charter schools, there is increasing speculation
about upcoming legislation. In an innovation-diffusion study surveying
education policy experts in fifty states, Michael Mintrom and Sandra
Vergari (1997) found that charter legislation is more likely to be
considered in states with poor test scores, Republican legislative
control, and proximity to other states with high quality charter
schools. Legislative enthusiasm, gubernatorial support, interactions
with national authorities, and use of permissive charter-law models
increase the chances for adopting what they consider stronger laws. He
feels union support and restrictive models lead to adoption of what he
considers weaker laws.
The threat of vouchers, wavering support for public education,
and bipartisan support for charters has led some unions to start
charters themselves. Several AFT
chapters, such as those in Houston and Dallas, have themselves started
charters. In New York City, the United Federation of Teachers operates a
charter school serving grades 9-12 in Brooklyn, NY. The National Education Association
has allocated $1.5 million to help members start charter schools.
Proponents claim that charters offer teachers a measure of empowerment,
employee ownership, and governance that might be enhanced by union
assistance (Nathan). Former President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act also promotes charter schools.
Over two dozen private management companies are scrambling to
increase their 10 percent share of a "more hospitable and
entrepreneurial market" (Stecklow 1997). In the late 1990s Boston-based
Advantage Schools Inc., a corporation specializing in for-profit schooling,
has contracted to run charter schools in New Jersey, Arizona, and North
Carolina. In July 2001, Advantage Schools, Inc. was acquired by Mosaica Education. The Education Development Corporation was planning in the summer of 1997 to manage nine nonsectarian charter schools in Michigan, using cost-cutting measures employed in Christian schools.
Public opinion
Historically,
Americans have been evenly split on the idea of Charter schools, with a
roughly even mix of support versus opposition between 2000-2005. There is also widespread sentiment that states should hold Charters accountable, with 80% thinking so in 2005. However, openness to Charter schools has been increasing especially among minority communities who have shifted opinions higher than the national average.
A 2011 Phi Delta Kappa International-Gallup Poll reported that public
support for charter schools stood at a "decade-high" of 70%.
Charter schools provide an alternative for educators, families
and communities who are dissatisfied with educational quality and school
district bureaucracies at noncharter schools. In early 2008, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice,
a pro-charter organization, conducted two polls in primarily
conservative states Idaho and Nevada where they asked parents about
their preferences concerning education. In Idaho, only 12% of
respondents said that their regular public school was their top choice
for the children's school. Most preferred private schools over other
options. In 2008, Polls conducted in the conservative states Georgia and Wyoming found similar results.
The charter approach uses market principles from the private
sector, including accountability and consumer choice, to offer new
public sector options that remain nonsectarian and non-exclusive. Many
people, such as former President Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with
their emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political
compromise and an alternative to vouchers. Others, such as former
President George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush made charter schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these endorsements, a recent report by the AFT has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state administered standardized testing, though the report has been heavily criticized by conservatives like William G. Howell of the Brookings Institution.
Other charter school opponents have examined the competing claims and
suggest that most students in charter schools perform the same or worse
than their traditional public school counterparts on standardized tests.
Both charter school proponents and critics admit that individual
schools of public choice have the potential to develop into successful
or unsuccessful models. In a May 2009 policy report issued by Education
Sector, "Food for Thought: Building a High-Quality School Choice
Market",
author Erin Dillon argues that market forces alone will not provide the
necessary supply and demand for excellent public schools, especially in
low-income, urban neighborhoods that often witness low student
achievement. According to Dillon, "In order to pressure all public
schools to improve and to raise student achievement overall, school
choice reforms need to not just increase the supply of any schools. They
need to increase the supply of good schools, and parents who know how
to find them." Drawing lessons from successful food and banking
enterprises located in poor, inner-city neighborhoods, the report
recommends that policymakers enhance the charter school market by
providing more information to consumers, forging community partnerships,
allowing for more flexible school financing, and mapping the quality of
the education market.
Debate over funding
Nearly
all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created
schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new
charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly
inadequate startup funds. Yet a few charter schools also attract large
amounts of interest and money from private sources such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the NewSchools Venture Fund.
Sometimes private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech
Corporation in Michigan and the Annenberg Fund in California, provide
support.
Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all
per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely
receive as much funding as other public schools. In reality, this is
not necessarily the case in the complex world of school funding. Charter
schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding
that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than
traditional public schools received until a new law was passed that took
effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools
generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program
funds distributed on a district basis.
Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support
charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in
1997. Despite the possibility of additional private and non-district
funding, a government study showed that charter school may still lag
behind traditional public school achievement.
