Pennsylvania Charter Schools:

Transcription

1 Pennsylvania Charter Schools: Education Research & Policy Center A look at school and student performance (-4 through 8-9) P.O. Box 4, Mechanicsburg, PA (8) October 9

2 Pennsylvania Charter Schools: A look at school and student performance (-4 through 8-9) Table of Contents Executive Summary... Pennsylvania Charter Schools: A look at school and student performance (-4 through 8-9)...5 Charter school defined...5 Growth of charter schools...6 Creating a charter school...6 Support and opposition to charter schools...6 Funding charter schools...7 What the research says...8 Pennsylvania results... Summary...4 Key Findings in the Report...6 Recommendations...6 Bibliography...7 Appendix A...8 Appendix B...9 Appendix C...

3 Acknowledgements PSBA Education Research and Policy Center would like to thank the PA Department of Education in providing access to the data necessary to complete this study. The Center would also like to thank Dr. Jillian Reese, School of Education, Penn State University, State College, for her willingness to review and comment on the data analysis presented in this study.

4 Pennsylvania Charter Schools: A look at school and student performance (-4 through 8-9) Executive Summary The Obama administration has been vocal in its commitment to expanding the number and types of school choice options for parents and students in the United States, making billions available to states that choose to work toward enhanced student achievement through school improvement and reform. Since Minnesota passed the nation s first charter school law in 99, a charter school movement of sorts has grown up in the United States. Today, charter schools offer an educational alternative to traditional public schooling for more than a million American gradeschoolers while laws in 4 states regulate the chartering authorization and management of in excess of 4,475 charter schools across the country. The National Center for Education Statistics defines a charter school as a publicly funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a contract or charter with the state. PSBA s Education Research and Policy Center uses the term traditional public school to describe schools operated within the regular public schooling setting as a part of school district operations. Since Minnesota passed the nation s first charter school law in 99, a charter school movement of sorts has grown up in the United States. Individual state laws determine authorizing entities, which may include school districts, universities and state boards of education. Pennsylvania s Act of 997 calls charter schools self-managed public schools that are approved by local school districts, and allows charter schools to operate free from many of the educational mandates to which traditional public schools are held accountable. All school-aged residents qualify for free admission to any Pennsylvania charter school, with admission determined by availability of space and preference given to district residents. Charter schools can be targeted to specific populations of students and can be specially focused to arts-based or core knowledge types of curricula. Most charter schools are similar to traditional public schools in that they serve a population of students in a specific geographic location. However, a growing number of cyber charter schools provide virtual educational services via any one of a number of online learning platforms. Total charter school enrollment in the commonwealth has matched national inter-

5 The Center s analysis provided some interesting results that showed in a general sense that charter schools are not yet on par with traditional public schools in the state. est, and has grown by 59% since - from 8,695 students to 67, students in 7-8. The proliferation of charter schools in Pennsylvania and nationally has been met with mixed response from vocal advocates both for and against. Arguments against charter schools often center on issues of equity for students, fairness to existing public schooling entities, cost and accountability. Proponents of charter schools often tout the benefits of school choice. Unfortunately, reliable literature giving an accurate accounting of charter school performance nationally when compared to public school performance is somewhat scarce. Two relatively well-known charters to traditional public schools comparisons by the Manhattan Institute and the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), respectively, provide somewhat conflicting research data. The Manhattan Institute report, titled Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations, shows charter school students outperforming traditional public school students on standardized tests in both reading and math. Concerns were raised about the methodology of the study, however, and a National Assessment of Educational Progress report issued in the same year and brought to public consciousness by the American Federation of Teachers showed the opposite to be true. In 9, CREDO at Stanford University issued a report, called Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 6 States. This was the first national, peer-reviewed attempt to accurately portray a valid comparison of traditional public school to charter school performance. The study indicated a growing national demand consistent with Pennsylvania s charter school growth since 997. Generally, the CREDO report found that charter schools were not performing as well as their peers in traditional public schools, but that poor performance was not universal for all charter school students. Interestingly, notes the study, a first-year dip in student performance for incoming charter students seems to be followed by significant improvement over time. The CREDO report also voices concerns similar to those of both advocates and opponents of charter schools, as well as the United States Department of Education, regarding the quality of charter schools. Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO at Stanford University, names quality [as] the most pressing problem that the charter school movement faces [I]f the supporters of charter schools fail to address the quality challenge, they run the risk of having it addressed for them (CREDO, 9). In an effort to determine the performance of charter schools in Pennsylvania, PSBA s Education Research and Policy Center examined student Pennsylvania System of Student Assessment (PSSA) test score results for charter schools across the state between -4 and 7-8. The Center s analysis of charter school performance in Pennsylvania provided some interesting results that showed in a general sense that charter schools are not yet on par with traditional public schools in the state. Smaller percentages of charter schools met AYP requirements between these years when compared to all schools in the state. However, charter schools during this time showed significantly more growth in student achievement when compared to all schools in Pennsylvania. In answer to suggestions that charter schools may not be performing as well as traditional public schools, proponents argue that charters take unusually high numbers of poor-performing students. PSBA s Education Research and Policy Center did not find this to be true to any significant degree. There seemed, in the early years of charter school growth in the state, to be a smaller percentage of special needs students enrolled in Pennsylvania charter schools. Numbers for the most recent year show those numbers to be about equal to the state average. And while charters started with somewhat higher numbers of economically disadvantaged students, it seems that in recent years those percentages have declined to be in line with the state average. It should be noted, however, that some in opposition to charter schools argue charter successes with

