Evaluating Charter Schools, School Change, and Reform

Introduction

This paper summarizes three recent articles on issues related to evaluation and change within education. The articles address charter school performance, shared leadership in the school change process, and the longitudinal evaluation of student achievement in Title I schools.

Charter School Performance: Apples to Apples

The first article, Apples to Apples: An Evaluation of Charter Schools Serving General Student Populations, by Green, Forster, and Winters (July 2003), reported the results of an empirical study that compared average test scores of students attending charter schools with those of students attending public schools. Charter and public school math and reading test scores in eleven states — Arizona, California, Florida, Texas, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Colorado, North Carolina, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania — were compared.

The authors noted that, because charter schools typically serve targeted student populations (such as disadvantaged students, at-risk students, or juvenile delinquent students) while public schools do not, no comparable empirical study based on test score comparisons had been previously conducted. As the authors explained:

"One of the most important difficulties in studying charter schools is that many are targeted specifically at particular student populations… Although most states require charter schools to have open enrollment policies, charter schools can still target specific populations by describing themselves as schools for a particular kind of student."

The study nonetheless sought, to the extent possible, to compare "apples to apples" — that is, test scores at charter schools and regular public schools serving similar student populations. The methodology was to measure test score improvements in eleven states over a one-year period (Green, Forster, & Winters, July 2003).

Results showed that charter schools surpassed public schools on math tests by 0.08 standard deviations, "equivalent to a benefit of 3 percentile points for a student starting at the 50th percentile" (Green, Forster, & Winters, July 2003). Charter schools also scored better on reading tests by 0.04 standard deviations, or 2 percentile points for students beginning at the 50th percentile. In Florida and Texas in particular, average charter school performance showed the greatest difference from average public school performance on both math and reading tests.

Shared Leadership and School Change

Overall, the authors found a modest positive difference in charter school test scores. They suggested several possible reasons for these differences: (1) charter schools are free from many state regulations that public schools must follow; (2) the matching of student needs with schools of choice may be more effective; and (3) charter schools are incentive-driven in attracting and retaining students, whereas public schools are not.

The second article, Essential Leadership in the School Change Process (Cushman, March 1997), focused on what it takes to lead others through processes of school change, and on how and why school leaders should share responsibility for initiating and carrying out change with others. Specifically, the article examined the most effective ways — through building school coalitions — of "pressing the conversation about hard issues, creating a sense of urgency, yet not discouraging those for whom change means loss, risk, and uncertainty."

The author provided the example of Tombaugh Elementary School's principal and faculty in Las Cruces, New Mexico, who wanted to find better ways to serve their Spanish-speaking students. Their initial approach came perilously close to tracking, and they also had to contend with existing regulations and a shortage of qualified bilingual staff. Working together, the principal and faculty decided that all multi-age language classes on campus would include an increased number of regular teachers directly working with Spanish-speaking students. Additionally, a bilingual faculty member, Emma Castañeda, wrote a proposal to bring this practice to other schools with Spanish-speaking students throughout the district. By arriving at a workable and agreeable solution collaboratively, Tombaugh's principal and teachers demonstrated the power and effectiveness of collective leadership.

Cushman (March 1997) further pointed out that in today's changing and increasingly demanding educational environment — where even the most dedicated faculty often receive little recognition for their work, and where national standards and test score accountability place growing pressure on both leaders and teachers — the traditional school hierarchy of principal as sole leader works far less successfully than in the past. Leadership must instead spring from "reciprocal processes" that help identify and work toward a common purpose. In other words, schools need all of their leaders working together.

Cushman also emphasized that it is crucial to optimal school success for educational leaders, faculty, parents, and the broader community to foster and maintain a supportive, problem-solving atmosphere — one where difficult questions can be discussed openly and solutions pursued collaboratively for the common good of the school or district. The example of Tombaugh Elementary's collectively developed solution to the challenge of serving Spanish-speaking students illustrates the efficacy of shared leadership in practice.

The third article, The Longitudinal Evaluation of School Change and Performance in Title I Schools (Turnbull, 2001), reported that a major longitudinal study had found a connection between student achievement gains in Title I schools and the use of certain classroom and school practices supported by standards-based reform. However, other practices also associated with standards-based reform did not appear to yield comparable increases in student performance.

Conclusion

Across all three articles, a common theme emerges: meaningful improvement in education — whether measured by test scores, leadership practices, or classroom reform — requires deliberate, evidence-based effort. Charter schools show modest but real performance advantages when student populations are carefully compared. Shared leadership at the school level enables creative problem-solving that top-down hierarchies cannot. And in high-poverty schools, adherence to standards-based reform practices, supported by robust professional development, is associated with narrowing achievement gaps. Together, these studies underscore the importance of both structural reform and collaborative human effort in advancing educational outcomes.