Charter schools in the United States

History

20th century

The charter school idea in the United States had several originating sources. In 1971, UC Berkeley professors Stephen Sugarman and Jack Coons published "Family Choice in Education" which outlined the concept of a charter school model. This idea, called "Independent Public Schools" was expanded on in their 1978 volume, "Education by Choice". The term "charter schools" was defined In 1974 by University of Massachusetts Amherst professor Ray Budde.{{cite web |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230716075130/https://www.educationevolving.org/pdf/Ray-Budde-Origins-Of-Chartering.pdf |archive-date= Jul 16, 2023

As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was 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).

Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law in 1991. California was second, in 1992.

21st century

, 46 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws, according to the Center for Education Reform.

As of 2012, an authorizer other than a local school board has granted over 60 percent of charters across the country. Between 2009 and 2012, the percent of charter schools implementing performance-based compensation increased from 19 percent to 37 percent, while the proportion that is unionized decreased from 12 percent to 7 percent. The most popular educational focus is college preparation (30 percent), while 8 percent focus on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Another 16 percent emphasize Core Knowledge. Blended Learning (6 percent) and Virtual/Online learning (2 percent) are in use. When compared to traditional public schools, charters serve a more disadvantaged student population, including more low-income and minority students. Sixty-one percent of charter schools serve a student population where over 60 percent qualify for the federal Free or Reduced Lunch Program. Charter schools receive an average 36 percent less revenue per student than traditional public schools, and receive no facilities funds. The number of charters providing a longer school day grew from 23 percent in 2009 to 48 percent in 2012.

In June 2023, Oklahoma approved the first ever Religious Charter school in the United States. In April 2024, the Oklahoma Supreme Court took up the case to explore the constitutionality of such a school.

General structure and characteristics

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.

Operational autonomy

Often, charters create unique school cultures to tailor to students, particularly minority students in urban school districts, whose school performance is affected by social phenomena including stereotype threat, acting white, non-dominant cultural capital,{{cite journal | author-link = Elijah Anderson (sociologist) |access-date = April 28, 2010 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121004094928/http://www.educationsector.org/usr_doc/WaitingToBeWonOver.pdf |archive-date = October 4, 2012 |url-status = usurped

Accountability for student achievement

Charter schools are accountable for student achievement to their sponsor—a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity—for producing positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. While this accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, evidence gathered by the United States Department of Education suggests that charter schools may not, in practice, be held to higher standards of accountability than traditional public schools. Typically, these schools are allowed to remain open, perhaps with new leadership or restructuring, or perhaps with no change at all. Charter school proponents assert that charter schools are not given the opportunities to restructure often and are simply closed down when students perform poorly on these assessments. , 12.5% of the over 5000 charter schools founded in the United States had closed for reasons including academic, financial, and managerial problems, and occasionally consolidation or district interference. A 2013 Study by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University institute linked overall improvement of the charter school sector to charter school closures, suggesting that charter schools as a whole are not getting better, but the closure of bad schools is improving the system as a whole.

Many charter schools are created with the original intent of providing a unique and innovative educational experience to its students. However, charter schools are still held accountable for test scores, state mandates, and other traditional requirements that often have the effect of turning the charter school into a similar model and design as the public schools.{{cite journal

Although the U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the National Education Association (NEA), their study points out the limitations of such studies and the inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that "study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools."{{cite web | access-date=July 27, 2009

Chartering authorities

Chartering authorizers, entities that may legally issue charters, differ from state to state, as do the bodies that are legally entitled to apply for and operate under such charters. In some states, like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Maryland, only the local school district may issue charters. Some school districts may authorize charter schools as part of a larger program for systemic improvement, such as the Portfolio strategy. States including Arizona and the District of Columbia have created independent charter-authorizing bodies to which applicants may apply for a charter. The laws that permit the most charter development, as seen in Minnesota and Michigan, allow for a combination of such authorizers. As of 2012, 39% of charters were authorized by local districts, 28% by state boards of education, 12% by state commissions, with the remainder by universities, cities and others.

Caps

Andrew Rotherham, co-founder of Education Sector and opponent of charter school caps, wrote in 2007, "One might be willing to accept this pent-up demand if charter school caps, or the debate over them, were addressing the greater concern of charter school quality. But this is not the case. Statutory caps as they exist now are too blunt a policy instrument to sufficiently address quality. They fail to differentiate between good schools and lousy schools and between successful charter school authorizers and those with a poor track record of running charter schools. And, all the while, they limit public schooling options and choices for parents."

Demographics

The U.S. Department of Education's 1997 First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters, was based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states. The report found charters tended to be small (fewer than 200 students) and represented primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to charter status. Charter schools often tended to exist in urban locations, rather than rural. This study also found enormous variation among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially diverse, and to enroll slightly fewer students with special needs or limited English proficiency than the average schools in their state.{{cite web | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070515054429/http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=ED409620 | archive-date=May 15, 2007

Funding

Charter school funding is dictated by each state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. Charters on average receive less money per-pupil than the corresponding public schools in their areas, though the average figure is controversial because some charter schools do not enroll a proportionate number of students that require special education or student support services. Additionally, some charters are not required to provide transportation and nutrition services.{{cite web The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502–511 authorizes funding grants for charter schools.

