This paper utilizes the framework of program theory evaluation to assess the operation of charter schools in Florida in the 1999-2000 school year. Charter school theory is modeled and a series of hypotheses are developed about the linkages expected to produce the primary program outcomes, improved student academic performance and change in the operations of regular public schools. The hypotheses are evaluated with quantitative and qualitative data. The analysis raises questions about the theory. Student performance in charter schools is not better than in regular public schools and, as might be expected, regular schools have not changed their behavior in response to their challenge. The outcome is attributed primarily to shortcomings in establishing accountability for the actions of charter schools.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Behn, R. (1991). Leadership counts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Berliner, D. C., & Biddle, B. (1995). The manufactured crisis: Myths, fraud, and the attack on America’s public schools. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
3.
Blalock, H. (1964). Causal inferences in nonexperimental research. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press.
4.
Bossert, S., Dwyer, D., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly, 18, 34-64.
5.
Brandl, J. (1998). Money and good intentions are not enough (pp. 3-8). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
6.
Bryk, A., Lee, V., & Smith, J. (1990). High school organization and its effects on teachers and students: An interpretive summary of the research. In W. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education: The theory of choice and control in education (Vol. 1, pp. xx-yy). London: The Falmer Press.
7.
Buechler, L., & Fulton, M. (1996). Charter schools: Legislation and results after four years. Bloomington, IN: Indiana Education Policy Center, School of Education, Indiana University.
8.
Buthe, T. (2002). Taking temporality seriously: Modeling history and the use of narratives as evidence. American Political Science Review, 96, 481-494.
9.
Charter School Accountability Center. (2002). Grades table with performance. Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University, College of Education.
10.
Chen, H.-T. (1990). Theory-driven evaluations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
11.
Coleman, J., et al. (1996). Equality of educational quality. Washington, DC: Governmental Printing Office.
12.
Cook, T. D., et al. (1999). Comer’s school development program in Prince George’s county, Maryland: A program theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 36, 543-597.
13.
Cook, T. D. H., Hunt, D., & Murphy, R. F. (2000). Comer’s school development program in Chicago: A program theory-based evaluation. American Educational Research Journal, 37, 535-597.
14.
Corwin, R., Carlos, L., Lagomarsino, B., & Scott, R. (1996). From paper to practice: Challenges facing a California charter school. Available: www.wested.org/policy/pbtubm.htm.
15.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The right to learn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
16.
Finn, C., Bierlein, L., & Manno, B. (1996). Charter schools in action: A first look. Washington, DC: The Hudson Institute.
17.
Finn, C., Manno, B., & Vanourek, G. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
18.
Fischer, K. (2002, September 15). Public school, Inc. In St. Petersburg Times. Available: www.sptimes.com/2002/09/15/state/publicschoolinc.shtml.
19.
Florida Department of Education. (2002). Florida school grades. Available: www.firn.edu/doe/schoolgrades.
20.
Florida Department of Education, Choice Office. (2002). 1996-2000 listing of charter school closings. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
21.
Florida Department of Education, Education Information and Accountability Services. (1999-2000). Profiles of Florida school districts, 1999-2000. Tallahassee, FL: Florida Department of Education.
22.
Gerstner, L., Sererud, R. D., Doyle, D., & Johnston, W. (1994). Reinventing education. New York, NY: Dalton.
23.
Good, T., & Braden, J. (2000). The great school debate. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.
24.
Greene, J. C., Caracelli, V. J., & Graham, W. F. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixed-method evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 255-274.
25.
Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D. (2001). Navigating newly chartered waters: An analysis of Texas charter school performance. Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation.
26.
Hill, P., Lawrence C., Pierce, & Gutherie, J. W. (1997). Reinventing public education. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
Horn, J., & Miron, G. (2000). An evaluation of the Michigan charter school initiative: Performance, accountability and impact. Kalamazoo, Michigan, Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center.
28.
Kleitz, B., Weiher, G., Tedin, K., & Matland, R. (2000). Choice charter schools and household preference. Social Science Quarterly, 8, 846-854.
29.
Kolderie, T. (2001, February 9). What does it mean to ask: Is charter schools working? In Charter Friends National Network. Available: www.charterfriends.org/working.html.
30.
Leithwood, K. A., & Montgomery, D. (1982). The role of the elementary school principal in program improvement. Review of Educational Research, 52, 319-339.
31.
Lieberman, M. (1986). Beyond public education. New York, NY: Praeger.
32.
Maranto, R., Millman, S., Hess, F., & Gresham, A. (2001). School choice in the real world. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
33.
McLaughlin, M., Henderson, K., & Ullah, H. (1996). Charter schools and students with disabilities. Alexandria, VA: Center for Policy Research on the Impact of General and Special Education Reform.
34.
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2000). Autonomy in exchange for accountability: An initial study of Pennsylvania charter schools. Kalamazoo, Michigan, Western Michigan University: The Evaluation Center.
35.
Miron, G., & Nelson, C. (2001). Student academic achievement in charter schools: What we know and why we know so little. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
36.
Nathan, J. (1996). Charter schools: Creating hope and opportunity for American education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
37.
Rogers, P., Petrosino, A., Huebner, T., & Hacsi, T. (2000). Program theory evaluation: Practice, promise and problems. In P. J. Rogers, T. A. Hacsi, A. Petrosino, & T. A. Huebner (Eds.), New directions for evaluating. Program theory evaluation: Challenges and opportunities (Vol. 87, pp. 5-13). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
38.
RPP International. (1999). National study of charter schools: Charter school survey. Emeryville, CA.
39.
RPP International. (2000). The state of charter schools: Fourth year report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
40.
Schneider, M., Teske, P., & Marschall, M. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41.
Smith, K., & Meier, K. (1995). The case against school choice: Politics, markets and fools. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
42.
State of Florida, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability. (2000). Charter schools need improved academic accountability and financial management (Report # 99-48). Available: www.oppaga.state.fl.us.
43.
State of Florida, Office of Program Policy Analysis and Governmental Accountability. (2002). Charter school management strengthened, but improved academic accountability needed (Report # 02-22). Available: www.oppaga.state.fl.us.
44.
Stuart, L. (2000). The Bronx leadership academy high school. In D. Ravitch & J. Viteritti (Eds.), City schools (pp. xx-yy). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
45.
Stufflebeam, D. (2001). Evaluation models. In New directions for evaluation (Vol. 89, pp. xx-yy). San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
46.
Texas State Board of Education. (1999). Evaluation of open-enrollment charter schools: Survey of public school districts. Austin, TX: Texas State Board of Education
47.
Wagner, R. B. (1989). Accountability in education: A philosophical inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.
48.
Weber, D. (2003, March 22). Charter schools go untested. Orlando Sentinel.
49.
Weiher, G., & Tedin, K. (2002). Does choice lead to racially distinctive schools?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 79-92.
50.
Weiss, C. (1997). How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway?Evaluation Review, 21, 501-524.
51.
Weitzman, B. C., Silver, D., & Dillman, K. (2002). Integrating a comparison group design into a theory of change evaluation: The case of the urban health initiative. American Journal of Evaluation, 23, 371-385.
52.
Wells, A. S. (2000). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts. Los Angeles, California: UCLA Charter School Study.
53.
Wong, K., & Shen, F. (2000). Institutional effects of charter schools: Competition, innovation and segregation. Paper presented at the 2000 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, August 31-September 4.
