Here follows the sixth entry in Fordham’s “Charter School Policy Wonk-a-Thon,” in which Mike Petrilli challenged a number of prominent scholars, practitioners, and policy analysts to take a stab at explaining why some charter sectors outpace their local district schools while others are falling behind.
Mike raises a question that I get all the time from policymakers: what explains the pretty extreme variation we see in charter school outcomes across states? The easy answer is that’s it’s policy, and by changing policy we can ensure quality.
But it’s not that simple. Policy guarantees nothing, and good state laws don’t necessarily result in good schools. Instead, charter quality depends mainly on implementation, school-design development, and the talent pipeline.
Macke Raymond and her colleagues at CREDO have done some initial work with their massive data set to see whether state caps, multiple authorizers, and other factors bear any relation to outcomes. They didn’t find much, and what they did find was sometimes counterintuitive: for example, charter caps were associated with worse quality. In looking over the CREDO outcomes by state, there are also no obvious patterns related to state funding levels—for instance, Pennsylvania charters underperform other public schools, at a cost of $12,000 per pupil, while California charters outperform their peers, for more like $8,000.
Does all this mean that policy doesn’t matter—that charter outcomes are random? Absolutely not. It just means that we haven’t yet amassed the right evidence to know precisely which policies matter...