Providing more high-quality charter schools for our children by raising the accountability for authorizers

Charter school was emerged around 1990 that is publicly founded and privately managed by qualified organizations through the contracts with authorizers. Given more autonomy, charter school varies in its management, hiring, curriculum and scheduling across other charter schools according to each state’s law. They hold the accountability of the academic results for parents and state board of education. Since the first charter law passed in 1991, charter schools have been experiencing high speed of expansion in the US. According to the “Public Elementary and Secondary School Universe Survey” form U.S. Department of Education, comparably, charter schools’ enrollment was five times during 2013-2014 from 2000-2001 and their quantities almost are tripled during 2013-2014 from 2000-2001.

Firstly, I have to appreciate that some high-quality charter schools have obtained very high academic achievement. One example of such high-quality charter schools is KIPP charter schools. The students in KIPP generate an amazing academic result relative to national average score in Math and Reading for each grade (see figure 1).

(Figure 1: Percentage of Students Meeting or Exceeding Growth Targets in 2014–15

Source: KIPP Foundation)

However, various researches suggest that charter schools have not being outperforming traditional public schools, although they are increasingly taking place of traditional public schools. According to “NAPCS Dashboard: Performance Overview” from National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, traditional public schools nationally outperform charter schools in reading and math proficiency of fourth and eighth graders. When comparing a student’s score in charter school and traditional public schools by race and ethnicity, in his book, The Death And Life of The Great American School System, Dinae Ravitch claims, “there was little difference in the test scores of students in charter schools and regular public schools”, after the 2007 NAEP was released (Ravitch 140). In 1998, Garn and Stout compared the student achievement between charter schools and non-charter public schools given the data from at-risk students and found that charter schools have not made any significant achievement in improving test scores for at-risk students. (Lin Qiuyun 7). These tell us that many students have not improved in charter schools especially for disadvantaged students. Continuous growth of charter schools without ensuring their quality is likely to worsen the pre-college education by failing to improve students’ performance while they are given high autonomy compared with public schools.

Causation Analysis

One debate is that weather the racial and socioeconomic composition of charter school students related to the quality of charter school. Blacks and racial minority are more likely in high-poverty schools than white students (see figure 2). In his research, “Can Racial and Socioeconomic Integration promote Better Outcomes for Students”, Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter demonstrates, “the nation’s charter schools are more likely than traditional public schools to be high poverty (51–

Figure 2: Exposure to low- and high-poverty schools by race, 2012-13

Source: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "Public Elementary/Secondary School Universe Survey," 2012–13. (This table was prepared December 2014.)

100 percent of students receiving free and reduced-price lunch), extremely high poverty (76–100 percent free and reduced-price)” (Kahlenberg and Potter 2). They suggest that many charter schools which are disproportionately high-poverty and racially isolated still struggle to post significant gains for students (Kahlenberg and Potter 2). In 2005, University of California professor Russell Rumberger and his colleague Gregory J. Palardy discovered that students’ socioeconomic status have impact on their achievement growth over time (Rumberger and Palardy 107). In an another research, “Segregation, race, and charter schools: what do we know”, written by Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, Richard V. Reeves and Edward Rodrigue, they claims that “worse education outcomes for minority students are not the result of the racial composition of their schools, but the economic backgrounds of their fellow students, and the quality of school itself” (“Russ” Whitehurst, Reeves and Rodrigue 54). Their demonstration agrees with the argument of Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter that socioeconomic status relates to students’ performance in some degree, but he disagrees with that racial segregation impact students’ achievement, though race and income are always correlated. And they address the key causation of low academic achievement of some charter schools is the quality of charter school itself. The integration helping reducing racial and economic segregation of public schools to increase student achievement includes residential policies, magnet schools etc. One integration policy was exanimated in Montgomery County where low-income family was given opportunity to live in affluent neighborhood and access neighborhood school. After randomly assigned by housing authority, the analysis tracking the performance of these low-income students in long term shows, “children from low-income, predominantly minority families can benefit academically and close achievement gaps when they are long- term attendees in public elementary schools serving very affluent families” (“Russ” Whitehurst, Richard V. Reeves and Edward Rodrigue 48). If racial and economical factors don’t matter that much, what matters. In their “School Choice, School Quality, and Postsecondary Attainment”, David J. Deming, Justine S. Hastings, Thomas J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger found that, “lottery winners with the largest gains in school quality relative to their neighborhood school experienced the largest gains in postsecondary attainment” (Deming, Hastings, Kane and Staiger 104). This suggests that quality of charter school itself has positive impact on student academic achievement but not the racial and socioeconomic composition of charter school

