Are Charters Under Attack? Facts Show Otherwise

from the Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools
January 30, 2018

Charter CEOs and supporters held a rally at City Hall on Tuesday January 30 to ask for a “seat at the table” when the new school board replaces the School Reform Commission. Several City Councilpersons attended the event, held in the Mayor’s Reception Room.

APPS members have said consistently that district budget problems stem not just from a lack of funding, but from the spending priorities of the SRC which keeps resources out of classrooms. Consulting fees, faux graduate school, training by outsourcing by unqualified and inexperienced people: Teach For America, The New Teacher Project, Relay Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, Boston Consulting, Jounce, Institute for Student Achievement, etc.

But the biggest waste of money in the SD budget is the funding of malfunctioning charters. Report after report, including the latest from Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth (PCCY), shows that district schools outperform charters. Charter supporters say that they only support “high-quality” charters, that they want the failing charters closed. But when they have the opportunity to prove that, they are nowhere to be found. Some examples:

Click here to read the rest of the article 

and a Philadelphia Notebook report about the rally 

and comments about the new school board procedures.

Tennessee Celebrates Charter Growth But Ignores Horrid State Report Cards

Jane Roberts at the Commercial Appeal has a gushing piece this morning on the growth of the segregated corporate charter schools in Tennessee, particularly in Memphis, Tennessee's Gates Hub.  Here's how she begins:

Tennessee is popping up on education reform maps for its innovation, including that it now has the fastest-growing charter school movement in the nation.

Eleven charters opened in the state last year, a 37 percent increase. The number of students attending charter schools -- about 9,500 -- jumped 38 percent over the 2009-2010 school year, down several percentage points from the last year but still the fastest growth in the nation, according to National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.

"Tennessee went from having some of the poorest legislation in support of charters to some of the most favorable. That was the precursor to making Tennessee a hotbed for charter growth," said Jamal McCall, executive director of KIPP Memphis charter school.. . .

Growth, indeed.  Too bad Jane doesn't seem at all concerned about the abysmal performance of these new child chain gangs, where learning takes a back seat to behavioral control and cultural sterilization.

Below are the test results for the Memphis charters in Jane Roberts's back door. Released December 6.  If anyone is curious, here's the link. And here is a link to a previous post for Memphis charter data on value-added scores.

What jumps out in looking at these reports is that, while the state is creeping forward, the Memphis charters are moving backwards since 2009 in terms of grades.

No Achievement Scores were posted on the State website for New Consortium of Law and Business, Memphis College Prep, and City University School of Liberal Arts.

(Please excuse the weird spacing).

 KIPP Diamond Academy

Academic Achievement Grades

This page displays the 2009 re-start of all comparison reporting for achievement data for
Tennessee’s annual comprehensive educational report card.

Only 2009 converted data are reported and no trend data are available.

Scores and grades may only be compared for 2008-09 and 2009-10. (See Note.)

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement									View Chart ?
(3 year average)	2009		2010		2011			2011 State
CRT	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Trend	Score	Grade	Trend
Math	-	-	50	B	51	B	NC	50	B	+
Reading/Language	-	-	42	D	40	D	NC	49	C	NC
Social Studies	-	-	47	C	49	C	NC	52	B	NC
Science	-	-	39	F	37	F	NC	49	C	NC
Note:   The 2009 baseline provided a fixed transition point prior to the 2009-10 school year implementations of the new curriculum standards and assessments more reflective of national and international student performance in the 21st Century. The 2009 achievement scores and all grades connected with these scores are considered the new baseline for future public reporting. These converted achievement scores and grades are based on restructured calculations and a redefined grade scale that are updated to reflect the current status of educational attainment in the state in 2009. The 2009 change has prohibited comparisons to previous years’ data prior to 2009 for achievement reporting including state, district, and school-level scores and grades. For 2010, the most appropriate and meaningful comparsion would be to 2008-09 and the 2010 State level data.

