Charter Schools in New Jersey. Interim Report

Transcription

1 Charter Schools in New Jersey Interim Report

2 Charter Landscape Expand Options and Encourage Innovation Charters provide families especially low-income families with muchneeded alternatives within public education. The charter sector provides a supportive environment for innovative programs We recently approved 23 new charters, including a number in struggling districts as well as the first virtual charters. This fall, we will have nearly 1 charters across the state, making NJDOE the nation s 4 th largest charter authorizer Accountability But not all charters are high-performing and that s our standard. Just better than the nearby neighborhood school is not good enough. We will continue to support charter school expansion, but it will always be with an eye on quality. We will not hesitate to close charters failing to live up to their promise. We recently placed two charters on probation.

3 Charter Performance: Initial Data Charters and Districts Charter advantage across Abbotts: In LAL, 79 percent of charters outperformed their home districts In math, 69 percent of charters outperformed their home districts Newark 7 of 9 charters outperformed district Several charters outperformed the state average Camden: 4 of 4 charters outperformed district But this is high level data, requiring much deeper analysis

4 Ongoing Analysis While these data are directionally informative, we will continue to pursue deeper analysis to understand: Charter performance for all student groups; The reasons why some charters out / under perform their home districts We will expand the quantity and quality of data that is on the internet about all schools, including charters, to encourage thoughtful analysis and transparency. In the very near future, we will commission an independent analysis of all this data to further inform our charter policies

5 Special Education On average, charters serve a smaller number of students with disabilities than traditional public schools District public school average: 15.87% Charter public school average: 8.24% Although lower, this figure dispels the myth that charters aren t serving special needs children As of October 9, more than 1,7 students with disabilities were attending charters. New Jersey s special education classification rate consistently ranks among the nation s highest In Camden, % of district 8 th grade test takers are identified as students with disabilities

6 Special Education It is also important to note the variation in classification percentages within the charter sector. 45 Charter Schools and Special Education Percent special education

7 Special Education Do charters push out special education students? Some charter schools may directly or indirectly indicate to families of students with disabilities that they are not able to address the individual needs of the students. Other possible explanations: Parents of some special education students with intensive needs are satisfied with the specialized services their children receive Charters might successfully educate students in their general education programs and not need to refer students for special education Some parents of students with disabilities are reluctant to send their children to new programs that do not have a history of serving students with disabilities. Charters currently serve fewer high grades, and in some urban district schools, special education classifications grow each year

8 Free and Reduced-price Lunch The state aid formula does not distinguish between free and reduced -price lunch count. New Jersey combines free and reduced for federal AYP determination purposes All students in both these categories are generally used by researchers throughout the country as a good enough proxy for economically disadvantaged And most important, research shows that concentration of poverty in schools creates unique challenges, and most charters in NJ cross a threshold of concentrated poverty that makes these distinctions meaningless

9 Percentage of schools % % % 1% % District Schools, FRPL -1% 11-% 21-% 31-% 41-5% 51-6% 61-7% 71-8% 81-9% 91-1% Percent of students eligible for FRPL Percentage of schools 25% % 15% 1% 5% % Charter Schools, FRPL -1% 11-% 21-% 31-% 41-5% 51-6% 61-7% 71-8% 81-9% 91-1% Percent of students eligible for FRPL

10 Urban Student Poverty, by Sector 1 Economically Disadvantaged, 8th Grade Percent of students District Charter Newark Camden Jersey City

11 Free vs. Reduced-price Lunch 9% 8% Newark Student Poverty Percent of students 7% 6% 5% % % % 1% Reducedprice Lunch Free Lunch % NPS Charters

12 Free vs. Reduced-price Lunch 1% Newark Student Poverty, Charters Percent of students 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% % % % 1% % Reduced Free

13 Free vs. Reduced-price Lunch 1% Newark Student Poverty, NPS Percent of students 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% % % % 1% % Reduced Free

14 Charter Performance: Follow-up Data Removed special education and ELL from comparison Still a charter advantage: more charters outscored their local districts statewide. The charter advantage appears to grow in higher grades

15 Student Performance Percent of economically disadvantaged students proficient (8 LAL) Newark, District v. Charters Discovery NPS Percent economically disadvantaged

16 Student Performance Percent of economically disadvantaged students proficient (8 Math) Newark, District vs. Charter North Star NPS Pride Percent economically disadvantaged

17 Student Performance Percent of African-American students proficient (8 LAL) Newark, District v. Charters TEAM NPS Lady Liberty Percent African-American

18 Student Performance Percent of African-American students proficient (8 Math) Newark, District vs. Charter North Star NPS Percent African-America

19 Student Performance Percent of economically disadvantaged students proficient (8 Math) Trenton, District vs. Charters Foundation TPS Emily Fisher Percent economically disadvantaged

20 Student Performance Percent of economically disadvantaged students proficient (8 LAL) Trenton, District vs. Charters Foundation TPS Emily Fisher Percent economically disadvantaged

21 Student Performance 8 Jersey City Percent proficient (8 LAL) District Charter Economically Disadvantaged Black Hispanic

22 Student Performance 45 Jersey City Percent proficient (8 Math) District Charter Economically Disadvantaged Black Hispanic

23 Student Performance 8 Camden Percent proficient (8 LAL) District Charter Economically Disadvantaged Black Hispanic

24 Student Performance 45 Camden Percent proficient (8 Math) District Charter Economically Disadvantaged Black Hispanic

25 Student Performance 8 Economically Disadvantaged Percent proficient (Math) Galloway Charter Galloway Township Grade

26 Student Performance 7 Economically Disadvantaged Percent proficient (LAL) Galloway Charter Galloway Township Grade

27 Charter Advantage Grows 8 Newark, Economically Disadvantaged Percent proficient (Math) District Charter Grade

28 Charter Advantage Grows 9 Newark, Economically Disadvantaged 8 Percent proficient (LAL) District Charter Grade

29 Charter Advantage Grows Newark, Hispanic Percent proficient (Math) District Charter Grade

30 Charter Advantage Grows Newark, Hispanic Percent proficient (LAL) District Charter Grade

31 Next Steps Continue internal research Increase transparency expand the quantity of data available online Commission independent researchers to conduct deeper analysis Restructure charter schools office to improve services, accountability and support