Are Charter Schools Effective?

[Freddie]

Charter schools have been about for about 15 years. Should voters evaluate their progress and see if we want to continue to fund them?

[Adonia]

...yes, they are effective. Current studies show they work best in offering the basics to younger students(K to grade five) and low earnings students, but that in greater grades public schools function far better.And speaking locally, three of the absolutely ideal schools in our town are charter schools. One particular was a private college that became a charter school as a way to offer their Montessori teaching approaches to students from all economic backgrounds up by way of the elementary grades. Yet another was established in the beginning as a charter school since of parent dissatisfaction with public school options. It is also an elementary college. The third charter college was set up by the neighborhood university as a investigation and training center. It goes from K to 3rd grade and is an outstanding college, run by lottery.A fourth charter school in our town has been productive with a distinct group of children. It serves those kids who otherwise would end up in the alternative school or as drop outs. Even though test scores are not higher than for nearby public schools, all the students do acceptably on standardized tests(and much better than when in public schools), and all of them graduate, exactly where they wouldn't have in public college.My son's brief knowledge in the University of Texas charter school for youngsters with emotional and psychological difficulties was practically nothing but very good and is one thing our public college district finds exceedingly difficult to supply. Their preference is to bounce these little ones out to the option schools(basically school for bad kids).The handful of charter schools in our state that have failed have largely been poorly conceived or employees have failed to pay interest to the particulars of operating a productive school. The state generally identifies these schools speedily and refuses to renew their accreditation(reviewed each two years in our state), as a result closing them down. There has been no want for voters to overview the schools.It seems to me that charter schools are terrific for the early or elementary years. During these years kids require individual consideration but a frequent curriculum. Even so, the greater range of activities discovered in public schools cater far better to the increasingly certain interests of person students as they mature. So except for quite especially focused charter schools, such as ones that are created for students who know they want a certain career such as science, medicine, performing arts or technical fields, normally the public schools have far more to supply.My answer, therefore, is that by and huge, charter elementary schools are extremely effective. At upper grades charter schools require to meet distinct needs of a subset of students that cannot otherwise be served in public schools. And at least in Texas, the state education agency has carried out an superb job of weeding out the ineffective schools, so there is no need to have for voters to step in.-------------------------------BACKGROUND INFORMATIONUS charter schools now number about 3,400(as of 2005), serve roughly 1 million students and are continuing to grow - some new research help give a clearer picture of their effectiveness. -------------------------------From "Totally free to Understand: Lessons from Model Charter Schools," by the Pacific Research Institute: Charter schools function for low income students.Some of California's charter schools, frequently serving low-revenue regions, are generating outstanding gains in student achievement. According to this new book, the motives for these schools' success are easy - confirmed curriculum, student testing, discipline, teacher accountability and high expectations. -------------------------------From "Findings from the City of Huge Shoulders," by Caroline M. Hoxby and Jonah E. Rockoff: Charter schools function for younger students.Focusing on three charter schools in Chicago, researchers Caroline Hoxby and Jonah Rockoff present proof from the very first randomised evaluation of c harter schools. "Supporters believe that the flexibility granted these new public schools allows them to be more innovative and responsive to student demands than traditional public schools are. And the fact that no student attends a charter school unless his parents want to keep him there indicates that families can ?vote with their feet.? When a parent leaves a charter, so does the funding connected with his youngster. Hence a charter college cannot survive without having satisfied parents. But charter schools do not just answer to parents they need to also persuade an authorizer to recharter them every handful of years, and they have to participate in statewide testing and accountability. Will this concoction of flexibility, answering to parents, and accountability to the government raise college high quality? Bluntly place, do students in charter schools understand more than their counterparts in classic public schools? A lot more than they would have learned had they stayed place? The researchers employed a lottery-primarily based approach to evaluate three schools managed by the Chicago Charter School Foundation(CCSF). The remedy group(these who, in medicine, would get the pill) comprises charter school applicants who drew a lottery number that earned them a place at 1 of the charter schools(lotteried in). The handle group(those who would acquire the placebo) comprises the applicants who were lotteried out. All told, the study focuses on two,448 students who are divided between the lotteried-in and lotteried-out groups. It?s essential to understand that all of the students in the study applied to charter schools, so self-choice is the exact same for all of them. All that distinguishes the groups is their randomly drawn lottery numbers, so researchers can be confident that the groups are comparable not only in observable approaches(like race and revenue), but also in much less tangible approaches, such as motivation to succeed. At the moment, the researchers can examine the progress of both groups for up to four years following their application and are continuing the study and will report additional outcomes as they become accessible. Results to date, which indicate clear positive effects of attending a charter school on the math and reading test scores of students who enter charter schools in kindergarten through 5th grade, represent the most credible proof but obtainable on how charter schools have an effect on student achievement. They are also uniquely informative for policymaking. In the lengthy run, as charter schools turn out to be much more established, nearly all of their students will have entered in the early grades. Policymakers should consequently assign higher weight to studies that focus on such students than they do to studies that, due to the fact they lack experimental data, must focus on atypical students who enter charter schools when they are older. "Our final results demonstrate that, amongst students who enter in a common grade, attending a charter school improves reading and math scores by an quantity that is each statistically and substantively important," the Hoxby study says. -------------------------------From "Benefits from the Tar Heel State," by By Robert Bifulco and Helen F. Ladd: Charter schools do not operate for older students."We set out in this investigation to supply a complete evaluation of the effect of charter schools on the math and reading performance of North Carolina students in grades 4 by means of 8. Our outcomes can only be described as discouraging for charter college supporters. Students in these grades make significantly smaller sized achievement gains in charter schools than they would have in traditional public schools, and the unfavorable effects are not limited to schools in their 1st year of operation. Nor are the damaging effects of attending a charter college substantially offset by positive effects of charter schools on conventional public schools, a obtaining that may reflect the truth that North Carolina charter schools provide only a restricted quantity of competition. Nonetheless, for students who pick to stay in charter schools, the adverse effects of attending a charter school are largely limited to their very first year of attending a charter school. It is also critical to note that our findings apply only to students who either entered a charter college soon after grade four or exited a charter college ahead of grade eight. Our information do not enable us to comment on the knowledge of students who entered charter schools just before grade 4 and attended them by way of the end of middle college. We also offer proof that high student turnover prices may account for about 30 percent of the difference amongst test-score gains created in charter schools and what we would count on the exact same students to make in standard public schools. This finding suggests that student turnover can be an unintended damaging side effect of school selection. Simply because college-decision plans decrease the costs to families of switching schools, it is plausible that such plans will enhance the movement of students across schools and thereby boost student turnover rates, to the detriment of all students. However, charter schools in North Carolina exhibit negative effects on student achievement in these grades even soon after controlling for student turnover rates. Further investigation to decide whether the remaining adverse effects are due to peer influence, resource inadequacies, or poor management would be beneficial. Whatever the explanation for the low overall performance, the public interest is not nicely served when charter schools are ineffective in raising student achievement." -------------------------------