In August 2005, the Thomas B. Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group, published a national report of charter school finance. It found that across 16 states and the District of Columbia—which collectively enrolled 84 percent of that year's one million charter school students—charter schools receive about 22 percent less public funding per-pupil than the district schools that surround them, a difference of about $1,800. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts that the funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student, and that in cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The funding gap was largest in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin and Missouri. The report suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is charter schools' lack of access to local and capital funding.

A 2010 study by the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter advocacy group, found that charters received 64 percent of their district counterparts, averaging $7,131 per pupil compared to the average per pupil expenditure of $11,184 in the traditional public schools in 2009/10 compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools. Charters raise an average of some $500 per student in additional revenue from donors.

However, funding differences across districts remain considerable in most states that use local property taxes for revenue. Charters that are funded based on a statewide average may have an advantage if they are located in a low-income district, or be at a disadvantage if located in a high-income district.{{cite journal | doi-access=free

Spending

The overwhelming majority of charter schools advertise to attract students unlike traditional schools, where generally, students go to the school closest to their homes. In Utah, some of the schools which spent the most on advertising performed poorly on academic standards. For example, Mountain Heights Academy, which spent $819,000 on marketing from 2015 to 2019, received an "F" from the state in 2016.

In Pennsylvania, 12 of its 14 cyber charter schools spent more than $21 million in taxpayer dollars on advertising over three years.

Virtual charter schools

In November 2015, the first major study into online charter schools in the United States, the National Study of Online Charter Schools, was published. It found "significantly weaker academic performance" in mathematics and reading in such schools when they were compared to conventional ones. The study was the result of research carried out in 17 US states which had online charter schools, and was conducted by researchers from the University of Washington, Stanford University and Mathematica Policy Research. It concluded that keeping online pupils focused on their work was the biggest problem faced by online charter schools, and that in mathematics the difference in attainment between online pupils and their conventionally educated peers equated to the cyber pupils missing a whole academic year in school.

State-specific structure and regulations

]]

State laws follow varied sets of key organizing principles based on the Citizens League's recommendations for Minnesota,{{cite web | access-date=January 21, 2008 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110612081209/http://www.citizensleague.org/publications/reports/424.Report.Chartered%20Schools%20Choices%20for%20Education%20Quality%20for%20All%20Students.PDF | archive-date=June 12, 2011 | url-status=dead

Center for Education Reform ranking

The Center for Education Reform, an organization that advocates in favor of charter schools, has characterized laws as either "strong" or "weak." "Strong-law" states mandate considerable autonomy from local labor-management agreements and bureaucracy, allow a significant number of charter schools to be authorized by multiple charter-granting agencies, and allocate a level of funding consistent with the statewide per pupil average. According to the Center for Education Reform, as of 2022, Arizona and Florida get an "A" grade from a pro-charter school perspective for their laws governing charter schools, while the District of Columbia, Michigan, Indiana, Colorado, Minnesota, Texas and Utah received a "B" rating. This same pro-charter score card ranked Alaska, Virginia, Kansas, and Iowa in last place.

National evaluations

Multiple researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who attend charter schools. In general, urban charter schools may appear to be a good alternative to traditional urban schools for urban minority students in poor neighborhoods, if one looks strictly at test scores, but students in suburban charter schools do no better than those in traditional suburban schools serving a mostly middle-class white population.

United States Department of Education study

In its "Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report" released in 2003, the U.S. Department of Education found that, in the five case study states, charter schools were out-performed by traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards, but noted: "It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor."

American Federation of Teachers study

A 2004 report by the American Federation of Teachers, a teachers' union, stated that students attending charter schools tied to school boards do not fare any better or worse statistically in reading and math scores than students attending public schools.{{cite report | access-date=January 21, 2008 | author-link=Caroline Hoxby | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070616174509/http://post.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/hoxby/papers/hoxbycharter_dec.pdf | archive-date=June 16, 2007 | access-date=January 21, 2008

National Bureau of Economic Research study

In 2004, the National Bureau of Economic Research found data that suggested charter schools increased competition in a given jurisdiction, thus improving the quality of traditional public schools (noncharters) in the area. Using end-of-year test scores for grades three through eight from North Carolina's state testing program, researchers found that charter school competition raised the composite test scores in district schools, even though the students leaving district schools for the charters tended to have above average test scores. The introduction of charter schools in the state caused an approximate one percent increase in the score, which constitutes about one quarter of the average yearly growth. The gain was roughly two to five times greater than the gain from decreasing the student-faculty ratio by 1. This research could partially explain how other studies have found a small significant difference in comparing educational outcomes between charter and traditional public schools. It may be that in some cases, charter schools actually improve other public schools by raising educational standards in the area.{{cite journal | doi-access=free

Caroline Hoxby studies

A 2000 paper by Caroline Hoxby found that certain charter school students did better than public school students, although this advantage was found only "among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent with at least a high school diploma".{{cite journal | author-link=Caroline Hoxby

Hoxby released a follow-up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, assistant professor of economics and finance at the Columbia Graduate School of Business, claiming to have again found that charter school students did better than public school students. This second study compared charter school students "to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition." It reported that the students in charter schools performed better in both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared.

The paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant professor Jesse Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby's methodology in this study has also been criticized by Lawrence Mishel, who argued that Hoxby's "assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the students. That's like knowing the poverty rate but not the average income of a community—useful but incomplete." How representative the study is has also been criticized, as the study is only of students in Chicago.

Learning gains studies

A common approach in education evaluation research is to compare the learning gains of individual students in charter schools to their gains when they were in traditional public schools. Thus, in effect, each student acts as his/her own control to assess the impact of charter schools. A few selected examples of this work find that charter schools on average outperform the traditional public schools that supplied students, at least after the charter school had been in operation for a few years. A possible limitation of this type of study is that it does not automatically distinguish between possible benefits of how the school operates (e.g. school structure) and possible peer effects, that is, effects of students on each other.{{cite journal | author-link1=Eric Hanushek

Meta-analyses

A report by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, released in July 2005 and updated in October 2006,{{cite web | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080227174248/http://www.publiccharters.org/files/1554_file_CS_Achievement_Studies_Oct06_Update_1_.doc | archive-date=February 27, 2008 | access-date=January 3, 2008

A 2006 synthesis of findings conducted by Vanderbilt University indicates that solid conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing studies, due to their methodological shortcomings and conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.{{cite web | access-date=January 3, 2008

National Center for Education Statistics study

A study released on August 22, 2006, by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.{{cite report | access-date=January 21, 2008 | author-link=National Center for Education Statistics

Center for Research on Education Outcomes

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) completed two national reports for 2009 and 2013. The reports were the first detailed national assessments of charter schools. The reports analyzed the impact of charter schools in 26 states and found a steady improvement in charter school quality since 2009.

The authors stated, "On average, students attending charter schools have eight additional days of learning in reading and the same days of learning in math per year compared to their peers in traditional public schools." Charter schools also have varying impacts on different demographic groups. Black students in charters get an extra seven days of learning in reading. For low-income charter school students the advantage is 14 days of extra learning in reading and 22 days in math. English Language Learner students in charter schools see a 43-day learning advantage over traditional public school students in reading and an extra 36 days advantage in math.

Charter schools showed a significantly greater variation in quality between states and within states. For example, Arizona charter school students had a 29-day disadvantage in math compared to public school students but charter school students in D.C. had a 105-day advantage over their peers in public schools. While the obvious solution to the widely varying quality of charter schools would be to close those that perform below the level of public schools, this is hard to accomplish in practice as even a poor school has its supporters.

Criticism and debate

Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby criticized the CREDO study, resulting in a written debate with the authors. She originally argued the study "contains a serious statistical mistake that causes a negative bias in its estimate of how charter schools affect achievement," but after CREDO countered the remarks, saying Hoxby's "memo is riddled with serious errors" Hoxby revised her original criticism. The debate ended with a written "Finale" by CREDO that aimed to rebut both Hoxby's original and revised criticism.

In 2017, the National Education Policy Center also criticized the methods that CREDO used in its studies. They criticized the CREDO studies for "over-interpreting small effect sizes; failing to justify the statistical assumptions underlying the group comparisons made; not taking into account or acknowledging the large body of charter school research beyond CREDO's own work; ignoring the limitations inherent in the research approach they have taken, or at least failing to clearly communicate limitations to readers."

Local evaluations of charter schools

Boston, 2009

A study in the Boston Public Schools (BPS) District published in 2009{{cite web | access-date=April 27, 2010

The results using statistical controls to control for demographic and baseline state test scores found a positive effect among charter schools similar to a year spent in one of Boston's selective exam schools, with math scores, for instance, showing positive effects of 0.18 and 0.22 standard deviations for charter middle and high schools respectively compared to an effect of 0.20 and 0.16 standard deviations for exam schools. For pilot schools, the report found that in the middle school grades pilot school students modestly underperform relative to similar students attending traditional BPS schools (-0.05 standard deviations in ELA and -0.07 in math) while showing slightly positive results in the high school grades for pilot schools (0.15 standard deviations for writing and 0.06 for math).

The results using a sub-sample of schools with random lottery results found very large positive effects in both math and ELA scores for charter schools, including 0.16 and 0.19 standard deviations in middle and high school ELA scores respectively and 0.36 and 0.17 standard deviations in middle and high school math scores respectively. Boston's pilot schools, however, showed a concerning negative effect in middle school math and ELA and a slightly positive effect in high school.

Los Angeles, 2008–2012

CREDO evaluated the impact of charter schools in Los Angeles from 2008 to 2012. The study found that over 48% of Los Angeles charters outperform local public schools in reading and 44% percent of Los Angeles charters outperform local public schools in math. The study concludes they believe not every charter will outperform traditional public schools, but that conditions are well suited for growth.

An evaluation of Los Angeles charter schools from 2002 to 2008, contends that a rapidly diversifying group of schools in the period did not improve charter school student's performance relative to their public school peers.

