Charter Schools in the School Choice Debate

November 19th, 2019

Abstract

With the explosion of school choice discussions in the United States over the past decade, many believe charter schools to be a sound alternative to traditional public schools. Because charter schools across the nation vary so drastically when it comes to performance and success, it is hard to determine whether or not the charter sector is effective to public education as a whole. Though most evidence shows that charter schools perform relatively similar to traditional public schools, other evidence from high-performing charter schools have shown an ability to produce high student achievement. Despite the fact that high-performing charter schools, often run by non-profit charter management organizations (CMOs) or similar models, have found immense success through their practices, research shows that their low performing counterparts are not only failing to live up to the charter promise as a whole but may be dragging traditional public schools down with them. As charters have grown with incredible speed and freedom throughout the last decade, critics are calling for further research into their effectiveness and the impact they have on traditional public schools (TPS). This paper seeks to analyze high-performing charter schools in the charter sector as a whole as well as discuss conflicting arguments in the ongoing debate between charter schools and TPS.

Introduction

Charter schools are publicly funded schools that are governed by a group or organization and operate through contracts with state or local boards. Though similar to TPS as they are open to the public and participate in state testing, charter schools run autonomous from school boards and are exempt from some local and state requirements. In return for the freedom to innovate, charter schools must meet certain standards outlined in their contracts and are subject to reviews from authorizers in order to keep their charter. The intended effects of the charter sector as stated by LaBetti et al. are as follows: “improved student learning, improved long-term life outcomes for students and improved education system performance” (LaBetti et al. 2019). Created to give families an option beyond TPSs and private schools, the rapid growth and diversity of the charter sector and its subsequent straying from these intended effects as a result have become a huge part of the school choice discussion over the last decade (Schneider 2019).

Though open to all, charters serve more low-income, black and Latinx students as well as students from cities than TPS do (LaBetti et al. 2019). Therefore, charters have been seen as an effective way to provide quality education for underprivileged, minority students. But due to differences in state law and factors such as the type of management or authorizing authority, charter schools have seen mixed results when it comes to performance and success of the intended effects listed above (LaBetti et al. 2019). Because of this, some charters, like those in urban areas or those run by CMOs, produce incredible results while many others fail to do so (LaBetti et al. 2019). As a result, the effectiveness of the charter sector on public education as a whole has been questioned throughout the school choice debate.

Literature Review

According to a report from LaBetti et al., charter schools currently enroll around 3 million students in 7,039 schools, sharing 6% of total public enrollment (LaBetti et al. 2019). Most recent demographic information from 2015–16 shows that of the nearly 3 million charter students, 26.8% are black, 31.7% are Latino, 33.1% are white, 4.3% are Asian/Pacific Islander, 0.7% are American Indian/Alaskan Native and 3.4% are two or more races (LaBetti et al. 2019). In TPSs, student enrollment from 2015–16 showed that 14.7% were black, 25.6% were Latino and 49.9% were white (LaBetti et al. 2019). Of these students, 54.7% in charter schools and 51.9% in TPS were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch (LaBetti et al. 2019). This evidence furthers the narrative that charters serve more low-income, black and Latinx students than TPS. But according to Mark Berends, the reason for this may have to do with the fact that “charter schools are located predominantly in urban centers that have disproportionate numbers of students of color attending public schools, whether traditional or charter” (Berends 2015). Evidence from LaBetti et al. defends this point.

Based off research from the National Center for Education Statistics, LaBetti et al. reports that of students attending charter schools in 2015–16, 57% lived in cities while only 25% of students in TPSs during that time came from cities (LaBetti et al. 2019). This fuels an argument presented by Riel et al. that claims charter schools in majority black communities “foster racial isolation” (Riel et al., 2018). The idea that charters encourage segregation by race and class has been cited extensively by critics who claim it will only worsen inequality by keeping students from the benefits of an “integrated school environment” (Wilson 2016). While these are valid concerns that deserve attention, they also reflect the fact that 81% of charter schools exist predominantly in 15 states where large cities like New York, Los Angeles and Houston serve large amounts of charter students who already live in segregated neighborhoods (LaBetti et al. 2019). Because charter schools are largely present in states like California, Texas, and New York, the idea that charter schools in larger cities within these states encourage segregation indicates that a growing number of low-income, black and latinx students are choosing to attend charters rather than TPSs. This holds especially true in regions with high-performing charter schools like CMOs.

