Connexionsmodule: m38631 1 Charter Schools in Texas: An Overview ∗ Francisco Penning John R. Slate This work is produced by The Connexions Project and licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License † Abstract In this article we analyzed the literature regarding charter schools in the State of Texas. We specif- ically examined the evolution of the charter school movement in Texas. Moreover, data regarding the e(cid:27)ectiveness/ine(cid:27)ectiveness of charter schools in Texas were discussed. Our overview of Texas charter schools, given their widespread presence in Texas, may be helpful to policy makers and stakeholders in other states. note: Thismanuscripthasbeenpeer-reviewed,accepted,andendorsedbytheNationalCouncilof ProfessorsofEducationalAdministration(NCPEA)asasigni(cid:28)cantcontributiontothescholarship and practice of education administration. In addition to publication in the Connexions Content Commons, this module is published in the International Journal of Educational Leadership Prepa- ration,1 Volume 6, Number 3 (July - September, 2011), ISSN 2155-9635. Formatted and edited in Connexions by Theodore Creighton and Brad Bizzell, Virginia Tech and Janet Tareilo, Stephen F. Austin State University. 1 Sumario en espanol Enesteart(cid:237)culonosotrosanalizamoslaliteraturaconrespectoaescuelasde(cid:29)etamentoenelEstadodeTejas. Revisamos espec(cid:237)(cid:28)camente la evoluci(cid:243)n del movimiento chÆrter de la escuela en Tejas. AdemÆs, los datos con respecto a la e(cid:28)cacia/ine(cid:28)cacia de escuelas chÆrter en Tejas fueron discutidos. Nuestra vista general de Tejas las escuelas chÆrter, dar su presencia esparcida en Tejas, pueden ser œtil a fabricantes de pol(cid:237)tica y tenedores de apuestas en otros estados. note: Esta es una traducci(cid:243)n por computadora de la pÆgina web original. Se suministra como informaci(cid:243)n general y no debe considerarse completa ni exacta. ∗Version1.3: Jul12,20114:13pmGMT-5 †http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ 1http://www.ncpeapublications.org http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 2 2 The Overview ThepublicationANationatRisk: TheImperativeforEducationalReformignitededucationalreformallover the country, and Texas was no exception (Texas Education Agency [TEA], 2009; United States Department ofEducation[USDE],2010). Duringthelate1980sandearly1990s,manywould-bereformerswerefrustrated by what they saw as impediments to successfully educating students in Texas (TEA, 2009). These obstacles included state laws, TEA, school district policies, and school boards (Stevens, 1999). In 1995, the Texas Legislatureestablishedstatecharterschools. Inthatsession, theTexasLegislatureprovidedforthecreation of 20 open-enrollment charter schools to begin the 1996-1997 academic school year (TEA, 2009). Open-enrollment charter schools in Texas are sponsored by institutions of higher education (private or public); non-pro(cid:28)t organizations as set out in the Internal Revenue Code; or government entities (TEA, 2009). In 1997, the Texas Legislature provided for an additional 100 open-enrollment charter schools as well as an unlimited number of 75 Percent Rule charter schools, which serve students at risk of failure or droppingoutofschool. Toqualifyasa75PercentRulecharterschool,enrollmentmustinclude75%ormore at-risk students. Further provisions by the Texas Legislature in 2001 allowed for an unlimited number of specializedcharterschoolssponsoredbypublicseniorcollegesanduniversities. Asaresultofallthereforms in the educational system of Texas, the number of charter schools has increased dramatically. As of August, 2008, 207 open-enrollment charter schools were in operation and 45 home-rule charter schools (Center for Education Reform [CER], 2010; TEA, 2009). During the 1996-97 school year, 16 open-enrollment charter schoolsoperatedinTexas. Thatnumberincreasedto19forthe1997-98schoolyearandto89inthe1998-99 school year, 45 of which were under the 75 Percent Rule. In the 1999-2000 school year, 146 charter schools operated, with 46 being under the 75 Percent Rule. In 2000-2001, 160 charter schools operated, of which 51 held 75 Percent Rule charters. As of 2008, of the 252 charter schools in Texas, 101 of those schools served 70% or more at-risk students, as the 75 Percent Rule was eliminated (TEA, 2009). As of January of 2009, charter schools in Texas served a total of 106,368 students (TEA, 2009). Intermsofhome-rulecharterschools,sevenschooldistrictscurrentlyhavetheirowncharterschools. The numberofthistypeofcharterschoolwas47atthebeginningofthe2008-2009schoolyear. Thesedistrictsare: HoustonIndependentSchoolDistrict,SpringBranchIndependentSchoolDistrict,SanAntonioIndependent School District, Dallas Independent School District, Corpus Christi Independent School District, Colorado Independent School District, and Clear Creek Independent School District. Home-rule charter schools are under the governance of local school boards and the district superintendents (TEA, 2009). CharterschoolsinTexasserveahighnumberofminoritystudents. Whencomparingtotalpercentagesof minoritiesincharterschoolswithtraditionalpublicschools,charterschools’(cid:28)guresstandout. Approximately 48% of charter school students are