Do charter schools and traditional public schools have different academic performance standards?

• In Event: Autonomy and Variation in Charter School Systems: Governance, Practices, and Outcomes Across Contexts

Abstract

Authorizers establish performance frameworks to evaluate schools against a specific criteria, meeting, and potentially exceeding state standards. Authorizers use evidence gathered as part of the performance framework to inform decisions about renewal and closure of charter schools. Through this process, authorizers influence the charter sector by determining which schools can open and how quality is defined and maintained among the schools the authorizer oversees.  The existing literature suggests charter schools tend to have comparable or improved academic outcomes when compared to traditional public schools. And these charter authorizer performance frameworks may play a role. Charter school students generally exhibit greater academic gains in reading and math than students attending traditional public schools, but the greatest benefits are found among low-income students and Black or Hispanic students attending charter schools. However, a clear pattern has yet to emerge on nationwide studies of charter school effectiveness, as results can vary dramatically between different states. Similarly, very few studies focus on the effects authorizer practices have on producing or influencing academic outcomes. Therefore, variations in oversight and accountability systems may play a large and understudied role in shaping the performance of charter schools.  Measuring and weighting of different performance indicators is a key component of authorizer performance frameworks. This study investigates these frameworks and how they are associated with student performance, through the following questions:
To what degree do charter performance frameworks diverge from or go beyond state requirements?
How are the elements of performance frameworks related to school academic outcomes?
NACSA collaborated with REACH to collect, code, and analyze both the state accountability systems and charter authorizer frameworks within 12 states. While the data collection included all possible elements of charter authorizer frameworks, we focus here on aspects that differ from the state accountability systems. We connect the state accountability systems and authorizer performance frameworks to school characteristics (size, level, demographic composition, etc.) and outcomes (percent of students passing tests and graduation rates) using the National Longitudinal Schools Database.
Our initial results suggest that most charter authorizers do use performance frameworks that differ from those required by the state. Only five of the authorizers we investigated fully deferred to the state performance framework. State authorizers tend to focus on test scores and growth on state standardized assessments, but charter authorizers are more likely to analyze school performance based on their comparison to similar schools. The comparison schools vary, but mostly focus on a comparison with nearby schools, especially TPS. For example, one authorizer in Indiana compares their charter schools’ performance to the performance of the TPS students would have gone to. Charter schools are also more likely to mention college and career readiness standards than in the state frameworks.  We are still finalizing our results on how differences in these performance frameworks relate to student achievement. In all, we do not find that the charter schools in the states of interest outperform the TPS in the state, but we may find that the authorizers that have higher performance standards do.

Authors

• Jamie M. Carroll, Tulane University
  Presenting Author

• Josep M Nadal-Fernandez, Tulane University
  Non-Presenting Co-Author

• Julianne Meiu, University of Southern California
  Non-Presenting Co-Author