Charter school performance is a mixed bag: some charters outdo their neighborhood district schools, others show no difference, and some do worse. A new Mathematica meta-analysis attempts to identify the characteristics common to each of these groups. What, in other words, makes a high-performing charter schools so effective?
As author Phillip Gleason notes, it is difficult to carry out studies of this nature. Much of the data are based on observation, so determining causation is essentially impossible. Observation also takes time and costs money, which usually necessitates small sample sizes. And many of the “practices” being studied are abstract concepts, such as principal quality, that are difficult to measure quantitatively and objectively.
To mitigate these impediments, Gleason compiled seven studies that used different methods—including observational study, survey administration, and lottery-based designs (comparing students who won a spot via charter lotteries to those who did not)—to study charters schools around the country. The sample sizes in each of these studies range from twenty-nine to seventy-six schools.
Three charter characteristics were found to be linked to high student achievement in many studies (therefore showing a ‘strong association,” according to Gleason—a term he never defines quantitatively): longer school days and/or school years; a consistent and comprehensive behavior policy (with both rewards and sanctions); and prioritizing greater academic achievement (in lieu of other objectives, such as building self-esteem).
To my eye, however, all of this is seems rather intuitive. It’s easy to understand, for example, how schools that strive for student achievement above all else will more readily reach those heights. The same goes for more extended learning time and charters with stringent discipline policies, where disruptive students are more readily removed from the classroom.
Nevertheless, other practices were moderately related (also not defined quantitatively) to greater achievement in charter schools, including frequent coaching of teachers, using student data to drive instructional interventions, and “high-dosage” tutoring. Although Gleason does not discuss these practices in depth, perhaps their weaker links to success can be explained by the need for quality over quantity in the case of all three.
Finally, Gleason’s review found many characteristics with little or no relationship to charter achievement, among them: teacher qualifications, school funding, and affiliation with a charter management organization. Gleason is careful to note, however, that these finding don’t disprove those variables as drivers of change. Instead, what’s needed is more exact research to obtain a clearer picture of what drives charter success.
Overall, the meta-analysis doesn’t discuss many things reformers don’t already know, or strongly intuit. It does, however, present a concise, comprehensive review that boiled down many complex studies into clear patterns.
SOURCE: Philip Gleason, “What's the Secret Ingredient? Searching for Policies and Practices that Make Charter Schools Successful,” Mathematica (July 2016).