Hispanic and 42% Black, compared to 44% Hispanic and 14% Black in traditionalpublicschools(TEA,2009). ThepercentageofWhitestudentsenrolledincharterschoolsisabout 18%, compared to 40% in traditional public schools. More than 70% of students enrolled in charter schools statewide are at-risk of dropping out, compared to only 41% in traditional public schools for 2008 (TEA, 2009). Additionally, charterschoolsinTexasservehighernumbersofspecialeducationstudentsthanpublic schools (TEA, 2009). For instance, 12.5% of students in charter schools are enrolled in special education, as compared to a state average in Texas of 11.9% for 2008 of students in traditional public schools. In regard to English Language Learners (ELL), only 9.2% of students are classi(cid:28)ed as ELL in charter schools, as compared to the state average of 14.3% (TEA, 2009). Presented in Table 1 are the demographics of charter schools as compared to traditional public schools with and without charter schools. Table 1 Comparison of Student Demographics, 2007-2008 http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 3 2 In regard to how charter schools in Texas are funded, they are all public schools with more than 82% of funds coming from the state of Texas. In Texas, 15% of funds come from federal grants, and the remainder from donations. The percentage of funding from the state to charter schools is higher than the 32% of fundingthattraditionalpublicschoolsreceive. However,becausecharterschoolsarenotpermittedtoimpose local taxes or issue bonds to help the increase of revenues, the total revenue is less than their traditional counterparts, ranging anywhere from 3.6% to 26.7% less (Haas Policy Consulting, Inc., 2003; Smith, 2005; Texas Center for Educational Research [TCER], 2009; TEA, 2009; Thomas B. Fordham Institute, 2005). Presented in Table 2 are the types of revenues that charter schools and traditional public schools receive, as well as total operating expenditures per pupil (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005). Table 2 Revenue and Expenditures per Pupil 3 After examining the data presented in Table 2, it is evident that operating expenditures per pupil in charter schools are on average $1,000 lower than at geographically-matched traditional public districts. Furthermore, for charter schools, state and local revenues per pupil are about $461 less than the average at 2http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table1.png/image 3http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table2.png/image http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 4 traditional public schools, and about $380 less than the average at geographically-matched public schools. This discrepancy means that charter schools receive less money than traditional public schools from state and local sources (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005). Also important, in addition to being unable to capitalize on the 43% of local revenues that traditional district schools collect on property taxes, charter schools do not receive facilities funding from the state, nor are they eligible to receive the small school adjustment given to manysimilarlysizespublicschools(TEA,2009). Thisdi(cid:27)erence,inturn,placescharterschoolsata(cid:28)nancial disadvantage compared to traditional public schools (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005). InreferencetotheacademicperformanceofcharterschoolsinTexas,itisimportanttofocusnotonlyon levels of scores, but also upon changes in scores. Both approaches have merit in the sense that (cid:16)score levels revealsomethingaboutwhereweareandthechangesrevealsomethingaboutwherewearegoing(cid:17) (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005, p. 16). By taking into account the changes of scores, it can be observed whether or not charter schools are making a di(cid:27)erence with low performing students who are withdrawing from traditional public schools and enrolling in charter schools. (cid:16)Thus looking at changes in test scores gives an indication of improvement, orlackthereof, andarguablyapreferredmethodoflookingatthecontributionofaparticular school to student performance(cid:17) (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005, p. 17). In their study of academic performance of charter schools in Texas compared to traditional charter schools, Gronberg and Jansen (2005) analyzed how student achievement changed over time. They did this analysis by taking into account the (cid:28)rst eight years of charter school academic data. They concluded that at risk students have larger achievement gains than their matched counterparts in traditional public schools. Presented in Table 3 is the comparison of achievementgainforcharterschoolsandtraditionalpublicschoolsbasedonthemandatorystateassessment, the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, for all students in grades 5-8. Table 3 2003-2004 TAKS Score Levels, Grades 5-8 (At Risk Students Only) 4 It must also be noted that when comparing all students, students enrolled in charter schools, on average, perform lower than students enrolled in traditional public schools when based on absolute, level test scores, rather than achievement gains as presented in Table 4 for all