Sign Up For Our Newsletter

Charters: Getting The Truth Out

“Charter truth and fiction”
Opinion
by Gary Wolfram
The Detroit News
December 18, 2011

On Thursday evening the Michigan House voted to increase the cap on charter schools that can be authorized by public colleges and universities. While it is unfortunate that the cap was not immediately lifted – its elimination is phased in over a three year period – the fact is that there will be greater competition is a boon for our K-12 education system in Michigan.

At this watershed moment for increased school choice for Michigan families, it’s important to separate charter fact from fiction.

Last week I touched on some on why eliminating the cap would be good for all Michigan students – but particularly for those in districts such as Detroit where dropout rates are very high, test scores very low, and parent satisfaction in the basement. Given the importance of education in a global economy, it is worth expanding on the benefits of charter schools.

Charters are public schools and in the state of Michigan must comply with all rules and regulations affecting public schools. Charter schools are actually public school districts with only one school. Because – unlike the standard public school district – they cannot levy taxes, charters educate their students for less per pupil than other public schools. On average $1,778 less.

This is because standard public districts receive from the state a foundation allowance for operating expenses and then can levy a property tax to pay for capital expenses. Charters, however, must fund their operating and capital expense from their foundation allowance, which is generally the same as that of the regular school district within which they are located.

While some would give the impression that charters sweep up the best students and serve the well-to-do, facts show this cannot be true.

First, students who are wealthy tend to live in wealthier school districts that do better on many measures of performance. Charters are unlikely to enter these districts unless it is to serve a particular market – say, specializing in sciences or art. Charters are more likely to enter where districts are performing poorly as it will be easier to attract students. Thus, we would expect charters to disproportionately serve the poor who have the worst options. The data supports this: Two-thirds of all charter school students are minority students. More than half of all charter school students are poor enough to qualify for the federal free and reduced lunch program.

Charter schools cannot exclude students.

They may determine the maximum number of students they can serve, but then they have to accept any student who applies. If more students apply than the school can serve, then students are accepted based upon lottery. To see this in action, rent the excellent move: “Waiting for Superman.”

Charters do not shun special education students.

It is true that a smaller percentage of charter school students are special education students. However, the percentage has been rising dramatically. In the 2010-11 school year 9.7 percent of charter school students were special ed compared to 12.8 percent in the standard public schools. However, it takes time to develop a program that services special ed students and as charters age they have been dramatically increasing their numbers. While the number of special ed students in standard public schools has been falling since 2001, there are 3.7 times as many special education students in charters schools than there were in 2001.

Comparing test scores of charters with standard public schools should underestimate the effect of charter schools on improving K-12 education. There are at least two reasons we should expect test scores at charter schools to be below those of regular public schools.

First, students who are doing well in their current school are unlikely to move to a new charter school. So rather than take the “cream” of the regular public schools, charter schools are most likely to get the students who are performing poorly in – although there may be some top students who just aren’t being served in their home school district.

Second, since charter schools are generally new (the first schools didn’t open in Michigan until 1994), the scores many students achieve will tend to reflect their prior schooling. If the prior school had prepared them well the students wouldn’t have moved in the first place, so we would expect lower scores from charter schools than from the standard schools. Yet, we find just the opposite.

For example, charter schools outperformed students in their regular public school districts in 25 of 27 MEAP tests given in K-8.

In a paper I published in The Journal of School Choice in 2008, I examined the MEAP scores of students who attended the charter schools being managed by National Heritage Academies. I found that attendance at a NHA school for two years or more significantly increased scores after taking into account several other variables including demographic ones such as race and income. As charters are in existence longer, develop their own culture and get to the point where the students in their higher grades have come from the charter school, we should expect increased performance.

The lifting of the cap means that more Michigan students will be attending a Michigan public school because they are being well-served rather than because they happen to live in a certain neighborhood. This will result in an improved economy for the state – and a better life for thousands of Michigan children.

Dr. Gary L. Wolfram is the William E. Simon Professor in Economics and Public Policy at Hillsdale College.