Sign Up For Our Newsletter

The Post and Courier

An increasing number of parents who shop around before choosing a school for their children are opting for charter schools because they like the academic environment. But they might not be aware that those same schools also are giving the public a bigger bang for their buck than traditional schools.

Research at the University of Arkansas shows that charter schools in 30 states are neck-and-neck with traditional schools on eighth grade standardized tests. But they achieve those scores for significantly less money.

Imagine what they might do if charter schools were funded equitably.

For example, in math, traditional schools averaged a score of 283 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Charter schools averaged 279 despite spending an average of $3,814 less per child.

Reading achievement is much the same: Traditional schools scored 262, one point better than charter schools.

Of course, comparing the success of charter schools and traditional schools isn’t as simple as putting two scores side-by-side.

Charter schools, by their design, are likely to enroll students whose parents take an active interest in their children’s educations. And educators say that children whose parents take an active role in their education are more likely to succeed.

It takes extra effort to move a child from a traditional neighborhood school to a charter school. But many parents find it’s worth that effort, and charter school success can inspire competing schools to step up their game. And parents deserve options as they choose what school is best for their children.

South Carolina was not one of the 30 states covered in the research at the University of Arkansas, though the study did look at the state’s funding for charter schools.

But charter school students in North Carolina scored 295 in math compared to traditional school students’ 286, and at significantly less expense.

And in reading, charter school students averaged 276, compared to 263.

Karen Kerwin, president of the Center for Education Reform, a charter advocacy group, said that if charter schools received money “in the same manner and the same amount as traditional public schools, including funding for facilities,” the achievements would be dramatic.

Sadly, the research team gave South Carolina a “D” for disparities in funding for public charter schools.

Many public school educators in the state have been resistant to charter schools, and data about their success have been challenged.

One frequent criticism is that they take away funding from traditional public education. And the Arkansas study has attracted detractors who challenge its findings.

But the fact that charter schools can test well for less money is an affirmation on the school funding front.

And charter schools come with a guarantee. Where some traditional schools consistently fail their students, a failing charter can lose its charter to operate.

Charter schools have delivered meaningful school choice to parents and children, and have done so as public schools.

They have been in operation long enough to be considered part of the tradition of public education – and should be funded accordingly.

Blake Neff, The Daily Caller

A new report from the University of Arkansas says that charters schools are more efficient with money than ordinary public schools, producing notably better test scores for each dollar spent.

The study, which covered charter schools in 21 states plus the District of Columbia, measured effectiveness by comparing students’ scores on national NAEP exams with the amount of money spent on teaching particular subjects.

In math, the study found, for every additional $1,000 per pupil invested by schools, charters increased NEAP scores by 17 more points than non-charters, an advantage of about 40 percent. In reading, charters had an advantage of 16 points per $1,000 over non-charters.

The gap by state could be tremendous. In Hawaii, charters were a scant 7 percent better in each subject, but in the District of Columbia charters were more than twice as effective as their public brethren.

The report was produced by the university’s School Choice Demonstration Project, a non-partisan component of the school’s Department of Education Reform that attempts to assess the outcomes of various school choice policies.

The data also indicate that charter schools produce economic gains for students who spend a longer time in them. A student with a single year of charter schooling has an improved return on investment of about two percent over public schooling, but one who has spent over six years in charter schooling has a return on investment of nearly 20 percent.

The study took pains to ensure that students in charters were only compared to students with a similar background in public schools, to avoid disadvantaging schools that educate a more disadvantaged or low-performing body of students.

Kara Kerwin, the president of the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, said the study proved charter schools were more deserving of public funds.

“Not only are charter schools doing more with less, they are on the whole demonstrating a superior ability to act as responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,” said Kerwin in a statement sent to The Daily Caller News Foundation. “The importance of this body of research cannot be understated, as it ties charter funding to the most important aspect of education — student outcomes.”

The report is not beyond questioning, however. Bruce Baker, a professor of education policy at Rutgers University, has sharply criticized the University of Arkansas’s previous research on charter schools, arguing that they significantly understate per-pupil expenditures by overlooking certain sources of funding for charter school. If the figures on how much money charters spend are not correct, then any conclusion about their overall efficiency is suspect.

Greg George, Watchdog Wire

Earlier this year, the Center for Education Reform, a leading advocate for choice programs, released a survey:  America’s Attitudes Towards Education Reform. It found that Americans overwhelmingly support choice in education.

A few highlights from the survey:

• Out of all education reform terms tested, “School Choice” tops the list — 74% of Americans support school choice.

• 81% of respondents in the 25-34 age range are more favorable towards school choice than the average respondent at 74%.

• Support for school choice is tri-partisan: 79% of Republicans polled support school choice, along with 73% of Democrats and 71% of Independents.

• 73% of those who believe a child’s current school is working well for them support school choice. Support for school choice is strong (87%) among those who say a child’s school currently isn’t working for them.

• Men are more favorable toward school choice than women at 77% compared  to 72% respectively.

• Differences in region are prevalent in regards to favorability of school choice: Suburban residents are the highest supporters at 79%, while 69% of those in rural areas support school choice. Urban residents fall between suburban and rural dwellers at 72%.