New Orleans, 2010–2015

A 2010 case study by the Harvard Business School examined the charter school reform efforts in New Orleans.{{cite report

When evaluating New Orleans' schools against the 200-point index called the State Performance Index (SPI),19 of the 20 highest-performing non-selective schools were charter schools. Charter schools affiliated with charter management organizations such as KIPP tended to perform better than stand-alone schools. The overall percentage of schools performing below the failing mark of 60 fell from 64% in 2005 to 36% in 2009.

A 2015 study contends that although charter schools may seem to be improving the system overall, these metrics do not take into account race, as many of the underperforming charters primarily educate African-American students. It offers significant concern that current metrics for evaluation are ignoring significant portions of the population and that the media is not taking this into account when considering the impact of charter schools on New Orleans.

Massachusetts study, 2014

According to a 2014 study of charter schools in Massachusetts, charter schools performed better in both math and reading than their traditional public school counterparts

Texas study, 2020

According to a 2020 study of charter schools in Texas, charter schools had no impact on test scores and adversely affected early-life labor market outcomes.

Massachusetts and North Carolina, 2022

A 2022 study found that charter school openings in Massachusetts and North Carolinahad no impact on student achievement, but caused a reduction in public school enrollment, in particular white enrollment.

Epic Charter Schools, Oklahoma 2022

In 2022, the two co-founders of Epic Charter Schools were charged with felony racketeering and embezzlement.

Policy and practice

As more states start charter schools, there is increasing speculation about upcoming legislation. In an innovation-diffusion study surveying education policy experts in fifty states, Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari (1997) found that charter legislation is more likely to be considered in states with poor test scores, Republican legislative control, and proximity to other states with high quality charter schools. Legislative enthusiasm, gubernatorial support, interactions with national authorities, and use of permissive charter-law models increase the chances for adopting what they consider stronger laws. He feels union support and restrictive models lead to adoption of what he considers weaker laws. Other barriers to charter expansion include restrictions on the number of charter schools permissible in a state, lack of state and local funding for facilities and transportation, and a political and philanthropic focus on expanding charter schools in urban areas rather than in suburban or rural areas.

The threat of vouchers, wavering support for public education, and bipartisan support for charter schools has led some unions to start charter schools themselves. Several AFT chapters, such as those in Houston and Dallas, have themselves started charter schools. In New York City, the United Federation of Teachers operates a charter school serving grades 9–12 in Brooklyn, NY. The National Education Association has allocated $1.5 million to help members start charter schools. Proponents claim that charter schools offer teachers a measure of empowerment, employee ownership, and governance that might be enhanced by union assistance (Nathan). Former President George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind Act also promotes charter schools.

Over two dozen private management companies are attempting to increase their 10 percent share of a "more hospitable and entrepreneurial market" (Stecklow 1997). In the late 1990s Boston-based Advantage Schools Inc., a corporation specializing in for-profit schooling, contracted to run charter schools in New Jersey, Arizona, and North Carolina. In July 2001, Advantage Schools, Inc. was acquired by Mosaica Education. The Education Development Corporation was planning in the summer of 1997 to manage nine nonsectarian charter schools in Michigan, using cost-cutting measures employed in Christian schools.

Public opinion

Historically, Americans have been evenly split on the idea of charter schools, with a roughly even mix of support versus opposition between 2000 and 2005.{{cite web | access-date=January 28, 2011 | access-date=January 28, 2011

Charter schools provide an alternative for educators, families, and communities who are dissatisfied with educational quality and school district bureaucracies at noncharter schools. In early 2008, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a pro-charter organization, conducted two polls in primarily conservative states Idaho and Nevada where they asked parents about their preferences concerning education. In Idaho, only 12% of respondents said that their regular public school was their top choice for the children's school. Most preferred private schools over other options. In 2008, polls conducted in the conservative states Georgia and Wyoming found similar results.

The charter approach uses market principles from the private sector, including accountability and consumer choice, to offer new public sector options that remain nonsectarian and non-exclusive. Many people, such as former president Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and an alternative to vouchers. Others, such as former president George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush made charter schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these endorsements, a recent report by the AFT has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state administered standardized testing,{{cite report | access-date=January 21, 2008 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070928071618/http://www.ncsc.info/newsletter/August_September_2002/AFT_Response.htm | archive-date=September 28, 2007 | access-date=January 21, 2008 | url-access=registration

Both charter school proponents and critics admit that individual schools of public choice have the potential to develop into successful or unsuccessful models. In a May 2009 policy report issued by Education Sector, "Food for Thought: Building a High-Quality School Choice Market",{{cite report |access-date = July 27, 2009 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100210162730/http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=918071 |archive-date = February 10, 2010 |url-status = usurped

Parent considerations

The growth in the amount and popularity of charter schools has prompted more parents to consider sending their children to charter schools over public schools. According to Shannon Altenhofen, this changes the question from "'public versus charter school?' to 'which charter school?'".

Implications of school choice

The concept of school choice views parents as "consumers" with the responsibility of choosing the best possible school for their child. There "is little evidence that parents of different races and social classes value fundamentally different qualities in schools," but there is evidence that "socioeconomic status, social capital, and education level" can limit the parental choice of schools.

