Pa. charter schools get mixed marks in analysis by Stanford
The study found “overwhelmingly negative” results from cyber charter schools that require “urgent attention” from education leaders and lawmakers, the report said.
While the debate rages on about the accountability and quality of Pennsylvania’s charter schools, a new study from researchers at Stanford University shows some bright spots in a hodgepodge of findings regarding student performance, while also calling for “urgent attention” to bleak results from the state’s cyber charter schools.
According to a report released Tuesday from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Pennsylvania’s urban charters have shown some improvement in student growth since the last time the center conducted an in-depth study of the Pennsylvania schools in 2011. At that time, data showed that students across all charter schools lagged behind their counterparts at traditional public schools in reading and math.
The latest study shows that overall, students in Pennsylvania charter schools showed similar growth in reading compared to students at traditional public schools while lagging behind in math and losing the equivalent of about 30 days of learning time. But at urban charter schools, the research shows, students learn more than their counterparts at
traditional public schools in reading, and perform similarly in math.
“Despite the generally flat performance overall, there are important positive findings for Pennsylvania charter schools,” the report said. “Most notable is the strong reading performance of [the] brick-andmortar set of charter schools.”
The study was conducted using data from the Pennsylvania Department of Education for students who were enrolled in 181 charters between the 2013-14 and 2016-17 school years.
According to the study, a school-level analysis shows that about half of Pennsylvania’s charter schools outpace their traditional public school counterparts in reading, while about a third of them outpace their counterparts in math. But the study also found that 81% of Pennsylvania’s charter schools perform below the 50th percentile for reading achievement, and about 87% perform below the 50th percentile in math achievement.
“The evidence shows that Pennsylvania has substantial numbers of under-performing charter schools,” the report authors wrote. “To be clear, the proportion of sub-par charter schools has declined since our 2011 Pennsylvania study. However, with nearly one-quarter of the schools lagging in reading and one-third in math, the collective impact on students’ academic careers and later life outcomes remains of deep concern.”
The study found “overwhelmingly negative” results from cyber charter schools that require “urgent attention” from education leaders and lawmakers, the report said.
Students in the cyber charters showed “significantly weaker” growth compared to their counterparts at traditional public schools, and lose the equivalent of about 106 days of learning in reading and 118 days of learning in math, the study shows.
“Any potential benefits of online schooling are drowned out by the negative impact on academic growth of students enrolled in such schools,” the report said. Researchers added that the poor performance of the online schools drags down the overall impact of charter schools on student academic growth.
In a statement, state Department of Education officials said they have taken steps to strengthen oversight of both brick-and-mortar and cyber charter schools in Pennsylvania. Eleven of the 15 cyber charters in the state were designated for “rigorous” additional school improvement support as part of Pennsylvania’s plan under the Every Student Succeeds Act.
“However, these actions are no substitute for reforms to the Charter School Law itself,” officials said. “Pennsylvania taxpayers have invested more than $10 billion in charter schools since 2013, yet this report finds ‘little to no progress in Pennsylvania charter school performance’ since that time. This study is another reminder of the urgent need for equity in funding between charter and other public schools, and greater accountability for equitable learning outcomes. The Wolf Administration looks forward to partnering with the General Assembly to pursue legislative reforms to set the conditions for accountability and performance that our students deserve.”
James Fogarty, executive director of Pittsburgh watchdog and advocacy group A+ Schools, said the report shouldn’t be a “rallying cry” for either side of the charter school debate. Some of the local schools can learn from what urban brick-and-mortar charters are doing right, he said. But the cyber charter schools “don’t seem to be working.”
“I think everyone can agree that cyber charters are not the answer,” Mr. Fogarty said. “I think it’s an experiment whose time has come to an end.”
The Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, which represents charter schools across the state, said in a statement that it “is appreciative of any opportunity to have a data-based conversation about the performance of their schools, when far too often the discussion about charter schools revolves around unfounded political rhetoric.”
“At the same time that we celebrate the successes of our brick-and-mortar charter schools, we believe that the report fails to include important information that must be considered when evaluating cyber charter schools,” the group said.
“It is important to recognize that the data used in the report is dated and fails to acknowledge the substantial changes cyber charter schools in our state have made to facilitate continued improvements that are not reflected in this study.”