Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-By-State Analysis

Megan Lail
10.1.2014

A new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools assesses the health of the public charter school movement by examining its progression and performance in twenty-five states and Washington, D.C. To qualify, states had to participate in the 2013 CREDO study and have at least 1 percent of public school students served by charters. They ranked the strength of each locale using fifteen indicators in three categories: growth, or the overall number of schools available and students served; innovation, defined as the “use of various innovative practices,” such as an extended school year; and quality, measured in additional days of learning for both reading and math. Washington, D.C. and Louisiana came in first and second, respectively, earning high marks for offering multiple charter school options for families, serving high numbers of economically disadvantaged youth, and showing strong student achievement gains. Nevertheless, the report suggests that both ought to make efforts to secure equitable operational funding. At the other end of the spectrum, Oregon and Nevada occupied the bottom two spots because they serve a low percentage of the state’s population of public school children, and their charters aren’t producing gains in reading and math. For these low performers, the report suggests changes in law that would allow for more in-school autonomy and more accountability for authorizers. The Alliance acknowledges that improvement can be made in identifying and collecting comprehensive data on public charter schools. Indeed. But, in the meantime, this debut analysis offers clarity to a movement that is too often plagued by misunderstanding.

SOURCE: “The Health of the Public Charter School Movement: A State-By-State Analysis,” National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (October 2014).

Policy Priority:
Quality Choices
Tags: Louisiana National Alliance for Public Charter Schools Nevada Oregon Washington

Megan Lail is a research intern at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. She comes to D.C. from the Raleigh-Durham area, where she graduated with a B.A. in Psychology from North Carolina State University. Prior to joining the Fordham team, she worked at an education advocacy nonprofit in Raleigh, serving both the policy and communication departments. While her expertise centers on school choice, charter schools, and…

View Full Bio

Related Content

view
Office meeting
High Expectations

AI, messy jobs, and the future of schooling

Michael J. Petrilli 10.15.2026
NationalFlypaper
view
Road curve
Quality Choices

How funding and accountability reforms helped fix charter schools in Ohio

Aaron Churchill, Chad L. Aldis 10.15.2026
NationalFlypaper
view
Students with hands raised
High Expectations

Nikole Hannah-Jones and what schools can fix

Dale Chu 10.15.2026
NationalFlypaper
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]