6 claims that charters take the best of the best students from the traditional public school setting. The Center was not able to substantiate this claim. For the most recent year analyzed (7-8), there seems to be minimal statistical difference between the distribution of charter school performance overall to that of traditional public schools overall. Traditional public schools, however, have a higher number of buildings making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), and have a lower percentage of buildings in corrective action at all levels. And, for all years analyzed, individual student performance by grade level of charter school students is significantly below that of traditional public school students. Additionally, disaggregating cyber charter schools for school year 7-8 from the pool of all charters shows a striking difference in performance. Cyber charters make up almost ten percent of all the charter schools in Pennsylvania. Of that number, only one cyber charter met AYP requirements with two Making Progress and all others in either School Improvement or Corrective Action. An examination of the proficiency of charter school students between -4 and 7-8 does show that both reading and math proficiency have improved in charter schools. And in some urban areas of the state including Philadelphia, charters may be performing better than traditional public schools. This is not true of Allegheny County, however, and charters are still not performing at a level consistent with all public schools in Pennsylvania. In the most recent year analyzed, statewide grade level comparison of all charters to all traditional public schools shows that for charter schools, only grade four met AYP requirements in reading, and only grades three and four met AYP requirements in math. For all schools in the state in the same year, only grade five failed to meet AYP requirements in reading, and all grades met AYP requirements in math. Key findings in this report: For the most recent year analyzed (7-8), there seems to be minimal statistical difference between the distribution of charter school performance overall to that of traditional public school performance overall. Traditional public schools, however, have a higher number of buildings making Adequate Yearly Progress, and have a lower percentage of buildings in corrective action at all levels. For all years analyzed, individual student performance by grade level of charter school students is significantly below that of traditional public school students. Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania appear to be significantly underperforming both traditional public schools, as well as their brick and mortar charter school peers. While charter school student populations seemed initially to be serving higher numbers of economically disadvantaged students, in recent years those percentages have declined to be relatively in line with the state average. An examination of the proficiency of charter school students between -4 and 7-8 shows that reading and math proficiency have improved. In limited urban areas of Pennsylvania, charter schools appear to be outperforming traditional public schools. Recommendations: While the performance of charter schools has improved, they are still not performing at the same level as traditional public counterparts. Cyber charters are the lowest performing group of schools. Demographic differences, which initially existed, are now leveling out to the state averages. Performance of charter schools, in the two large urban areas of the state, is different from the traditional public schools. PSBA recommends the state should: Provide local school districts with greater authority to hold charter schools accountable based on continuous performance. Look at the operations of one well-performing cyber charter and develop a model for cyber charter operations. Improve the state report card to show the performance of traditional public schools, brick and mortar charter schools and cyber charter schools rather than just a single statewide report. Provide the home school district with performance results of students attending charter and cyber charter schools.

7 4

8 Pennsylvania Charter Schools: A look at school and student performance (-4 through 8-9) The United States Census Bureau indicated more than 55 million children would be enrolled in America s elementary and high schools for the 6-7 school year. These students, representing America s growing population and ever-expanding cultural and ethnic diversity, were served in that same year by approximately 95,65 public elementary and secondary schools (United States Census Bureau, 6). Private elementary and secondary schools at that same time numbered approximately 9,7. Until recently, the options for students and parents in the United States traditionally have included either private or public schooling. Beginning in the early 99s, as the result of a school reform movement and a desire for school choice, along with a move toward localized management, growing privatization and increased community and parental involvement, a call for charter schools began to take hold in the United States. Charter school defined: For the purpose of this paper, the term traditional public school is used to describe schools operated within the regular public schooling setting as a part of school district operations. A charter school is a publicly funded school that is typically governed by a group or organization under a contract or charter with the state (National Center for Education Statistics, 9). State laws determine who may authorize charter schools. Some states allow only local school boards to authorize school charters, and some states extend that authority to universities and state boards or departments of education. Pennsylvania law provides that charter schools are self-managed public schools that are approved by local school districts (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 7). Original charter schools were brick and mortar operations. With the expansion of technology, including wireless Internet, charter schools were developed using technology for the delivery of education. Charter schools relying on technology became known as cyber charter schools. The use of the term charter school in this paper includes both brick and mortar along with cyber operations, unless specifically stated otherwise. Under the Pennsylvania Law, a charter school operates free from many educational mandates, except those concerning nondiscrimination, health and safety and accountability (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 7). According to information on a Web site developed initially with support of the U.S. Department of Education and now supported by a consortium of organizations interested in providing accurate information about charter schools, charter school legislation is intended to: Increase opportunities for learning and access to quality education for all students Create choice for parents and students within the public school system Provide a system of accountability for results in public education 5

