Charter schools outperform district schools, especially in low-income, high-minority, urban communities, write Fordham's Michael J. Petrilli and David Griffith.
In multiple studies, there's no evidence that charter schools cream the best students, they write, and "some research suggests that charters enroll unusually low-performing students."
In addition to higher test scores, charter enrollment is linked to long-term outcomes such as college enrollment, teenage pregnancy, incarceration, and voting.
Why? Urban charters are more likely to embrace “frequent teacher feedback, the use of data to guide instruction, high-dosage tutoring, increased instructional time, and high expectations," and more likely to hire and retain diverse teaching staffs, write Petrilli and Griffith.
Finally, while low-performing district schools go on failing forever, charter authorizers are willing to close low-performing charters.
Research also shows that charter competition improves neighboring public schools, write Griffith and Heena Kuwayama. In at least a dozen studies, "the arrival of new charter schools increases the achievement of students who remain in traditional public schools." It may also reduce student absenteeism and increase graduation rates.
"Charter-driven enrollment losses lead to the closure of low-performing district schools," according to one recent study, they write. That "probably helps the students who would have attended them, insofar as they wind up in better schools."
Comments