These survey results are great news for the choice movement. Not only is choice a multi-party issue, but three-fourths of the country currently support school choice with even stronger support from the younger, soon-to-be parents generation.

The moral of the story: perseverance and constructive activism work. The support for school choice is evidence of that. Supporters of choice have established lasting relationships with both their communities and legislators. This is how reform moves along the process. The people are demanding choice and lawmakers are responding accordingly by breaking down established educational barriers. School choice is “increasingly viewed as an issue that cuts across racial, ideological, and party lines.”

Advocates are showing that if parents are put in the driver’s seat, they will choose good schools for their children based on their needs, not government’s. This is the driving force behind innovation, quality, and opportunity.

Jason Bedrick, Education Next

Though voucher programs tend to receive more attention, more than six in ten students attending private school through an educational choice program are using tax-credit scholarships. Nearly 200,000 students use tax-credit scholarships in 11 states, and three other states have recently enacted but not yet implemented scholarship tax credit (STC) laws. States looking to expand educational choice are more likely to adopt a scholarship tax credit because STC laws face fewer constitutional obstacles than government-funded vouchers and elicit higher levels of public support.

Policymakers should learn from the other states’ experience when designing their own STC laws. One useful new resource for such policymakers is the Center for Education Reform’s first-ever scorecard for scholarship tax credit laws. The CER report grades every state’s STC law (or laws) on an A-F scale based on their performance in four categories: Eligibility and Availability; Design of Credit and Scholarship; Autonomy; and Budget. The report also rates each state based on the number of participating students and the total amount of scholarship funds expended, but did not count these scores toward the main grade as participation and funding rates depend considerably on the age of the program.

The scorecard highlights the importance of good design. The best STC laws allow the widest participation without negatively affecting private school autonomy. Wide participation entails avoiding overly restrictive eligibility requirements for scholarship recipients and allowing the scholarship organizations to award scholarships that are large enough for low-income families to afford tuition. The CER report penalizes states that restrict new scholarships to students who are currently in a public school, who have special needs, or who come from very low-income families. States also receive lower scores for restrictions on the scholarship sizes below the lower of either $10,000 or parity with public school spending per pupil. Only Arizona receives full credit for its eligibility criteria while eight states receive full credit for their maximum scholarship sizes.

Ensuring sufficient funding requires a wide enough donor base, encouraging donations through credits that are as close to dollar-for-dollar as possible, and allowing substantial donations. CER scores each state for the types of taxpayers eligible to contribute (i.e. – corporations and individuals) and deducts points for credit values below 100 percent and for maximum donation sizes below $100,000 for corporations or $2,000 for individuals. Of the states with both a personal and a corporate income tax, all but three offer credits on both taxes. The STC laws in six states offer credits for 100 percent of donations to authorized scholarship organizations and eight states receive full credit for their maximum donation amounts.

On private school autonomy, however, the CER report does not go far enough. The report’s preface promises to hold states accountable for preserving private school autonomy:

Good state laws preserve the current level of autonomy enjoyed by private schools over their educational programs while they participate in the program. Other laws impose new restrictions on participating private schools as a condition of participation, including eligibility requirements, testing mandates, and educational content or course requirements.

In practice, though, the report appears to grade its Autonomy section on a somewhat lenient curve. First, preserving autonomy is not worth much relative to other sections in the report. States could only lose up to 10 points (a eighth of the total) for impinging upon private school autonomy and only Alabama loses more than three points. Though a recent Friedman Foundation report showed that Florida has the most regulated of all the STC laws—including a standardized testing mandate, licensure requirements, and copious paperwork—the CER report gives it a near perfect Autonomy score, deducting only one point for “other provisions that encroach on autonomy.”

Though the CER report deducts points for mandating a specific standardized test (such as the state test), CER gives full credit to states which mandate that schools administers one of the nationally norm-referenced (NNR) tests, such as the Stanford Achievement Test or the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Mandating the state test is certainly agreater infringement on private school autonomy—essentially dictating what is taught when and how—but the NNR tests are not cost-free. Moreover, while most private schools already administer tests, some schools have a philosophy that eschews standardized testing. For these schools, the burden of imposing such tests far exceeds the cost in time and money.

Reduced private school autonomy may also mean reduced choices for students. As Matt Ladner has noted, regulations that impinge upon private school autonomy may reduce private school participation in the program. For example, Louisiana imposes the state tests on private schools accepting tax-credit scholarship students and fewer than one third of private schools are willing to accept scholarship students. By contrast, nearly 100 percent of private schools are participating in Arizona, which received high marks for autonomy in both the CER and Friedman reports.

Hopefully, future editions of CER’s scorecard will take a closer look at the effect of the regulations that some STC laws impose on schools, as well as clean up some minor scoring issues[*]. Nevertheless, it is important to keep things in perspective. Aside from Florida—which the Friedman report noted was an outlier—states’ STC laws tend to impose significantly fewer regulations on private schools than voucher laws. CER could have been tougher regarding school autonomy, especially on Florida and states that mandate NNR tests, but in general the high marks were warranted.

The Center for Education Reform’s scorecard is a significant contribution to our understanding about scholarship tax credits and it highlights the importance of designing them well. It should serve as a useful tool for policymakers when crafting new STC laws or amending existing ones.