Lessons in charter school accountability: evidence from California. Issue 3 (3rd July 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Reed, Sherrie; Rose, Heather
• Is Part Of: Journal of school choice. Volume 12:Issue 3(2018)
• Page Start: 355
• Page End: 381
• Publication Date: 2018-07-03
• Subjects: California Charter Schools Association -- charter school accountability -- charter school advocacy -- charter school closures -- charter school test scores -- school choice -- multiple measures; School choice -- United States -- Periodicals; School choice; United States; Periodicals; 370
• DOI: 10.1080/15582159.2018.1490386
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1558-2159

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Recent advocacy and legislation across states calls for stricter accountability measures and closure of low-performing charter schools. As charter schools try to meet the multiple accountability standards they face from federal, state, local authorities, and their own associations, it is important to understand how these numerous frameworks intersect. Important lessons may be gleaned from previous accountability efforts as states redesign accountability under the Every Student Succeeds Act. This article analyzes the numerous frameworks faced by California charter school, home to nearly 20% of the nations charter school tpdel students, during the No Child Left Behind era. These frameworks use measures of test score levels, test score growth, and relative performance to determine which charter schools should be closed. Our analysis of how charter schools measure up provides some cautions about using test-based accountability metrics in high-stakes decisions. Notably, we find greater variation in test score performance for charter schools than traditional public schools, greater instability in test scores for small schools compared to large schools, and that many measures disproportionately identify schools serving large concentrations of socioeconomically disadvantaged students. Further, we find substantial overlap between the multiple frameworks, suggesting advocacy organizations' efforts to improve accountability may be better focused on encouraging clarity and enforcement of existing accountability mechanisms rather than developing new frameworks.