American charter schools were first established in 1991. Over the last 26 years, these independently-run, publicly funded schools have received mixed reviews in terms of their effectiveness. This skepticism comes from both the public and from private organizations. The topics of much of this scrutiny revolves around efficacy, minority representation, and accountability. There have been a number of research studies that can be examined in order to draw conclusions regarding charter school efficacy.
In regards to minority representation, the NAACP has recently spoke out against charter schools. They are calling for a moratorium on charter schools for reasons including: limited standards of accountability, expulsion of students that public schools are obligated to educate, taking away funds from public schools, and segregation of heterogeneous students. One of the organization’s members, Julian Vasquez Heilig, stated in an interview that charters are “separate and unequal,” (Richardson, 2017). However, there have been some conflicting findings regarding racial minorities in charter schools. In Texas, it was found that “minority and at-risk students have a greater graduation rates in charter schools compared to traditional public schools,” (Barden & Lassmann, 2011). There are also charter schools that specialize in cultural reattachment theory, re-introducing African culture to students of African descent, but even though these schools are educating their students on a cultural level, their students generally do not show proficiency on standardized tests (Teasley et al, 2016).
Not only do charter schools face criticism for racial inequality, but also inequality of people with disabilities. Charter schools are not bound to the same educational laws surrounding disabilities that public schools are. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not apply fully to charter schools, so charter schools do not have to provide individual programming to students with disabilities in the same way that public schools are required to. Charter schools claim success due to their accountability for quality education, however, there is minimal documentation or evidence supporting programming for students with disabilities at charter schools (Ahearn, 2001).
The state of Michigan was the first to have an entire district adopt a charter school system. They did this because of the increasing cost of providing education, but it was eventually found that this entire district was not providing adequate Free Appropriate Public Education to its students with disabilities (Diaz, 2015). Many argue that this is unacceptable because charter schools are publicly funded. Those who make this argument believe that if a school receives public funding, that school should be obligated to the same regulations that public schools are.
When we look at charter schools as a whole compared to public schools as a whole, their performance is difficult to compare. In a study performed in Ohio (Palardy et al, 2012), public and charter schools were compared based on their technical efficiency. The measures of the study included “expenditure, performance, student attributes, and school attributes,” (p. 282). This study found that increased expenditures per pupil do not necessarily lead to increased academic performance. It also found that charter schools generally started at a lower performance level than public schools. Nonetheless, the results suggest that charter schools show improvement in performance more quickly than public schools. This study in particular exists as evidence that charter schools are more efficient than public schools. A contrary notion was highlighted in the documentary Waiting for Superman. It was stated in the film that one out of five charter schools are producing results, however, specific measures for “results” were not clearly defined (Guggenheim, 2010). In another conflicting article by Bruce Fuller (2015) a research study is cited suggesting that “charter students in a third of the cities featured in the study did worse than their regular-school peers in reading and math,” though Fuller does state himself that these specific research methods have been widely disputed.
It is difficult to draw a conclusion simply based on the research regarding charter school effectiveness versus public school effectiveness. Each of these studies that have been performed have taken place in different school districts, and measure different dependent variables. The circumstances in each school district are going to have impact on whether charter schools would be more or less effective than the existing public schools. Generally, the effectiveness of a school will be dependent on available resources, appropriate expectations, quality of instruction, and level of school accountability. These factors can vary in both public schools and charter schools; the research shows that there are both successful and unsuccessful schools in either school system. This makes it impossible to say that one system is more effective than the other.
There are some qualities of charter schools that are depicted in the research which are disconcerting. The lack of representation of minority students (both in terms of race and disabilities) and lack of accountability for students with disabilities leave questions regarding whether or not charter schools are committing a form of student segregation. Finn et al (2016) outline suggested strategies for ensuring a more quality charter school system. They suggest implementing a “transparent and rigorous process,” when making charter renewal decisions, “a comprehensive application process…and a rigorous criteria,” and “ongoing oversight and evaluation,” that focuses on protecting student rights and ensuring school performance (p. 69). With the Michigan charter school system failing, another accountability method has also been suggested (Joy & Arellano, 2016). The method states that a performance-based charter accountability system must: require a rigorous application process for new schools, set rigorous standards, hold charter schools accountable for student performance outcomes, require full transparency, and provide special authority for “high-challenge jurisdictions,” (p. 28).
To reiterate, there is no existing evidence that charter schools are more or less effective than existing public schools. The success of each individual school is completely dependent on its specific circumstances and cannot be determined by whether it is in a charter or public school system. Yet, even though there is no evidence of charter schools being ineffective, there are still aspect of charters that could be improved to well-serve more diverse group of students. Some of the first steps that can be made to improve the present circumstances is to continue research on the subject, and also to hold charter schools to a higher standard of accountability than they currently are.
References
Ahearn, E. (2001). Public Charter Schools and Students with Disabilities. ERIC Digest.
Barden, K. J. K., & Lassmann, M. E. (2011). Charter Schools and Public Schools in Texas. Education. 136(3), 291-298.
Diaz, E. H. (2016). Is it Really a Choice? How Charter Schools Without Choice May Result in Students Without Free Appropriate Public Education. B.Y.U. Education & Law Journal.
Finn, C. E., Manno, B. V., & Wright, B. L. (2017). Improve governance for charters. Kappan, 98(6), 63-69.
Fuller, B., (2015). The Verdict On Charter Schools?. The Atlantic.
Guggenheim, D. (2011). Waiting for Superman. Hollywood, CA: Paramount Home Entertainment.
Joy, S., & Arellano, A. (2016). Accountability For All: 2016. The Education Trust-Midwest.
Palardy, J., Nesbit, T. M., & Adzima, K. A. (2012). Charter versus traditional public schools: a panel study of the technical efficiency in Ohio. Education Economics. 23(3), 278-295.
Richardson, J. (2017). Charter schools don’t serve black children well. Kappan, 98(5), 41-44.
Teasley, M., Crutchfield, J., Williams Jennings, S. A., Clayton, M. A., Okilwa, N. S. A. (2016). School Choice and Afrocentric Charter Schools: a Review and Critique of Evaluation Outcomes. Springer. 20, 99-119.
Karen About Kids 