National Alliance for Public Charter Schools

Category Listing

The Charter Blog

Tuesday, 08 November, 2011

Charters Lagging on NAEP? NOPE!

There has been a fair amount written about the recently released NAEP results for 4th and 8th graders in math and reading, and most of the discussion has focused on the minimal overall gains from 2009 to 2011. But a closer look at charter schools compared with traditional public schools demonstrates that students in charter schools made some very large gains (see table below).

In nearly every category that we examined, students in charter schools made larger gains than students in traditional public schools. And these gains are substantial. At the overall level, charter school gains decreased the gap between students in charters and traditional public schools. In many of the breakouts by student and school categories, charter schools exceeded traditional public schools and the gains charters made are quite large.

Take a look at the gains ELL students attending charter schools made—a 15 point gain in 4th grade reading, a 10 point gain in 8th grade reading, and a 7 point gain in 4th grade math. In every assessment, ELL students who attended charter schools scored higher than ELL students in traditional public schools. Charter schools still have work to do to close achievement gaps between subgroups, but with these kind of gains charter schools are making good progress.

NAEP certainly has its limitations—the assessment is administered every two years to different students, and only to a sample of schools nationwide. However, NAEP has value as a national indicator of achievement trends. And the trend for charter schools appears to be on the rise. These NAEP results are consistent with the findings from the UCSD meta-analysis that showed positive results for elementary and middle school students who attend charter schools.

NAEP Gains between 2009 & 2011, Charter and Traditional Public Schools

Overall

Black

White

Hispanic

FRL

ELL

City

Suburb

Town

Rural

4^th Grade Math

CPS

(237)

(224)

(251)

(234)

(229)

(222)

(233)

(241)

(247)

(248)

TPS

(240)

(224)

(249)

(229)

(219)

(235)

(244)

(237)

(242)

4^th Grade Reading

CPS

(218)

(206)

(232)

(212)

(208)

+15

(195)

(213)

(223)

+12

(232)

+10

(232)

TPS

(220)

(205)

(229)

(205)

(207)

(188)

(214)

(225)

(217)

(223)

8^th Grade Math

CPS

(281)

(266)

(296)

(277)

(271)

(254)

(275)

(287)

-6

(289)

(290)

TPS

(283)

(262)

(293)

(269)

(243)

(277)

(286)

(281)

(285)

8^th Grade Reading

CPS

(261)

(251)

-1

(274)

(255)

(253)

+10

(231)

(256)

(264)

-3

(270)

(271)

TPS

(264)

(247)

(272)

(251)

(223)

(257)

(267)

(263)

(266)

Data compiled by NAPCS from: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/dataset.aspx
Note: 2011 NAEP Average Scores in parenthesis; CPS - Charter Public School; TPS -Traditional Public School; FRL - Students Eligible for Free or Reduced Price Lunch; ELL - English Language Learners

Posted by: Anna Nicotera, Director of Research and Evaluation at Tuesday, 08 November, 2011 12:00 AM

Comments (4)

Rating:

1.	N/A (08 Nov 2011 12:44 PM)
	I’m sorry to be a pretentious stickler, especially since you used cautious language and made an effort to point out prior research, but these data are not particularly meaningful. The changes are not "gains" or “progress,” which require longitudinal data that follow students over time. These are cohort increases. Charter students are a relatively small, rapidly changing population, and you simply cannot account for this with a cross-sectional national sample, even broken down by subgroup. It’s also worth noting that the estimates in the table (especially those for charters) have fairly large margins of error, and it’s important to account for this when presenting NAEP data. Charter students may have made progress, and they may not have. But these data don’t prove it either way.
1 2 3 4 5

2.	N/A (08 Nov 2011 05:08 PM)
	well, you got the pretentious part right- but need more work if you want to get any stickler credibility. the post never said "charter students" made progress- they said that charter schools showed more improvement. this means your longitudinal data requirement is kinda unnecessary- unless you have some secret explanation of how & why the national population of charter students evolved to contain higher achieving kids.
1 2 3 4 5

3.	N/A (09 Nov 2011 04:26 PM)
	The distinction between students and schools is not relevant. What is relevant is the difference between “change” and “progress.” It’s true that the average score among charter students (or schools, if you’d prefer) was higher in 2011 compared with 2009 – it was a positive and statistically significant change. What remains an open question is the degree to which this change reflects actual progress (is due to the schools), or to shifts in the charter student population. There are dozens of reasons why more high-performing students might have entered charter schools since 2009, none of which are “secret” or even surprising. And it is difficult to tease that out with cross-sectional data, especially when samples are smaller.
1 2 3 4 5

4.	N/A (11 Nov 2011 08:37 AM)
	the distinction is entirely relevant if you are going to criticize someone for an explanation of the change they never reached in the first place. so you think the explanation is simply a change in population? fine. nothing in the post said otherwise. i would be more inclined to believe you if you pointed to some research proving that hypothesis- but either way your initial reply is only arguing against a strawman.
1 2 3 4 5