PPI | Briefing | August 1, 1999 Charter Schools Policy Success Story Begins to Emerge By Bryan Hassel In 1990, the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) published Ted Kolderie's Beyond Choice to New Public Schools: Withdrawing the Exclusive Franchise in Public Education, a blueprint for what we now call "charter schools."1 Kolderie mapped out a new approach to education reform in which state policymakers would invite groups of citizens to start new public schools, give those schools freedom from onerous laws and regulations, require them to attract families to survive, and hold them strictly accountable for results. In addition to serving their own students, these charter schools would spur a competitive response from traditional school districts, improving education for all students. In the intervening years, charter school laws have swept the nation, and charter schools are now operating in over half the states. Political leaders from both parties-- including President Clinton and U.S. Secretary of Education Richard Riley-- have backed the concept enthusiastically. What results have these ten years produced? Are charter schools living up to the bold vision articulated by Kolderie? This brief assesses what we know about charter school programs today. It summarizes key research on charter schools, explores the benchmarks of success we ought to be charting, and looks at how well individual schools and the charter strategy are living up to these benchmarks. What the Research Says Research on charter school programs has proliferated nearly as quickly as charter schools themselves. In addition to a wide-ranging national study sponsored by the Department of Education, numerous independent analyses have been conducted, including evaluations of state and district programs and examinations of central charter school issues, like accountability and the impact of charter schools on school districts. Though there is still a great deal to learn, findings have come to the fore in six key areas: Rapid growth. Charter school programs have become the norm rather than the exception, with laws on the books in 36 states and the District of Columbia. In April 1999, 1,205 charter schools were operating in 27 states, educating more than 300,000 students.2 Charter schools are operating in urban and rural districts, are serving a variety of student populations, and are often quite different from one another and existing district schools.3 Wide variation in laws. Though most states now have something called a "charter school law," these laws are as different as night and day. Some come very close to the ideal Kolderie set forth in his 1990 PPI monograph; others represent little change from the status quo. For example, 15 of the first 35 charter laws allow local school boards to veto applications. Fifteen make charter schools part of their local school districts, denying them legal independence. Only 17 of the laws permit full per-pupil operating funding to follow the child from a district to a charter school; fewer than five allow capital funding to follow the child. And many laws restrict the number of charter schools that can open, the types of people and organizations that can propose charter schools, or both.4 Diverse appeal. Contrary to fears, charter schools are not serving an exclusively elite or white student population. Some 52 percent of charter school students in 1997-98 were white, compared to 56 percent in all public schools in their states. These comparisons vary, however, from school to school, with many schools serving relatively high percentages of students of color. About 37 percent of charter students were eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch, versus 38 percent of all public school students. Though many charter schools exist to serve students with disabilities, the overall percentage of exceptional children in charter schools was somewhat below that of all public schools (8 percent vs. 11 percent).5 Start-up challenges. Most charter schools are smaller than regular public schools, and some seven in ten started from scratch. Many studies have documented the daunting start-up challenges faced by these fledgling schools, including: inadequate facilities, inadequate per-pupil funding, inadequate planning time, local or state political opposition, difficulty establishing the administrative systems required by left- over public school laws that apply to charter schools, and turnover and turmoil among boards and staffs.6 Charter schools have responded to these challenges with creativity and resolve, but the obstacles to starting a charter school remain daunting. Emergent impacts. Though the impact of charter schools will be years in the making, experience to date allows some conclusions about how charter schools are working. Information has begun to emerge about three topics: 1. Parent satisfaction. Parent surveys have found high levels of support among charter school parents. In one national survey, for example, 65 percent of parents rated their children's charter schools better than their former public schools; less than 6 percent rated them worse.7 Fully seven in ten charter schools report a waiting list.8 2. Innovative approaches. Charter schools are pioneering unique approaches to educating students and managing schools. One of the most striking differences between