9 Encourage innovative teaching practices Create new professional opportunities for teachers Encourage community and parent involvement in public education Leverage improved public education broadly Growth of charter schools: Minnesota passed the first charter school law in 99. Other states followed quickly. Pennsylvania reacted to this call by passing its own charter school authorization law in 997. Today, 4 states and the District of Columbia have existing laws Table States with Charter School Laws Year Number of States Cumulative Total Source: Center for School Reform, Washington D.C.; allowing charter schools as a public schooling option for more than. million students. As of May 9, there were more than 4,475 charter schools in the United States (Center for School Reform, Washington D.C., 9). Table below shows the growth in enrollment for charter schools in Pennsylvania since the - school year. Also shown in the table is the growth in enrollment of special needs students. As of 7-8, special needs students enrolled in charter schools represented.8% of enrollments. Statewide, special needs students account for just over 6% of all students. Total enrollment in Pennsylvania charter schools has expanded every year since charter schools began operation in the state. A 59% increase since - is noted as enrollment has grown from 8,695 to 67, students in 7-8. Creating a charter school: Individuals or groups interested in creating a charter school generally are required to submit a charter application containing detailed information about the school s intended mission, programmatic goals and intended student population. Pennsylvania s charter school application requires information from the applicant on such information as school design, needs assessment, a description of the founding/management team, finance and facility and implementation and administration. Act of 997 outlines Pennsylvania s charter school intensions and requirements, and can be accessed via the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) Web site at: schools/site/default.asp. In Pennsylvania, if a charter is denied by the local district, applicants may appeal the decision to the state s Charter School Appeal Board. Charters are created and controlled by parents, teachers, community leaders and colleges or universities. Other states offer a variety of different processes in granting charters. Cyber charter schools are approved by the state through PDE. Support and opposition to charter schools: Charter proliferation has come despite significant hurdles since Minnesota s first charter school law went on the books in 99, particularly from teachers unions and other traditional public schooling advocates. Arguments against charter schools often center on issues of equity for students, fairness to existing public schooling entities, cost and accountability. Proponents of charter schools often tout the benefits of school choice when arguing for charter schools. The idea supporting this argument suggests that existing public schools will respond constructively to competition induced by school choice, thereby raising their own productivity (Hoxby, 4). But because of the intended small size of most charter schools, opponents argue, charter schools are only able to provide services to a limited number of students. This limited availability has sparked debate regarding equity for stu- 6

10 dents who are not afforded access to school choice options. Opponents of charter schools have also worked to draw attention to the fact that charter schools work under a different set of rules than regular public schools. Charter schools, as defined by U.S. Charter Schools (9), are nonsectarian public schools of choice that operate with freedom from many of the regulations that apply to traditional public schools. These regulations can include, for instance: The charter school facility shall be exempt from the public school facility regulations, except those pertaining to the health or safety of students. Up to 5% of the professional staff may be noncertificated individuals.( state.pa.us/charter_schools/cwp/view. asp?a=46&q=4779) According to charter school advocates, charter schools are able to work to enhance student outcomes because they are free from many state and district regulations that can bog down the educational process. Charter schools espouse accountability solely to an ability to educate students in a safe and responsible environment. Schools that fail to show appropriate gains in student achievement, the argument goes, will be closed through the charter review process. Unfortunately, this freedom has resulted in a disparate array of charter school performance. While some seem to be performing well, there are many that, because of weak or undefined charter school laws, are able to get by despite poor academic successes for students. Supporters of closer charter school oversight argue that freedom from regulations makes for nonspecific accountability, and that more regulation is needed for charter schools to ensure enhanced academic success and appropriate fiscal administration. - Students Funding charter schools: Cost is noted as another of the primary concerns regarding charter schools. Funding strategies for charter schools around the country vary from state to state. In Pennsylvania, charter schools are funded by state government on the basis of a formula related to student enrollment. Also, like traditional public schools, charter schools in Pennsylvania receive limited money from the state. Educational funding for students comes primarily from the student s district of origin supported by property tax revenue. If a student or a number of students decide to leave the regular public school setting for a chartered school, the money allocated by the district for that student follows the student to the charter school. In Pennsylvania, like several other states, the school district is responsible for transportation of the student to the charter school. In other states, additional costs for programs or services offered by the charter school that may not be offered by the district of origin can be charged back as an additional cost to the district. Table History of Charter School Enrollment in PA - Students - Students -4 Students 4-5 Students 5-6 Students 6-7 Students 7-8 Students Reg. Ed. Enrollment Sp. Ed. Enrollment Total Enrollment Annual % Increase 6,859,86 8,695 n/a 9.% 9.8%.% 5,9,578 7, % 9.7% 9.%.% 9,7,5,4.% 89.4%.6%.% 6, 4,46 4,57.% 89.%.%.% 4,58 5,7 46,95 5.7% 88.6%.4%.% 48,44 6,74 55,8 7.4% 87.8%.%.% 5,4 7,5 59,9 8.7% 87.5%.5%.% 57,867 9,54 67,.% 86.%.8%.% Source: PA Department of Education enrollment data 7

