7/10/13

Charter School Performance in Illinois

2

Overview

•  Acknowledgements –  ISBE (especially Brandon Williams and Peter Godard) –  Joyce Foundation

•  Study Approach

•  Findings •  Summary & Implications

Study Approach

3

4

Research Questions

•  How do charter schools compare to TPS in their academic achievement gains?

•  What characteristics of charter schools are associated with better achievement gains?

•  Do charter schools have more success than

TPS working with certain student subgroups?

5

Impact Analysis: Years of Study

Test Administration

Spring 2009

Spring 2010

Spring 2011

Spring 2012

Academic Year Covered by Test

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Grades 3-8 3-8 3-8 3-8

Growth Period 2010 2011 2012

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction

Demographics

19

Demographic Comparison

20

2010-2011

Source: Common Core of Data, National Center for Education Statistics

TPS Feeders Charters

Number of schools 4362 618 43Average enrollment per school 472 610 842Total number of students enrolled 2,060,340 376,985 36,201Students in Poverty 44% 82% 71%English Language Learners 7% 13% 6%Special Education Students 13% 13% 10%White Students 53% 15% 5%Black Students 18% 42% 62%Hispanic Students 21% 39% 31%Asian/Pacific Islander Students 4% 3% 1%Native American Students 0.2% 0.2% 0.1%

Charter Student Population

21

All Charter School Students 36,201

Tested Students 20,349

Matched Students 18,689

Average one-year student growth

(based on 3 growth periods)

Results

•  Student-level Findings •  School-level Findings

22

Student-level Findings

23

Impact of Charter Schools

24

Charter students outperform traditional public school (TPS) students in reading and math; results are slightly stronger for math than for reading.

.01**.01**

-.03**

.03** .03**

.01

-.1

.0

.1

Overall Illinois Chicago Not Chicago

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

de

via

tio

ns)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Charter School Impact with Original School Cohort

25

Students in Chicago schools from the 2009 report outperform TPS in both subjects in the new time period, an improvement over the original results.

.00

.02**.02**

.03**

.00

.05

Overall Chicago 2009 Overall Chicago 2012

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

de

via

tio

ns)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Charter School Impact by Growth Period

26

Note: Count of new schools is from student test data.

Charter students outperformed TPS in math in all growth periods; in reading, results were positive in two of three periods.

.02**

.04**

-.02**

.04**

.02**.03**

-.1

.0

.1

2010 2011 2012

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

de

via

tio

ns)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

ReadingMath

New schools: 3 6 4Persisting : 46 51 61

Charter School Impact by CMO Affiliation

27

Charter students at CMO-affiliated and non-CMO schools perform better than TPS in math, but only CMO-affiliates do so in reading.

.01**.01

.03**

.04**

.00

.05

CMO Non-CMO

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Charter School Impact by Race/Ethnicity

28

Black students have similar learning gains in reading and math at TPS and charters. Hispanic students have similar learning gains in reading but better learning gains in math when they attend a charter compared to TPS.

-.18**-.20**

-.04*

-.06**

-.09** -.09**

-.03*

.04**

-.25

-.20

-.15

-.10

-.05

.00

.05

.10

Traditional Public School

Charter Traditional Public School

Charter

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Black Hispanic

Charter School Impact with Students in Poverty

29

Students in poverty have an advantage in charter schools in reading but similar gains in math compared to TPS students in poverty.

-.11**

-.08**

-.05** -.05**

-.15

-.10

-.05

.00

Traditional Public School Charter

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Charter School Impact by Race/Ethnicity and Poverty

30

Black students in poverty have better learning gains in reading at charters than at TPS. Hispanic students in poverty have better learning gains in math at charter schools than at TPS.

-.30**-.28**

-.15** -.14**-.14** -.13**

-.07**

-.004

-.35

-.30

-.25

-.20

-.15

-.10

-.05

.00

Traditional Public School

Charter Traditional Public School

Charter

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Black / Poverty Hispanic / Poverty

Charter School Impact with Special Education Students

31

Special education students in charter schools have similar learning gains as their TPS counterparts in both reading and math.

-.36** -.36**

-.19** -.19**

-.4

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

Traditional Public School Charter

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

Charter School Impact with English Language Learners

32

There is no difference in learning gains for ELLs in charters and TPS.

-.27**-.28**

-.12** -.12**

-.3

-.2

-.1

.0

Traditional Public School Charter

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

dev

iati

ons)

* Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

Reading

Math

33

Charter Impact by City

.34**

.01**

.09**

.06**

.22**

.03**

.36**

.03**

.08** .08**

.26**

.14**

.00

.10

.20

.30

.40

Boston Chicago Detroit Indianapolis Newark New York City

Gro

wth

(in

sta

nd

ard

de

via

tio

ns)

** Significant at p ≤ 0.01 Reading Math

School-level Findings

34

Distribution of Charter School Impacts

35

Subject Number Percent Number Percent Number PercentReading 13 21.3% 36 59.0% 12 19.7%

Math 13 21.0% 26 41.9% 23 37.1%

Significantly Worse Not Significant Significantly

Better

Impact of Growth on Achievement - Reading

36

Growth(in Standard Deviations) 1.6%

70th Percentile

3.3% 8.2%50th Percentile

3.3% 23.0% 37.7% 3.3%30th Percentile

14.8% 4.9%

-0.15 0.15

Low Growth,High Achievement

High Growth,High Achievement

Low Growth,Low Achievement

High Growth,Low Achievement

0

Impact of Growth on Achievement - Math

37

Growth(in Standard Deviations) 1.6%

70th Percentile

1.6% 3.2% 4.8%50th Percentile

21.0% 41.9% 4.8%30th Percentile

3.2% 12.9% 4.8%

-0.15 0.15

Low Growth,High Achievement

High Growth,High Achievement

Low Growth,Low Achievement

High Growth,Low Achievement

0

Summary & Implications

38

39

Summary of Findings

•  Typical charter student has greater learning gains than TPS –  2 weeks in reading –  1 month in math

•  No consistent trend of charter benefits for specific student groups –  Math: Hispanic students, Hispanic students in poverty –  Reading: Students in poverty, black students in poverty

•  Some charters have below-average growth & below-average achievement –  Math: 37% –  Reading: 41%

VULNERABLE

Implications

•  Decent baseline for Chicago, less so for rest of state

•  Substantial need for stronger oversight – low quality has ripples across sector

•  Positive aspects of charter experience – role for INCS to find & leverage these?

•  Strong performance may not sustain in reading

40

Questions?

41

Thank You

42