Charter school

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Charter schools are publicly funded elementary or secondary schools in the United States that have been freed from some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools in exchange for some type of accountability for producing certain results, which are set forth in each school's charter.[1]

Their founders are often teachers, parents, or activists who feel restricted by traditional public schools.[2] Attendance is voluntary. State-run charter schools (schools not affiliated with local school districts) are often established by non-profit groups, universities, and some government entities.[3]

Contents

[edit] History

The charter school idea in the United States was originated by Ray Budde,[4] a professor at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and embraced by Albert Shanker, President of the American Federation of Teachers, in 1988 when he called for the reform of the public schools by establishing "charter schools" or "schools of choice". At the time, a few schools (which were not called charter schools but embodied some of their principles) already existed, such as H-B Woodlawn. As originally conceived, the ideal model of a charter school was as a legally and financially autonomous public school (without tuition, religious affiliation, or selective student admissions) that would operate much like a private business – free from many state laws and district regulations, and accountable more for student outcomes rather than for processes or inputs (such as Carnegie Units and teacher certification requirements).

Minnesota was the first state to pass a charter school law, in 1991. California was second, in 1992. As of 2008, 40 states and the District of Columbia have charter school laws.[5]

[edit] Structure and characteristics

There are two principles which guide charter schools. First is that they will operate as autonomous public schools, through waivers from many of the procedural requirements of district public schools. The second is that charter schools are accountable for student achievement. To date, 11% of the over 4000 charter schools operating in the United States have closed for reasons including academic, financial, and management problems, and occasionally consolidation or district interference.[6]

The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation, and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 3–5 years. Charter schools are held accountable to their sponsor—a local school board, state education agency, university, or other entity—to produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. While this accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, the United States Department of Education has found that charter schools are, in practice, not held to higher standards of accountability than traditional public schools.[7]

[edit] Chartering authorities

Chartering authorizers, entities which may legally issue charters, differ from state to state, as do the bodies which are legally entitled to apply for and operate under such charters. In some states, like Arkansas, the State Board of Education authorizes charters. In other states, like Maryland, only the local school district may issue charters. States including Arizona and the District of Columbia have created independent charter authorizing bodies to which applicants may apply for a charter. The laws that permit the most charter development, as seen in Minnesota and Michigan, allow for a combination of such authorizers.[8] Charter applicants may include local school districts, institutions of higher education, non-profit corporations, and, in some states, for-profit corporations. Wisconsin, California, Michigan, and Arizona allow for-profit corporations to operate charter schools. This is cause for concern in the opinion of educators who are concerned that for-profit charter schools are inherently flawed, as they divert part of the funding that in a traditional public school would be spent entirely on education to maintain profits. According to the National Education Association, for-profit charter schools rarely outperform traditional public schools, even when the charter receives higher funding.[9] Although the U.S. Department of Education's findings agree with those of the NEA, their study points out the limitations on such studies and the inability to hold constant other important factors, and notes that "study design does not allow us to determine whether or not traditional public schools are more effective than charter schools."[10]

[edit] Demographics

The U.S. Department of Education's 1997 First Year Report, part of a four-year national study on charters, is based on interviews of 225 charter schools in 10 states. Charters tend to be small (fewer than 200 students) and represent primarily new schools, though some schools had converted to charter status. Charter schools often tend to exist in urban locations, rather than rural. This study found enormous variation among states. Charter schools tended to be somewhat more racially diverse, and to enroll slightly fewer students with special needs and limited-English-proficient students than the average schools in their state.[11]

In 2007, the annual survey produced by the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter school group, found that 54% of charter school students qualified for free or reduced lunches. This qualification is a common proxy for determining how many low-income students a given school enrolls. The same survey found that half of all charter school students fall into categories that are classified as “at risk.”[12]

[edit] Funding

Charter school funding is dictated by the state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502 - 511 also authorize funding grants for charter schools. Additionally, charter schools may receive funding from private donors or foundations.

In August 2005, a national report of charter school finance undertaken by the Thomas B. Fordam Institute, a pro-charter group,[13] found that across 16 states and the District of Columbia — which collectively enroll 84 percent of the nation’s one million charter school students — charter schools receive about 22 percent less in per-pupil public funding, or $1,800, than the district schools that surround them. For a typical charter school of 250 students, that amounts to about $450,000 per year. The study asserts that the funding gap is wider in most of twenty-seven urban school districts studied, where it amounts to $2,200 per student, and that in cities like San Diego and Atlanta, charters receive 40% less than traditional public schools. The fiscal inequity is most severe in South Carolina, California, Ohio, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Missouri. The report suggests that the primary driver of the district-charter funding gap is charter schools’ lack of access to local and capital funding.