11 Concerns that some charter schools, particularly cyber charters, spend less than what is given by the district to educate students in a given year, have sparked equity concerns from districts. Equity is based in this instance on the district paying the same rate for students who attend cyber charter schools as is paid for students that attend brick and mortar charter schools. What the research says: Reliable literature giving an accurate accounting of charter school performance nationally when compared to traditional public school performance is somewhat scarce. Some literature suggests charter schools in the United States are performing poorly, while charter school proponents regularly tout a number of success stories. The problem is that there is some significant difficulty in directly comparing charter school performance to traditional public school performance for several reasons. First, many charter schools in the United States target specific groups of children, such as disabled students or students at risk for not succeeding in school due to poor test scores, attendance and/or discipline issues. This targeted or specific student enrollment is difficult to translate appropriately for research purposes to traditional public school settings where multiple student populations are served. The Manhattan Institute, a nonpartisan, independent research and educational organization based in New York, attempted to control for these problems in the first national, empirical study of charter schools, titled Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations. The study measured test score improvements for students in eleven states for one year, and determined at that time that charter schools in the study outperformed nearby traditional public schools on both math and reading tests for the duration of the study. Researchers for the report compared similar groups of students in both traditional public and charter schools, and looked for the purpose of the paper only at charters that served general populations of students similar to groups that would exist in an average traditional public school. The comparison group of traditional public schools consisted of the nearest traditional public school to each of the charters studied. Researchers used then existing standardized math and reading tests in each of the states as the measure of performance for the study, comparing differences in scores between and by grade level. Authors of the study claimed charter school students outperformed comparisongroup traditional public school students, beginning at the 5th percentile, by three percentile points in math, and two percentile points in reading. In 4, United States Department of Education data analysis publicized by the American Federation of Teachers showed the opposite to be true, stirring the pot for the debate about the efficacy of charter schools in America. The National Assessment of Educational Progress report included the first nationally representative sampling of charter schools in the country, and indicated, much to the chagrin of charter school advocates in the Bush administration, that charter schools were not performing, for the most part, as well as their traditional public school counterparts. Another more recent attempt to compare charter school performance to traditional public school performance is a study conducted by The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. This was the first national, peer-reviewed attempt to accurately portray a valid comparison of traditional public school to charter school performance. The 9 CREDO report, titled Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 6 States, looked at charter schools in 5 states and the District of Columbia in order to compare learning gains on reading and math state achievement tests. In an attempt to create a pooled analysis of the impact of charter schooling on student learning gains, researchers created a virtual twin for each charter school student examined for the study (CREDO, 9). Each virtual twin was created based on students who match the charter school student s demographics, English language proficiency and participation in special education or subsidized lunch programs. (CREDO, 9). The study indicated a growing national demand for more charter schools from parents and communities that closely matches national interest in school choice options. With relation to student 8