Most parents, regardless of class status, rely on their social network for choosing schools. Higher-income parents "have a greater array of social resources and connections to trust when choosing a school, and making the choice seem almost effortless." Upper-income parents might have more access to information which guides their choice of charter schools. One survey study of 553 upper-income mostly White parents in Colorado's charter schools noted the importance of social networking in their decision to choose charter schools. Of those surveyed "95% of parents reported that they relied on talks with other family members, friends, neighbors, coworkers, or parents." This study highlighted that upper-income white parents tend to rely greatly on the information given by those in their social networks, but the parents also did their research on "school quality, curriculum, instruction, and other factors to see whether the school is a good fit for their child.

Low income and minority parents, on the other hand, struggle "when it comes to the amount and type of information they can access." "The many challenges that low-income families face both shape and limit their views of the costs and benefits of various school choice options." A qualitative study conducted in New York City interviewed parents from two similar performing charter schools, one which was "racially and ethnically diverse" and another which was more "racially and ethnically homogeneous," to get an "insight" on parent rationale for choosing that particular charter school. Parents from the homogeneously, Black and Latino, low-income charter school tended to choose their charter school primarily as a desperate escape from the "negative experiences" they had faced at traditional public schools. Many of the parents in this charter school heard about the charter school by simply seeing it in their community or by hearing about it from people in their social network. So in this study, the parents used their social network but did not conduct extensive research so what they knew was more limited. Parents from the more economically and racially diverse school chose the charter school because of the school's unique qualities which they felt would benefit their child. Parents from this school also heard about it in their social networks, but that particular charter school did more outreach through advertisements. In the diverse charter school, White and Asian parents were more likely to transfer out if they were dissatisfied with the charter school as compared to the other ethnic groups.

Optimizing selection

One experimental research study asked 14,989 parents from Denver to rank their top schools; the researchers then focused on the top first school and surveyed the parents by asking them which "resource," out of all the provided resources, had aided them the most in their decision of ranking their first choice school. The researchers then analyzed the quality of the top school chosen based on the Denver Public Schools School Performance Framework (SPF) with the noted resource. Parents who chose higher-rated schools were more likely to have listed two particular sources of school information. One was the "school choice enrollment guide" and the other resource was "parent websites." The school choice enrollment guide provided parents with a list of "each school's SPF rating." These valuable resources were able to help low-income minority parents choose schools with higher ratings.

Debate over funding

Nearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet, a few charter schools also attract large amounts of interest and money from private sources such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation, the Broad Foundation, and the NewSchools Venture Fund. Private businesses and foundations, such as Ameritech and the Annenberg Fund, have provided financial support to some charters in assisting with start up costs for new schools.{{cite journal | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070611050417/http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=EJ525978 | archive-date=June 11, 2007 | access-date=January 21, 2008

Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. Charter schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than traditional public schools received until a new law was passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis.{{cite journal | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070610030107/http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=EJ525971 | archive-date=June 10, 2007 | access-date=January 21, 2008 | access-date=January 21, 2008

Although charter schools receive less public funding than traditional public schools, a portion of charter schools' operating costs can come from sources outside public funding (such as private funding in the form of donations). A study funded by the American Federation of Teachers found that in DC charter schools, private funding accounted for $780 per pupil on average and, combined with a higher level of public funding in some charters (mostly due to non-district funding), resulted in considerably higher funding when compared to comparable public schools.{{cite web | access-date=July 27, 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325031157/http://www.aft.org/topics/charters/downloads/DC.pdf | archive-date=March 25, 2009 | url-status=dead | access-date=June 20, 2010 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111103232320/http://cms.bsu.edu/Academics/CollegesandDepartments/Teachers/Schools/Charter/CharterFunding.aspx | archive-date=November 3, 2011 | url-status=dead

According to a recent study published in December 2011 by the Center for Education Reform, the national percentage of charter closures were as follows: 42% of charter schools close as a direct result of financial issues, whereas only 19% of charter schools closed due to academic problems.{{citation | access-date=August 22, 2014 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140910200307/http://charterschoolcapital.org/why-do-charter-schools-close/ | archive-date=September 10, 2014 | url-status=dead | access-date=August 22, 2014

Co-location

Co-location or collocation of charter schools in public noncharter school buildings has been practiced in both New York City and Chicago and is controversial. Since students planning to attend charter schools are generally students who would have attended noncharter schools, co-location permits reassigning seating for the same students from one kind of school to the other in the same building, so that, while space might have to be rebuilt, entire schools do not have to be built from the ground up. The cost savings let more charter schools open. Co-location also permits the two kinds of schools to be visible to each other, thereby promoting school reform, especially within families whose children attend both schools in the same building. It may also mean that a government administration responsible for overseeing noncharter public schools loses political turf as it gives up space to independently run charter schools.