Research cited by LaBetti et al. found that of the nearly 3 million students that attend charters in the United States, only around 13% of them attend “high-performing, nationally recognized CMOs” (LaBetti et al. 2019). While this figure may seem low when compared to the number of charter school students in the nation, research shows that the growth of high-performing charters far outweighs the growth of the charter sector as whole. According to research utilized by LaBetti et al. in their 2019 report, enrollment in “high-performing, nationally recognized CMOs” grew 329% from 2009 to 2016 while enrollment in the charter sector as a whole during that period grew only 86% (LaBetti et al. 2019). In addition to this, research from the Charter School Growth Fund suggests that the amount of new high-performing charter schools will grow 43% over the next 5 years from 800 schools in 2016 to 1,145 schools in 2023 (LaBetti et al. 2019). This research shows that more and more students are wanting to attend high-performing charter schools, proving that CMOs and other high-performing charter schools can be a ray of light in the nation’s charter sector.

Performance

In a 2019 report on the overall state of the charter sector, LiBetti et al. used most recent research from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) 2013 National Charter School Study to compare math and reading performance between charter schools and TPS. Results show that of all charter schools from 2008 to 2011, 29% of charters were better, 40% were the same and 31% were worse when it came to math performance (LaBetti et al. 2019). For reading performance, 25% of charters were better, 56% were the same and 19% were worse (LaBetti et al. 2019). Though these figures seem disheartening under the lens of the charter promise, it must be noted that variations in the charter sector relating to different cities and regions as well as student groups all have an impact on how well charter schools perform nationwide. While these figures show the performance of the charter sector as a whole, there are certain regions where charters significantly outperform TPS overall. This can be seen most notably in urban charter schools.

A 2015 report from CREDO on 41 urban regions across the U.S. found that when compared with similar urban TPS students, students attending urban charters schools had “40 additional days of learning growth in math and 28 days of additional growth in reading” (CREDO 2015). When comparing this research to the national average of 7 additional days of learning growth in reading and no difference in math for overall charter performance from CREDOs 2013 National Charter School Study, it clearly shows that a specific group of charter schools are successfully reaching its goals while some are not (CREDO 2015). In addition to this, both studies from CREDO found that subgroups of students including black, Hispanic and those in poverty performed substantially better at urban charter schools than the national charter school average (LaBetti et al. 2019). Gains for black urban charter students were at 36 additional days in math and 26 in reading while the national average was 14 days for each subject (LaBetti et al. 2019). Similarly, Hispanic urban charter students were at 22 additional days for math and 6 for reading while the national average was -7 for math and 0 for reading (LaBetti et al. 2019). These gains show that certain charter models in certain urban cities work widely for low-income and minority student subgroups. Of these gains, most notable effects are seen both in the city and statewide within New York.

In New York, where successful charter networks like KIPP and Success Academy operate, charter school students averaged 34 additional days of learning in reading and 63 additional days of learning in math compared to their TPS peers from 2011 to 2016 (LaBetti et al. 2019). In addition, charter students across all subgroups besides white in New York averaged better performance than their TPS peers (LaBetti et al. 2019). In Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap, author Sarah Cohodes attributes the success of New York charters and others alike to practices such as no excuses. Cohodes defines the no excuses philosophy in schools as those that “emphasize high expectations for both academics and behavior, longer school days and years, and frequent observations of teachers to give feedback, tutoring, and data-driven instruction that uses assessment to frequently update teachers” (Cohodes 2018). While Cohodes attributes these practices to the success of Boston and New York charter schools in enrolling students in four-year colleges as well as reducing teen pregnancy and incarceration, critics seem to think that no excuses would never work in the public sector as a whole because it is larger in comparison to the charter sector (Cohodes 2018) (Torres and Golann 2018). Other critics claim that policies like the no excuses philosophy cause charters to lean towards certain practices. Jack Schneider reiterates this in his article, School’s out, where he cited information from a report by the IBM Center for the Business of Government when writing that charters are actually less innovative then they set out to be (Schneider 2019).

Conclusion

All empirical evidence leads to one point: some charter schools are performing significantly better than others. Under the lens of public policy, it would be wrong for critics of school choice to ignore the substantial amount of evidence that shows positive impact on student outcomes for the evidence that shows the charter sector failing as a whole. While issues in the charter sector must be addressed, a better policy choice would be to encourage growth of the schools that are doing well while working on expanding their successes to other charters that are struggling to succeed. Because of the varying state policies surrounding charter schools, it is hard to suggest a solution for this. Recently, however, state legislatures have been cracking down on charter school growth by ramping up requirements and holding charters more accountable for their performance.

Analysis of Specific Law: California Education Code. Title 2. Division 4. Part 26.8: “Charter Schools” Chapter 2. “Establishment of Charter Schools” (47605–47605.9).

