The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) assessed the impact of different types of charter school-operating organizations on student outcomes in 24 states, plus New York City and Washington, D.C. The study finds that students in charter schools display slightly greater gains in performance than their peers in traditional public schools, especially students in charter schools operated by certain types of organizations. CREDO’s distinctions between organization types are, however, arbitrary and unsupported by other research in the field. This raises concerns about the practical utility of the CREDO findings. In addition, CREDO researchers made several dubious methodological decisions that threaten the validity of the study. A number of the problems flagged by the reviewers of this study have been raised in reviews of prior CREDO studies. Specifically, CREDO studies tend to over-interpret small effect sizes; fail to justify the statistical assumptions underlying the group comparisons made; and not take into account or acknowledge either the large body of charter school research beyond their own work or the limitations inherent in the research approach they have taken. Because these problems have gone unaddressed in the present study, and because the CREDO researchers have compounded them by creating a confusing and illogical charter organization classification system, the report is of limited if any value in policymaking. Readers should review the report with care.

Relative to earlier research, this study from the Center on Reinventing Public Education provides a more in-depth analysis of policy features across the 27 states that allow online charter schools. It presents a well-organized description of policy features and includes a set of policy recommendations that generally, but not always, follow well from the study’s evidence. Because the findings are largely negative, this report may be seized on by groups that are broadly critical of charter schools. But the report is published by an organization that often advocates for charter school growth, and the authors’ discussion of findings suggests that the charter school establishment is advocating for separating online charter schools from brick-and-mortar charter schools and governing them with a separate policy framework. While there is some justification for such an approach, online charter issues are not completely distinct from issues that arise from other charters. Overall, the detailed analyses of policy environments and the summary of problems in the online charter school sector included in this report should be useful to policymakers who are willing and able to pursue more restrictive oversight and increase accountability for online charter schools.

The irony of a recent report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools is that it purports to “separate fact from fiction” about charter schools. Unfortunately, in addressing 21 “myths,” it embraces fiction whenever useful to push advocacy goals, thus perpetuating its own myths and fictions about charter schools. Since it relies overwhelmingly on other advocacy documents, it does not give a balanced or thorough examination of any of the 21 “myths.” But the exercise provides a useful opportunity for this review to walk through the various claims and succinctly address each. Among the areas addressed are the financial equality of charter schools, lower teacher qualifications, student selection demographics, academic outcomes, segregation, and innovation. While the NAPCS report itself may provide only sound-bite fodder for advocates, we hope that the two documents combined—report plus review—offer an overview of issues that does advance comprehensive understanding.

Please note: This review was replaced on March 3, 2015, due to a substantive change in the content of Endnote 24, which is described in the endnote itself.

The report summarizes evidence from five studies of student achievement in oversubscribed charter schools and two studies on charter school revenues and outlines a number of recommendations relevant to the federal role in charter schools. While many recommendations are reasonable, those related to charter school facilities and charter school finance are more likely to be disputed because they are poorly developed and based on a narrow and misleading view of the evidence. This review discusses and expands upon the evidence and recommendations presented in the report. The intent of the report is to guide federal policy in ways that can improve and expand charter schools, but weaknesses in the report and flaws in the conclusions and the process used to generate the report undermine its utility. The report can serve as an initial step in outlining some of the key issues that federal lawmakers should consider. Nevertheless, federal policies that will strengthen charter schools in the longer run—rather than expanding the number of charter schools in the short run—need to be based on a more accurate and representative body of evidence. Further, the process of formulating recommendations requires more than six voices and more than a day of conversations to develop a comprehensive understanding of vital issues as well as to build a consensus.

Suggested Citation: Miron, G. (2011). Review of “Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education.” Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charter-federal

The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University conducted a large-scale analysis of the impact of charter schools on student performance. The center’s data covered 65-70% of the nation’s charter schools. Although results varied by state, 17% of the charter school students have significantly higher math results than their matched twins in comparable traditional public schools (TPS), while 37% had significantly worse results. The CREDO study strengthens the well-established, broader body of evidence showing average charter performance to be equal to, or perhaps lower than, the performance of traditional schools—-a body of evidence that is summarized in this review. The study also presents some state-level analyses concerning policy options; this review points out limitations with those analyses and also explores other policy implications of the report’s findings. The relative strength and comprehensiveness of the data set used for this study, as well as the solid analytic approaches of the researchers, makes this report a useful contribution to the charter school research base. Nevertheless, this review points out some weaknesses and areas for improvement, many of which represent commonplace limitations for this type of study that should be shared in the technical report. Suggested Cite: Miron, G. & Applegate, B. (2009). Review of “Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-multiple-choice

This Buckeye Institute policy brief sets out to document problems and inequities in charter school finance in Ohio, but it falls short in providing a comprehensive presentation of evidence. It ignores relevant research literature and extensive findings from the official state evaluation. It incorrectly assumes that charter schools serve the same types of students and provide the same range of services, and it does so based on only partial revenues. Perhaps most troubling, the report’s primary findings—-that districts gain revenue for each student who attends a charter school and that there would be a net loss of revenues for districts if charter schools were closed—-are based on an ungrounded and misleading interpretation of Ohio’s mechanism for funding schools. To illustrate these problems, this review presents a comprehensive description of particular cost advantages and disadvantages that charter schools face. Such comprehensiveness is important for seeing through one-sided arguments from opponents or advocates that may not take into consideration the whole range of factors that affect the equitable distribution of revenues.

Suggested Citation: Miron, G. (2008). Review of “Public charter schools: A great value for Ohio’s public education system.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-charters-ohio

This report developed a unique typology to compare charter schools types by their enrollment, demographic background of students, and performance.

Suggested Citation:

Miron, G. (2006). Review of "Playing to Type? Mapping the Charter School Landscape."  Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-playing-type-mapping-charter-school-landscape