Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

We estimate the longitudinal effects of charter schools authorized by different authorizing bodies on student achievement by using student-level data from Indiana. The results of our analysis point to substantial variation, especially between the state’s two largest authorizers: Ball State University and the Indianapolis Mayor’s Office. Some of the variation is driven by the types of operators these bodies authorize to run charter schools. However, operator effects are not consistent across authorizers, suggesting a more complex story about how authorization affects student achievement. These results point to the ways that public and private interests in charter schools may complicate the work of authorizers and suggest a need for policymakers to offer more guidance in how authorizers carry out their various accountability mandates.

Keywords

charter school authorizers charter school operators charter schools quasi-experimental methods school effects

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdulkadiroglu

Pathak

P. A.

Walters

C. R.

(2018). Free to choose: Can school choice reduce student achievement? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(1), 175–206.

Ahn

McEachin

(2017). Student enrollment patterns and achievement in Ohio’s online charter schools. Educational Researcher, 46(1), 44–57.

Angrist

J. D.

Dynarski

S. M.

Kane

T. J.

Pathak

P. A.

Walters

C. R.

(2012). Who benefits from KIPP? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 837–860.

Angrist

J. D.

Pathak

P. A.

Walters

C. R.

(2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 1–27.

Austin

Berends

(2018). School choice and learning opportunities. In Schneider

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education in the 21st century (pp. 221–250). Springer.

Ball State University. (2020). Accountability report, 2019–2020. Office of Charter Schools, Teachers College, Ball State University. https://www.bsu.edu/-/media/www/departmentalcontent/teachers/charter-schools/new-website/accountability-and-audit-reports/2019-20-accountability-report-without-audits.pdf?sc_lang=en&hash=D316F253E8C338217B02CE000562B601CF2DEFFA

Berends

(2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41(1), 159–180.

Berends

(2021). The continuously evolving landscape of school choice in the United States. In Milner

H. R.

IV Lomotey

(Eds.), Handbook of urban education (2nd ed., pp. 99–119). Routledge.

Betts

J. R.

(2005). The economic theory of school choice. In Betts

J. R.

Loveless

(Eds.), Getting choice right: Ensuring equity and efficiency in education policy (pp. 14–39). Brookings Institution Press.

10.

Bifulco

(2012). Can nonexperimental estimates replicate estimates based on random assignment in evaluations of school choice? A within-study comparison. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(3), 729–751.

11.

Brighouse

Ladd

H. F.

Loeb

Swift

(2018). Educational goods: Values, evidence, and decision-making. University of Chicago Press.

12.

Bulkley

K. E.

(2001). Educational performance and charter school authorizers: The accountability bind. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9(37), 1–22.

13.

Carlson

Lavery

Witte

J. F.

(2012). Charter school authorizers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.03.008

14.

Center for Education Reform. (2011). The importance of multiple authorizers in charter school laws. Center for Education Reform.

15.

Chabrier

Cohodes

Oreopoulos

(2016). What can we learn from charter school lotteries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 57–84.

16.

Chubb

J. E.

Moe

T. M.

(1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.

17.

Cook

T. D.

Shadish

W. R.

Wong

V. C.

(2008). Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within-study comparisons. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 724–750.

18.

CREDO. (2015). Online charter school study. Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Stanford University.

19.

CREDO. (2017). Charter management organizations. Center for Research on Education Outcomes, Stanford University.

20.

DiMaggio

Powell

W. W.

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160.

21.

Dobbie

Fryer

R. G.

(2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York City. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28–60.

22.

Dobbie

Fryer

R. G.

(2020). Charter schools and labor market outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(4), 915–957.

23.

Dynarksi

S. M.

Hubbard

Jacob

Robles

(2018). Estimating the effects of a large for-profit charter school operator (NBER working paper no. 24428). National Bureau of Economic Research.

24.

Epple

Romano

Zimmer

(2015). Charter schools: A survey of research on their characteristics and effectiveness (NBER working paper no. 21256). National Bureau of Economic Research.

25.

Ferrare

J. J.

(2020). Charter school outcomes. In Berends

Primus

Springer

M. G.

(Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (2nd ed., pp. 160–173). Routledge.

26.