[Colten]

I feel so I have quite higher hope on them , because I am just sending my kids to one particular of them in a coupe of weeks. The final results they presented to me in terms of academic performance are outstanding. I believe the typical elementary schools are just as well weak , numerous complacent teachers , a lot of young teachers also ...  lfjacare 77 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Stephanos]

[Gaffney]

[Colbert]

Some are. Some are not. It depends on a number of factors. By way of background:   Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States which have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1] State-run charter schools(schools not affiliated with local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities [2]. The charter school movement in the United States began in 1988, when Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools". At the time, a few schools(which were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles) already existed, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school as a legally and financially autonomous public school(without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business ? free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs(such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).[3] Opponents of charter schools suggest that this accountability is rarely exercised, and that the more lax requirements for charter schools result in fewer qualified teachers than at their traditional public counterparts.[4] Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law, in 1991. California was second, in 1992. By 1995 there were 19 states with charter school laws. There are two principles which guide charter schools. First is that they will operate as autonomous public schools. This is effected by gaining waivers from many of the procedural requirements of public schools. The second is that they will use innovative pedagogy. To justify their waivers and autonomy, they are supposed to produce results superior to non-charter schools. Studies have shown that charter schools are rarely closed for poor academic performance.[4] The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation, and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3-5 years. Charter schools are meant to be held accountable to their sponsor?a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity?to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school   From what I can tell, those charter schools that have a solid, well thought plan in mind and hire really good teachers and administrators do better than the average public schools. those that are lacking in those factors don't do anywhere near as well.   Like everything else in life, some thrive, some do okay and some aren't as good as the nearby public schools.   Charter schools provide an opportunity for creativity and innovation which can't be found in the bureaucratic public schools. The opportunity doesn't guarantee success.   So, you can't really generalize any further than that. Sources: sources cited above and my personal opinion   Snow_Leopard's Recommendations Charter Schools in Action: Renewing Public Education. Amazon List Price: $27.95 Used from: $3.08 Average Customer Rating: 4.0 out of 5(based on 6 reviews) Developing a Private or Charter School: the A to Z planning of a successful school Amazon List Price: $49.95 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5(based on 1 reviews) On the Journey to Open a New School: One Step at a Time Amazon List Price: $24.95 Average Customer Rating: 5.0 out of 5(based on 1 reviews) Charter School Operations and Performance: Evidence from California Amazon List Price: $25.00 Used from: $19.99 Snow_Leopard 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[gillivray5]