charter schools and conventional public schools is their size: the typical charter school in 1997-98 enrolled 132 students, compared to 486 in a typical public school.9 3. Academic achievement. Data on student achievement in charter schools is still limited, and well-structured comparisons with district schools are rare. Though state evaluations of charter schools are beginning to include achievement data and the national study will as well, most information has been anecdotal, describing particular schools' achievements. Some of this information is previewed below.10 4. Impact on school districts and their responses. The most comprehensive study on this question found that while many districts have not felt a large impact from charter schools or responded to their presence with new educational initiatives, a large minority (one-quarter) have "responded energetically to the advent of charters and significantly altered their educational programs."11 Accountability a work-in-progress. In theory, when charter schools fail to attract students, to meet their academic goals, or to live up to the terms of their charter, they can be shut down. How well is charter school accountability functioning in practice? At one level, accountability systems appear to be working. The Center for Education Reform reports that charter-granting agencies have revoked or refused to renew 27 charters for reasons including inadequate educational programs, mismanagement, inadequate enrollment, and facility problems.12 The willingness of authorizers to shut down schools indicates that charter schools' autonomy has been coupled with substantial scrutiny. According to one national study of charter school accountability, charter schools are also quite accountable to families, their "customers," who have proven willing to withdraw students when dissatisfied.13 Critics and supporters of charter schools alike, however, have also suggested that charter school accountability systems need to be strengthened, particularly with regard to accountability for academic results. 14 Though some charter-granting agencies have developed exemplary systems, charter schools in other places are operating without a clear understanding of the goals they will have to achieve in order to gain renewal. Benchmarks of Success As more information about charter schools flows in, how will policymakers know whether charter school policies are working? As Ted Kolderie and others have suggested, the question has two dimensions. First, are individual charter schools working as schools? Second, is the charter school strategy working as an instrument of education reform?15 The table below sets out benchmarks for assessing charter school policies on both dimensions. The left-hand column lists five types of benchmarks that are important. What contributions are charter schools making to student learning? Are families and students satisfied customers? Are charter schools viable as organizations? Are charter schools truly public schools? And finally, are charter schools having a positive impact on the educational system? The first four of these categories imply benchmarks at the level of both individual schools and the charter strategy as a whole-- examples of these benchmarks are listed in the next two columns. The fifth area--impact on the broader system--only implies benchmarks for the charter strategy; we do not expect any particular charter school to have an identifiable impact on other public schools. Benchmarks of Success Benchmark Individual Schools The Charter Strategy Student Learning -Demonstrate progress toward goals -Overall progress toward goals is sufficient Customer Satisfaction -Attract sufficient enrollment -Overall demand for charter schools is high Organizational Viability -Create viable systems of management and governance -Schools receive fair share of resources -Schools face minimal regulatory burdens -Support systems exist for schools Public-ness -Are truly open to all students -Comply with applicable laws and regulations -Diverse mix of students attend charter schools -Clear accountability systems exist for charter schools Impact on Educational System (not applicable) -Significant number of schools form -Schools have a substantial impact on districts -Public school sector responds with improved educational/governance systems Individual Schools Meeting the Benchmarks Many charter schools are meeting the benchmarks set forth in the table. The schools described briefly below have all attracted large numbers of interested families, established workable management and governance arrangements, and lived up to their obligations under the law. The information below, drawn directly from two recent studies of exemplary charter schools, focuses on two of the most important benchmarks: the learning their students have achieved and their openness to a diverse mix of students.16 Bowling Green Elementary School (Sacramento, CA). As a district public school, Bowling Green ranked third from the bottom among schools in Sacramento. Since converting to charter status in 1993, the school has risen to the top half of the district's elementary schools on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. Gains on local tests have outpaced all other schools in the district. More than eight in ten students are children of color, and four in ten are limited in