12 achievement, the CREDO report found generally that charter school students were not performing as well as their peers in traditional public schools. And historically poor-performing subgroups, including black and Hispanic students, according to the report issued by CREDO, showed achievement results even lower than their traditional public school counterparts. But, notes the report, poorer school performance was not universal for all charter school students. The CREDO study highlights findings indicating the positive gains of lowincome students in charter schools as compared to similar groups of students in traditional public schools. This trend also seemed true for English Language Learner (ELL) students (CREDO, 9). Also of particular note, states the study, is that charter school students appear to improve over time. While first-year charter school students on average experienced a decline in learning, students in their second and third years in charter schools saw a significant reversal, experiencing positive achievement gains (CREDO, 9). As has been noted by United States Department of Education calls for schools to consistently perform positively, the CREDO study confirms that charter schools themselves vary widely in performance. State policy seems to significantly impact the academic success of charter school students, with states that set caps limiting the number of charter schools experiencing significantly lower academic results than states without caps limiting charter school growth (CREDO, 9). But the quality of the schools themselves is also drawn into question by the study. Dr. Margaret Raymond, director of CREDO at Stanford University, names quality [as] the most pressing problem that the charter schools movement faces [I]f the supporters of charter schools fail to address the quality challenge, they run the risk of having it addressed for them (CREDO, 9). The CREDO report has been met with varied response. Some national groups applauded appropriate use of an unbiased methodological approach to analyzing charter performance, and others identified potentially significant problems with the study. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools quickly issued a mixed set of comments about the study. On one hand, the pro-charters group recognized inconsistent performance of charter schools nationally, and validated CREDO s findings regarding the need for better charter school laws in order to make it easier to close charters that fail to serve students (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 9). At the same time, the Alliance was quick to call to question the methodology utilized by CREDO as well as the negative slant of the press coverage of the report. The debate continues regarding the efficacy of charter schools in the United States. But it appears they are here to stay. More than 4,4 charter schools have sprung up across the country, serving more than. million students (United States Department of Education, 8). Urging from the Bush administration has progressed to an all-out push from the Obama administration to continue to expand the number and types of school choice options for parents and students in the United States, including charter schools. The United States Department of Education continues to cite the positive results of charter schools in various locations across the country, asserting, charter schools are providing innovative learning environments and getting results, breaking apart the myth that some kids can t learn (United States Department of Education, 8). But statements like these are tempered by the knowledge that charter schools can and must do better. The charter school story must transform itself from a tale with a few promising success stories to one that shows consistent high performance that produces high achievement across the board for the students who attend. President Obama has been vocal about his commitment to charter schooling in the United States, promising to double funding for charter schools and pay teachers according to performance in order to weed out poor performers. This promise comes along with the carrot of federal moneys for states that invest in charter school growth and remove caps on the numbers of new charters allowed. Money available to states through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 9 is being tied to state efforts to improve student achievement through school improvement and reform. And more than $4.5 billion is being made available to states through competitive grants 9

13 via the president s Race to the Top program, which identifies and rewards states that exemplify excellence in educational reform. The Center for Education Reform s 9 ranking of charter school laws in the United States has served as sort of scorecard for states looking to compete for the billions in education grants. The scorecard indicates independent authorizing entities, fiscal equity and operational independence as the most important factors influencing the creation of quality charter schools. Pennsylvania results: In an effort to determine the performance of charter schools in Pennsylvania, PSBA s Education Research and Policy Center examined student test score results for charter schools across the state. AYP comparison: Table shows the distribution of AYP performance for both charter and traditional public schools in 7-8. In this table, schools refers to individual buildings. Analysis of the distribution of charter schools with traditional public schools shows no statistical difference between the two distributions. While the two populations are not statistically different, the traditional public schools have a higher number of buildings meeting AYP, and public schools have a lower percentage of buildings in corrective action at all levels. Appendix B shows the comparison of charter schools to traditional public schools by intermediate unit. The data in Appendix B is similar to the data presented in Table. Table 4 presents a comparison of the brick and mortar charter schools with cyber charter schools. Statistically, there is a difference between the cyber charter schools and both brick and mortar charter schools along with traditional public schools. In 7-8, only one cyber charter school met AYP requirements, two were making progress and all others were in improvement or corrective action. A summary of Tables and 4 shows that charter schools are performing in a similar manner to traditional public schools. However, the performance of cyber charter schools is well below the performance of traditional public schools and brick and mortar charters. Table 5 takes a look at the charter and public school results in Allegheny County (IU ), including Pittsburgh (IU ), compared with Philadelphia (IU 6). In the combined IU and, traditional public schools are performing slightly better than charter schools. However, in IU 6, Philadelphia, the charter schools appear to be performing about the same as traditional public schools. The key element of this comparison is the approximately equal number of public schools along with 7 of the 7 (6.6%) charter schools in Pennsylvania. School Summary Totals Table Charter and Traditional Public School Performance 7-8 Met AYP 7-8 Making Progress 7-8 Warning 7-8 Improve I 7-8 Improve II 7-8 Corrective Action All Total Charters % Charters.% 47.% 9.4% 7.9% 4.% 8.5%.8% Total Schools,, % Schools.% 68.8%.% 4.8% 4.8%.4% 6.% Total Traditional Public % Traditional Public,979, % 67.%.8% 4.% 4.6%.% 5.5% Note: There were five schools with less than students tested that are not included in the analysis. Source: PDE,