In contrast, an earlier article from the Education Policy Analysis Archives at Arizona State University in August of 2002 suggests that charters in economically depressed areas may receive more funding than the traditional public schools that surround them, placing traditional public schools at a funding disadvantage.[14]

[edit] Locations of charter schools

[edit] In the United States

In 1991, Minnesota was the first state to adopt charter school legislation, as an expansion of a longstanding program of public school choice and to stimulate broader system improvements. Since then, the charter school concept has spread to 40 states and the District of Columbia. State laws follow varied sets of key organizing principles based on the Citizens League's recommendations for Minnesota,[15] American Federation of Teachers guidelines, and/or federal charter-school legislation (U.S. Department of Education). Principles govern sponsorship, number of schools, regulatory waivers, degree of fiscal/legal autonomy, and performance expectations.

Current laws have been characterized as either "strong" or "weak." "Strong-law" states mandate considerable autonomy from local labor-management agreements and bureaucracy, allow a significant number of charter schools to be authorized by multiple charter-granting agencies, and allocate a level of funding consistent with the statewide per pupil average. According to the Center for Education Reform, a pro-charter group, in 2008 Minnesota, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Arizona, and California had the "strongest" laws in the nation. Mississippi and Iowa are home to the nation’s "weakest" laws, according to the same ranking.[16]

The vast majority of charter schools (more than 70 percent) are found in states with the "strongest" laws: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, and North Carolina.[17]

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, over half of the New Orleans schools that are re-opening are doing so as charter schools.[18]

[edit] Outside the United States

Overall, charter schools have had much less support outside the U.S., although many of the choices provided by charter schools have long existed elsewhere under different names.

[edit] New Zealand

Well before American charter schools, New Zealand went far further in granting power to individual schools by abolishing all regional school boards and making each public school independent, with local parent and teacher involvement in decision making.[19] Although not called charter schools, each school does have a charter under which it operates with a board of trustees and has a high degree of autonomy. The main difference, though, is that since all schools have the same status, individual schools don't all have the uniqueness typical of a charter school.

While since 1989 there is also provision for Designated Special Character schools, thus far only two have been created. (These are not to be confused with 'state integrated' schools — mostly Catholic,[20] and formerly private — that are 'integrated' into the public school system, while retaining their proprietor — which are required to have a 'special character' in their integration agreement with the Crown that would be preserved by the school's continuance.)

[edit] England and Wales

The United Kingdom established grant-maintained schools in England and Wales in 1988. They allowed individual schools that were independent of the local school authority. When they were abolished in 1998, most turned into foundation schools, which are really under their local district authority but still have a high degree of autonomy.

[edit] Canada

About three years after charter schools were introduced in the U.S., the Canadian province of Alberta allowed charter schools beginning in 1994. Two years later, ABC Charter Public School (now Westmount Charter School) formed. Alberta charter schools have much in common with their U.S. counterparts. As of 2005 there are only about a dozen charter schools in the province, compared with over 50 school boards, with the largest one alone having over 200 schools. The idea of charter schools initially sparked great debate and is still controversial, but has had limited impact. No other province in Canada has yet followed Alberta's lead.

[edit] Chile

Chile has a long history of private subsidized schooling, akin to charter schooling in the United States. Before the 1980's, most private subsidized schools were religious and owned by churches or other private parties, but they received support from the central government. In the 1980's, the dictatorial government of Augusto Pinochet promoted neoliberal reforms in the country, and adopted a competitive voucher system in education. These vouchers could be used in public schools or private subsidized schools (which can be run for profit). After this reform, the number of private subsidized schools, many of them secular, grew from 18.5% of schools in 1980 to 32.7% of schools in 2001.[21]

[edit] Evaluations of Charter Schools

One obvious question charter schools face is whether they actually improve educational outcomes, which is their stated purpose. In the interest of testing this assertion, a number of researchers and organizations have examined educational outcomes for students who attend charter schools.