Although charter schools may receive less public funding than
traditional public schools, a portion of charter schools' operating
costs can come from sources outside public funding (such as private
funding in the form of donations). A study funded by the American Federation of Teachers
found that in DC charter schools, private funding accounted for $780
per pupil on average and, combined with a higher level of public funding
in some charters (mostly due to non-district funding), resulted in
considerably higher funding when compared to comparable public schools.
Without federal funding, private funding, and "other income", D.C.
charter schools received slightly more on average ($8,725 versus $8,676
per pupil), but that funding was more concentrated in the better funded
charter schools (as seen by the median
DC charter school funding of $7,940 per pupil). With federal, private,
and "other income", charter school funding shot up to an average of
$11,644 versus the district $10,384 per pupil. The median here showed an
even more unequal distribution of the funds with a median of $10,333.
Other research, using different funding data for DC schools and
including funding for school facilities, finds conflicting results.
Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state
education agencies, and unions. Many educators are concerned that
charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for regular schools,
as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that
charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a
destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. To
minimize these harmful effects, the American Federation of Teachers
urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified
teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights.
According to a recent study published in December 2011 by the
Center for Education Reform, the national percentage of charter closures
were as follows: 42% of charter schools close as a direct result of
financial issues, whereas only 19% of charter schools closed due to
academic problems.
Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support
charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in
1997. Despite the possibility of additional private and non-district
funding, a government study showed that charter school may still lag
behind traditional public school achievement.
Co-location
Co-location or collocation of charter schools in public noncharter school buildings has been practiced in both New York City and Chicago and is controversial.
Since students planning to attend charter schools are generally
students who would have attended noncharter schools, co-location permits
reassigning seating for the same students from one kind of school to
the other in the same building, so that, while space might have to be
rebuilt, entire schools do not have to be built from the ground up. The
cost savings let more charter schools open.
Co-location also permits the two kinds of schools to be visible to each
other, thereby promoting school reform, especially within families
whose children attend both schools in the same building.
It may also mean that a government administration responsible for
overseeing noncharter public schools loses political turf as it gives up
space to independently-run charter schools.
Criticism
Difficulties with accountability
The
basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased
autonomy in return for greater accountability. They are meant to be held
accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several
groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose
them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically
be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but
in practice, this can be difficult, divisive, and controversial. One
example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called Urban
Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing. An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district except those serving entirely non-English-speakers. It was also accused of academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required credits. There is also the case of California Charter Academy,
where a publicly funded but privately run chain of 60 charter schools
became insolvent in August 2004, despite a budget of $100 million, which
left thousands of children without a school to attend.
In March 2009, the Center for Education Reform released its
latest data on charter school closures. At that time they found that 657
of the more than 5250 charter schools that have ever opened had closed,
for reasons ranging from district consolidation to failure to attract
students. The study found that "41 percent of the nation's charter
closures resulted from financial deficiencies caused by either low
student enrollment or inequitable funding," while 14% had closed due to
poor academic performance. The report also found that the absence of
achievement data "correlates directly with the weakness of a state's
charter school law. For example, states like Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia
and Wyoming have laws ranked either "D" or "F". Progress among these
schools has not been tracked objectively or clearly."
A 2005 paper found that in Connecticut, which it characterized as
having been highly selective in approving charter applications, a
relatively large proportion of poorly performing charter schools have
closed. Under Connecticut's relatively weak charter law, only 21 charter schools have opened in all, and of those, five have closed.
Of those, 3 closed for financial reasons. Charter school students in
Connecticut are funded on average $4,278 less than regular public school
students.
In a September 2007 public policy report, education experts
Andrew Rotherham and Sara Mead of Education Sector offered a series of
recommendations to improve charter school quality through increased
accountability. Some of their recommendations urged policymakers to:
(i) provide more public oversight of charter school authorizers,
including the removal of poor-quality authorizers, (ii) improve the
quality of student performance data with more longitudinal
student-linked data and multiple measures of school performance, and
(iii) clarify state laws related to charter school closure, especially
the treatment of displaced students.
All but 17% of charter school students show no improvement when compared
to a heuristically modeled virtual twin traditional public school.
Educational gains from switching to charter schools from public schools
have on average been shown to be "small or insignificant" (Zimmer, et
al.) and tend to decline over a span of time (Byrnes). Charter schools
provided no substantial improvement in students' educational outcomes
that could not be accounted for in a public school setting (Gleason,
Clark and Clark Tuttle). Attrition rates for teachers in charter schools
have shown annual rates as high as 40%. Students also tend to move from
charter schools prior to graduation more often than do students in
public schools (Finch, Lapsley and Baker-Boudissa). Charter schools are
often regarded as an outgrowth of the Powell Manifesto advocating
corporate domination of the American democratic process and are
considered to represent vested interests' attempts to mold public
opinion via public school education and to claim a share of this
$500–600 billion-dollar industry.
