On July 10, 2013, the CREDO Institute at Stanford University presented at a private briefing on the new CREDO Charter School Quality Study of charter schools in Illinois and Chicago. Here is a copy of the deck that represents the findings shared to the group.

1. 7/10/13
Charter School
Performance in
Illinois

2. 2
Overview
• Acknowledgements
– ISBE (especially Brandon Williams and Peter Godard)
– Joyce Foundation
• Study Approach
• Findings
• Summary & Implications

3. Study
Approach
3

4. 4
Research Questions
• How do charter schools compare to TPS in their
academic achievement gains?
• What characteristics of charter schools are
associated with better achievement gains?
• Do charter schools have more success than
TPS working with certain student subgroups?

5. 5
Impact Analysis: Years of Study
Test
Administration
Spring
2009
Spring
2010
Spring
2011
Spring
2012
Academic Year
Covered by Test
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12
Grades 3-8 3-8 3-8 3-8
Growth Period 2010 2011 2012

6. Introduction

7. Introduction

8. Introduction

9. Introduction

10. Introduction

11. Introduction

12. Introduction

13. Introduction

14. Introduction

15. Introduction

16. Introduction

17. Introduction

18. Introduction

19. Demographics
19

20. Demographic Comparison
20
2010-2011
Source: Common Core of Data, National Center for Education Statistics
TPS Feeders Charters
Number of schools 4362 618 43
Average enrollment per school 472 610 842
Total number of students enrolled 2,060,340 376,985 36,201
Students in Poverty 44% 82% 71%
English Language Learners 7% 13% 6%
Special Education Students 13% 13% 10%
White Students 53% 15% 5%
Black Students 18% 42% 62%
Hispanic Students 21% 39% 31%
Asian/Pacific Islander Students 4% 3% 1%
Native American Students 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

21. Charter Student Population
21
All Charter School Students
36,201
Tested Students
20,349
Matched Students
18,689
Average one-year student growth
(based on 3 growth periods)

22. Results
• Student-level Findings
• School-level Findings
22

23. Student-level
Findings
23

24. Impact of Charter Schools
24
Charter students outperform traditional public school (TPS) students in reading
and math; results are slightly stronger for math than for reading.
.01**
.01**
-.03**
.03** .03**
.01
-.1
.0
.1
Overall Illinois Chicago Not Chicago
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math

25. Charter School Impact
with Original School Cohort
25
Students in Chicago schools from the 2009 report outperform TPS in both
subjects in the new time period, an improvement over the original results.
.00
.02**
.02**
.03**
.00
.05
Overall Chicago 2009 Overall Chicago 2012
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math

26. Charter School Impact
by Growth Period
26
Note: Count of new schools is from student test data.
Charter students outperformed TPS in math in all growth periods;
in reading, results were positive in two of three periods.
.02**
.04**
-.02**
.04**
.02**
.03**
-.1
.0
.1
2010 2011 2012
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math
New schools: 3 6 4
Persisting : 46 51 61

27. Charter School Impact
by CMO Affiliation
27
Charter students at CMO-affiliated and non-CMO schools perform better than
TPS in math, but only CMO-affiliates do so in reading.
.01**
.01
.03**
.04**
.00
.05
CMO Non-CMO
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math

28. Charter School Impact
by Race/Ethnicity
28
Black students have similar learning gains in reading and math at TPS and
charters. Hispanic students have similar learning gains in reading but better
learning gains in math when they attend a charter compared to TPS.
-.18**
-.20**
-.04*
-.06**
-.09** -.09**
-.03*
.04**
-.25
-.20
-.15
-.10
-.05
.00
.05
.10
Traditional Public
School
Charter Traditional Public
School
Charter
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math
Black Hispanic

29. Charter School Impact
with Students in Poverty
29
Students in poverty have an advantage in charter schools in reading but similar
gains in math compared to TPS students in poverty.
-.11**
-.08**
-.05** -.05**
-.15
-.10
-.05
.00
Traditional Public School Charter
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math

30. Charter School Impact
by Race/Ethnicity and Poverty
30
Black students in poverty have better learning gains in reading at charters than at
TPS. Hispanic students in poverty have better learning gains in math at charter
schools than at TPS.
-.30**
-.28**
-.15**
-.14**-.14** -.13**
-.07**
-.004
-.35
-.30
-.25
-.20
-.15
-.10
-.05
.00
Traditional Public
School
Charter Traditional Public
School
Charter
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math
Black / Poverty Hispanic / Poverty

31. Charter School Impact
with Special Education Students
31
Special education students in charter schools have similar learning gains as their
TPS counterparts in both reading and math.
-.36** -.36**
-.19** -.19**
-.4
-.3
-.2
-.1
.0
Traditional Public School Charter
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math

32. Charter School Impact
with English Language Learners
32
There is no difference in learning gains for ELLs in charters and TPS.
-.27**
-.28**
-.12** -.12**
-.3
-.2
-.1
.0
Traditional Public School Charter
Growth(instandarddeviations)
* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading
Math

33. 33
Charter Impact by City
.34**
.01**
.09**
.06**
.22**
.03**
.36**
.03**
.08** .08**
.26**
.14**
.00
.10
.20
.30
.40
Boston Chicago Detroit Indianapolis Newark New York City
Growth(instandarddeviations)
** Significant at p ≤ 0.01
Reading Math

34. School-level
Findings
34

35. Distribution
of Charter School Impacts
35
Subject Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Reading 13 21.3% 36 59.0% 12 19.7%
Math 13 21.0% 26 41.9% 23 37.1%
Significantly
Worse
Not Significant
Significantly
Better

36. Impact of Growth
on Achievement - Reading
36
Growth
(in Standard
Deviations) 1.6%
70th Percentile
3.3% 8.2%
50th Percentile
3.3% 23.0% 37.7% 3.3%
30th Percentile
14.8% 4.9%
-0.15 0.15
Low Growth,
High Achievement
High Growth,
High Achievement
Low Growth,
Low Achievement
High Growth,
Low Achievement
0

37. Impact of Growth
on Achievement - Math
37
Growth
(in Standard
Deviations) 1.6%
70th Percentile
1.6% 3.2% 4.8%
50th Percentile
21.0% 41.9% 4.8%
30th Percentile
3.2% 12.9% 4.8%
-0.15 0.15
Low Growth,
High Achievement
High Growth,
High Achievement
Low Growth,
Low Achievement
High Growth,
Low Achievement
0

38. Summary &
Implications
38

39. 39
Summary of Findings
• Typical charter student has greater learning gains
than TPS
– 2 weeks in reading
– 1 month in math
• No consistent trend of charter benefits for specific
student groups
– Math: Hispanic students, Hispanic students in poverty
– Reading: Students in poverty, black students in poverty
• Some charters have below-average growth & below-
average achievement
– Math: 37%
– Reading: 41%
VULNERABLE

40. Implications
• Decent baseline for Chicago, less so for rest of
state
• Substantial need for stronger oversight –
low quality has ripples across sector
• Positive aspects of charter experience – role for
INCS to find & leverage these?
• Strong performance may not sustain in reading
40

41. Questions?
41

42. Thank You
42