[edit] American Federation of Teachers study

A study performed by the American Federation of Teachers, which opposes charter schools, found that students attending charter schools tied to school boards do not fare any better or worse statistically in reading and math scores than students attending public schools.[22] This study was conducted as part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2003.[23] The study included a sample of 6000 4th grade pupils and was the first national comparison of test scores among children in charter schools and regular public schools. Rod Paige, the U.S. Secretary of Education, issued a statement saying (among other things) that, "according to the authors of the data the Times cites, differences between charter and regular public schools in achievement test scores vanish when examined by race or ethnicity."[24] Additionally, a number of prominent research experts called into question the usefulness of the findings and the interpretation of the data in an advertisement funded by a pro-charter group.[25] Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby also criticized the report and the sample data, saying "An analysis of charter schools that is statistically meaningful requires larger numbers of students."[26]

[edit] Caroline Hoxby studies

A 2000 paper by Caroline Hoxby found that charter school students do better than public school students, although this advantage was found only "among white non-Hispanics, males, and students who have a parent with at least a high school degree".[27] This paper was the subject of controversy in 2005 when Princeton assistant professor Jesse Rothstein was unable to replicate her results. Hoxby released a follow up paper in 2004 with Jonah Rockoff, Assistant Professor of Economics and Finance at the Columbia Graduate School of Business, claiming to have again found that charter school students do better than public school students.[26] This second study compared charter school students "to the schools that their students would most likely otherwise attend: the nearest regular public school with a similar racial composition."[26] It reported that the students in charter schools performed better in both math and reading. It also reported that the longer the charter school had been in operation, the more favorably its students compared. Hoxby's methodology in this study has also been criticized, arguing that Hoxby's "assessment of school outcomes is based on the share of students who are proficient at reading or math but not the average test score of the students. That’s like knowing the poverty rate but not the average income of a community — useful but incomplete."[28] How representative the study is has also been criticized as the study is only of students in Chicago.[29]

[edit] Meta-analyses

A report issued by the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools,[30] released in July 2005 and updated in October 2006, looks at twenty-six studies that make some attempt to look at change over time in charter school student or school performance. Twelve of these find that overall gains in charter schools were larger than other public schools; four find charter schools’ gains higher in certain significant categories of schools, such as elementary schools, high schools, or schools serving at risk students; six find comparable gains in charter and traditional public schools; and, four find that charter schools’ overall gains lagged behind. The study also looks at whether individual charter schools improve their performance with age (e.g. after overcoming start-up challenges). Of these, five of seven studies find that as charter schools mature, they improve. The other two find no significant differences between older and younger charter schools.

A more recent meta-analysis conducted at Vanderbilt University indicates that solid conclusions cannot be drawn from the existing studies, due to their methodological shortcomings and conflicting results, and proposes standards for future meta-analyses.[31]

[edit] National Center for Education Statistics study

A study released on August 22, 2006 by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that students in charter schools performed several points worse than students in traditional public schools in both reading and math on the National Assessment of Educational Progress test.[32] Some proponents consider this the best study as they believe by incorporating basic demographic, regional, or school characteristics simultaneously it "... has shown conclusively, through rigorous, replicated, and representative research, whether charter schools boost student achievement ...", while they say that in the AFT study "... estimates of differences between charter schools and traditional public schools are overstated."[29] Critics of this study argue that its demographic controls are highly unreliable, as percentage of students receiving free lunches does not correlate well to poverty levels, and some charter schools don't offer free lunches at all, skewing their apparent demographics towards higher income levels than actually occur.[33]

[edit] United States Department of Education Study

In its Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report released in 2003, the U.S. Department of Education found that, in the five case study states, charter schools were out-performed by traditional public schools in meeting state performance standards, but noted: “It is impossible to know from this study whether that is because of the performance of the schools, the prior achievement of the students, or some other factor.”[10]

[edit] Policy and practice

As more states start charter schools, there is increasing speculation about upcoming legislation. In an innovation-diffusion study surveying education policy experts in fifty states, Michael Mintrom and Sandra Vergari (1997) found that charter legislation is more likely to be considered in states with poor test scores, Republican legislative control, and proximity to other states with charter schools. Legislative enthusiasm, gubernatorial support, interactions with national authorities, and use of permissive charter-law models increase the chances for adopting what they consider stronger laws. He feels union support and restrictive models lead to adoption of what he considers weaker laws.

The threat of vouchers, wavering support for public education, and bipartisan support for charters has led some unions to start charters themselves. Several AFT chapters, such as those in Houston and Dallas, have themselves started charters. The National Education Association has allocated $1.5 million to help members start charter schools. Proponents claim that charters offer teachers a brand of empowerment, employee ownership, and governance that might be enhanced by union assistance (Nathan).