14 School Summary Totals Table 4 Charters and Cyber-charter School Performance Met AYP 7-8 Making Progress 7-8 Warning 7-8 Improve I 7-8 Improve II 7-8 Corrective Action All Total Charters % Charters.% 47.% 9.4% 7.9% 4.% 8.5%.8% Cyber 4 % Cyber.% 9.% 8.%.% 9.% 6.4% 7.% Non-Cyber % Non-Cyber.% 5.9% 8.5% 9.8%.8% 5.7%.% Source: PDE, School Summary Traditional Public Table 5 Charter and Traditional Public School Performance Allegheny County and Philadelphia IU Totals Met AYP 7-8 Making Progress 7-8 Warning 7/8 Improve I 7-8 Improve II 7-8 Corrective Action All / %.%.8% 8.%.5% 5.7% Charters / 5 Traditional Public 4.7% 8.% 8.% 8.% 6.7% 6.7% % 8.%.9% 7.8% 7.4% 9.% Charters Source: PDE, 4.4%.9%.7%.4% 5.%.9% Student proficiency: While AYP looks at the performance of schools and districts, the focus of education is the student. The following data contains individual student information. The data is compiled by year and grade in order to see percentages of students performing at a proficient level or higher on PSSA tests in math and reading. Access to the data was provided by PDE. Only selected data was used. This included reading and math scaled scores, Title I and economically disadvantaged as indicators of poverty. The first level of analysis presented is student proficiency. Proficiency is based on scaled test scores without any application of the different Table 6 Summary of Student Proficiency 7-8 Charter All Schools Charter All Schools Reading Reading Math Math Targets 6% 6% 56% 56% Grade 6% 77% 6% 8% Grade 4 77% 7% 6% 8% Grade 5 4% 6% 49% 7% Grade 6 48% 67% 5% 7% Grade 7 5% 7% 46% 7% Grade 8 6% 78% 45% 7% Grade 5% 65% % 56% Source: Student data files from PDE

15 Reading Table 7 Charter School Reading Proficiency by Year by Grade Charter Grade Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade -4 4% * % * * 5% 6% % * 47% * * 48% 46% % * 6% * * 45% 45% % 5% 4% 47% 54% 54% 5% 7-8 6% 77% 4% 48% 5% 6% 5% Source: Student data files from PDE Reading Table 8 All Schools Reading Proficiency by Year by Grade All Schools Grade Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade -4 * * 58% * * 6% 59% 4-5 * * 6% * * 69% 6% % * 64% * * 64% 65% % 68% 6% 66% 68% 7% 65% 7-8 7% 7% 6% 64% 67% 75% 65% Source: Student data files from PDE Math Table 9 Charter School Math Proficiency by Year by Grade Charters Grade Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade -4 46% * 5% * * % % 4-5 5% * 4% * * 4% 6% % * 4% * * 8% 8% % 59% 44% 46% 47% 9% % 7-8 6% 6% 49% 5% 46% 45% % Source: Student data files from PDE variables. Proficiency based on PSSA data includes the classifications of proficient and advanced. Table 6 shows the summary of student proficiency comparing charter schools to all schools in Pennsylvania in both reading and math for 7-8 by grade level. Target data in the first line indicates PDE s proficiency requirements for reading and math related to NCLB compliance. On the reading test, only grade 4 meets the proficiency target for charter schools, and grade 8 missed the proficiency target by %. On the reading test, all schools were proficient in grades, 4, 6, 7, 8 and, and missed the proficiency target by % for grade 5. Performance on the math exams shows that charter school students performed above the target in grades and 4. In all schools, performance by grade level above the target occurred in all grades. Table 7 shows the percent of charter school students proficient or advanced in reading by year and grade. Each year and grade can be associated with a unique cohort of students. Ideally, cohorts (groups of students in any grade in any given year) should be followed diagonally across the