 Memphis Business Academy

									Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement View Chart ? (3 year average) 2009 2010 2011 2011 State CRT Score Grade Score Grade Score Grade Trend Score Grade Trend Math 43 D 40 D 39 F - 50 B + Reading/Language 43 D 42 D 39 F - 49 C NC Social Studies 44 D 47 C 45 C NC 52 B NC Science 41 D 42 D 37 F - 49 C NC

Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement									View Chart ?
(3 year average)	2009		2010		2011			2011 State
CRT	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Trend	Score	Grade	Trend
Math	39	F	36	F	34	F	NC	50	B	+
Reading/Language	43	D	39	F	35	F	NC	49	C	NC
Social Studies	42	D	41	D	38	F	-	52	B	NC
Science	46	C	41	D	36	F	-	49	C	NC

Memphis Academy of Health Science

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement									View Chart ?
(3 year average)	2009		2010		2011			2011 State
CRT	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Trend	Score	Grade	Trend
Math	43	D	43	D	46	C	+	50	B	+
Reading/Language	45	C	44	D	42	D	NC	49	C	NC
Social Studies	48	C	50	B	50	B	NC	52	B	NC
Science	51	B	48	C	45	C	NC	49	C	NC

 Southern Avenue Charter School

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement View Chart ? (3 year average) 2009 2010 2011 2011 State CRT Score Grade Score Grade Score Grade Trend Score Grade Trend Math 37 F 36 F 37 F NC 50 B + Reading/Language 37 F 37 F 39 F NC 49 C NC Social Studies 37 F 39 F 40 D + 52 B NC Science 36 F 36 F 36 F NC 49 C NC
Star Academy
Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement View Chart ? (3 year average) 2009 2010 2011 2011 State CRT Score Grade Score Grade Score Grade Trend Score Grade Trend Math 51 B 50 B 52 B NC 50 B + Reading/Language 47 C 47 C 49 C NC 49 C NC Social Studies 41 D 40 D 40 D NC 52 B NC Science 41 D 41 D 39 F - 49 C NC

Promise Academy

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement									View Chart ?
(3 year average)	2009		2010		2011			2011 State
CRT	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Trend	Score	Grade	Trend
Math	-	-	45	C	46	C	NC	50	B	+
Reading/Language	-	-	42	D	42	D	NC	49	C	NC
Social Studies	-	-	36	F	36	F	NC	52	B	NC
Science	-	-	36	F	35	F	NC	49	C	NC

Circles of Success Learning Academy

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement									View Chart ?
(3 year average)	2009		2010		2011			2011 State
CRT	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Trend	Score	Grade	Trend
Math	46	C	40	D	42	D	NC	50	B	+
Reading/Language	45	C	41	D	40	D	NC	49	C	NC
Social Studies	41	D	40	D	38	F	-	52	B	NC
Science	36	F	34	F	32	F	NC	49	C	NC

Soulsville Charter School

Grades 3-8: TCAP Criterion Referenced Academic Achievement									View Chart ?
(3 year average)	2009		2010		2011			2011 State
CRT	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Score	Grade	Trend	Score	Grade	Trend
Math	45	C	41	D	39	F	-	50	B	+
Reading/Language	45	C	41	D	37	F	-	49	C	NC
Social Studies	44	D	42	D	42	D	NC	52	B	NC
Science	42	D	40	D	37	F	-	49	C	NC

New Charter Philosophy for the Corporate Celebrity: Let A Few Chain Gangs Flourish

When charters first came on the scene, the idea was to let a thousand flowers bloom and let innovation reign. The best instructional and curricular ideas could then be spread to other schools, and children and parents and teachers would be the beneficiaries.

Those days are as long gone, and the only innovations that remain in the segregated urban chain gangs that the Secretary of Education advocates are the innovative extinguishing of due process for teachers and students, the innovative application of total compliance techniques, and the innovative bookkeeping that makes the corporate leeches who run these outfits wealthy.