Another debate is that the lack of transparency of charter schools’ performance m because of the failure of authorizing process, thus many low-performing charter schools fail to be closed. Lack of transparency often relates to the accountability of charter schools. Date back to 2002 when NCLF was passed; Federal required each state to achieve 100 percent proficiency. States could define the proficiency of their charter school in order to get granted found. Ravitch commends that this “allowed states to claim gains even when there were none” (Ravitch 101). In order to get high score, Ravitch claims “principals know that the key to getting higher test scores is to restrict the admission of low-performing students, because they depress the schools’ test scores” (Ravitch 155). Another way school can game the test score is by reducing the participation of low-performing students on the state test (Ravitch 156). Ravitch reports that, “In the NCLB, era, many states and districts reported outsized test score gains, but the gains were usually not real” (Ravitch 157). With the incentive to get found, states failed to oversight the performance of charter schools. In his research, “Improving charter school accountability”, David Osborne claims that, “Too many schools are not performance contracts with meaningful, measurable performance goals” (Osborne 17). Osborne demonstrates that, “On NACSA’s 2011 survey, for instance, only 56 percent of authorizers said they used mission- specific performance goals in their charter contracts, and not all of those said they used these measures in their renewal decisions” (Osborne 17). Recently, in his article, “Kasich Signs Ohio Bill designed to strengthen the Public Charter School Accountability”, Daniel Turner demonstrates that because of the variety of authorizing entities, low-quality schools remain open by “shopping around until they find an authorizing entity willing to grant it” (Turner 3). In this case, state also fails to oversight the authorizing process. From National Conference of Legislatures, it reports, “in 2004, the U.S. Department of Education published a report indicating that more than half of all charter school authorizers had trouble closing a charter school that was not performing well”.

Above all, the key to improving the quality of charter school system is not by diversifying charter schools but by strengthening the accountability of authorizers to eliminate low-performing charter schools and provide more high-quality charter schools.

Solutions----Smart Charter Schools Caps & Raising Accountability for Authorizers

According to the research I have done so far, the most concentrated advocacy solution for improving quality of charter school system is by raising authorizer’s accountability for their authorizing process. In Ohio’ case, House bill 2 reflected the flaw of authorizing process by increasing the accountability of authorizers and also implement charter school accountability measurement. Detailed legislation was “prohibiting failing charter schools from switching authorizing entities within five years, unless they receive approval from the Ohio Department of Education and requiring authorizers to enter a contract with the Ohio Department of Education, thus placing them under its oversight” (Turner 4). They also increased the “accountability measures for public charter schools through required disclosure of contracts, operating expenses, attendance policies and other details of their operations” (Turner 5). Many different groups give their solutions to increase the quality of authorizing process, and some includes “Smart Charter School Caps” and holding authorizers accountable for each school by clear and measurable goals jointly made by authorizers and schools.

By the definition from “Caps on Charter Schools” from National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, Charter schools caps limit the quantity of charter schools that can be opened or the number of student enrollment in charter schools in state (Bell 1). In his report, “Charter School Caps”, Julie Davis Bell illustrates that there are many other ways state policy limit charter school expansion including “new schools within a designated amount of time, the number of schools overseen by each authorizer and other restrictions by geography, performance level or founding level” (Bell 2). Cap policy varies states and is basically based on measure of quality, school diversity and local needs. Debate about cap centers around quality. Some suggests that arbitrarily limiting charter schools without regard to quality limits students and parents’ option. Some suggests it prevents free-market competition from naturally determining the appropriate number of schools. In his research, “Smart Charter Schools Gaps”, Andrew J. Rotherham proposes, “In states with arbitrary caps, policymakers should reform them by embracing the components of ‘Smart Charter School Caps’” (Rotherham 4). Three main things each state need to do is to “deliberately support and grow proven models”, “be realistic about authorizer capacity but allow new schools to open” and “make charters part of systemic reform” (Rotherham 4). “Deliberately support and grow proven models” is that caps should be eliminated on such schools that shows high performance and state should support these schools by founding, facilities to ensure its replication and growth. “Be realistic about authorizer capacity but allow new schools to open” basically is that state should not only cap how many charter schools allowed for each authorizer by its record of proven track record of opening high-quality charter schools, but also at the same time allow schools with plausible and well-developed application and operating plan but no track record yet. “Make charters part of systemic reform” is that with more and more open of high-quality charter school model, district would have to endure transitional aid comprising cost of loss students of strict and allowing new school to use facilities. Bell commends that, “smart charter school caps allow controlled growth based on authorizer capacity, but also loosen growth limits on charter schools and authorizers that have proven records of success” (Bell 3).