students in grades 5-8 (TEA, 2009). Scores in Table 4 are reported for the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) because this test replaced the previously-mentioned TAAS. Table 4 2003-2004 TAKS Score Levels, Grades 5-8 (All Students) 4http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table3.png/image http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 5 5 When it came to analyzing academic performance of high school students (grades 9-12), Gronberg and Jansen concluded that (cid:16)the achievement of high school students in charter schools, on the whole, is signif- icantly lower than their matched counterparts in traditional public schools(cid:17) (2005, p. 6). A comparison of academic data for high school students in charter schools and traditional charter schools is presented in Table 5. Table 5 2003-2004 TAKS Score Levels, Grades 9-12 (All Students) 6 The (cid:28)ndings of Table 5 should be expected considering these (cid:28)ve points stated by Gronberg and Jansen (2005): 1. The vast majority of students may never have passed state assessments while attending traditional public schools. 2. The strongest in(cid:29)uence on student achievement is past achievement(cid:22)Charter schools generally serve a higher population of disadvantaged students than traditional public schools. 3. Changingschoolshasatemporary, adverseimpactonstudentachievement(cid:22)Charterschoolsgenerally have a higher proportion of new students than traditional public schools. 4. Educational outcomes of high school students generally fall further below expectations than outcomes of students in elementary and middle schools(cid:22)Charter schools generally serve a higher proportion of high school students than school districts; and 5. A large number of charter schools are expressly designed to provide alternative education programs for students at-risk(cid:22)Alternative education schools have di(cid:27)erent, lower academic standards than tra- ditional public schools. (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005, p. 6) 5http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table4.png/image 6http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table5.png/image http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 6 In analyzing academic growth, Gronberg and Jansen (2005) also documented that TAKS Math scores im- proved considerably more among traditional public high school students than among charter school high school students, but reading scores increased more among the charter high school students (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005). Presented in Table 6 is the comparison of high school students in charter schools and tradi- tional public schools (TEA, 2009). Table 6 2003-2004 TAKS Score Growth, Grades 9-11 (All Students) 7 In their eight year study, Gronberg and Jansen (2005) also concluded that the gains for the charter schoolswithstudentswhohaveenrolledfromtraditionalpublicschoolsandwhohavestayedinthosecharter schools for at least three years were signi(cid:28)cantly higher than for their matched traditional counterparts. Both researchers suggested that (cid:16)the disruption e(cid:27)ect of moving to a charter is a temporary phenomenon(cid:17) (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005, p. 25). The e(cid:27)ect of charters on students at traditional public schools is another area that Gronberg and Jansen (2005) analyzed in their eight year study. They determined that students enrolled in traditional public schools facing charter competition achieved signi(cid:28)cantly higher gains in reading and math than students enrolled in schools that did not compete with charters. Additionally, these gains were achieved without any increase in traditional public school spending (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005). Both researchers suggested that a reason for a positive charter impact on traditional public school students is that most traditional public schools are not cost e(cid:30)cient when providing educational services. In other words, they spend too much per student. Other researchers (e.g., Hess, 2004; Marri(cid:28)eld, 2001) suggested that the lack of competition in the education market is the root cause of cost ine(cid:30)ciency. Furthermore, one researcher suggested that (cid:16)if the option of attending a charter school increases the level of competition facing traditional public schools, this couldmovethetraditionalpublicschoolstowardgreatere(cid:30)ciencyandleadtoacross-the-boardimprovements in student outcomes(cid:17) (Marri(cid:28)eld, 2001, p. 56). Demonstrated in Table 7 is how traditional public schools have fared in math when facing charter school competition (TEA, 2009). Table 7 AverageStudentMathScoreGrowthforPublicSchoolStudentsatCampusesFacingCharterCompetition Compared With Students at Campuses Not Facing Charter Competition 7http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table6.png/image http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 7 8 Presented in Table 8 is a comparison of reading scores for traditional public school students with and without charter school competition (TEA, 2009). Table 8 Average Student Reading Score Growth for Public School Students at Campuses Facing Charter Com- petition Compared With Students at Campuses Not Facing Charter Competition 8http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table7.png/image http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 8 9 GronbergandJansen(2005)statedthatsevenconclusionscanbedrawninregardtothee(cid:27)ectofcharter schools on traditional public schools: 1. For each year from 1996-1997 through 2001-2002, the average of student TAAS math score growth in traditional public schools that face charter competition is above the average of student math score growth in traditional public schools that do not face charter competition. 