It has taken the New York Times 10 months to report on the CREDO charter study that shows the bankruptcy of the national policy obsession with these undemocratic containment camps, but the facts are not enough to dampen the Times's enthusiasm. Rather, reporter Trip Gabriel focuses on the test score production camps of KIPP and the KIPP knock-offs that have adopted the same brainwashing techniques designed for military precision, the elimination of resistance, and parrot learning.

What Mr. Gabriel does not mention is the attrition rate among students who cannot or will accept the degradation of spirit that is required by the contracts that must be signed by students and parents. In some of these chain gangs, the attrition rate is 60 percent, which, of course, makes the survivors' test scores seem all the more remarkable.

The other gaping hole in the Times charter story is the segregation and cognitive sterilization chapter, a modern day tale that has its origins in the eugenics movement that went wild in this country a hundred years ago. Corporate urban charters are about segregated containment and psychological sterilization of the brown and the poor. That's the scoop that the Times missed once again, preferring (as its Editorial Board demands) instead to spout the Hoxby hoax study that has been discredited, even as it was never made available for peer review.

A clip from today's story (do read the whole thing):

. . . .That movement includes a crowded clique of alpha girls and boys, including New York hedge fund managers, a Hollywood agent or two and the singers John Legend and Sting, who performed at a fund-raiser for Harlem charter schools last Wednesday at Lincoln Center. Charters have also become a pet cause of what one education historian calls a billionaires’ club of philanthropists, including Mr. Gates, Eli Broad of Los Angeles and the Walton family of Wal-Mart.

But for all their support and cultural cachet, the majority of the 5,000 or so charter schools nationwide appear to be no better, and in many cases worse, than local public schools when measured by achievement on standardized tests, according to experts citing years of research. Last year one of the most comprehensive studies, by researchers from Stanford University, found that fewer than one-fifth of charter schools nationally offered a better education than comparable local schools, almost half offered an equivalent education and more than a third, 37 percent, were “significantly worse.”

Although “charter schools have become a rallying cry for education reformers,” the report, by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes, warned, “this study reveals in unmistakable terms that, in the aggregate, charter students are not faring as well” as students in traditional schools.. . .

Duncan's "What Lies Clearinghouse" Adds Its Own Misleading Spin on CREDO Study

Last June Stanford U's CREDO published the first nationwide assessment of charter school test performance. Here is the Press Release from the researchers of that study:

Stanford, CA – A new report issued today by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found that there is a wide variance in the quality of the nation’s several thousand charter schools with, in the aggregate, students in charter schools not faring as well as students in traditional public schools.

While the report recognized a robust national demand for more charter schools from parents and local communities, it found that 17 percent of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools, while 37 percent of charter schools showed gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46 percent of charter schools demonstrating no significant difference.

The report found that the academic success of students in charter schools was affected by the individual state policy environment. States with caps limiting the number of charter schools reported significantly lower academic results than states without caps limiting charter growth. States that have the presence of multiple charter school authorizers also reported lower academic results than states with fewer authorizers in place. Finally, states with charter legislation allowing for appeals of previously denied charter school applications saw a small but significant increase in student performance.

The Stanford report, entitled, “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” is the first detailed national assessment of charter school impacts since its longitudinal, student-level analysis covers more than 70 percent of the nation’s students attending charter schools. The peer- reviewed analysis looks at student achievement growth on state achievement tests in both reading and math with controls for student demographics and eligibility for program support such as free or reduced-price lunch and special education. The analysis includes the most current student achievement data from 15 states and the District of Columbia and gauges whether students who attend charter schools fare better than if they would have attended a traditional public school.

“The issue of quality is the most pressing problem that the charter school movement faces,” said Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO at Stanford University. “The charter school movement continues to work hard to remove barriers to charter school entry into the market, making notable strides to level the playing field and improve access to facilities funding, but now it needs to equally focus on removing the barriers to exit, which means closing underperforming schools.”

