charter-schools-states

Are states making the right decisions with charter schools?


Report reveals states’ new aggressive charter schools laws, but can these laws actually impact charter performance?

charter-schools-statesWhether or not you’re for or against charter schools, the charter movement is spreading like a wildfire in many states across the country. Now, one report details which states are updating policy measures that could significantly impact charter school growth and funding for traditional public schools, leading many to wonder: Will more aggressive state charter laws lead to better performance?

The report, “Measuring Up to the Model: A Ranking of State Charter School Laws,” produced by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, evaluates charter school laws in every state based on 20 “Essential Components of a Strong Public Charter School Law.”

Components include no caps on the growth of public charter schools, a variety of public charter schools allowed, multiple authorizers available, accountability required, adequate funding, transparent decision-making processes, performance-based contracts required, and many more.

“Governors and legislators from coast to coast worked to lift caps that are constraining growth, enhance quality controls to better encourage the opening of great schools, and provide additional funding to decrease the equity gap between public charter school students and their counterparts in traditional public schools,” said Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance, in a statement.

“All of this work was done with one simple goal in mind: create more high-quality public charter schools to meet the surging parental demand,” she said.

(Next page: Why the recent changes?)

Why the recent changes?

One of the biggest arguments against charter schools—publicly funded but privately run—is that there’s little data to support the claim that charter schools perform better than traditional public schools; therefore, the funding those public schools could have used to implement new achievement-aiding measures has essentially gone to waste.

Other arguments against charter schools is that they “cream” the students with the least discipline problems and most engaged parents, and lead to lowered enrollment in public schools.

“Folks are losing access to walkable schools, to public resources. What we feel it is about is pushing low-income and moderate income people of color out of the District,” said Daniel del Pielago of the community group Empower DC, which has called for a moratorium on school closures, according to the Washington Post. (D.C. is on track to become “a city where a majority of children are educated not in traditional public schools but in public charters.”)

However, charter advocates say it’s a free market, and if traditional public schools can’t help students succeed, it’s only fair that parents and interested students are presented with alternatives.

Yet, little data exists on whether or not charter schools do, in fact, raise student achievement.

“Truth be told, ethical arguments between supposedly ‘pro-‘ and ‘anti-‘ groups fall prey to the same pitfall as the empirical arguments: they obscure the essential heterogeneity of charter schools,” writes Conor P. Williams, senior researcher in New America’s Early Education Initiative. “Charters are diverse to such an extent that they almost cease to be a definable subset.”

Williams argues that instead of using national data to try and define whether or not charter schools are better or worse than traditional public schools, performance should be examined by state.

“Research suggests that jurisdictions where charters are relatively easy to close (e.g. New York City and Massachusetts) get much better results than places where closures are difficult (e.g. Arizona, Texas),” said Williams.

Williams looked at the 2013 CREDO report, which showed that charter students in Massachusetts made math gains equivalent to 65 additional days of learning in comparison with their traditional public school peers.

In Texas, charter students’ math gains worked out to 22 fewer days of learning than their traditional public school peers.

“Of course, this alone doesn’t quite demonstrate that strong accountability measures caused better outcomes for students in Massachusetts, but it’s a far more productive starting point for debate than the mixed national data,” Williams emphasized.

Perhaps that’s why states are now taking aggressive steps to update charter laws—if charters in some states work better than others, states should look to scale the policies that support this success.

(Next page: State rankings in laws and performance)

State rankings in charter laws and charter performance

According to the National Alliance’s report, Minnesota is the “top-ranked” state for charter laws, with Maryland as the “lowest ranked” state.

The three states that made the biggest moves in the rankings are:

  • Indiana: The state moved up seven spots from the 2013 data, from No. 9 to No. 2 for enacting legislation to strengthen the charter renewal process, create new guidelines for governing relationships with educational service providers, and encourage the expansion of high-quality charter schools.
  • Mississippi: The state moved up 29 spots from No. 43 in 2013 (the lowest ranked state) to No. 14. Their jump was due to a “significant overhaul of the law” that now allows start-up charter schools, stronger autonomy, accountability, and funding than the previous law, as well as creates a new state authorizer, notes the report.
  • Idaho: The state moved up 12 spots, from No. 32 to No. 20, for passing two different laws. The first strengthened accountability for charter schools and the second provided funding for charter school families.

Outside of these states’ “improvements,” three states partially or entirely removed caps on the number of charter schools allowed, 12 states improved their support for charter school funding and facilities, and 13 states strengthened their authorizing processes.

The states that the CREDO report indicates have the best performing charter schools also place high on the National Alliance’s rankings.

For example, here are CREDO’s best-performing states with their Alliance rankings:

  • Louisiana-No. 3
  • Massachusetts-No. 11
  • D.C.-No. 10
  • New York-No. 7

However, CREDO’s worst-performing states aren’t that far behind in Alliance rankings:

  • Nevada-No. 13
  • Arkansas-No. 29
  • Arizona-No. 16
  • Oregon-No. 27

“While some states fell in the rankings simply because other states enacted stronger laws, it is important to note that these changes represent progress for the overall movement,” said Rees, “not black eyes for any set of states.”

She concluded: “We hope this report can be used by public charter school supporters to help them push for laws that support the creation of high-quality public charter schools, particularly for those students most in need of a better public school option.”

Because CREDO’s worst-performing charter school states still manage to score relatively high on the National Alliance’s rankings, the question still remains: Do progressive state charter school laws equate high-performing charter schools?

Once again, it looks like more data is needed.

[poll id=”65″]

Sign up for our K-12 newsletter

Newsletter: Innovations in K12 Education
By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Meris Stansbury

Want to share a great resource? Let us know at submissions@eschoolmedia.com.

New AI Resource Center
Get the latest updates and insights on AI in education to keep you and your students current.
Get Free Access Today!

"*" indicates required fields

Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Hidden
Email Newsletters:

By submitting your information, you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy.

eSchool News uses cookies to improve your experience. Visit our Privacy Policy for more information.