Criticism

Difficulties with accountability

The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for greater accountability. They are meant to be held accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive, and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing.{{cite news | access-date=January 21, 2008 | access-date=January 21, 2008 | access-date=January 21, 2008

In March 2009, the Center for Education Reform released its latest data on charter school closures. At that time they found that 657 of the more than 5250 charter schools that have ever opened had closed, for reasons ranging from district consolidation to failure to attract students. The study found that "41 percent of the nation's charter closures resulted from financial deficiencies caused by either low student enrollment or inequitable funding," while 14% had closed due to poor academic performance. The report also found that the absence of achievement data "correlates directly with the weakness of a state's charter school law. For example, states like Iowa, Mississippi, Virginia and Wyoming have laws ranked either "D" or "F". Progress among these schools has not been tracked objectively or clearly." A 2005 paper found that in Connecticut, which it characterized as having been highly selective in approving charter applications, a relatively large proportion of poorly performing charter schools have closed.{{cite web |access-date=January 3, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071201051234/http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/charter/aera_2005_paper_charter_school_laws.pdf |archive-date=December 1, 2007 |url-status=dead

In a September 2007 public policy report, Andrew Rotherham and Sara Mead of Education Sector offered a series of recommendations to improve charter school quality through increased accountability. Some of their recommendations urged policymakers to: (i) provide more public oversight of charter school authorizers, including the removal of poor-quality authorizers, (ii) improve the quality of student performance data with more longitudinal student-linked data and multiple measures of school performance, and (iii) clarify state laws related to charter school closure, especially the treatment of displaced students. All but 17% of charter school students show no improvement when compared to a heuristically modeled virtual twin traditional public school. Educational gains from switching to charter schools from public schools have on average been shown to be "small or insignificant" (Zimmer, et al.) and tend to decline over a span of time (Byrnes). Charter schools provided no substantial improvement in students' educational outcomes that could not be accounted for in a public school setting (Gleason, Clark and Clark Tuttle). Attrition rates for teachers in charter schools have shown annual rates as high as 40%. Students also tend to move from charter schools prior to graduation more often than do students in public schools (Finch, Lapsley and Baker-Boudissa). Charter schools are often regarded as an outgrowth of the Powell Manifesto advocating corporate domination of the American democratic process and are considered to represent vested interests' attempts to mold public opinion via public school education and to claim a share of this $500–600 billion-dollar industry.

Scalability

Whether the charter school model can be scaled up to the size of a public noncharter school system has been questioned, when teaching demands more from teachers and many noncharter teachers are apparently unable to teach in the way charters seek, as has been suggested by Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education, Diane Ravitch, education historian and former assistant U.S. education secretary, Mark Roosevelt, former schools chief for Pittsburgh, Penn., U.S., and Dave Levin, of the KIPP charters However, some, such as Eva Moskowitz of Success Academy Charter Schools, believe that the model can be scaled up.

Exploitation by for-profit entities

Critics have accused for-profit entities, ([education management organizations, EMOs){{cite journal | author= Sarah Knopp | year= 2008 | title= Charter schools and the attack on public education | journal= International Socialist Review | issue= 62

Shift from progressive to conservative movement

Charters were originally a progressive movement (called the "small schools" movement) started by University of Massachusetts professor Ray Budde and American Federation of Teachers leader Al Shanker to explore best practices for education without bureaucracy. However, some critics argue that the charter movement has shifted into an effort to privatize education and attack teachers' unions.

Better student test scores / Teacher issues

A 2004 study done by the Department of Education found that charter schools "are less likely than traditional public schools to employ teachers meeting state certification standards," meaning that charter schools might have comparatively low quality teachers. A national evaluation by Stanford University found that "students attending charter schools have eight additional days of learning in reading and the same days of learning in math per year compared to their peers in traditional public schools," potentially leading to better test scores of students.

Admissions lottery

Because demand often exceeds the supply of available seats in charter schools, lotteries are held to determine which students will be admitted. When admission depends on a random lottery, some hopeful applicants may be disappointed. A film about the admission lottery at the Success Academy Charter Schools (then known as Harlem Success Academy) has been shown as The Lottery. The 2010 documentary Waiting for "Superman" also examines this issue. A lottery, however, ensures those in wealthier districts do not have a better chance of being accepted.

Collective bargaining

Concern has also been raised about the exemption of charter school teachers from states' collective bargaining laws, especially because "charter school teachers are even more likely than traditional public school teachers to be beset by the burn-out caused by working long hours, in poor facilities."{{cite journal | access-date=July 27, 2009

Racial segregation

One study states that charter schools increase racial segregation. A UCLA report points out that most charter schools are located in African-American neighborhoods. However, a recent statistical analysis of racial segregation and performance outcomes in U.S. charter schools notes that studies on race and charter schools often incorrectly confound the inter-dependent variables of race and family income (poverty). Moreover, the authors conclude: "charter schools with a strong academic focus and "no-excuses" philosophy that serve poor black students in urban areas stand as contradictions to the general association between school-level poverty and academic achievement. These very high-poverty, high-minority schools produce achievement gains that are substantially greater than the traditional public schools in the same catchment areas." This study concludes that "charter schools are also, on average, more racially segregated than traditional public schools," and state "reducing school segregation and improving the quality of schools serving minority students are both important goals, but they are not the same".

Selective admission

Regulation of charter schools varies by state, creating a wide variety of admissions processes, some of which are rigorous. Some charter schools interview students or parents, evaluate student records, or require an admissions test. This is similar to other selective admission public schools such as Magnet Schools, career and professional academies, or IB programs. However, this practice has been criticized for contradicting the self-proclaimed mission of these charter schools to provide education for all by only allowing prospective students that demonstrate high academic prospects in.

Diverting resources from public schools

Many public schools receive funding that is at least partly based on the number of enrolled students. As charter schools attract more students from neighboring public schools, those public schools will start to lose funding. "In just one academic year Albany City, N.Y.'s school district lost $24.9–$26.1 million to charter schools."  Despite having less students, public schools still have many fixed costs such as heating and cooling leaving public schools with less funds for other services.

References

Bibliography

• {{cite web

References

1. DiMassa, Cara Mia. "[https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-may-14-me-lausd14-story.html Granada Hills Gets Charter OK]." ''[[Los Angeles Times]]''. May 14, 2003. Retrieved on January 8, 2016.
2. "Charter schools in Arizona".
3. (March 15, 2021). "Center for Education Reform FAQs".
4. "Charter School Data Digest". National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
5. ''RSD looks at making charters pay rent'', The Times-Picayune, December 18, 2009.
6. "National Charter School Management Overview, 2016-17". National Alliance for Public Charter Schools.
7. "Minnesota is the "Birthplace" of chartered public schools.".
8. (September 2, 2014). "A little context for Al Shanker's "original charter school vision"".
9. (September 6, 2018). "A school choice classic, with love from Berkeley, revisited".
10. "[https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/31/opinion/sunday/albert-shanker-the-original-charter-school-visionary.html The Original Charter School Vision]", by Richard D. Kahlenberg and Halley Potter, ''The New York Times'', Aug. 30, 2014.
11. (2022). "Center for Education Reform Charter School FAQs". Center for Education Reform.
12. Alexander, Alan. (Mar 23, 2015). "Gov. Bentley signs charter school bill into law". Birmingham Business Journal.
13. Jr, Juan Perez. (June 5, 2023). "Oklahoma approves nation's first public religious charter school".
14. Mervosh, Sarah. (June 5, 2023). "Oklahoma Approves First Religious Charter School in the U.S.". The New York Times.
15. (June 6, 2023). "Oklahoma approves first US taxpayer-funded religious charter school".
16. https://www.washingtonpost-religious-charter-school/ {{deadlink. (August 2023)
17. "Oklahoma board approves nation's first state-funded Catholic school".
18. [https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/06/05/catholic-charter-school-oklahoma/ Okla. Catholic school set to become nation's first religious charter], Laura Meckler, June 5, 2023 [[The Washington Post]]
19. Lexi Lonas, Julia Mueller. (June 6, 2023). "Oklahoma school board approves nation's first religious charter school".
20. Laura, Meckler. (April 2, 2024). "Okla. Supreme Court to weigh nation's first religious charter school". Washington Post.
21. (March 2009). "Accountability Lies at the Heart of Charter School Success". Center for Education Reform.
22. Rotherham, Andrew. (September 2007). "Smart Charter School Caps". educationsector.org.
23. (August 2005). "Charter School Funding: Inequity's Next Frontier". Thomas B. Fordam Institute.
24. "National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, part of the U.S. Department of Education".
25. Pflaum, Chris Jones and Nadia. (2019-01-17). "Beyond the Books: Charter schools spend millions on advertising".
26. Stephanie Hacke and Mary Niederberger. (2017-08-29). "The Charter Effect: Pa. charter schools spend millions of public dollars in advertising to attract students".
27. Coughlan, Sean. (4 November 2015). "Online schools 'worse than traditional teachers'".
28. "State Charter Laws Scorecard".
29. (November 20, 2015). "Urban Charter Schools Often Succeed. Suburban Ones Often Don't". The New York Times.
30. (August 17, 2004). "Paige Issues Statement Regarding New York Times Article on Charter Schools". [[U.S. Department of Education]].
31. (August 2004). "Charter School Evaluation Reported by The New York Times Fails to Meet Professional Standards". Center for Education Reform.
32. Mishel, Lawrence. (September 23, 2004). "Schoolhouse Schlock: Conservatives flip-flop on standards for charter school research".
33. Renzulli, Linda A., & Roscigno, Vincent J., ''Charter Schools and the Public Good'', in ''Contexts'', '''6'''(1):31–36 (Winter 2007 {{doi. 10.1525/ctx.2007.6.1.31, accessed January 3, 2008 (author Linda A. Renzulli asst. prof. Dep't Sociology, [[University of Georgia]], & coauthor Vincent J. Roscigno coeditor [[American Sociological Review]]).
34. (August 21, 2006). "No Free Lunch – Study Wrongly Discredits Charter Success: Flawed Research by National Center for Education Statistics Should be Viewed with Great Skepticism". Center for Education Reform.
35. (2013). "2013 CREDO Stanford study".
36. "Recent Reports | credo".
37. "Recent Reports | credo".
38. "Recent Reports | credo".
39. "Recent Reports | credo".
40. "CREDO Report Fails to Build Upon Prior Research in Creating Charter School Classification System".
41. CREDO. (2014). "Charter School Performance in Los Angeles 2/26/2014". Stanford University.
42. (2015-01-01). "Positioning Charter Schools in Los Angeles: Diversity of Form and Homogeneity of Effects". American Journal of Education.
43. (2015). "The Color of Reform". Qualitative Inquiry.
44. Flaker, Anne. (November 2014). "School management and efficiency: An assessment of charter vs. traditional public schools". International Journal of Educational Development.
45. (2019-09-26). "Charter Schools and Labor Market Outcomes". Journal of Labor Economics.
46. Slungaard Mumma, Kirsten. (2022). "The Effect of Charter School Openings on Traditional Public Schools in Massachusetts and North Carolina". American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.
47. (2022-06-24). "Epic Charter Schools co-founders, former CFO arrested on embezzlement and racketeering charges".
48. "Charter School Deserts: High-Poverty Neighborhoods with Limited Educational Options".
49. "America's Best (and Worst) Cities for School Choice".
50. "The UFT Charter School : History".
51. (July 15, 2023). "Bloomberg".
52. A 2011 [[PDK International. Phi Delta Kappa]] International-[[Gallup (company). Gallup Poll]] reported that public support for charter schools stood at a "decade-high" of 70%.[http://www.charterschoolsinsider.com/news/2011/08/poll-indicates-70-percent-of-americans-favor-charter-schools.aspx Charter Schools Insider], August 18, 2011 {{webarchive. link. (August 23, 2011)
53. DiPerna, Paul. (March 28, 2008). "Idaho's Opinion on K–12 Education and School Choice". Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice.
54. (January 28, 2008). "New Poll Shows Georgians Want More Educational Choice". Center for Education Reform.
55. (February 14, 2008). "Wyomingites Want Fundamental Change in State's Charter School Law". Center for Education Reform.
56. Howell, William G.. (2006). "Education Gap: Vouchers and Urban Schools". The Brookings Institution.
57. "Brookings Institution - SourceWatch".
58. (2016). "School Choice Decision Making Among Suburban, High-Income Parents". AERA Open.
59. Gawlik, Marytza. (2016). "The U.S. Charter School Landscape: Extant Literature, Gaps in Research, and Implications for the U.S. Educational System". Global Education Review.
60. Villavicencio, Adriana. (2013-10-20). ""It's Our Best Choice Right Now": Examining the Choice Options of Charter School Parents". Education Policy Analysis Archives.
61. Yettick, Holly. (2016). "Information Is Bliss: Information Use by School Choice Participants in Denver". Urban Education.
62. Ewing, Eve L.. (2015). "Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools edited by Annette Lareau and Kimberly Goyette. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2014. 328 pp. $49.95 (paperback).". Harvard Educational Review.
63. (2009-12-01). "The big sort: why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart".
64. (1997). "Networks to Nowhere: Segregation and Stratification in Networks of Information about Schools". American Journal of Political Science.
65. (2014). "Choosing Homes, Choosing Schools: Residential Segregation and the Search for a Good School. Edited by Annette Lareau and Kimberly A. Goyette. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2014. pp. xxiii+328". American Journal of Sociology.
66. (May 2009). "National Charter School Law Ranking and Scorecard". Center for Education Reform.
67. (March 2009). "National Charter School & Enrollment Statistics". Center for Education Reform.
68. (September 2007). "A Sum Greater Than The Parts: What States Can Teach Each Other About Charter Schooling". educationsector.org.
69. CREDO. (June 2009). "Multiple Choice – Charter School Performance in 16 States". Stanford University.
70. (2009). "Getting a Feel for the Market: The Use of Privatized School Management in Philadelphia". American Journal of Education.
71. (2009). "A survival analysis of student mobility and retention in Indiana". Education Policy Analysis Archives.
72. Gleason, Philip. (2010). "The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts. Final Report. Alexandria: Institute of Educational Sciences". US Dept of Education.
73. Zimmer, Ron. (2009). "Charter Schools in Eight States: Effects on Achievement, Attainment, Integration and Competition". RAND Corporation.
74. Jonathan Kozol, "[http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/08/0081606 The big enchilada]," Harper's Magazine, August 2007. (Cited by Knopp)
75. "Educators Push Back Against Obama's "Business Model" for School Reforms".
76. (2004). "Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report". U.S. Department of Education.
77. "'The Lottery' documentary shows education is a sure bet". NY Daily News.
78. Nocera, Joe (November 7, 2011). [https://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/opinion/teaching-with-the-enemy.html "Teaching With the Enemy"]. ''The New York Times''.
79. [http://idea.gseis.ucla.edu/newsroom/our-ideas/themes-in-the-news/copy10_of_themes-in-the-news Studies Point to Segregative Effects of Charter Schools], UCLA Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access, September 23, 2009.
80. Whitehurst, GJR, Reeves, RV and Rodriquez E (2016). "Segregation and Charter Schools: What Do We Know?" Report of Center on Children and Families, Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ccf_20161021segregation_version-10_211.pdf
81. Whitehurst et al., 2016, op cit.
82. (February 15, 2013). "Special Report: Class Struggle – How charter schools get students they want". Reuters.
83. Lewis-Spector, Jill. (2022). "Efforts to Dismantle Traditional Public Schools: Literacy Consequences for Students". The Reading Teacher.