The report found several key positive findings regarding the academic performance of students attending charter schools. For students that are low income, charter schools had a larger and more positive effect than for similar students in traditional public schools. English Language Learner students also reported significantly better gains in charter schools, while special education students showed similar results to their traditional public school peers.

The report also found that students do better in charter schools over time. While first year charter school students on average experienced a decline in learning, students in their second and third years in charter schools saw a significant reversal, experiencing positive achievement gains.

The report found that achievement results varied by states that reported individual data. States with reading and math gains that were significantly higher for charter school students than would have occurred in traditional schools included: Arkansas, Colorado (Denver), Illinois (Chicago), Louisiana and Missouri.

States with reading and math gains that were either mixed or were not different than their peers in the traditional public school system included: California, the District of Columbia, Georgia and North Carolina.

States with reading and math gains that were significantly below their peers in the traditional public school system included: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio and Texas.

"If the supporters of charter schools fail to address the quality challenge, they run the risk of having it addressed for them," said Dr. Raymond. "If the charter school movement is to flourish, a deliberate and sustained effort to increase the proportion of high quality schools is essential. The replication of successful charter school models is one important element of this effort. On the other side of the equation, however, authorizers, charter school advocates and policymakers must be willing and able to fulfill their end of the original charter school bargain, which is accountability in exchange for flexibility."

To download a copy of the full report and executive summary, visit: http://credo.stanford.ed

Now 8 months after the release of that ground-breaking report, ED's IES has published this one page misleading propaganda flyer that entirely ignores the main findings of the Report:

WWC Quick Review of the Report “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States”¹

What Two Groups of Students Were Contrasted?

In the pooled analysis, students attending charter schools nationwide were compared to similar students attending traditional public schools that had sent students to those charter schools.

In a more detailed analysis, students attending charter schools were compared only to similar students within the same education market, defined as all of the charter school students and all of their matched comparison records.

What is this study about?

The study examined the effect of charter school attendance on annual student achievement growth in math and reading.

The study analyzed data on a large sample of students in grades 1 through 12 who were attending charter schools and traditional public schools in 16 states.

The study authors matched charter school students to similar students based on grade level, baseline test scores, subsidized lunch status, special education status, and demographic characteristics. The authors were able to match 84 percent of charter school students.

The authors examined changes in standardized reading and math test scores from one school year to the next. They estimated effects by comparing the test score changes of charter school students to those of matched students attending traditional public schools.

---

WWC Rating

The research described in this report is consistent with WWC evidence standards with reservations

Strengths: Matched charter school students to similar students in traditional public schools using demographic and academic characteristics.

Cautions: Although the study matched charter school students to traditional public school students based on demographic characteristics and test scores, it is possible that there were other differences between the two groups that were not accounted for in the analysis, and these differences could have influenced achievement growth.

What did the study authors report?

The study found that charter school students’ reading and math test score growth was slightly lower than the test score growth of similar students attending traditional public schools. These differences were small, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 49th percentile in math and less than that in reading. The study also found substantial variability in charter school performance; students in nearly one-fifth of the charter schools had higher test scores than students in traditional schools in the same education market while students in nearly one-third of the charter schools had lower test scores than students in traditional schools in the same education market.

The WWC has reservations about these results because charter students may have been different from traditional public school students in ways not controlled for in the analysis.

¹Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (June 2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Author.

WWC quick reviews are based on the evidence published in the report cited and rely on effect sizes and significance levels as reported by study authors. WWC does not confirm study authors’ findings or contact authors for additional information about the study. The WWC rating refers only to the results summarized above and not necessarily to all results presented in the study.

