This study compares the practices of Michigan charter schools to those of neighboring district schools based on a survey of administrators in both sectors that was conducted in fall 2013. (Note that the study does not consider outcomes, only practices.) The survey was sent to the leaders of every Michigan charter school that was open during the 2012–13 and 2013–14 school years, as well as whichever district schools the plurality of each charter school’s students would have attended based on their neighborhood. Eighty-five percent of charter school leaders and 76 percent of district school leaders responded to the survey, meaning that 435 schools (226 charters and 209 district schools) are represented in the study.
Overall, the results reveal many similarities between the two sectors. For example, district and charter schools offer similar amounts of instructional time, and have similar academic calendars. They’re also equally likely to assign kids to reading classes based on their ability (though charters are slightly more likely to stream in math).
More surprising, principals in both sectors report incorporating a “no excuses” approach to education. For example, 82 percent of charter schools and 67 percent of district schools require that students sign behavioral contracts. Similarly, 81 percent of charters and 71 percent of districts schools require a parent contract.
The two sectors exhibit the clearest differences when it comes to school management and testing. For example, 28 percent of charter schools conduct monthly standardized assessments compared to just 10 percent of district schools. More strikingly, 66 percent of charters offer merit-based bonuses to teachers (versus 16 percent of district schools) and 30 percent offer financial incentives for teaching hard-to-staff subjects (versus 3 percent of district schools). Finally, just 30 percent of charter school principals say they struggle to remove poor teachers compared to 79 percent of district principals. However, charter principals reported spending twice as much time observing inexperienced teachers and almost thrice as much time observing veterans, suggesting they view observations as an important tool even when they aren’t a required component of evaluations.
Compared to their district neighbors, Michigan charters serve slightly more low-income students (69 percent versus 61 percent), more black students (49 versus 34 percent), fewer special education students (10 versus 15 percent), and equal proportions of limited English proficient students (6 percent). In other words, the challenges they face are broadly similar.
Assuming that’s so, one way of interpreting the study’s results is that whatever advantages Michigan charters have over their district counterparts derive not from their ability to “cream” pupils or even “innovate” practices but from something far simpler and more mundane: their ability and willingness to distinguish between high- and low-performing staff and respond accordingly.
Hey, it’s just an idea.
SOURCE: Susan Dynarski, Brian Jacob, and Mahima Mahadevan, “K-8 Choice in Michigan: Practices and Policies within Charter and Traditional Public Schools,” University of Michigan (December 2016).
