1 / 11

Charter Authorizers, Charter Management Organizations, and Student Outcomes

This presentation explores the impact of charter governance and management on student outcomes, discussing the effectiveness of authorizers, the role of CMOs, and identifying factors that contribute to successful charter schools.

howardg
Download Presentation

Charter Authorizers, Charter Management Organizations, and Student Outcomes

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Charter Authorizers, Charter Management Organizations, and Student Outcomes Brian Gill, Ph.D., J.D. 2014.05.20 Presentation for the Education Writers Association Nashville, TN

  2. Is there any relationship between charter governance/management and student outcomes? • Average effectiveness of charter schools still debated • May be slightly better or slightly worse than conventional public schools • Variation in charter school performance is wide • What makes some charter schools better than others? • Researchers only beginning to assess whether governance / management matters for student outcomes • Are some authorizers better than others? • What makes a better authorizer? • Do charter-school management organizations (CMOs) successfully replicate impacts of effective charter schools? • How do CMOs promote consistently successful schools?

  3. Authorizers and student achievement

  4. Minimal evidence that authorizer type matters for student achievement • Gleason et al found no difference between district and non-district authorizers • Carlson et al found no differences by authorizer type in Wisconsin • Zimmer et al found hints in Ohio—the “wild west” of charter authorization—that • Non-profit-authorized schools may be slightly less effective • District-authorized schools may be slightly more effective

  5. Not clear how authorizer effectiveness should be evaluated • If district authorizers have more-effective schools, is this just because they set higher entry standards to reduce competition? • Authorizer might maximize the effectiveness of authorized schools by setting a very high bar to entry • Limits access to charters • Authorizer with the most-effective schools might not be the most-effective authorizer

  6. No evidence on how authorizers might matter • Gleason et al found no relationship between autonomy/accountability level and impact • What matters most, initial screening, accountability/monitoring, or operational support?

  7. CMOs and student achievement

  8. KIPP demonstrates that consistent success across a charter network is possible Percentage of KIPP schools with positive and negative impacts, math

  9. But many CMOs are not so effective • CMO-specific impacts in middle-school math, 2 years after enrollment in CMO • (each bar represents one CMO)

  10. Much more to be learned about CMOs • Some evidence that individual CMOs produce reasonably consistent effects across schools • Minimal evidence on non-test outcomes (e.g. graduation, college entry) • Factors explaining success just beginning to be examined

  11. For More Information • Brian Gill, Ph.D., J.D., Senior Fellow bgill@mathematica-mpr.com

More Related