[Impressively](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/hcz_nov_2010.pdf), this brought up the primarily-black students to the level of their white counterparts by 9th grade. Students are choosen primarily by lottery, not applications, so this isn’t just self-selection
Note, however, that this comparison is between white students *outside the school* (since the student body is basically entirely black). Possibly, the disparity would return if white students engaged in the same curriculum.
Fascinatingly though, the researchers found that these results are almost *all* due to the No Excuses schools — the community initiatives had no effect. I found that result really surprising and it made me reevaluate how much schools can improve learning outcomes in struggling communities. This actually made me quite happy since it indicates we can do a lot by just by improving school quality.
Fire_Snatcher on
The thing that gets me with these studies is the conversation is always “charter schools or no?”, and rarely does it talk about policy implications within public schools. Things you can personally influence right now within your school district.
The study found that Black, Hispanic, and poor students got (modestly) better from some charter schools (we’re talking the equivalent of a few extra days of education). White got worse and Asians no significant differences and special education worse (interesting how they barely allude to this in the press release). They do not offer an explanation for this, which is really unfortunate when discussing policy regarding the extent of charter schools and reforms that can/should be made in public schools.
If anything, I think it may be that motivation of parents matters a lot. If Black/Hispanic/poor parents are using charter schools largely to escape a school environment that is anti-intellectual, it would make sense that putting their student in a charter school modestly improved outcomes since everyone there takes school seriously. If white parents are using it mostly as a means to escape the perceived politics/culture/authority of school they don’t like, they may be parents less interested in academics/schooling and hence their child does worse. Not definitive, just a thought.
This would imply it is important to have honors classes in schools especially for lower income, Hispanic, and Black students. I am baffled this is controversial in the US. Education studies consistently show the best students benefit enormously from being around each other. This is something that at a local level you can influence now, and it should be discussed more widely, IMO.
Next, the problem with a lot of these studies is that they match for a lot of variables including test score the previous year, but as school progresses, it is very possible innate intelligence matters less and work ethic starts to matter more. Thus, if a less naturally intelligent student with a motivated parent enrolling in a charter school is matched with a more naturally intelligent student with a less motivated parent staying in public school, the factor of parental involvement still looms large as the trajectory of growth of the involved-parent student may have always been steeper. And again, these are very modest improvement (we’re talking the equivalent of a couple of days of instruction), so this can genuinely be a factor that is hard to tease out unless controlling for conditional growth percentile (which they should).
Lastly, we have to talk about special education (SPED), and why they do so poorly in charter schools. Is it a case of parents misidentifying the problem as the schools, switching to a charter in defiance of school authority and thus getting predictably lower outcomes as students of these parents live in an environment less positive about schooling/ less willing to take personal accountability? Maybe. Is it just that SPED takes up a lot of resources and money charter schools making a profit are less likely to use? Maybe. What does this imply for public schools? They’re doing a great job? They should invest less in SPED?
3 Comments
This article is over a year old… Also, the “evidence” which they rely on for this claim is pretty weak.
This article is older (published in 2024), but it hasn’t been discussed on here before.
I recently became curious about charters after reading about [Harlem’s Children Zone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harlem_Children%27s_Zone), a charter school that attempts to improve outcomes by two methods:
* *No Excuses*: Think military school teaching style. Discipline is not optional. *The Economist* analyzes their [British counterpart here](https://www.economist.com/special-report/2024/07/07/englands-school-reforms-are-earning-fans-abroad).
* *Community Initiatives:* Think parenting classes, dental support, and various events.
[Impressively](https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/hcz_nov_2010.pdf), this brought up the primarily-black students to the level of their white counterparts by 9th grade. Students are choosen primarily by lottery, not applications, so this isn’t just self-selection
Note, however, that this comparison is between white students *outside the school* (since the student body is basically entirely black). Possibly, the disparity would return if white students engaged in the same curriculum.
Fascinatingly though, the researchers found that these results are almost *all* due to the No Excuses schools — the community initiatives had no effect. I found that result really surprising and it made me reevaluate how much schools can improve learning outcomes in struggling communities. This actually made me quite happy since it indicates we can do a lot by just by improving school quality.
The thing that gets me with these studies is the conversation is always “charter schools or no?”, and rarely does it talk about policy implications within public schools. Things you can personally influence right now within your school district.
The study found that Black, Hispanic, and poor students got (modestly) better from some charter schools (we’re talking the equivalent of a few extra days of education). White got worse and Asians no significant differences and special education worse (interesting how they barely allude to this in the press release). They do not offer an explanation for this, which is really unfortunate when discussing policy regarding the extent of charter schools and reforms that can/should be made in public schools.
If anything, I think it may be that motivation of parents matters a lot. If Black/Hispanic/poor parents are using charter schools largely to escape a school environment that is anti-intellectual, it would make sense that putting their student in a charter school modestly improved outcomes since everyone there takes school seriously. If white parents are using it mostly as a means to escape the perceived politics/culture/authority of school they don’t like, they may be parents less interested in academics/schooling and hence their child does worse. Not definitive, just a thought.
This would imply it is important to have honors classes in schools especially for lower income, Hispanic, and Black students. I am baffled this is controversial in the US. Education studies consistently show the best students benefit enormously from being around each other. This is something that at a local level you can influence now, and it should be discussed more widely, IMO.
Next, the problem with a lot of these studies is that they match for a lot of variables including test score the previous year, but as school progresses, it is very possible innate intelligence matters less and work ethic starts to matter more. Thus, if a less naturally intelligent student with a motivated parent enrolling in a charter school is matched with a more naturally intelligent student with a less motivated parent staying in public school, the factor of parental involvement still looms large as the trajectory of growth of the involved-parent student may have always been steeper. And again, these are very modest improvement (we’re talking the equivalent of a couple of days of instruction), so this can genuinely be a factor that is hard to tease out unless controlling for conditional growth percentile (which they should).
Lastly, we have to talk about special education (SPED), and why they do so poorly in charter schools. Is it a case of parents misidentifying the problem as the schools, switching to a charter in defiance of school authority and thus getting predictably lower outcomes as students of these parents live in an environment less positive about schooling/ less willing to take personal accountability? Maybe. Is it just that SPED takes up a lot of resources and money charter schools making a profit are less likely to use? Maybe. What does this imply for public schools? They’re doing a great job? They should invest less in SPED?