Fitzpatrick

B. R.

Berends

Ferrare

J. J.

Waddington

R. J.

(2020a). Virtual charter schools and online learning during COVID-19: An imperfect comparison. Brown Center Chalkboard, the Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2020/06/02/virtual-charter-schools-and-online-learning-during-covid-19/

27.

Fitzpatrick

B. R.

Berends

Ferrare

J. J.

Waddington

R. J.

(2020b). Virtual illusion: Comparing student achievement and teacher and classroom characteristics in online and brick-and-mortar charter schools. Educational Researcher, 49(3), 161–175.

28.

Fligstein

McAdam

(2012). A theory of fields. Oxford University Press.

29.

Fortson

Gleason

Kopa

Verbitsky-Savitz

(2014). Horseshoes, hand grenades, and treatment effects? Reassessing whether nonexperimental estimators are biased. Economics of Education Review, 44(1), 100–113.

30.

Furfaro

(2021, February 17). Washington state’s for-profit online schools are expanding enrollment during the pandemic. Seattle Times. https://www.seattletimes.com/education-lab/washingtons-for-profit-online-schools-attract-nearly-6000-more-students-this-school-year/

31.

Gill

Chiang

Teh

Haimson

Savitz

N. V.

(2016). Replicating experimental impact estimates with nonexperimental methods in the context of control-group noncompliance. Statistics and Public Policy, 3(1), 1–11.

32.

Gleason

Clark

Tuttle

C. C.

Dwoyer

(2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report (NCEE 2010-4029). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.

33.

Granovetter

(1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of embeddedness. American Journal of Sociology, 91(3), 481–510.

34.

Henderson

M. B.

Houston

Peterson

P. E.

West

M. R.

(2020). Public support grows for higher teacher pay and expanded school choice. Education Next, 20(1), 8–27.

35.

Henig

J. R.

(2017). Charter schools and democratic accountability. National Association of State Boards of Education.

36.

Hoxby

C. M.

Murarka

Kang

(2009). How New York City’s charter schools affect achievement. New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.

37.

Indiana Department of Education. (2011). 2011–2012 ISTEP+ program manual: Policies and procedures for Indiana’s assessment system. Indiana Department of Education.

38.

Jabbar

(2015). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659.

39.

Knight

D. S.

Toenjes

L. A.

(2020). Do charter schools receive their fair share of funding? School finance equity for charter and traditional public schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28, 51. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.28.4438

40.

Lindsay

(2018). State committee recommends big shift for virtual charter school rules. WFYI Indianapolis. https://www.wfyi.org/news/articles/state-committee-recommends-big-shift-for-virtual-charter-school-rules

41.

Lubienski

Gulosino

Weitzel

(2009). School choice and competitive incentives: Mapping the distribution of educational opportunities across local education markets. American Journal of Education, 115(4), 601–647.

42.

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2022). Charter law database—States. https://www.publiccharters.org/our-work/charter-law-database/states

43.

National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2009). Multiple charter authorizing options. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED542597.pdf

44.

National Association of Charter School Authorizers. (2022). Authorizer demographics. https://www.qualitycharters.org/authorizing-by-the-numbers/authorizer-demographics/

45.

National Conference of State Legislators. (2022). Education legislation: Bill tracking. https://www.ncsl.org/research/education/education-bill-tracking-database.aspx

46.

Palmer

L. B.

Gau

(2005). Charter school authorizing: Policy implications from a national study. Phi Delta Kappan, 86(5), 352–357.

47.

Schneider

Teske

Marschall

(2002). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton University Press.

48.

Shen

(2011). Authorizing charter schools. National Conference of State Legislators.

49.

Walters

C. R.

(2018). The demand for effective charter schools. Journal of Political Economy, 126(6), 2179–2223.

50.

Wohlstetter

Smith

Farrell

C. C.

Kirst

M. W.

(2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Harvard Education Press.

51.

Zimmer

Gill

Attridge

Obenauf

(2014). Charter school authorizers and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 9(1), 59–85.

52.

Zimmer

Gill

Booker

Lavertu

Sass

T. R.

Witte

(2009). Charter schools in eight states: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition. Rand Corporation.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.45 MB

Insufficient Accountability? Heterogeneous Effects of Charter Schools Across Authorizing Agencies

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material