their English proficiency. City Academy (St. Paul, MN). Targeting high school dropouts, City Academy was the nation's first charter school. In its first three years, 90 percent of its graduates qualified for postsecondary education, and all of the school's 1995 graduates were accepted into college. During 1996-97, students on average made at least three years academic gain in reading and math. City on a Hill Charter School (Boston, MA). When the school opened, less than four in ten of its students could do math on grade level; after one year almost six in ten could. Over half were more than two years behind grade level in reading; a year later, less than four in ten trailed the norm by that much. Over 70 percent of this school's high school students are children of color, and nearly half are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. Pueblo School for the Arts and Sciences (Pueblo, CO). PSAS's high school students participate in the ACT Portfolio program, in which their work is rated by national scorers. More than nine in ten students with two years of data have made "highly significant improvement" in science; nearly six in ten have made "highly significant" or "significant improvement" in language arts. Half of PSAS's K-12 students are children of color, and nearly as many are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch. SABIS International Charter School (Springfield, MA). One of the lowest performing public schools in Springfield, six in ten of this school's students scored below level when the school converted to charter status. During the 1996-97 school year, students averaged a gain of 1.64 years on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, and six in ten students were above grade level. Six in ten students are children of color, and more than half are eligible for free and reduced-price lunch. Vaughn Next Century Learning Center (Los Angeles, CA). Serving a population in which more than nine in ten students are Hispanic and most are limited in their English proficiency, Vaughn increased its language arts scores from the 9th to the 39th percentile and its math scores from the 14th to the 57th percentile in its first two years of operation. The number of students proficient enough to receive instruction in English tripled over five years. In 1997, the U.S. Department of Education named the school one of the 34 Blue Ribbon Schools nationwide. Wesley Elementary Charter School (Houston, TX). Nearly all of Wesley's students are children of color, and more than 80 percent qualify for a free lunch. In 1998, more than 90 percent of the school's students passed state tests in reading, writing, and math. Is the Charter Strategy Working? The benchmarks for the charter strategy fall into three categories. First, on a few benchmarks, the charter strategy is clearly a success. Demand for charter schools is high, evidenced by their proliferation across the country, families' willingness to enroll some 300,000 children, and waiting lists at seven in ten charter schools. Though diversity varies from school to school, charter schools are attracting a diverse mix of students. There is no evidence that charter schools are serving a disproportionate share of white or upper-income students. And support systems are beginning to emerge for charter schools, ranging from nonprofit "charter school resource centers" and associations to for-profit service- providers. Second, on several benchmarks, action is needed by state and federal policymakers to fulfill the full promise of charter schools. In particular: Charter school finance policies in many states do not provide charter schools with a full share of school resources, particularly with regard to capital funds. Charter schools often receive no funding for lease or mortgage costs--they are forced to dig into classroom dollars to make these payments. And state laws often make it difficult for charter schools to tap tax-exempt debt markets. Many regulatory systems, in both state and federal domains, are ill- suited to autonomous public schools. Charter schools, most with enrollments below 200, are often unable to fulfill economic reporting and procedural requirements that were designed with large multi-school districts in mind. States too often re-impose constraints on charter schools. A bill under consideration in California that would subject charter schools to local collective bargaining agreements is a recent high-profile example, but many other restrictions are already on the books. Accountability systems need to be clarified in most charter states. What goals must charter schools achieve in order to obtain renewal? How will progress be measured? What steps will be taken when performance lags? A set of national standards and benchmarks in reading and math would make it easier for charter-granting agencies to design these systems while leaving schools wide flexibility to pursue innovative approaches across the curriculum. Many state charter laws make it so difficult to start a charter school (through caps on numbers or veto power granted to local boards) that it is difficult to envision charter schools having the hoped-for impact in those states. Finally, on two of the most critical benchmarks--overall progress toward goals for student learning and positive system responses--we continue to await evidence. It is important