Over two dozen private management companies are scrambling to increase their 10 percent share of a "more hospitable and entrepreneurial market" (Stecklow 1997). Boston-based Advantage Schools Inc., a corporation specializing in for-profit schooling, has contracted to run charter schools in New Jersey, Arizona, and North Carolina. The Education Development Corporation was planning in the summer of 1997 to manage nine nonsectarian charter schools in Michigan, using cost-cutting measures employed in Christian schools.

Professor Frank Smith, of Teachers College, Columbia University, sees the charter-school movement as a chance to involve entire communities in redesigning all schools and converting them to "client-centered, learning cultures" (1997). He favors the Advocacy Center Design process used by state-appointed Superintendent Laval Wilson to transform four failing New Jersey schools. Building stronger communities via newly designed institutions may prove more productive than charters' typical "free-the-teacher-and-parent" approach.

President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act also promotes charter schools. It is as yet unclear whether charter's lacklustre test results will affect the enacting of future legislation. A Pennsylvania legislator who voted to create charter schools, State Rep. Mark B. Cohen of Philadelphia, said that "Charter schools offer increased flexibility to parents and administrators, but at a cost of reduced job security to school personnel. The evidence to date shows that the higher turnover of staff undermines school performance more than it enhances it, and that the problems of urban education are far too great for enhanced managerial authority to solve in the absence of far greater resources of staff, technology, and state of the art buildings."

[edit] Charter school popularity

Charter schools provide an alternative for educators, families and communities who are dissatisfied with educational quality and school district bureaucracies. In early 2008, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a pro-charter organization, conducted two polls in Idaho and Nevada where they asked parents about their preferences concerning education. In Idaho, only 12% of respondents said that their regular public school was their top choice for the children’s school. Most preferred private schools over other options.[34] In 2008, Polls in Georgia[35] and Wyoming[36] found similar results.

The charter approach uses market principles from the private sector, including accountability and consumer choice, to offer new public sector options that remain nonsectarian and non-exclusive. Many people, such as former President Bill Clinton, see charter schools, with their emphasis on autonomy and accountability, as a workable political compromise and an alternative to vouchers. Others, such as President George W. Bush, see charter schools as a way to improve schools without antagonizing the teachers' union. Bush has made charter schools a major part of his No Child Left Behind Act. Despite these endorsements, a recent report by the AFT, has shown charter schools not faring as well as public schools on state administered standardized testing,[37] though the report has been heavily criticized.[38][39] Other charter school opponents have examined the competing claims and suggest that most students in charter schools perform the same or worse than their traditional public school counterparts on standardized tests.[40]

[edit] Debate over funding

Nearly all charter schools face implementation obstacles, but newly created schools are most vulnerable. Some charter advocates claim that new charters tend to be plagued by resource limitations, particularly inadequate startup funds. Yet a few charter schools also attract large amounts of interest and money from private foundations such as the Gates Foundation, the Walton Family Foundation and the Broad Foundation.

Although charter advocates recommend the schools control all per-pupil funds, charter advocates claim that their schools rarely receive as much funding as other public schools. In reality, this is not necessarily the case in the complex world of school funding. Charter schools in California were guaranteed a set amount of district funding that in some districts amounted to $800 per student per year more than traditional public schools received until a new law was passed that took effect in fall 2006. Charter advocates claim that their schools generally lack access to funding for facilities and special program funds distributed on a district basis.[41] Sometimes private businesses and foundations, such as the Ameritech Corporation in Michigan and the Annenburg Fund in California, provide support.[42] Congress and the President allocated $80 million to support charter-school activities in fiscal year 1998, up from $51 million in 1997.

Charters sometimes face opposition from local boards, state education agencies, and unions.Many educators are concerned that charter schools might siphon off badly needed funds for regular schools, as well as students. In addition, public-school advocates assert that charter schools are designed to compete with public schools in a destructive and harmful manner rather than work in harmony with them. To minimize these harmful effects, the American Federation of Teachers urges that charter schools adopt high standards, hire only certified teachers, and maintain teachers' collective-bargaining rights.