16 table as they progress through each grade level over the years. For example, a cohort of students in grade in 6-7 would transfer to grade 4 in 7-8. This tracking gives the reader a sense of the improvement of particular groups of students Math over time. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania s unique student identification system for tracking students was not implemented early enough for researchers in this instance to be able to account for transience in cohort populations as students move in and out of schools or districts from year to year. Keeping this in mind, PSSA scores show some improvement from the cohorts for the 6-7 and 7-8 school years. Table 8 presents the percent of students proficient or advanced by year and grade for all schools. Each year and grade is a unique cohort of students. Scores show some improvement in the cohorts in the 6-7 and 7-8 school years except for grade 5. Table 9 shows the percent of charter school students that are proficient or advanced in math by year and grade. Each year and grade is a unique cohort of students. Scores show some improvement in the cohorts in the 6-7 and 7-8 school years. Table shows the percent of students that are proficient or advanced in math for all schools by year and grade. Each year and grade is a unique cohort of students. Scores show some improvement in the cohorts in the 7-8 school year. Test scores for different economic classifications: Beginning with 6-7, PDE began to assign unique student ID numbers to allow for tracking of test scores as students move between schools. PSBA made this recommendation along with several other recommendations in a white paper in, titled Assessment, Testing and the PSSA: Table All Schools Math Proficiency by Year by Grade All Schools Grade Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grade -4 * * 56% * * 57% 49% 4-5 * * 6% * * 58% 49% 5-6 8% * 69% * * 6% 57% 6-7 8% 77% 67% 68% 66% 6% 5% % 78% 7% 7% 67% 68% 54% Source: Student data files from PDE Research and policy implications for Pennsylvania school districts. At the present time, there is incomplete tracking data for 6-7. Only 7-8 contains full implementation of student ID numbers. This will allow a better evaluation of performance by being able to follow student entry and exit between traditional public and charter schools. As an alternative to student ID tracking we looked at the charter school data by Title I and economically disadvantaged coding on the test results. Table shows the results of the analysis of charter school students for grade in -4. In -4,,75 grade charter students qualified for Title I programs (75.%). However, only 86 students were proficient in reading and 7 students were proficient in math. Among the group of students that were economically disadvantaged (595 or 4.9% of all grade charter students), 8 were proficient in reading while 75 were proficient in math. It is possible for students to qualify for Title I programs and not be economically disadvantaged. The last part of Table shows the grade charter school students that were both Title I eligible and economically disadvantaged (55 or.% of all grade charter students). Among this group, only 6 were proficient in reading and 66 were proficient in math. Table shows the same data for 7-8 that was presented in Table for -4. Here we find the results are significantly different. Proficiency improves among the grade charter students that qualify for Title I programs as does proficiency for economically disadvantaged students and those that qualify for both. Examining the percent of all grade charter students, those eligible for Title I decreases from 75.% to 5%.

17 Title I Table -4 Charter School Grade Proficiency by Title I and Economically Disadvantaged Reading Proficiency Math Proficiency Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes Number % 58.5% 75.% 8.% 67.% 75.% No Number % 4.7% 4.8% 5.% 9.6% 4.8% Total Number % 7.%.%.% 86.8%.% Economically Disadvantaged Yes Number % 7.4% 4.9% 4.4%.5% 4.9% No Number % 45.7% 65.% 8.8% 56.% 65.% Total Number % 7.%.%.% 86.8%.% Title I and Economically Disadvantaged Yes Number % 5.5%.%.9% 8.4%.% No Number % 47.6% 67.7% 9.% 58.4% 67.7% Total Number % 7.%.%.% 86.8%.% Source: Student data files from PDE However, reading proficiency increases from 6.8% of all charter students to.8% and math proficiency increases from 8.% to 6.6% of all grade charter school students. Among those students that qualify for both Title I and economically disadvantaged, the percent of students proficient in reading and math increases from 6.8% and.9% to.% and 8.%, respectively. Appendix C shows similar data for grades, 5 and 8 for both -4 and 7-8. Similar improvements are also seen in these grades as was seen in grade data. Only two years of data are available for grades 4, 5, 6 and 7 which limits the ability to look at improvements in proficiency for these grades. Economically disadvantaged students accounted for 5.% for all test takers in 7-8 compared with.% of all charter school students. Title I participation is not available for all state test takers. Summary: Both the number of charter schools and the number of students enrolled in charter schools have grown between -4 and 7-8. Charter schools increased from to 7 (7.%). Students enrolled increased from 8,695 to 67, (59%). During this same period, the percent of economically disadvantaged students decreased to about the statewide rate. The number of special education students increased from about 9% of 4

18 Title I Table 7-8 Charter School Grade Proficiency by Title I and Economically Disadvantaged Reading Proficiency Math Proficiency Yes No Total Yes No Total Yes Number % 9.% 5.% 6.6% 6.4% 5.% No Number %.% 47.%.9%.% 47.% Total Number % 49.%.%.5% 69.5%.% Economically Disadvantaged Yes Number % 9.%.% 9.%.9%.% No Number %.% 67.8%.% 46.6% 67.8% Total Number % 49.%.%.5% 69.5%.% Title I and Economically Disadvantaged Yes Number % 6.% 7.% 8.% 9.% 7.% No Number %.% 7.7%.% 5.4% 7.7% Total Number % 49.%.%.5% 69.5%.% Source: Student data files from PDE total enrollments to.8%, which is just slightly below the statewide average of 6%. Comparison of charter schools to traditional public schools shows a slightly higher proportion of traditional public schools meeting AYP. Separating cyber charters from brick and mortar charters shows AYP proficiency for cyber charters to be significantly lower. In the two largest student population areas in the state, Allegheny County and Philadelphia, there are two different patterns. In Allegheny County, including Pittsburgh, traditional public schools and charter schools are meeting AYP at the state averages for the respective groups. In Philadelphia, charters are performing at the state AYP average but the traditional public schools are performing at about one-half of the rate for their group. The percent of students proficient in math and reading varies by year and grade. While some variation is expected because of different cohort groups, the proficiency rates are not consistent, and traditional public schools as a group tended to perform better than charters. This does not mean that all traditional public schools performed better than all charters. An examination of the proficiency of charter students between -4 and 7-8, shows that both reading and math proficiency have improved in charter schools. Proficiency differences between Title I and non-title I; economically disadvantaged 5

