Don’t Underestimate the Intellectual Capacity of Students

This week I attended a talk with Eva Moskowitz, the founder of Success Academies. The public charter schools in the Success Academies network, like many New York City charter schools, just posted great performance results for the 2011-2012 school year. At the talk, Eva made a statement that stuck with me: educators, policymakers, and the education system fail when they underestimate the intellectual capacity of students.

It’s a similar mantra that “no-excuses” schools uphold all across the country, and it’s a hard statement to argue with. But what does the claim mean when you get down to the day-to-day functioning of a school? How does a school make sure that it not only presents rigorous content knowledge, but also maximizes the intellectual capacity of students?

The University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research recently released a report synthesizing research on noncognitive factors, defined as “behaviors, skills, attitudes, and strategies that are crucial to academic performance in [students’] classes, but that may not be reflected in [student] scores on cognitive tests” (cognitive factors, on the other hand, are content knowledge and academic skills). The report provides a wealth of empirical research indicating that noncognitive factors matter (see the figure below for their theory of action).  Specifically, the report claims that “there is little to no rigorous evidence that efforts to increase standards and require higher-level coursework—in and of themselves—are likely to lead many more students to complete high school and attain college degrees.”

What this means, is that a school could have the most rigorous and challenging set of academic content expectations, but if the adults in the building aren’t thinking about the instructional context for engaging and connecting with students to support academic mindsets, perseverance, and behaviors, the school may not see significant improvements in performance. Or worse, the school may blame students, as the report states: “Unfortunately, teachers often misdiagnose poor academic behaviors and lack of perseverance not as a lack of strategies or a problem with mindsets but as indications that students are not motivated or do not care.”

The report is dense, but it provides a lot of good information for educators, policymakers, and researchers to use when thinking about how to dramatically improve educational outcomes. And aren’t the summer months perfect for catching up on the research base?

Source: Farrington, C.A., Roderick, M., Allensworth, E., Nagaoka, J., Keyes, T.S., Johnson, D.W., & Beechum, N.O. (2012). Teaching adolescents to become learners. The role of noncognitive factors in shaping school performance: A critical literature review. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.

National Initiative to Assess Access to Charter Schools Facilities Underway

The Colorado League of Charter Schools has undertaken a research and policy initiative focusing on the state of charter schools facilities. The Charter Schools Facilities Initiative is a nationwide effort to empirically assess charter school access to facilities and to use the data to impact policy and practice. To date, the CO League has completed four reports for Colorado, Georgia, Indiana, and Texas. There are two additional reports due in 2012 for New York and Tennessee, and Idaho, Michigan, and New Jersey are in the process of completing the survey. States interested in participating in the initiative can find information here.

What has been learned so far from the initiative? Some common themes emerged:

• Charter schools are forced to spend significant operating dollars on buildings.
• Fewer than half of charter schools have kitchen facilities compliant with National School Lunch Program NSLP guidelines.
• Local and state capital funding programs are not a significant source of funding for charter school facilities.
• Charter school access to empty or underutilized public school land or buildings is sporadic.
• Common amenities such as libraries, sports fields, gymnasiums, lunch rooms, etc. are limited for charter school students.
• Charter school facilities and classrooms are too small compared to industry standards.

Equitable access to capital funding and facilities remains a challenge for charter schools in many states. According to NAPCS’ Model Law:

• Charter laws in four states (Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, and Nevada) do not include any provisions for equitable access.
• The majority of state laws (26/42, or 62 percent) include only a small number of the model law's provisions for equitable access to capital funding and facilities.
• Eight states include some of the provisions from the model law.
• Three states (California, Colorado, and Indiana) include most of the provisions that provide equitable access.
• But there isn’t a single state with legislation that includes all of the model law’s provisions for equitable access to capital funding and facilities.

There is some research indicating that school facilities impact student achievement outcomes (see here, here, and here). And check out this interesting read on innovative school facilities.


Image via Google Images

National Charter School Resource Center Releases “Charter School-Authorizer Catalog” Data Resource

In case you didn’t get to talk to them at the national charter schools conference, the National Charter Schools Resource Center (NCSRC) released their Charter School-Authorizer Catalog. This great data resource provides a comprehensive look at authorizing practices nationwide, such as the length of charter contracts, renewal processes, and the total number of charters that have applied to each authorizer. The catalog also provides data for specific charter school contract terms, including the dates of the initial charter contract, renewal terms, and closure dates. Once you find a charter school in their catalog, there is a link to our Public Charter School Dashboard to find out more information about the school. NCSRC’s charter school-authorizer catalog is up-to-date through the 2010-2011 school year, and NCSRC is currently in the process of surveying authorizers for the 2011-2012 school year.

A couple of interesting facts about authorizers and the number of charter schools in their portfolios:

• The Texas Education Agency, a state education agency authorizer, is the largest authorizer in the country with 488 charter school campuses. The Arizona State Board for Charter Schools, an independent chartering board, comes in a close second with 460 charter schools.
• Local school districts make up 86 percent of authorizers nationwide. The largest district authorizer is Los Angeles Unified with 181 charter schools. The top 10 authorizers in terms of the number of charter schools include three other school districts: Chicago Public Schools (111 charters), Miami Dade County Public Schools (89 charters), and Philadelphia School District (76 charters).
• Even though there are school districts with large numbers of charter schools, the majority of local school districts (59 percent) contract only one charter school.
• There are currently two municipalities that can authorize charter schools: the Indianapolis Mayor’s Office (22 charters) and Milwaukee Common Council (5 charters).

You can find more information on authorizers in the National Association for Charter School Authorizers’ (NACSA) annual report.