study says...

Who’s helping and who’s hurting? New national study looks at how charter networks measure up, from KIPP to K12

PHOTO: Andy Cross/Denver Post
Sixth-graders at DSST: College View Middle School in class.

Some charter school networks are significantly improving student achievement, but others are harming student learning.

That’s the conclusion of the latest study from CREDO, a Stanford-based research group that has released some of the highest-profile research on charter schools.

In the new analysis, they set out to answer key questions that are hotly debated in the charter school world. What types of charters are most effective? Which networks are most successful? And what students benefit most?

A number of well known “no excuses”-style school networks like KIPP and YES Prep come out looking good, but others — including large virtual school networks and for-profit charters — don’t. And the authors of the report say too many schools aren’t being held accountable for their results.

“Charter school authorizers are charged with acting as the gatekeepers to ensure schools of choice are beneficial to their students,” the authors write. “Some of them seem to be abdicating that responsibility.”

The study is considerable in scope, and examining hundreds of school networks across 26 states between the 2012–13 and 2014–15 school years. (This and other studies from CREDO were funded by the Walton Family Foundation, which supports charter school expansion; Walton also supports Chalkbeat.)

Here’s what the study tells us:

What kinds of charter schools work best?

The latest study distinguishes between three types of charter schools. The first is independent stand-alone schools, which account for 68 percent of the country’s charter schools. The second is schools that are a part of charter-management organizations — networks that include both for-profit and nonprofit providers and account for 22 percent of schools. The third is “vendor-operated” schools, where a charter board outsources operations to a company (usually run for profit), which account for 8 percent of schools.

Students attending a school run by a charter management organization seem to benefit the most. CMOs lead to small but statistically significant annual gains in math and reading, relative to both traditional public schools and other types of charters.

The impact is roughly equivalent to a student moving from the 50th percentile of performance to the 51st percentile. (CREDO converts that impact into “days of learning,” but a number of researchers have questioned the accuracy of this approach, as well as CREDO’s method of comparing students at charter schools to peers who attend nearby district schools.)

“Despite the wide range of CMO quality, larger organizations of charter holders have taken advantage of scale to the benefit of their students,” the study says.

Both independent and vendor-operated schools perform about the same as district schools in math and very slightly better in reading.

The report also breaks down performance by a school’s tax status. Giving credence to concerns among some advocates, charters operated by a nonprofit perform modestly better in both math and reading than for-profit schools.

There is an even starker divide when comparing fully virtual schools against brick-and-mortar charters. Online schools significantly reduce test scores, while in-person charter schools lead to small gains in performance. That is consistent with past studies, including CREDO’s.

“It is time for operators, authorizers and legislatures to step up to their responsibilities to ensure virtual schools, both traditional and charter, are only used when they are the best option for students,” the authors write.

Which specific networks of schools do best?

Individual networks also lead to dramatically different results. Moderate or large networks with positive impacts included Achievement First, BASIS, Democracy Prep, the Denver School of Science and Technology, Great Hearts Academies, Harmony Schools, IDEA, KIPP, National Heritage Academies, Uncommon Schools, and YES Prep.

Conversely, some big groups of schools produced significant drops in achievement. Those include Chicago International Charter Schools, Connections Academy, K12, the Leona Group, and White Hat Management. These school networks often serve as many or more students than the higher-achieving networks.

K12 and Connections Academy have previously disputed CREDO’s approach.

Who benefits the most?

CREDO finds significant variation from state to state, as well as by student population.

For instance, in both CMOs and vendor-operated schools, black and Hispanic students generally see achievement boosts, but white students and students with disabilities see their test scores drop.

Among charter networks, schools in Massachusetts boosted scores the most, while charter networks in Nevada actually hurt students’ scores.

What should oversight of charter schools look like?

The “grand bargain” of charter schools has been autonomy in exchange for accountability. But what that accountability looks like has ranged widely by location and among authorizers overseeing the schools.

Some charter school advocates believe in strict accountability based largely or exclusively on standardized tests. The National Association of Charter School Authorizers, for one, has pushed for charters to be closed based on poor academic progress.

Other choice advocates argue that tests are limited measures of performance and that families are best situated to assess school quality. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos has been seen as belonging to this camp. (Notably, though, DeVos met with NACSA last week.)

The authors of the report say their findings show that accountability based on academic performance is needed to ensure students are attending high-quality charter schools.

“Why are charter schools with weak academic track records allowed to replicate? Why are some networks with terrible average growth allowed to continue to operate multiple schools?” the report asks.

Charter Schools

A new study reveals which NYC charter school networks are outperforming their peers

PHOTO: Creative Commons / Leila Hadd
A KIPP school in the Bronx

All charter schools are not created equal. That’s according to a new study published by Stanford University research group CREDO, which shows some New York City charter school networks are better than others at improving their students’ math and reading test scores relative to surrounding traditional public schools.