19 and non-economically disadvantaged; and Title I and economically disadvantaged with non-title I and economically disadvantaged were examined. Proficiency in these subgroups, recognizing a difference in cohorts, has improved over the period -4 and 7-8 for both math and reading. The 9 CREDO report indicates that first-year charter student performance declines, but in subsequent years shows positive achievement gains. This study could not examine this effect in detail at the present time. While PDE is now assigning a consistent ID number to all students for testing history (as previously recommended by PSBA), there is insufficient data with consistent ID numbers to evaluate the CREDO effect. Some proponents of charter schools argue that charters face an uphill educational battle as a result of serving the needs of unusually high numbers of poor performing students. Some in opposition of charter schools claim charters steal the best of the best from traditional public schools. PSBA s findings are not able to substantiate either claim. In the early years of charter school growth in the state, there seemed to be a smaller percentage of special needs students enrolled in Pennsylvania charter schools. But in the most recent year, the charters are about equal to the state average. While the charters started with higher numbers of economically disadvantaged students, this has declined to the state average for the most recent year. Key Findings in this Report: For the most recent year analyzed (7-8), there seems to be minimal statistical difference between the distribution of charter school performance overall to that of traditional public school performance overall. Traditional public schools, however, have a higher number of buildings making Adequate Yearly Progress, and have a lower percentage of buildings in corrective action at all levels. For all years analyzed, individual student performance by grade level of charter school students is significantly below that of traditional public school students. Cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania appear to be significantly underperforming both traditional public schools, as well as their brick and mortar charter school peers. While charter school student populations seemed initially to be serving higher numbers of economically disadvantaged students, in recent years those percentages have declined to be relatively in line with the state average. An early underrepresented special needs student population in charter schools seems to have leveled off in recent years to be relatively in line with the state average. An examination of the proficiency of charter school students between -4 and 7-8 shows that reading and math proficiency have improved. In limited urban areas of Pennsylvania, charter schools appear to be outperforming traditional public schools. Recommendations: While the performance of charter schools has improved, they are still not at the performance level of traditional public schools. Cyber charters are the lowest performing group of schools. Demographic differences which originally existed are now leveling out to the state averages. Performance of charter schools, in the two large urban areas of the state, is different from the traditional public schools. PSBA recommends the state should: Provide local school districts with greater authority to hold charter schools accountable based on continuous performance. Look at the operations of one well performing cyber charter and develop a model for cyber charter operations. Improve the state report card to show the performance of traditional public schools, brick and mortar charter schools and cyber charter schools rather than just a single statewide report. Provide the home school district with annual performance results of students attending charter and cyber charter schools. 6

20 Bibliography Assessment, Testing and the PSSA: research and policy implications for Pennsylvania school districts. PSBA Research Services, New Cumberland, Pa. June,. Charter Schools. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Web. Summer 9. charter_schools/site/default.asp. Center for School Reform, Washington DC, 9. Facts for Features Back to School: 6-7. United States Census Bureau, 6 Aug. 6. Web. 6 June 9. releases/archives/facts_for_features_special_editions/78.html. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. CREDO Report Reconsidered. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 9 June 9. Web. Summer 9. CREDO%Reconsidered%-%final.pdf. Print. Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools from the Common Core of Data: School Year 6-7 (NCES 9-4). United States of America. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Innovation and Improvement. A Commitment to Quality: National Charter School Policy Forum Report. Washington D.C.: U.S Department of Education, 8. Print. US Charter Schools Overview. US Charter Schools. Web. Summer 9. Green, Jay P., Greg Forster, and Marcus A. Winters. Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations. Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations. Center for Civic Innovation at The Manhattan Institute, July. Web. Summer 9. Hoxby, Carolyn M. School Choice and School Competition evidence from the U.S. Swedish Economic Policy Review (): Print. Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 6 States. Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 6 States. Center for Research on Education Outcomes, June 9. Web. Summer 9. credo. stanford.edu/reports/multiple_choice_credo.pdf 7