Are Charter Schools Measuring Up?
Charter school legislation came dangerously close to passing this legislative session. With the threat of charters real and immediate, an overview of how charter schools are measuring up is necessary.
In 1988, the late Albert Shanker introduced the notion of charter schools to the American public in a press club speech in Washington, D.C. Today, charter schools enjoy support across the country. But are they measuring up?
Thirty-six states and the District of Columbia have passed charter legislation. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) has analyzed these laws and summarized some concerns.
Eight states do not require charters to teach to academic standards. Seven states allow charter schools to hire uncertified teachers. Eight states do not require that charters use state achievement tests. Only eight states require that charter schools engage in collective bargaining.
Student Achievement
The jury is still out, but information to date does not support the notion that charter schools promote greater student achievement, particularly with high-risk, disadvantages children. Trends in student achievement are emerging from states with the longest history of charters.
Achievement data from Arizona students who took the Stanford Achievement Test indicate that, overall, students in charter schools are not performing significantly differently from those in comparable public schools.
In California, where charter students took district assessments, charter school students performed at or below the level of other students in similar public schools.
Colorado's 1997 evaluation of charter schools reached similar conclusions. Charter school students who were deemed to be at-risk performed no better than their district peers on statewide assessment.
Texas conducted a study of its charter schools and concluded that charters had little positive effect on student achievement. The study recommended that the Texas Education Agency proceed slowly and not grant additional open-enrollment charters.
In Michigan, two recent studies note that charter school students lagged behind their district school counterparts on the state's assessment. One study notes that even where scores improved overtime, charter school performance still lags behind the district scores.
Little conclusive evidence of improved student achievement exists.
Accountability
Accountability requirements differ widely from state to state. Although many states require charters to submit an annual report, the states fail to define the contents of the report or require that the report be made available to the public.
Only 80 percent of the charter schools said that they issued a report for the purpose of accountability to one or more constituencies during the 1997-98 school year. Only 73 percent of charters reported information on academic achievement to the sponsor and only 65 percent reported such information to the parents.
The vague legislative language in many charter laws, insufficient state and sponsoring agency personnel to exercise oversight, and a lack of comparable data from charter and public schools all combine to make claims of more accountability in charter schools problematic and difficult to substantiate.
Emerging Concerns
For-profit companies see charter schools as a fertile market. A growing number of states allow charter applicants to use private companies to actually run the charter school.
For-profit companies manage more than half of the charter schools in Michigan. In Massachusetts, 50 percent of the students who attend charter schools do so in schools operated by for-profit companies.
The increasing number of for-profit charter schools changes the focus of locally developed and initiated schools. The focus shifts from innovation to profit.
Oversight, also, emerges as a major concern. Without adequate state support, charter schools cannot be held accountable. State departments of education are understaffed and thus incapable of maintaining adequate oversight of charter schools.
Conclusion
Advocates' claims that competition from charter schools would result in improved student achievement in all schools remain unsubstantiated. Little innovation and sharing with other public schools have occurred. Instead, charter schools serve narrowly defined purposes in isolation from other schools. At best, some charters provide alternative settings that meet the needs of particular student populations. At worst, Charlatans use charters to gain access to public funds. |