[edit] Criticism of charter schools

[edit] Difficulties with accountability

The basic concept of charter schools is that they exercise increased autonomy in return for greater accountability. They are meant to be held accountable for both academic results and fiscal practices to several groups, including the sponsor that grants them, the parents who choose them, and the public that funds them. Charter schools can theoretically be closed for failing to meet the terms set forth in their charter, but in practice, this can be difficult, divisive, and controversial. One example was the 2003 revocation of the charter for a school called Urban Pioneer in the San Francisco Unified School District, which first came under scrutiny when two students died on a school wilderness outing.[43] An auditor's report found that the school was in financial disarray[44] and posted the lowest test scores of any school in the district except those serving entirely non-English-speakers.[45] It was also accused of academic fraud, graduating students with far fewer than the required credits.[43] There is also the case of California Charter Academy, where a publicly funded but privately run chain of 60 charter schools became insolvent in August 2004, despite a budget of $100 million dollars, which left thousands of children without a school to attend.[29] However, in Connecticut a large proportion of poorly-performing charter schools have been closed.[46]

In February of 2006, the Center for Education Reform released a report on charter school closures. At that time they found that 436 of the 4000 charter schools has closed for reasons ranging from district consolidation to failure to attract students. The report states that the “majority are closed for financial or management deficiencies.”[47]

[edit] Distribution of funds

Additional concerns arise when, as in Michigan, charter schools are run for profit. Many educators worry that education will suffer when funding is split between profit and educational spending, rather than going completely toward educational spending as is done in traditional public schools.[48] Studies have already shown many instances of charter schools cutting programs or refusing to educate students with special needs so as to maintain profitability.[49] Charter schools in Michigan, where for-profit charter schools are common, have performed at a lower level than their traditional public school counterparts.[46]

[edit] Racial integration

In an article written for the journal Contexts, Linda A. Renzulli, an assistant professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Georgia, and Vincent J. Roscigno, coeditor of the American Sociological Review, use Linda's own research as well as research by Amy Stuart Wells, Professor of Sociology and Education and the Coordinator of Policy Studies at Teachers College at Columbia University, to state that Charter Schools actually increase segregation of the different racial entities.[29]

