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

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.

Pushback

National head of DFER after Colorado Democrats’ platform vote: ‘We’re not going anywhere’

PHOTO: Newark Trust
DFER President Shavar Jeffries

The national head of Democrats for Education Reform responded to the dramatic rejection of his organization at the Colorado Democratic Party state assembly with a simple message: We’re not going anywhere.

In an email to supporters that he also posted on Medium Thursday, Shavar Jeffries laid out his credentials as a Democrat and said disagreements over education policy should remain a “family fight.”

“We understand that on some issues, some in our party disagree with us,” Jeffries wrote. “We welcome that disagreement, and we welcome the debates that ensue periodically. We stay true to our principles because we believe our vision best reflects the values of the party and the outcomes we seek for young people.

“But we will fight  –  when fights are necessary  –  anchored in the understanding that this is a family fight and thus we will not engage in the politics of personal destruction against those with whom we disagree.”

Jeffries went on to blame the election of President Donald Trump on an unwillingness among Democrats to set aside their differences.

“Trump is president to a large degree because progressives and liberals engaged in a civil war over the 10 percent of policies where we might disagree, as opposed to uniting around the 90 percent where we agree,” Jeffries wrote. “Hillary Clinton was booed at the DNC convention in 2016 by the same forces that still seek to sow division within our party. Our unity is our best weapon against the ongoing assault to our democracy visited upon the country each day by Trump.”

Jennifer Walmer, the head of the Colorado chapter of Democrats for Education Reform, was booed down by delegates at Saturday’s assembly. Those delegates went on to adopt into the official party platform a call for DFER to stop using “Democrats” in its name.

Former state Treasurer Cary Kennedy, who has the backing of the teachers unions, won 62 percent of the vote at the party assembly. The platform vote happened later in the day, after some of the more than 3,000 delegates had left.

It’s not clear how the platform provision could be enforced. Some members want the party to send a cease-and-desist letter to Democrats for Education Reform, something the Los Angeles Democratic Party tried in 2012, with no apparent effect.

The Colorado vote drew cheers and jeers locally and around the country. In New York City, one blog called it a “ray of sunshine” that could signal cracks in support for reform policies. Meanwhile, conservatives used the vote to cast Democrats as extremists. The editorial board of the Colorado Springs Gazette said it represented “a far-left shift in the Democratic Party.”

Education reform has become an increasingly divisive issue within the Democratic Party. Since the 2016 presidential election, opponents of a suite of reform policies, like charter schools and test-based teacher accountability laws, have increasingly sought to tie Democratic proponents of these policies to the unpopular president and his education secretary.

Jeffries said his organization would not be dissuaded by those tactics.

“If our intra-party opponents would prefer counter-productive family warfare as opposed to unity around shared values, this should be clear too: We stand with the millions of families across our country demanding access to high-quality public schools and the thousands of elected Democrats who fight tirelessly to ensure they get it,” he said. “We are not going anywhere.”

You can read Jeffries’ entire statement here.

get out the vote

Can schools encourage students to be more involved citizens? A new study suggests yes they can.

Democracy Prep charter network superintendent Seth Andrew at a 2012 admissions lottery event.

In a city of roughly 1,800 schools, many have names that have little to do with what students experience.

Not so for Democracy Prep, a network of charter schools that a new study concludes makes students far more likely to vote once they turn 18.

The study, conducted by independent researchers commissioned by Democracy Prep, took advantage of New York City’s charter school admissions rules to examine the impact of applying to, getting accepted to, and enrolling in the network’s schools on later civic participation.

Looking at more than a thousand students who applied between 2007 and 2015 who were old enough to vote in 2016, the researchers found that just being selected in the admissions lottery was correlated with a slight increase in voting rates. Students who were chosen voted 6 percentage points more often than students who were not.

The impact was much greater on students who were chosen and actually enrolled: They voted 24 percentage points more often than students who applied but never got a chance to attend.

The findings suggest that Democracy Prep is achieving its explicit goal of promoting civic participation. They also offer one answer to the question of whether charter schools, which are publicly funded but privately managed, undermine democracy.

“Democracy Prep provides a test case of whether charter schools can successfully serve the foundational purpose of public education—preparation for citizenship—even while operating outside the direct control of elected officials,” the researchers write. “With respect to the critical civic participation measures of registration and voting, the answer is yes.”

Seth Andrew, who started the network with a single middle school in Harlem in 2006, said he was pleased by the findings — and unsurprised, because the network has baked civic participation into its culture and academic program. Students must take on a personal “Change the World” project and pass the U.S. citizenship exam to graduate.

“This idea of ‘change the world’ was very central to what we were trying to get our kids prepared and excited to do,” he said.

Creating more engaged citizens takes more than just adding a civics class, said Katie Duffy, the CEO of Democracy Prep. Schools have to make democracy a part of the daily culture, she said.

“The more you talk about the importance of voting, the importance of elections, the importance of advocacy,” she said, “the more it becomes ingrained in our kids.”

The network has also long used Election Day — when district-run schools are often closed so their buildings can be used as polling stations — as a teachable moment.

In 2008, Democracy Prep students spent the day working to get out the vote in their neighborhoods. Four years later, Democracy Prep schools were among the few housed in city space that got special permission to stay open — and the network sent students out to advance the “Vote for Somebody” campaign it had kicked off in a catchy viral video. The next year, students promoted a different message — “I can’t vote but you can” — in an effort to boost the city’s 11 percent primary election voter participation rate.

The network’s influence extends far beyond its students. In 2012, six years into the network’s existence, officials estimated that students had helped 5,000 New Yorkers register to vote. Now, the network runs 22 schools in five states.

Andrew said the study’s findings about the impact of the network — which he left in 2012 to work on other civic engagement initiatives, including at the White House — offer only a start at a time when the United States lags behind other developed countries in voter turnout.

“I was thrilled with the outcome,” said Andrew. “But the as the guy that founded Democracy Prep I feel like there’s a whole lot of room to grow.”

Correction: A previous version of this story described the increase in voting caused by Democracy Prep as a percent figure, rather than in percentage points.