Here in Indiana they have been a pretty mixed bag. Some have done well, and others have tanked.

[abowen]

While there are some "bad apples" by and large the answer is... ...yes, they are effective. Recent studies show they work best in providing the basics to younger students(K to grade 5) and low income students, but that in higher grades public schools work better.And speaking locally, three of the absolutely best schools in our town are charter schools. One was a private school that became a charter school as a way to offer their Montessori teaching methods to students from all financial backgrounds up through the elementary grades. Another was established in the beginning as a charter school because of parent dissatisfaction with public school choices. It is also an elementary school. The third charter school was set up by the local university as a research and training center. It goes from K to 3rd grade and is an excellent school, run by lottery.A fourth charter school in our town has been successful with a different group of kids. It serves those kids who otherwise would end up in the alternative school or as drop outs. While test scores are not higher than for local public schools, all the students do acceptably on standardized tests(and better than when in public schools), and all of them graduate, where they wouldn't have in public school.My son's brief experience in the University of Texas charter school for kids with emotional and psychological problems was nothing but good and is something our public school district finds exceedingly difficult to offer. Their preference is to bounce these kids out to the alternative schools(essentially school for bad kids).The few charter schools in our state that have failed have largely been poorly conceived or staff have failed to pay attention to the details of running a successful school. The state generally identifies these schools quickly and refuses to renew their accreditation(reviewed every two years in our state), thus closing them down. There has been no need for voters to review the schools.It seems to me that charter schools are terrific for the early or elementary years. During these years kids need individual attention but a common curriculum. However, the greater variety of activities found in public schools cater better to the increasingly specific interests of individual students as they mature. So except for very specifically focused charter schools, such as ones that are designed for students who know they want a specific career such as science, medicine, performing arts or technical fields, generally the public schools have more to offer.My answer, therefore, is that by and large, charter elementary schools are very successful. At upper grades charter schools need to meet specific needs of a subset of students that can't otherwise be served in public schools. And at least in Texas, the state education agency has done an excellent job of weeding out the ineffective schools, so there is no need for voters to step in.-------------------------------BACKGROUND INFORMATIONUS charter schools now number around 3,400(as of 2005), serve approximately one million students and are continuing to grow - some new studies help give a clearer picture of their effectiveness. -------------------------------From "Free to Learn: Lessons from Model Charter Schools," by the Pacific Research Institute: Charter schools work for low income students.Some of California's charter schools, often serving low-income regions, are producing remarkable gains in student achievement. According to this new book, the reasons for these schools' success are simple - proven curriculum, student testing, discipline, teacher accountability and high expectations. -------------------------------From "Findings from the City of Big Shoulders," by Caroline M. Hoxby and Jonah E. Rockoff: Charter schools work for younger students.Focusing on three charter schools in Chicago, researchers Caroline Hoxby and Jonah Rockoff present evidence from the first randomised evaluation of c harter schools. "Supporters believe that the flexibility granted these new public schools allows them to be more innovative and responsive to student needs than traditional public schools are. And the fact that no student attends a charter school unless his parents want to keep him there means that families can ?vote with their feet.? When a parent leaves a charter, so does the funding associated with his child. Thus a charter school cannot survive without satisfied parents. But charter schools do not just answer to parents; they must also persuade an authorizer to recharter them every few years, and they must participate in statewide testing and accountability. Will this concoction of flexibility, answering to parents, and accountability to the government raise school quality? Bluntly put, do students in charter schools learn more than their counterparts in traditional public schools? More than they would have learned had they stayed put? The researchers used a lottery-based approach to evaluate three schools managed by the Chicago Charter School Foundation(CCSF). The treatment group(those who, in medicine, would receive the pill) comprises charter school applicants who drew a lottery number that earned them a place at one of the charter schools(lotteried in). The control group(those who would receive the placebo) comprises the applicants who were lotteried out. All told, the study focuses on 2,448 students who are divided between the lotteried-in and lotteried-out groups. It?s important to realize that all of the students in the study applied to charter schools, so self-selection is the same for all of them. All that distinguishes the groups is their randomly drawn lottery numbers, so researchers can be confident that the groups are comparable not only in observable ways(like race and income), but also in less tangible ways, such as motivation to succeed. Currently, the researchers can compare the progress of both groups for up to four years following their application and are continuing the study and will report further results as they become available. Results to date, which indicate clear positive effects of attending a charter school on the math and reading test scores of students who enter charter schools in kindergarten through 5th grade, represent the most credible evidence yet available on how charter schools affect student achievement. They are also uniquely informative for policymaking. In the long run, as charter schools become more established, almost all of their students will have entered in the early grades. Policymakers should therefore assign greater weight to studies that focus on such students than they do to studies that, because they lack experimental data, must focus on atypical students who enter charter schools when they are older. "Our results demonstrate that, among students who enter in a typical grade, attending a charter school improves reading and math scores by an amount that is both statistically and substantively significant," the Hoxby study says. -------------------------------From "Results from the Tar Heel State," by By Robert Bifulco and Helen F. Ladd: Charter schools don't work for older students."We set out in this research to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the impact of charter schools on the math and reading performance of North Carolina students in grades 4 through 8. Our results can only be described as discouraging for charter school supporters. Students in these grades make considerably smaller achievement gains in charter schools than they would have in traditional public schools, and the negative effects are not limited to schools in their first year of operation. Nor are the negative effects of attending a charter school substantially offset by positive effects of charter schools on traditional public schools, a finding that may reflect the fact that North Carolina charter schools provide only a limited amount of competition. However, for students who choose to remain in charter schools, the negative effects of attending a charter school are largely limited to their first year of attending a charter school. It is also important to note that our findings apply only to students who either entered a charter school after grade 4 or exited a charter school before grade 8. Our data do not allow us to comment on the experience of students who entered charter schools before grade 4 and attended them through the end of middle school. We also provide evidence that high student turnover rates may account for about 30 percent of the difference between test-score gains made in charter schools and what we would expect the same students to make in traditional public schools. This finding suggests that student turnover can be an unintended negative side effect of school choice. Because school-choice plans lower the costs to families of switching schools, it is plausible that such plans will increase the movement of students across schools and thereby increase student turnover rates, to the detriment of all students. However, charter schools in North Carolina exhibit negative effects on student achievement in these grades even after controlling for student turnover rates. Further investigation to determine whether the remaining negative effects are due to peer influence, resource inadequacies, or poor management would be useful. Whatever the reason for the low performance, the public interest is not well served when charter schools are ineffective in raising student achievement." ------------------------------- Sources: http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3217766.html AND http://www.educationforum.org.nz/documents/e_newsletter/09_05/Sep05_Charter.htm AND darwin? 78 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Tramaine]