It's just too bad that Duncan's paid dissemblers and liars did not include this little section from the Executive Summary of the CREDO study:

Despite promising results in a number of states and within certain subgroups, the overall findings of this report indicate a disturbing — and far‐reaching — subset of poorly performing charter schools. If the charter school movement is to flourish, or indeed to deliver on promises made by proponents, a deliberate and sustained effort to increase the proportion of high quality schools is essential. The replication of successful school models is one important element of this effort. On the other side of the equation, however, authorizers must be willing and able to fulfill their end of the original charter school bargain: accountability in exchange for flexibility. When schools consistently fail, they should be closed.

Though simple in formulation, this task has proven to be extremely difficult in practice. Simply put, neither market mechanisms nor regulatory oversight been a sufficient force to deal with underperforming schools. At present there appears to be an authorizing crisis in the charter school sector. For a number of reasons — many of them understandable — authorizers find it difficult to close poorly performing schools. Despite low test scores, failing charter schools often have powerful and persuasive supporters in their communities who feel strongly that shutting down this school does not serve the best interests of currently enrolled students. Evidence of financial insolvency or corrupt governance structure, less easy to dispute or defend, is much more likely to lead to school closures than poor academic performance. And yet, as this report demonstrates, the apparent reluctance of authorizers to close underperforming charters ultimately reflects poorly on charter schools as a whole. More importantly, it hurts students (pp. 7-8).

After Years of "Innovation," NJ Charters Perform No Better Than Poorest Public Schools

Below is part of an analysis done by Rutgers associate professor, Dr. Bruce Baker, for the Education Law Center in Newark, NJ. When looking at New Jersey test scores or graduation rates, New Jersey charter schools do much worse on average than most New Jersey public schools and no better than the poor public schools that corporate reformers demonize for their low test scores. Will a newspaper report these findings? Maybe the Asbury Park Press? Don't hold your breath.

NJ CHARTERS: WORTHY OF THE HYPE?

By: Dr. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University

New Jersey is caught up in the latest school reform du jour – charter schools. Touted by US Education Secretary Arne Duncan, Commissioner Lucille Davy is pushing a proposal to "fast track" approval of new charter schools to compete for federal "Race to the Top" grants and to comply with proposed rules for improving the state’s lowest performing schools.

Charter fever is now so strong in some circles it is taken for granted that charters significantly "outperform" traditional public schools and, therefore, should be embraced as the answer to, and replacement for, so-called "failing" public schools.

Before heading-off on yet another school reform quest, what does the evidence show about NJ charter school performance? Charters were first authorized in 1995, and we now have 76 approved charters serving students from 46 districts, with many for 5 years or more.

First, an important reminder: the Legislature, in the charter enabling law, made clear that charter schools "have the potential to improve pupil learning" by promoting "comprehensive educational reform," providing a "variety of educational approaches," and "encouraging innovate learning methods." Are NJ’s charters improving student performance? Do the results point to innovation? I take a brief look here at the first of these issues – performance on state assessments.

Secretary Duncan and others, including Bob Bowdon in his anti-traditional-public school movie "The Cartel", point to one or two successful charter schools, like Newark’s North Star Academy and Princeton Charter School, to make the case for charter expansion.

But my analysis of the data paint a different story: some charters do well, but overall, charters are ranked among the lowest statewide, performing far below successful, suburban and middle class public schools, and at levels comparable to schools in poor districts. In other words, there is little difference between the overall performance of charters, which primarily serve students in poorer urban districts, and the traditional public schools in those districts, especially if State education officials allow chronically low achieving charters to remain in business.

I’ll start with the 2008 State assessment results. I begin with the "averages" by grade level and by district factor group, or DFG. DFG are State classifications of school districts based on community wealth, with "A" and "B" the poorest districts and "I" and "J" districts the most affluent. The chart below shows the % of students who scored proficient or advanced on all of the 2008 State assessments by DFG:

This data is striking: charter schools, most of which serve relatively poor student populations, perform across grade levels on par with schools in the poorest districts -- DFG A and B – especially at both the beginning and end grades. Moreover, charter performance is no different for students scoring advanced and higher: