Differences on Balance

Differences on Balance NATIONAL COMPARISONS OF CHARTER AND TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOLS NAT MALKUS AUGUST 2016 AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE Executive Summary n the 25 years since the first public charter school broader scope, but their lack of nuance means that the Iopened its doors, charter schooling has grown from a results can be misleading. Getting an accurate and holis- novel reform idea into a permanent fixture in American tic picture of charter student selectivity requires a valid public education. Today, charter schools constitute more means of comparing the student composition of char- than 1 in 14 public schools nationwide. ters and TPSs that can be applied nationwide. So far, that As their numbers have grown, so has the national combination has remained elusive. debate surrounding them. Charter schools have sup- In this paper, I attempt to make meaningful national port from diverse political groups and have proven comparisons between the student compositions of char- popular with parents in many states, as evidenced by ters and TPSs. Using national data from all public schools, long waiting lists for available seats. However, opposi- charter and traditional, I match each charter school with tion to charters has flared among those who see them its five nearest TPS neighbors. I then compare the stu- as unfair competitors with traditional public schools dent composition of charter schools to that of all TPSs because they operate under a different set of rules. and of the subset of TPSs that neighbor charters. These Recently, that opposition has culminated in calls for a comparisons reveal important patterns of differences national moratorium on charter schools from groups between charters and TPSs. including the NAACP. First, these findings show how important it is which The politicization of the national debate over char- TPSs are compared to charter schools. Many of the aver- ters is fueled by two very different narratives about what age differences between charters and all TPSs disap- charter schools are and who they serve. Many support- pear when the comparisons are restricted to charters ers cling to a narrative that paints charters as hope-filled, and their neighboring TPSs. Comparing charters to their quality school alternatives for the nation’s most disad- neighboring TPSs shows that, on average, some common vantaged students. In contrast, many opponents portray conceptions about differences in charters’ student char- charters as an unfair system of “public privates” that acteristics are correct, while others are errant. select the most advantaged students and drain resources Second, these findings demonstrate that beyond from traditional public schools (TPSs). which TPSs are used, it is also important how they are It is not surprising that in a national debate both sides compared to charter schools. Comparing averages can tend to oversimplify what charters are and who they hide that charters’ enrollments frequently differ from serve. The conflicting narratives that result are largely those of their neighboring TPSs. Examining the distri- due to the lack of solid, nationally generalizable evi- bution of differences shows how often and by how much dence on charter schools’ student selectivity. Numerous charters differ from their neighboring TPSs—and that studies have compared charter schools to a matched set they do not differ in uniform ways. These comparisons of TPSs, but those studies are limited in scope and do dispel some myths, confirm some differences, and reveal not generalize for charters across the nation. National new ones, showing a diversity in charter schools that comparisons of all charter schools and all TPSs attain a defies simple characterization. 1 Part I: How Are Charter Schools Different from Traditional Public Schools? ow are charter schools different from traditional how they differ from TPSs. Charter schools are public H public schools? The answer often depends on schools, and like TPSs, they are publicly funded, secular, who you ask. In popular press accounts, newspaper opin- and tuition free. Charter schools must admit all students ion pages, online discussion boards, and even scholarly who apply unless there are more applicants than avail- research, the national conversation on charters has become able seats, in which case they admit students by ran- increasingly polarized.1 The polarization of that conversa- dom lottery. The key point of separation is that charters tion has been primarily driven by two very different nar- are independent entities—not operated by traditional ratives about what charter schools are and who they serve. school districts—which frees them from many of the Depending on the narrative, charter schools might regulations and constraints under which TPSs operate. be painted as hope-filled alternatives for the most Charters’ independence allows them to offer specialized disadvantaged students, or as “public privates” that curriculum and unconventional learning approaches that cherry-pick more advantaged students;2 as operating in may appeal to some students and not to others. the public interest or as parasitic entities;3 as particu- That independence can complicate comparisons larly beneficial for minority students, or particularly det- between charters and TPSs. Such comparisons typically rimental;4 as backed by remote private interests or by focus on how the outcomes of charter students compare grass-roots heroes;5 as competitors to traditional pub- to those of TPS students. But those comparisons are not lic schools (TPSs) or as their cooperative partners;6 as so simple because the students in charter schools can instruments of “white flight,” or not;7 as using stricter differ from those in TPSs in ways that significantly influ- disciplinary practices than TPSs to screen students,8 or ence outcomes. Research on student outcomes, which using less discipline than TPSs;9 as increasing school is not the focus of this report, has been mixed, showing segregation,10 or as a key to integration;11 and as a sig- some charters produce substantially better outcomes for nificant threat to public education,12 or its best hope.13 comparable students, some produce worse outcomes, Debate over charter schools has only increased and many lie somewhere in between.15 With no settled during the past 25 years, as they grew from a novel idea evidence on charter outcomes, the charter debate often to a permanent fixture in American public education. focuses on how and why charter operators select and Today, more than 6,700 charter schools are operating in target students. 42 states and the District of Columbia, educating 2.5 mil- lion students and constituting more than 1 in 14 public Diverging Views of Charter Student schools nationwide.14 With no signs that growth is slow- Selectivity ing, the charter sector has reached a scale from which there is no going back. Charter critics frequently harbor broad suspicions that Charters’ permanent and increasing profile under- charter operators seek to cream-skim students. Under scores how important it is to clarify what charters are and this view, charter operators use multiple means to skirt 2 DIFFERENCES ON BALANCE NAT MALKUS legal requirements to accept all students,16 as TPSs must, by race, poverty, English language status, and disabil- which results in a two-tiered school system in which ity.18 Regrettably, the research that has made relatively charter schools systematically enroll more advantaged nuanced comparisons has been limited in scope—cover- students. Skeptics believe charters enroll fewer histori- ing specific cities or states—and provided too narrow an cally disadvantaged students—in terms of poverty, race, evidence basis to generalize about charters nationally. English language skills, disabilities, or academic perfor- The research that has compared all charters to all TPSs mance—relative to TPSs because these students are nationwide has often forsaken nuance for scope, at the easier to educate. This view was clearly reflected in com- risk of being misleading. ments from Hillary Clinton in her campaign for the 2016 The central problem for these comparisons is that Democratic presidential nomination, when she said, TPSs are everywhere, as seen in Figure 1, while charter “Most charter schools—I don’t want to say every one— schools are clustered in specific locations (often urban but most charter schools, they don’t take the hardest-to- ones). National comparisons conflate differences in the teach kids, or, if they do, they don’t keep them.”17 kinds of students choosing charters with differences in In contrast, charter proponents tend to view charter the kinds of students that live in places where charters operators as mission driven to create opportunities for are practical options. Any meaningful national com- the least advantaged students. In this conception, oper- parison must be able to distinguish between these sit- ators strategically position and market charters to serve uations. The trade-offs between breadth and nuance in high-minority, high-poverty student populations—the these two approaches become apparent when findings same populations that TPSs have underserved—and use from localized studies contrast with those from national targeted educational approaches to help students who comparisons.19 have been failed by TPSs. Some of the charter school In this paper, I attempt to make meaningful national movement’s most recognizable brands, such as KIPP comparisons between the student compositions of char- and Uncommon Schools, are specifically focused on ters and traditional public schools. Using national data serving these students. on all schools, I match each charter school with five Outsized voices on both sides of the debate tend to neighboring public schools, which are the nearest five paint charters with a broad brush, but while those char- TPSs that a charter’s students are most likely to other- acterizations are contradictory, they are not mutually wise attend. (See Appendix A for a detailed description exclusive. Each may have a basis in fact but not be accu- of the database and the matching method.) By identify- rate on the whole.

Load more