BarbieM said: 1 Here in Indiana they have been a pretty mixed bag. Some have done well, and others have tanked. 78 months ago

[arne33]

By way of background:   Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States which have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools, in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1] State-run charter schools(schools not affiliated with local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities [2]. The charter school movement in the United States began in 1988, when Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools". At the time, a few schools(which were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles) already existed, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school as a legally and financially autonomous public school(without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business ? free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs(such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).[3] Opponents of charter schools suggest that this accountability is rarely exercised, and that the more lax requirements for charter schools result in fewer qualified teachers than at their traditional public counterparts.[4] Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law, in 1991. California was second, in 1992. By 1995 there were 19 states with charter school laws. There are two principles which guide charter schools. First is that they will operate as autonomous public schools. This is effected by gaining waivers from many of the procedural requirements of public schools. The second is that they will use innovative pedagogy. To justify their waivers and autonomy, they are supposed to produce results superior to non-charter schools. Studies have shown that charter schools are rarely closed for poor academic performance.[4] The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation, and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3-5 years. Charter schools are meant to be held accountable to their sponsor?a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity?to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charter_school   From what I can tell, those charter schools that have a solid, well thought plan in mind and hire really good teachers and administrators do better than the average public schools. those that are lacking in those factors don't do anywhere near as well.   Like everything else in life, some thrive, some do okay and some aren't as good as the nearby public schools.   Charter schools provide an opportunity for creativity and innovation which can't be found in the bureaucratic public schools. The opportunity doesn't guarantee success.   So, you can't really generalize any further than that.