Summary

Since being enacted in 1992, California’s charter school laws have remained relatively unchanged (Gardiner 2019). Now, the explosively growing charter sector within the state has seemingly forced lawmakers and organizations to revisit and rewrite parts of the education code regarding 1,300 plus California charter schools. Introduced and signed into law in October 2019 to strike a balance between the public and charter school sectors, AB1505 provides sweeping overhauls of state charter school laws (Gardiner 2019). Changes are seen most notably in the Establishment of Charter Schools chapter; section 47605 and 47607 of the state education code. Prior to AB1505 becoming law, sections under 47605 gave school districts very little power when it came to authorizing or denying the creation of a charter (Stokes 2019). Under the new laws, California school districts will now have more authority over the establishment of new charters as well as renewals of existing charters (Bollag 2019). In addition to this, districts will now be able to claim redundancy and fiscal impact when considering petitions for new charters (Bollag 2019).

Prior to the new law, section 47605 of the education code gave authorizing power for new charter schools to local districts, county boards and state boards (Center for Education Reform 2018). Under the new law, those wanting to create new charter schools will have to petition to the local district first (AB 1505, 2019). If the local district denies the petition, the petitioner then has the ability to appeal the decision to the county board of education within their district (AB 1505, 2019). If denied by the county board, the petitioner can then appeal the denial to the state board (AB 1505, 2019). After analyzing the findings and information collected from the local district and county board, the state can then overturn a denial only if they discover that “there was an abuse of discretion” when utilizing the new laws to deny a petition (AB 1505, 2019). If the state overturns the decision, they then deliberate with the petitioner to choose either the local district of the county board as the chartering authority (AB 1505, 2019). Although local districts will retain significant power to deny a charter under these new laws, a denial requires substantial evidence as well as multiple reviews to be upheld (AB 1505, 2019).

For a charter to be established under new laws, local districts will take into consideration how and if the new charter will be detrimental to the district’s finances as well as the redundancy of the proposed program in regard to schools in districts that already exist (Fensterwald 2019). This means that if local districts find that a new program will significantly impact the finances of the district, they can deny the petition. It also means that if the local district finds the program to be similar or repetitive to programs already in the area, they can deny it based on the notion that if similar programs already exist and have capacity for new students, there is no need to establish a new charter. This is a notable and important difference from the original law that cited “sound educational practices’’ as the main criteria for establishment (CA EDC § 47605). It is important to note that this criterion cannot be used to deny a renewal but can be used to deny a request for expansion. While this certainly gives local districts the ability to deny new charters, the requirement of lengthy evidence and data to justify the denial makes certain that they are warranted and not just based on what the district wants (Fensterwald 2019). For charters that already exist in the state, the process for renewing or extending their charter has changed significantly as well.

Before the enactment of new laws, section 46707 based the renewal process for a charter primarily on the academic performance and progress of individual subgroups at the school (CA EDC § 47605). After being amended, section 46707 now bases renewals not only on academic performance but also whether or not the charter school is considered “high performing” (AB 1505, 2019). Charters cannot be denied for schools that for two years in a row have “received the two highest performance levels schoolwide on all state indicators” and “has received performance levels schoolwide that are the same or higher than the state average” (AB 1505, 2019). For schools that fall under this criterion, they can be renewed for five to seven years (AB 1505, 2019). This is good for high performing charter schools as a longer renewal period means more time focusing on students. The chartering authority will then subsequently deny a renewal if the school received the two lowest performance levels in regard to state indicators and if academic performance schoolwide is the same or lower than the state average (AB 1505, 2019). It doesn’t mean the charter will close, but it does mean they will need to appeal and provide evidence that they will improve. The new laws make it harder for charters to establish, expand and renew but it doesn’t exist to decimate the sector as a whole. Rather, it intends to strike a fair balance between charter schools and public schools in California (Lahm 2019).

Problem Identified

In response to the rapid growth of the charter sector in California, many public-school officials feel as though their schools are being adversely affected by the growing number of charters within their districts. Administrators in these districts claim that charters take away from their funding, property availability and ability to keep teachers (Lahm 2019). In California, local districts where there are higher concentrations of charter schools, such as Oakland or Los Angeles, have been publicly open about their issues with charter schools (Lahm 2019). Public school advocates have long pushed for a curb on charters that would make them more equal to public schools because they feel as though charter schools should be subjected to similar policies as them (Gardiner 2019). Since charters have more autonomy and less regulations than public schools yet still utilize public money, many believe charters should have policies similar to public schools (Gardiner 2019). Teachers unions in California protested that charter schools hurt public schools by taking away students and important funding (Bollag 2019). Since it is relatively unknown just how much of an effect charter schools have on local districts, teachers’ unions across California have fought for charter school growth to be capped while significant research could be done.