The results are part of a broader study released this month that analyzed hundreds of charter schools and networks across 26 states to assess which types of charters are most effective in boosting student learning.

Most notably, the study found that charter school management organizations (CMOs), which CREDO defines as agencies that hold and oversee the operation of at least three charters, perform better than both traditional public schools and charters not aligned with CMOs. Academic growth was defined in the study as the change in a student’s scores from one testing period to the next.

Nationwide, students at CMO-operated charters received an equivalent of 17 days of additional schooling in math and reading compared to similar students in traditional public schools. In New York City, those rates were substantially higher, with students receiving the equivalent of 80 extra days of learning in math and 29 days in reading.

In comparison, non-CMO charter schools in New York City saw students grow only an additional 34 days in math and actually decline in reading compared to students at traditional public schools (The non-CMO reading difference was not statistically significant).

Five out of 11 CMOs in the city saw distinctly better results. Success Academy Charter Schools, which recently won the Broad Prize, came out on top, significantly outperforming most other networks in the city. Its students gained the equivalent of 228 days in math and 120 days in reading instruction compared to their peers in nearby traditional public schools.

However, the study only examined 168 students from the large network, a small share of its total enrollment of roughly 14,000 students in New York City. In an email, CREDO’s Lynn Woodworth told Chalkbeat that many Success students were excluded from the study because they couldn’t be matched to similar students in “feeder” district schools since the network takes few students after the initial enrollment period.

Icahn Charter Schools, Achievement First, Uncommon Schools New York City, KIPP New York City and Democracy Prep Public Schools all posted lower rates than Success — but still outperformed nearby district schools and the city’s average for CMOs.

Students at Icahn Charter Schools received the equivalent of 171 additional days of learning in math and 46 days in reading, compared to students at nearby traditional public schools. Achievement First students were close, with 125 extra days of learning in math and 57 in reading. KIPP New York City, Uncommon Schools New York City and Democracy Prep all posted gains equivalent to roughly 100 days in math and 50 days in reading.

Two networks — Lighthouse Academies and Public Preparatory Network, Inc. — performed closer to the city’s CMO average. And the three other CMOs — Ascend Learning, Explore Schools, Inc. and New Visions for Public Schools — performed comparably to nearby traditional public schools.

“At the average, independent charter schools show lower gains for their students than CMOs,” the report found. “Despite the wide range of CMO quality, larger organizations of charter holders have taken advantage of scale to the benefit of their students.”

First Person

I’m on a Community Education Council in Manhattan. Mayor de Blasio, we need to move faster on school integration

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

Mayor de Blasio,

As the mother of a fifth-grade student in a New York City public school and a member of the Community Education Council in Manhattan’s District 2, I thank you for acknowledging that our public school system does not provide equity and excellence for all of our students.

I’m writing to you understanding that the diversity plan the city released this month is a beginning, and that it will take time to integrate our schools. However, the black and Hispanic children of this city do not have decades to wait for us to make change.

I know this firsthand. For the past six years, I have been traveling out of my neighborhood to take my child to one of the city’s few remaining diverse elementary schools, located in Hell’s Kitchen. In looking at middle schools, my criteria for a school were that it matched my child’s academic interests and that it was diverse. Unfortunately, the only middle school that truly encompasses both is a long commute from our home. After commuting by subway for six years, my child wanted a school that was closer to home. I obliged.  

At my child’s middle school orientation, I saw what a segregated school looks like. The incoming class of sixth-graders includes few students of color and does not represent the diversity of our district. This middle school also lacks a diverse teaching staff and administrators. (Had I not sent my child to this school, I would only be fueling the problem, since my child was one of the few children of color admitted to the school.)

These predominately affluent and white schools are creating a new generation of students who will not know how to interact with others that come from different racial, cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. Integrated schools, on the other hand, will provide opportunities for them to learn and work with students, teachers and school leaders that reflect the diversity of our city and the world we live in.  

There are measures we can take that will have a stronger impact in integrating our schools than what is listed in the diversity plan. I am asking that you come to the table with students, school leadership and parents that are directly affected by school segregation and consider our ideas to create schools that are more equitable for all students.  

In the words of Valerie Castile, whose family received no justice in the death of their son Philando, “The system continues to fail black people.” While she was speaking of the criminal justice system, true reform of that system begins with educating our children — who will be our society’s future police officers, politicians, legislators and judges.

Mayor de Blasio, you have the power to spur change. The students and parents of our great city are asking for your leadership in integrating our schools.

Josephine Ishmon is a member of District 2’s Community Education Council. This is her personal opinion and does not reflect that of the CEC.