This document compares charter schools to neighboring traditional public schools (TPS) in Chicago. While charters argue they promote innovation, competition, and equity, research shows their performance is no better than TPS and they actually have fewer low-income and homeless students. Data on schools in Chicago found charters had lower percentages of students meeting standards, more mobility, and served fewer low-income students compared to neighboring TPS. Given charters do not appear to be promoting equity or outperforming TPS, preferential funding of charters is not justified, especially when public education is underfunded in Illinois.
2. Traditional Reasons for Preferring
Charter Schools
Reasons
Counter arguments*
Innovation
Parents often choose
schools with more
traditional methods
Frequently, achievement
does not affect parents’
school choices
Not evident outside of
Chicago. What about here?
Competition
Equity
--*Lubienski & Weitzel, The Charter School Experiment, 2010
3. • Over 120 Charter School Campuses plus
Contract Schools in Chicago
• 99 managed by 17 educational management
organizations
• Recent CREDO report*:
--In Reading 80% of charter students showed
growth no different or worse than tps
-- In math, 63% showed growth no different
or worse than tps
--Possible benefits for Latinos and low income
-Charter School Performance in Illinois CREDO, 2013
4. Chicago Charters with at least 50%
students meeting or exceeding standards
*
Concept: Chi M&S
Intrinsic
*
5. Charter
Neighboring Traditional Public School
(TPS)
Polaris
Ward, L.
Asian Hum.Ser.Pass/American Quality
Peirce, H.
Kenwood Oakdale/U of C
Ariel
A.Locke
Faraday, M.
Legacy
Hughes, C.
Namaste
Greene, N.
Providence-Englewood
Earle, C.W.
Irving Park/Distinctive Schools (CICS)
Cleveland, G
Academy for Global Citizenship
Hearst, P.A.
K.Nkrumah
Schmid, T.
R.Butler/LEARN
Lawndale
6. % Meet or Exceed State Standards for
ISAT (new cut scores)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Charter
Neighbor
7. % Mobility – More for TPS
80
60
40
20
0
Charter
Neighbor
- Illinois Interactive Report Card, 2012-2013
8. % Low Income – More for TPS
35
30
99
25
20
89
15
10
79
5
Charter
Neighbor
0
69
- Illinois Interactive Report Card, 2012-2013
9. At the intersection of Low Income and
Mobility
LOW
INCOME
HOMELESS
MOBILITY
HOMELESS LOW INCOME Compared to Housed Low Income:
• Less preventative healthcare - immunizations
• Severe hunger
• Higher percentages of fair/poor health according to parents
• Developmental or psychiatric disorders
•
American Journal of Public Health, Sept., 2013
10. % Student Temporary Living Status
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Charter
Neighbor
- CPS, STLS end of year stats for 2013
11. Reading Growth – above the line
15
10
5
0
Charter
Neighbor
-5
-10
-15
-Illinois Interactive Report Card, 2012-2013
13. Conclusions
• Charter Schools in Chicago do not appear to be
promoting equity. In fact, there is fighting over
limited resources.
• Apparent differences in performance between
relatively successful charter schools and their
neighboring traditional publics may be explained by
– Percentages of low income students
– Homelessness
– Peer effects
• At a time when the state is seriously underfunding
public education, there does not appear to be a
convincing reason to give preferential treatment to
charters
Notes de l'éditeur
Headings highlighted in Yellow represent Educational Management OrganizationsLEARN and the University of Chicago appear to be very similar to EMOs, but represent themselves as “Networks”.1st and 2nd Clicks: Noticeably absent from this list is the Concept School, Chicago Math and Science. Concept has proposed 2 of the new charters being considered by CPS.This organization needs to be researched more carefully before accepting new proposals: a number of teachers and Board Members of CM&S have come from Turkish boarding schools run by FethullahGulen for underprivileged children. In Turkey, there are allegations of brainwashing and testing scandals associated with his schools. 3rd and 4th Clicks: Another charter is being proposed by Insight, but their existing charter just opened in fall, 2013, so there are no test scores yet.5th, 6th, and 7th Clicks: I am excluding Aspira because of allegations of test tampering, Noble Street because of selective retention, and UNO for reasons that Mr. Sicho will explain.8th Click: I have selected the highest performing schools from three EMOs/networks to represent theirs
These are the schools I am comparing with descriptive data tonight.All are elementary schools – none serves higher than 8th grade7 can be considered “Stand-Alone” – not affiliated with an EMO or networkThe Neighboring Traditional Public Schools were all chosen solely on the basis of proximity. None is a Magnet school.
The Illinois Network of Charter Schools urges us to look at school scores on high stakes tests. Using that standard, this chart shows performance by the top performing charters and their neighboring tps.
Mobility is afactor which needs to be considered relative to achievement. What does it mean for achievement if one fourth or more of a school’s students are caught in a revolving door? This is true for 8 of the comparison TPS.It is far less of a problem for charters. Performance discrepancies between charters and traditional public schools may be explained by mobility for Legacy/Hughes and for Butler/Lawndale.
A large body of research has affirmed the relationship between low income and achievement. So it is important to see how these schools compare.Asian Human Services Passages is the ONLY one of these charter schools which had proportionately more low income students than the TPS.The discrepancy in low income is particularly noticeable for 5 of the six comparisons which had the greatest performance differences. Percentagesof low income students are more comparable for North Kenwood/Ariel, for Legacy/Hughes and for Butler/Lawndale.
When there is a difference, traditional public schools tend to have higher percentages of homeless students. Homelessness helps explain the large discrepancy in performance for LEARNR.Butler and Lawndale. Although Hughes has a higher percentage of mobility, it is interesting to note that Legacy has a comparable amount of homelessness.
Student Academic Growth is a measurement of students advancing from one performance level on the ISAT to another performance level (or “growing”) from one year to the next. Unlike test scores, which only show a one-time snapshot of students’ achievement, Student Academic Growth compares students’ achievement from one year to the next to measure improvements over time. This growth measure is expressed as a number between 0 and 200 where a value above 100 represents positive growth and/or consistently high achievement, and a value below 100 represents negative growth and/or consistently low achievement. In the slide, these values were converted so that 0=100, and bars above the line represent positive growth. About half of the schools show growth. It appears that traditional public schools may have shown more growth than charters.Legacy appeared to have some growth, while Hughes fell backwards seriously. Though Butler did not make progress, Lawndale fell farther behind. The mobility and homelessness in Hughes and in Lawndale would not have a direct effect on these scores, but it is possible that peer effects are at work.
Math growth is somewhat similar to reading growth, Though students at Ward showed the most impressive growth. Again, Hughes and Lawndale lagged behind their charters, but peer effects might be invoked to explain the differences.