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Charter Schools. National Education Association. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  2. ^ Research Center: Charter Schools. Education Week (2004-09-10). Retrieved on 2008-01-01.
  3. ^ Eskenazi, Stuart. "Learning Curves", 1999-07-22. Retrieved on 2008-01-21. 
  4. ^ [1]
  5. ^ "State Statistics Chart", The Center for Education Reform http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=stateStatChart&psectionid=15&cSectionID=44
  6. ^ http://www.edreform.com/_upload/cer_charter_survey.pdf
  7. ^ Executive Summary-Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report
  8. ^ http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=2804&sectionID=74&NEWSYEAR=2008
  9. ^ National Education Association (1998-07-08). For-Profit Management of Public Schools. CorpWatch. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  10. ^ a b Executive Summary-Evaluation of the Public Charter Schools Program: Final Report
  11. ^ U.S. Department of Education. A Study on Charter Schools: First Year Report. Washington, D.C.: Author, 1997. 74 pages. http://eric.uoregon.edu/search_find/ericdb/detail.php?AC=ED409620
  12. ^ http://www.edreform.com/_upload/cer_charter_survey.pdf
  13. ^ Charter School Funding: Inequity’s Next Frontier. Thomas B. Fordam Institute (August 2005). Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  14. ^ EPAA Vol. 10 No. 34 Sugarman: Charter School Funding
  15. ^ Rollwagen, John; Donn McLellan; School Structure Committee (1988-11-17). Chartered Schools = Choices for Educators + Quality for All Students (PDF). Citizens League. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  16. ^ "Charter Laws Graded and Ranked State By State", The Center for Education Reform http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=2804&sectionID=34&NEWSYEAR=2008
  17. ^ Charter School Laws Across the States. Center for Education Reform (2004). Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  18. ^ Carrns, Ann (2006-08-24). Charting a New Course: After Katrina, New Orleans's Troubled Educational System Banks on Charter Schools. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  19. ^ Ladner, Matthew (2001-10-01). School Choice, Kiwi-Style: When New Zealand Abolished School Boards. Frontier Centre for Public Policy. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  20. ^ Catholic Schools: A Heritage to be proud of ... (PDF). New Zealand Catholic Education Office (2005). Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  21. ^ Larrañaga, Osvaldo. "COMPETENCIA Y PARTICIPACIÓN PRIVADA: LA EXPERIENCIA CHILENA EN EDUCACIÓN". . Estudios Públicos
  22. ^ Nelson, F. Howard; Rosenberg, Bella, and Nancy Van Meter. "Charter School Achievement on the 2003 National Assessment of Educational Progress". . American Federation of Teachers
  23. ^ Institute of Education Sciences (December 2004). America's Charter Schools: Results From the NAEP 2003 Pilot Study (PDF). United States Department of Education. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  24. ^ U.S. Department of Education (2004-08-17). "Paige Issues Statement Regarding New York Times Article on Charter Schools". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  25. ^ Charter School Evaluation Reported by The New York Times Fails to Meet Professional Standards. Center for Education Reform (August 2004). Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  26. ^ a b c Hoxby, Caroline M.. "Achievement in Charter Schools and Regular Public Schools in the United States: Understanding the Differences" (PDF). . Harvard University and the National Bureau of Economic Research Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  27. ^ Hoxby, Caroline M. (2000). "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?". American Economic Review. 
  28. ^ Schoolhouse Schlock: Conservatives flip-flop on standards for charter school research. The American Prospect (2004-09-23). Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  29. ^ a b c d Renzulli, Linda A.; Roscigno, Vincent J. (Winter 2007). "charter schools and the public good". Contexts 6 (1): 31-36. doi:10.1525/ctx.2007.6.1.31. 
  30. ^ Hassel, Bryan C.; Michelle Godard Terrell (October 2006). Charter School Achievement: What We Know. National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
  31. ^ Berends, Mark; Caroline Watral, Bettie Teasley, and Anna Nicotera (2006). Charter School Effects on Achievement: Where We Are and Where We're Going (PDF). National Center on School Choice. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
  32. ^ National Center for Education Statistics. "A Closer Look at Charter Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling" (PDF). . U.S. Government Printing Office Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  33. ^ Center for Education Reform (2006-08-21). "No Free Lunch — Study Wrongly Discredits Charter Success: Flawed Research by National Center for Education Statistics Should be Viewed with Great Skepticism". Press release. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  34. ^ http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/friedman/research/ShowResearch.do;jsessionid=5FF7856915E7585E3502E377DA219460
  35. ^ http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=2797&sectionID=66&NEWSYEAR=2008
  36. ^ http://www.edreform.com/index.cfm?fuseAction=document&documentID=2806
  37. ^ . "Charter Schools: Do They Measure Up?". . American Federation of Teachers
  38. ^ Howell, William G.; Paul E. Peterson and Martin R. West (2004-08-18). Dog Eats AFT Homework: A teachers union's dishonest study of charter schools.. Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  39. ^ Maranto, Robert (August/September 2002). "AFT Charter School "Study" Lobbying, not Research". NCSC News 1 (7). National Charter School Clearinghouse. 
  40. ^ Carnoy, Martin; Rebecca Jacobsen, Lawrence Mishel, and Richard Rothstein (2005-04-30). The Charter School Dust-Up: Examining the Evidence on Enrollment and Achievement. Teacher College Press. ISBN 978-0807746158. 
  41. ^ Bierlein, Louann; Bateman, Mark (April 1996). "Charter Schools v. the Status Quo: Which Will Succeed?". International Journal of Educational Reform 5 (2): 159-68. 
  42. ^ Jenkins, John; Jeffrey L. Dow (April 1996). "A Primer on Charter Schools". International Journal of Educational Reform 5 (2): 224-27. 
  43. ^ a b Delgado, Ray. "District suspends wilderness trips: School could lose charter if safety lapses found", San Francisco Chronicle, 2003-03-07. Retrieved on 2008-01-21. 
  44. ^ Schevit, Tanya. "Audit finds faults in charter school: Board set to vote on troubled Urban Pioneer", 2003-08-26. Retrieved on 2008-01-21. 
  45. ^ 2003 Academic Performance Index (API) Base Report: School Report: Urban Pioneer Experiential. California Department of Education (2004-06-14). Retrieved on 2008-01-21.
  46. ^ a b Miron, Gary (April 2005). Strong Charter School Laws are Those That Result in Positive Outcomes (PDF). Western Michigan University. Retrieved on 2008-01-03.
  47. ^ “Charter School Closures: An Opportunity for Accountability”. Center for Education Reform, February 2006. http://www.edreform.com/_upload/closures.pdf
  48. ^ "Alternative Public Schools: Charter Schools and Beyond" Charlette Carter http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Social_and_Cultural_Foundations_of_American_Education/Edition_3/19.4.3
  49. ^ Symonds, William C.; Ann Therese Palmer, Dave Lindorff, and Jessica McCann (2000-02-07). "For-Profit Schools: They're spreading fast. Can private companies do a better job of educating America's kids?". Business Week. 

[edit] References

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

 The external links in this article may not follow Wikipedia's content policies or guidelines.
Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links.

[edit] Articles and papers

[edit] Organizations

v • d • e
Schools
By educational stage
By funding
By style of education
By scope
By name