Study of Charter Schools in Missouri: Student Achievement and Best ...

Charter Schools in Missouri: Student Achievement and Best Practices

A Report Presented to the General Assembly By the Joint Committee on Education January 2010

Joint Committee on Education

Rm. 502, State Capitol Building Jefferson City, MO 65101 (573) 522-7987

Senator David Pearce, Vice-chair Senator Jane Cunningham Senator Rita Heard Days Senator Joe Keaveny Senator Scott Rupp Senator Kurt Schaefer Senator Yvonne Wilson

Representative Maynard Wallace, Chair Representative Joe Aull Representative Rachel Bringer Representative Jason Holsman Representative Gayle Kingery Representative Mike Lair Representative Rodney Schad

ii

Executive Summary

The following study of charter schools in Missouri was conducted pursuant to RSMo. Section 160.410.4. The two primary components of the study are the evaluation of student achievement gains and a review of administrative and instructional best practices.

A comparative analysis of student achievement gains from 2006 to 2009 showed variation in performance between students in Kansas City Missouri School District (KCMSD) and St. Louis Public Schools (SLPS) and students in the charter schools in each of those cities. School effects were evaluated using a value-added model. In both Kansas City and St. Louis there were charter schools with achievement gains greater than, equal to, or less than their respective district averages as well as the state average.

In addition, seven of eight secondary charter schools reported graduation rates higher than the graduation rates of the traditional public school district in their city.

In the next section of the study, administrator and teacher interviews supplied the data which addressed administrative and instructional best practices. Across all of the interviews, autonomy, finances, and school culture were pervasive themes.

Administrators and teachers spoke favorably of their ability for autonomous decision making and the freedom to make decisions independent from review at a district level. While there is no district-level accountability for charter schools, some administrators in charter schools managed by Education Management Organizations (EMOs) have less autonomy than other charter school leaders. Teachers also said they felt they had more autonomy primarily in terms of flexibility in their teaching. Throughout all the interviews, administrators and teachers spoke of the culture within their schools and most noted it as one of the strengths of their school.

Administrators indicated that their greatest challenge and what they most wish they could change is funding. They mentioned a number of specific concerns from offering competitive teacher salaries to purchasing or expanding facilities.

The diversity among charter schools and traditional public schools does not provide evidence to allow a confident or accurate assertion that one type of school consistently outperforms the other.

iii

Table of Contents

Section 1

Academic Achievement................................... 1 Part A ? Academic Achievement Growth...... 1 Introduction.......................................... 2 Data..................................................... 2 Analytical Framework............................ 2 Value-added Models........................ 2 Limitations...................................... 4 Estimates.............................................. 5 References............................................. 7 Part B ? Graduation Rates.......................... 21

Section 2

Administrative and Instructional Best Practices........................................................ 22

Part A ? Administrator Interviews................ 22 Part B ? Teacher Focus Groups................... 24 Part C ? Other Charter School Features....... 26

Appendix A List of Missouri Charter Schools...................... 27

Appendix B Attendance Rates and Reenrollment Rates....... 28

Appendix C Data Preparation Procedures (Section 1A)......... 30

Appendix D Regression Coefficients and Related Statistical Elements........................................................ 32

Appendix E Teacher Focus Group Characteristics............... 33

Appendix F Other Recent Reports or Studies that Include Missouri Charter Schools................................ 34

Appendix G Survey Data Supplied by Charter Schools........

iv

List of Figures

1. Standardized School Effects on Math MAP Performance by FRL Status (St. Louis).................................................... 8

2. Standardized School Effects on Math MAP Performance by Percent Minority (St. Louis)............................................ 9

3. Standardized School Effects on Math MAP Performance Rank Ordered (St. Louis).................................................... 10

4. Standardized School Effects on Communication Arts MAP Performance by FRL Status (St. Louis)................................ 11

5. Standardized School Effects on Communication Arts MAP Performance by Percent Minority (St. Louis)......................... 12

6. Standardized School Effects on Communication Arts MAP Performance Rank Ordered (St. Louis)................................. 13

7. Standardized School Effects on Math MAP Performance by FRL Status (Kansas City)............................................... 14

8. Standardized School Effects on Math MAP Performance by Percent Minority (Kansas City)....................................... 15

9. Standardized School Effects on Math MAP Performance Rank Ordered (Kansas City)............................................... 16

10. Standardized School Effects on Communication Arts MAP Performance by FRL Status (Kansas City)............................ 17

11. Standardized School Effects on Communication Arts MAP Performance by Percent Minority (Kansas City).................... 18

12. Standardized School Effects on Communication Arts MAP Performance Rank Ordered (Kansas City)............................ 19

13. Difference in Standardized School Effects............................ 20

14. Charter School Graduation Rates 2008-2009...................... 21

v

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download