Scalability
Whether
the charter school model can be scaled up to the size of a public
noncharter school system has been questioned, when teaching demands more
from teachers and many noncharter teachers are apparently unable to
teach in the way charters seek, as has been suggested by Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch, education historian and former assistant U.S. education secretary, Mark Roosevelt, former schools chief for Pittsburgh, Penn., U.S., and Dave Levin, of the KIPP charters However, some, such as Eva Moskowitz of Success Academy Charter Schools, believe that the work is hard but performable and compensable and that the model can be scaled up.
Exploitation by for-profit entities
"The education industry," according to these analysts, "represents ... the final frontier of a number of sectors once under public control" that have either voluntarily opened or ... have "been forced" to open up to private enterprise. Indeed ..."the education industry represents the largest market opportunity" since health-care services were privatized during the 1970's ... From the point of view of private profit, one of these analysts enthusiastically observes, "The K–12 market is the Big Enchilada".
Critics have accused for-profit entities, (education management organizations, EMOs) and private foundations such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation of funding Charter school initiatives to undermine public education and turn education into a "Business Model" which can make a profit. According to activist Jonathan Kozol, education is seen as one of the biggest market opportunities in America or "the big enchilada".
Shift from progressive to conservative movement
Charters were originally a progressive movement (called the "small schools" movement) started by University of Massachusetts professor Ray Budde and American Federation of Teachers leader Al Shanker to explore best practices for education without bureaucracy.
However, some critics argue that the charter movement has shifted into
an effort to privatize education and attack teachers' unions. For example, education historian Diane Ravitch
has estimated, as a "safe guess," that 95% of charters in the United
States are non-union and has said that charters follow an unsustainable
practice of requiring teachers to work unusually long hours.
Better student test scores / Teacher issues
According to a study done by Vanderbilt University, teachers in charter schools are 1.32 times more likely to leave teaching than a public school teacher. Another 2004 study done by the Department of Education found that charter schools "are less likely than
traditional public schools to employ teachers meeting state certification standards." A national evaluation by Stanford University
found that "students attending charter schools have eight additional
days of learning in reading and the same days of learning in math per
year compared to their peers in traditional public schools" (see earlier in this article).
If the goal is increased competition, parents can examine the data and
avoid the failing charters, while favoring the successful charters, and
chartering institutions can decline to continue to support charters with
mediocre performance.
It is as yet unclear whether charters' test results will affect
the enacting of future legislation. A Pennsylvania legislator who voted
to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia,
said that "Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and
administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school
personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff
undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the
problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial
authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff,
technology, and state of the art buildings."
Admissions lottery
When
admission depends on a random lottery, some hopeful applicants may be
disappointed. A film about the admission lottery at the Success Academy Charter Schools (then known as Harlem Success Academy) has been shown as The Lottery. It was inspired by a 2008 lottery. The 2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman"
also examines this issue. A lottery, however, ensures those in
wealthier districts do not have a better chance of being accepted.
A lottery is a means of allocating a scarce resource, in this
case a spot in a desirable charter school. They are used in schools
that are at capacity. Other charter schools, whose goal is maximizing
enrollment, do not employ a lottery.
Collective bargaining
Concern
has also been raised about the exemption of charter school teachers
from states' collective bargaining laws, especially because "charter
school teachers are even more likely than traditional public school
teachers to be beset by the burn-out caused by working long hours, in
poor facilities." As of July 2009, "an increasing number of teachers at charter schools" were attempting to restore collective bargaining rights. Steven Brill, in his book, Class Warfare: Inside the Fight to Fix America's Schools (2011),
changed his position on charter schools and unions. He said that after
two years of researching school reform, he understood the complexities.
He reversed his view of union leader Randi Weingarten and suggested she run the school system for a city.
Racial segregation
One study states that charter schools increase racial segregation. A UCLA report points out that most charter schools are located in African-American neighborhoods.
However, a recent statistical analysis of racial segregation and
performance outcomes in U.S. charter schools notes that studies on race
and charter schools often incorrectly confound the inter-dependent
variables of race and family income (poverty).
Moreover, the authors conclude: "charter schools with a strong
academic focus and "no-excuses" philosophy that serve poor black
students in urban areas stand as contradictions to the general
association between school-level poverty and academic achievement. These
very high-poverty, high-minority schools produce achievement gains that
are substantially greater than the traditional public schools in the
same catchment areas."
Selective admission
Some
charter schools may engage in selective admission of students likely to
succeed. This may be accomplished through tests, evaluation of student
records, or even interviews with children's parents.