2. Infourofthesesixyears,thegrowthinmathscoresattraditionalpublicschoolsfacingchartercompe- titionwasstatisticallysigni(cid:28)cantlygreaterthanthegrowthinmathscoresattraditionalpublicschools not facing charter competition. 3. For 2003-2004, the TAKS math test score growth at traditional public schools facing charter compe- tition was statistically signi(cid:28)cantly higher than the growth in those test scores at traditional public schools not facing charter competition. 4. For (cid:28)ve of the six years from 1996-1997 through 2001-2002, the average of student TAAS reading scoregrowthintraditionalpublicschoolsthatfacechartercompetitionisabovetheaverageofstudent reading score growth in traditional public schools that do not face charter competition. 5. In three of these six years, the growth in reading scores at traditional public schools facing charter competition was statistically signi(cid:28)cantly greater than the growth in reading scores at traditional schools not facing charter competition. 6. Inthesingleyearinwhichthegrowthofreadingscoresattraditionalpublicschoolsfacingcompetition waslessthanthegrowthinreadingscoresattraditionalpublicschoolsnotfacingchartercompetition, the di(cid:27)erence was not statistically signi(cid:28)cant. 7. For 2003-2004, the TAKS reading test score growth at traditional public schools facing charter com- petition was higher, but not statistically signi(cid:28)cantly higher, than the growth in these test scores at traditional public schools not facing charter competition. (Gronberg & Jansen, 2005, pp. 40-41) 9http://cnx.org/content/m38631/latest/table8.png/image http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/ Connexionsmodule: m38631 9 3 Summary Inthisreviewofliterature,theemergenceofcharterschoolsinTexaswithcomparisonstotraditionalschools was discussed. The intent of charter schools was to be an alternative to traditional schools. Important com- ponents that set charter schools apart from traditional schools are that they o(cid:27)er smaller teacher to student ratios,moreemphasisisplacedonparentalinvolvement,andmore(cid:29)exibilityexistswiththeimplementation of innovative instructional approaches. Our analysis of charter schools in Texas included demographics, funding, academics, and e(cid:27)ects on traditional public schools. Noticeable (cid:28)ndings included that charter schoolsinTexasserveamuchhighernumberofminoritystudentsascomparedtotraditionalpublicschools. Furthermore, it was also documented that charter schools receive less funding per student as compared to traditionalpublicschools. Charterschoolsalsodonotreceivegovernmentfundingforfacilities,andtheyare unable to collect funds from property taxes. In regard to academics, charter schools in Texas were reported tobeperformingnotsigni(cid:28)cantlybetterthantraditionalpublicschools, butdemonstratedgreateracademic growth as compared to traditional public schools. 4 References (cid:136) CenterforEducationReform. (2010). Charterschools. Retrievedfromhttp://www.edreform.com/index.cfm (cid:136) Gronberg,T.,&Jansen,D.W.(2005). Navigatingnewlycharteredwaters: AnanalysisofTexascharter school performance. Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation. (cid:136) Hass Policy Consulting, Inc. (2003). Understanding education (cid:28)nance in public and charter schools. Austin, TX: Best Practices Clearinghouse. (cid:136) Hess, F. M. (2004). Markets and urban schooling: What choice-driven competition is doing and how to make it do more. Educational freedom in urban America. Washington, DC: Cato Institute. (cid:136) Marri(cid:28)eld, J. (2001). The school choice wars. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Education Press. (cid:136) Smith, N. (2005). Texas roundup: Charter schooling in the Lone Star State. Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute. (cid:136) Stevens, J. H. (1999, June). Charter schools in Texas: An analysis of the movement and policy recommendations. Report for the Business and Education Coalition, Austin, TX. (cid:136) Texas Center for Educational Research. (2009). Texas open-enrollment charter schools: 2008-09 evaluation. Austin, TX: TCER. (cid:136) Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas open-enrollment charter schools. Austin, TX: Author. (cid:136) Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2005). Charter school funding: Inequity’s next frontier. Washington, DC: Longman Publishers. (cid:136) United States Department of Education. (2010). The state of charter schools. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/charter4rdyear/es/html http://cnx.org/content/m38631/1.3/