to realize at this early stage that the evidence that does come in on these points will be mixed. As the examples above indicate, some charter schools will do quite well relative to comparable schools and their own goals; but others will not. Some districts will respond with constructive improvement; others will not. Policymakers will need to strive to make sense of a complicated picture, sorting through individual anecdotes to arrive at broad policy judgments. Neither the extraordinary success of a small number of celebrated schools nor the spectacular failure of a small number of vilified schools should color this judgment too much. Instead, policymakers should keep the focus on the bigger picture--whether the charter school strategy is working as a means to improve education. Endnotes 1. Ted Kolderie, Beyond Choice to New Public Schools: Withdrawing the Exclusive Franchise in Public Education (Wasington, DC: Progressive Policy Instititute, 1990). 2. Center for Education Reform, "Charter School Highlights and Statistics," updated April 1999. Web: http://edreform.com/pubs/chglance.htm. 3. RPP International, A National Study of Charter Schools: Second Year Report (Washington: US Department of Education, 1998), Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter98; Gregg Vanourek, Bruno V. Manno, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Louann A. Bierlein, "The Educational Impact of Charter Schools," Part IV of Charter Schools in Action: Final Report (Washington: Hudson Institute, 1997), Web: http://www.edexcellence.net/chart/charttoc.htm; Bruno V. Manno, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Gregg Vanourek, and Louann A. Bierlein, "How Charter Schools Are Different: Lessons and Implications," Part VI of Charter Schools in Action: Final Report. 4. Bryan C. Hassel, The Charter School Challenge: Avoiding the Pitfalls, Fulfilling the Promise (Washington: Brookings, forthcoming in 1999), Chapter 7. 5. RPP International, The State of Charter Schools: Third YearReport, pp. 30-37, Web: http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter3rdyear. Overall public school data from the 1996-97 school year. 6. For example, see Chester E. Finn, Jr., Bruno V. Manno, Louann A. Bierlein, and Gregg Vanourek, "The Birth-Pains and Life-Cycles of Charter Schools," Part II of Charter Schools in Action: Final Report; RPP International, A National Study of Charter Schools; RPP International, The State of Charter Schools; Charter Friends National Network, Paying for the Charter Schoolhouse: Policy Strategies for Charter School Facility Financing (St. Paul, MN: The Network, 1999), Web: http://www.charterfriends.org/facilities.html; Seymour B. Sarason, Charter Schools: Another Flawed Educational Reform? (New York: Teachers College Press, 1998). 7. Gregg Vanourek, Bruno V. Manno, Chester E. Finn, Jr., and Louann A. Bierlein, "Charter Schools as Seen by Students, Teachers, and Parents," in Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel, eds., Learning from School Choice (Washington: Brookings, 1998). 8. RPP International, The State of Charter Schools, p. 1. 9. RPP International, The State of Charter Schools, pp. 20-21. 10. For example, Stella Cheung, Mary Ellen S. Murphy, and Joe Nathan, Making a Difference? Charter Schools, Evaluation and Student Performance (Minneapolis, MN: Center for School Change, 1998); Paula Morgado and David May, "Achievement," Part I of Charter Schools: A Progress Report (Washington: Center for Education Reform, 1999), Web: http://edreform.com/pubs/chachiev.htm. 11. Eric Rofes, How Are School Districts Responding to Charter Laws and Charter Schools? A Study of Eight States and the District of Columbia (Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education, 1998), pp. 11-12. See also Robert Maranto, Scott Milliman, Frederick Hess, and April Gresham. "Arizona Charter Schools and District Schools," in Maranto, Milliman, Hess and Gresham, eds. The Frontiers of Public Education: Lessons From Arizona Charter Schools (Boulder, CO: Westview, forthcoming in 1999). 12. David DeSchryver, "The Closures," Part II of Charter Schools: A Progress Report, Web: http://edreform.com/pubs/CharterClosures99.htm. 13. Paul T. Hill, Lawrence C. Pierce, and Robin Lake, "How Are Public Charter Schools Held Accountable?" Working Paper, University of Washington, 1998. 14. Amy Stuart Wells and colleagues, Beyond the Rhetoric of Charter School Reform: A Study of Ten California School Districts (Los Angeles: UCLA Charter School Study, 1998), pp. 19-24, Web: http://www.gseis.ucla.edu/docs/charter.pdf; Bruno V. Manno, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Louann A. Bierlein, and Gregg Vanourek, "Charter School Accountability: Problems and Prospects," Part IV of Charter Schools in Action. 15. Ted Kolderie, "What Does It Mean to Ask, 'Is "Charter Schools" Working?'" Working paper, Charter Friends National Network, 1998. Web: http://www.charterfriends.org/working.html. 16. Cheung, Murphy, and Nathan, Making a Difference?, pp. 15-19; Morgado and May, "Achievement." Bryan C. Hassel is director of Public Impact, an education and policy consulting firm based in Charlotte, NC. He is co-editor (with Paul E. Peterson) of Learning from School Choice (Brookings, 1998) and author of The Charter School Challenge: Avoiding the Pitfalls, Fulfilling the Promise (Brookings, 1999).