Response to the Law

Response to AB1505 and the changes under sections 47605–47605.9 have been mixed. At first, the California Charter Schools Association or CCSA was vehemently opposed to the new provisions (Fensterwald 2019). Likely facing defeat, CCSA worked with the state and was able to reach a compromise through the bill. Some see it as incredibly detrimental to the charter sector while some see it as making little to no difference at all. Myrna Castrejón, CCSAs leader, said the new law “embraces accountability in exchange for the flexibility to innovate” (Fensterwald 2019). Most responses have been bipartisan and seem to indicate that both sides are feeling confident about the new statutes. Since the law certainly means different things to different districts, it will be interesting to see which areas feel most of the new law’s effects. Charters with tougher local school boards might have a harder time than those in friendlier districts or districts with a lesser number of charter schools.

Effectiveness and Externalities

While the effectiveness of the new laws under sections 47605–47605.9 remains to be seen, current information suggests that California’s charter sector might improve under the new laws. Though it might slow the growth of new charter schools in California by making the process harder, it will subsequently ensure that high-performing charter schools continue to flourish while lower performing charter schools will be forced to improve or face closure. With more than 1,300 charter schools in the state already, the sector will likely see improvement across the board under these new laws. Though it might be a tougher process, it means that only the best of the best will survive. For the students these charter schools reach, the new laws will ensure that their school provides them the best education possible.

References:

Allen, J., Sullivan, T., & Eden, M. (2018). National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard — 2018. National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard — 2018. Washington, DC: Center for Education Reform.

Berends, M. (2015). Sociology and School Choice: What We Know After Two Decades of Charter Schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 159–180. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-073014–112340

Bollag, S. (2019, October 3). Gavin Newsom gives California districts more power to block charter schools with new law. Retrieved from https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article235739202.html.

Cal. EDC Code § 47605–47608 (1992)

Cal. Assemb. B. 1505 (2019), Chapter 486 (Cal. Stat. 2019)

Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Stanford University (2015). Urban Charter School Study: United States, 2015. Retrieved from: http://urbancharters.stanford.edu/download/Urban%20Study%2041%20Region%20Workbook.pdf

Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Stanford University (2013). National Charter School Study: United States, 2013. Retrieved from: https://credo.stanford.edu/sites/g/files/sbiybj6481/f/ncss_2013_final_draft.pdf

Cohodes, S. (2018). Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap. The Future of Children, 1000(1),1–16. doi: 10.1353/foc.2018.0008

Fensterwald, J. (2019, October 4). Charter school reform in California: what state leaders had to say. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2019/comments-from-the-signing-ceremony-for-californias-charter-school-law/618163.

Fensterwald, J. (2019, October 4). New era for charter schools: Newsom signs bill after intensive negotiations. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2019/new-era-for-charter-schools-newsom-signs-bill-with-compromises-he-negotiated/618099.

Fensterwald, J. (2019, September 11). California’s charter schools soon to enter an uneasy era. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2019/californias-charter-schools-face-uncertain-future-under-a-new-state-law/617320.

Gardiner, D. (2019, October 3). Gov. Gavin Newsom signs California charter-school law, in rare moment of unity. Retrieved from https://www.sfchronicle.com/politics/article/Gov-Gavin-Newsom-signs-California-charter-school-14489862.php.

Lahm, S. (2019, October 15). A New California Law Reins in Charter Schools. Retrieved from https://progressive.org/public-school-shakedown/new-california-law-reigns-charter-lahm-191015/.

LiBetti, A., Burgoyne-Allen, P., Lewis, B., Schmitz, K. (2019). The State of the Charter Sector: What You Need to Know About the Charter Sector Today: United States, 2019. Retrieved from the Bellwether Education Partners website: https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/state-charter-sector

Riel, V., Parcel, T. L., Mickelson, R. A., & Smith, S. S. (2018). Do magnet and charter schools exacerbate or ameliorate inequality? Sociology Compass, 12(9). doi: 10.1111/soc4.12617

Schneider, J. (2019, May 30). School’s out. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2019/05/30/feature/charter-schools/.

Stokes, K. (2019, September 11). Your Guide To The Biggest Changes To California Charter School Laws Since 1992. Retrieved from https://laist.com/2019/09/11/california_charter_school_authorizer_bill_compromise_1505.php.

Torres, A.C., & Golann, J.W. (2018). NEPC Review:“Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-no-excuses.

Wilson, T. S. (2016). Contesting the Public School: Reconsidering Charter Schools as Counterpublics. American Educational Research Journal, 53(4), 919–952. doi: 10.3102/0002831216658972