Shawgi Telll writes that the latest study of charter schools in Pennsylvania by CREDO, the Stanford-based research group, reports unimpressive results.
CREDO’s overall conclusion:
The analysis shows that in a year’s time, the typical charter school student in Pennsylvania makes similar progress in reading and weaker growth in math compared to the educational gains that the students would have had in a traditional public school (TPS). Thinking of a 180-day school year as “one year of learning”, an average Pennsylvania charter student experiences weaker annual growth in math equivalent to 30 fewer days of learning. Our online charter school analysis reveals that attending an online charter school leads to substantially negative learning gains in both reading and math, which negatively affect the overall charter impact on student progress.
The report notes phenomenal growth of enrollment in online charters, where students actually lose ground in both reading and math.
According to the Center for Rural Pennsylvania, charter school enrollment has grown dramatically since the mid-2000s, with noteworthy expansion in both urban and rural areas. In addition, Pennsylvania experienced a 75 percent increase in online charter school enrollment between 2006-2007 and 2010- 2011.2 Currently one quarter of Pennsylvania’s charter school students enroll in online charter schools. These trends motivate the current study.
Tell says:
A June 4, 2019 press release from CREDO states that: “Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found over four years of study that the typical charter school student in Pennsylvania makes similar progress in reading and weaker growth in math compared to their traditional public school peer (TPS).”
The press release does not mention what sort of selective enrollment practices are practiced in Pennsylvania’s charter schools, but it is well-known that charter schools across the nation regularly cherry-pick their students. It is also worth noting that, “Of the state’s 15 cyber charters, 10 are operating with expired charters.”2
The CREDO Pennsylvania finding is extra significant given that it comes from an organization that is unrelentingly pro-charter school and funded heavily by billionaires who have been working for years to impose privately-operated charter schools on the entire country (e.g., Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Walton Foundation).
Go figure. Pennsylvania charter law is notoriously weak. It encourages the growth of low-performing charters. More students are enrolling in inferior online charters, where their learning is likely to be stunted.
What kind of future does the Pennsylvania Legislature envision for the State with its ongoing war against education?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Hi Diane,APPS put out a statement about the CREDO study. Our biggest problem with it is the fictional premise that public schools and charters operate on a level playing field.The PA Charter law protects charters that fail to meet academic standards and whose barriers to enrollment and expulsion policies allow them to discriminate against students with special needs. Lisa
Alliance for Philadelphia Public Schools
June 5, 2019
For immediate release: Statement of APPS Re CREDO study
Contact: Lisa Haver, 267-918-4367
The CREDO study released today presents more evidence that the charter experiment foisted upon the state’s children has been a resounding failure, especially considering the enormous amount of taxpayer dollars that have been spent on charter schools.
For many reasons, comparing charters to district schools is not an apples-to-apples exercise. Charter schools receive outside funding from private donors, including significant amounts every year from the Philadelphia School Partnership. PSP identifies as a non-profit funder of schools, but they have been strong financial and political advocates for privatization and charter expansion. The bulk of their corporate funding goes to non-district schools.
Charter schools have been cited over the years for unfair practices such as presenting barriers to enrollment, failure to inform students and parents of their due process rights when facing disciplinary action, and expelling students for trivial offenses including being out of uniform and lateness. Thus, many charters are able to exclude students with special needs, both behavioral and academic.
Studies done by both Philadelphia City Controller’s Office and the State Attorney General’s Office have documented fraud and questionable spending in some of the city’s largest charter organizations. Organizations including PCCY and the Education
Law Center have conducted in-depth studies that show charters do not outperform district schools in most categories. ELC’s recent report shows: 1) the population of economically disadvantaged students is much lower in Philadelphia’s charter schools—70% in the District, 56% in charters; 2) the percentage of English learners is nearly three times higher—11% in District, 4% in charters; 3) few of the special education students in the traditional charters are from the low-incidence disability categories, such as autism and intellectual disability, that are most expensive to serve.
The diversion of public funds to privately managed charters has made it more difficult for public schools to fund essential programs, but public schools still manage to outperform charters in most categories. Lack of oversight, both on the state and local level, has resulted in a lack of accountability in the charter sector.
The CREDO study confirms that the claim of charter investors and operators that charter schools are a better choice has never been true. Harrisburg must reform the PA Charter Law so that the voters in each district can have the means to fully fund and strengthen their public school systems.
The worse thing ed reformers did was not online charters. At least one can avoid an online charter.
They worst thing they did was jam the cheap, gimmicky “learning” in online charters into every middle and low income public school, incredibly, in the name of “equity”.
Jeb Bush is responsible for most of it- no single person did more to sell this garbage than The Father of Ed Reform.
He’s never been held accountable on any of it, or even questioned in any way. It’s 100% acclaim. No dissenters.
Based on my local public school’s quiet backing away from the wonders of online learning and tech in schools, we’re about 5 years away from this being recognized as a hugely expensive disaster. No ed reformers reputations will be harmed and none of them will ever be called to account for it. In fact, they’ll all get promoted.
In my opinion, CREDO results, whether positive or negative, get too much press. Reporting the increases or decreases in test scores as if these represent significant educational “growth” or stagnation, or decline is common and wrong. Although the funding of these reports by billionaire charter supporters is worth noting, the more fundamental corruption comes from reifying test scores as if these metrics are the whole reason for students to attend schools.
Laura,
When their grand plans fail by THEIR metrics, it is amusing. Hoist by their petard.
…and amazing.
Laura,
When their grand plans fail by THEIR metrics, it is amusing. Hoist by their petard.
How long will Bill Gates continue to fund CREDO studies if he doesn’t get the results he wants?
The only difference between Bill Gates and Trump is that Gates does not go crazy tweeting and doesn’t hold hate rallies. But they both want things to go their way no matter what.
PA is one of the states that got screwed by ed reform, along with OH and MI.
It’s a disaster – you wonder if they dumped the worst of it on us because they couldn’t have gotten away with it in NYC or Boston.
They actually made public education worse in our states, and we spent the last 20 years investing exclusively in their echo chamber ideas and plans.
It’s a shame. I don’t know if our lawmakers are naive or totally captured and corrupt, but they really served us poorly by not questioning any ed reform beliefs and swallowing the whole marketing campaign. Ultimately I blame state lawmakers. They should have done their jobs.