Making authorizers accountable for its authorizing process is the same way as making each charter school accountable for their performance. Ohio’s case, the regulation requires that “if an authorizer fails to meet a minimum standard of performance; its ability to authorize charter schools is suspended until it improves” (Turner 5). Minnesota laws passed in 2009 hold the authorizer directly accountable for performance of the charter schools it oversees and requires the state education department to approve authorizers. In his report, “Authorizing Charter Schools”, Yilan Shen demonstrates that, “Clear expectations and standards are key components of an accountability system for both charter schools and authorizers” (Shen 4). This specifically addresses the transparency of charter schools’ performance. From the National Conference of State legislatures’ perspective, Shen suggests that, “the result should be measurable, and the means of accessing quality should be reasonable” (Shen 4). In “A Model Law for Supporting the Growth of High-quality Charter Schools”, written by National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, it suggests that the minimum performance framework should includes “student academic proficiency”, “achievement gaps”, “Mission-specific goals”, and “Attendance” etc. (27). In Addition, It demonstrates that, it is important that authorizers provide adequate oversight of their charter schools and have the authority to sanction charter schools that are not performing well but do not merit immediate closure” (28).

Implementation

       “Smart Charter Schools Caps” and increasing accountability of authorizers to ensure the quality of charter schools are viable solution each state could consider to write in law. Firstly, they both address the root cause flaw of authorizing process and give state the insight of high-quality authorizing. “Smart Charter Schools Caps” avoid arbitrary caps on charter school and cap charter school according each authorizer’ capacity. Increasing accountability of authorizers is the most advocated policy according to my research and its advocacy group includes legislative body, nonprofit organization, and senior advisor. Since “Smart Charter Schools Caps” may incur transitional aid, and some different state has different demand of charter schools by parents and students, it may be less feasible for each state to undertake this policy. Increasing accountability may incur human and money input during sanction and over sighting, but it is the most possible solution to improve quality of charter school system.

Federal Bill

       As far as federal ongoing bill that may help solve this problem, I found H.R.416 “Raising Accountability to improve School Excellent Act”. This bill is to amend School Excellent Act and raise the accountability of authorizers and charter schools. This is federal standard each state must meet in authorizing process, which further strength the quality of authorizing process.

Conclusion

       Charter school is a mean to provide additional opportunities for students in disadvantaged. However, not all charter schools perform well and some have serious issues in improving student achievement. Possible solution to this is to hold accountability for authorizers and make sure the quality of authorizing process. By doing so, close of low-performing charter schools and open of high-quality charter schools would be seen in the future.

 Work Cited

Ravitch, Diane. The Death And Life of The Great American School System. Basic Books, 2010.

Lin, Qiuyun. "An Evaluation of Charter School Effectiveness." Education 122.1 (2001): 166. Print.

Kahlenberg D. Richard and Potter Halley. “Can Racial and Socioeconomic Integration promote Better Outcomes for Students.” The Century Foundation and Poverty and Race Research Action Council. May 2012. Web. 15 March. 2017.

<https://tcf.org/assets/downloads/Diverse_Charter_Schools.pdf>

Rumberger W.R. and Palardy J.G. “Does Segregation Still Matter? The Impact of Student Composition on Academic Achievement in High School.” Teachers College Record 107, no.9 (2005): 1999-2045.

“Russ” Whitehurst J. Grover, Reeves V. Richard and Rodrigue Edward. “Segregation, race, and charter schools: what do we know.” October 2016. Brooking Institution. Web. 15 March. 2017. <https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ccf_20161021segregation_version-10_211.pDF>

Deming J. David, Hastings S. Justine, Kane J. Thomas, and Staiger O. Douglas. “School Choice, School Quality, and Postsecondary Attainment.” American Economic Review 104.

Osborne David. “Improving charter school accountability.” Progressive Policy Institute. Web. 15 March.2017. <https://vpn.nacs.uci.edu/+CSCO+00756767633A2F2F636562746572666676697263627976706C2E626574++/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/06.2012-Osborne_Improving-Charter-School-Accountability_The-Challenge-of-Closing-Failing-Schools.pdf>

Turner Daniel. “Kasich Signs Ohio Bill designed to strengthen the Public Charter School Accountability.” 3 November 2015. Web. 15 March. 2017. <https://www.alec.org/article/ohio-strengthens-public-charter-school-accountability/>

Bell Davis Julie. “Charter School Caps.” December 2011. Web. 15 March. 2017.     <https://vpn.nacs.uci.edu/+CSCO+0075676763663A2F2F6A6A6A2E617066   792E626574++/documents/educ/CharterSchoolCaps.pdf>

Rotherham J. Andrew. “Smart Charter School Caps.” September 2007. Web. 15 March. 2017. ，<http://educationpolicy.air.org/sites/default/files/publications/CharterSchoolCaps.pdf>

Shen Yilan. “Authorizing Charter Schools.” May 2011. Web. 15 March. 2017. <https://vpn.nacs.uci.edu/+CSCO+1h756767633A2F2F6A6A6A2E617066792E626574++/documents/educ/AuthorizingCharterSchools.pdf>