Paola Bribiesca CI 405- A NCLB Paper Charter Schools

Education and school reforms have grown to be a main concern for our nation since the 1900s. The purpose of education and school reforms is to modernize an existing structure that deals with education and schools; a plan for the distribution of funds or a design for the style of education each student receives, for example. One of these reforms, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), has become the most recent, controversial topic in the field of education. This act turned into a law on January 8, 2002 after it was signed by George W. Bush, under his presidency. What exactly does NCLB consist of? In specific, this paper will focus and examine the origin of NCLB and its impact on charter schools. Are charter schools more effective than traditional public schools? If NCLB is to be reauthorized, should charter schools continue to receive funds in the future? In order to understand how funds are allocated within No Child Left Behind Act in reference to charter schools, one must first recognize the reasons why NCLB was created. Two distinct types of school reforms existed during the 1990s. One of them was the progressive strand, under which the student was the center of the instruction. The students needs were dealt with and worked on in order to help the child academically succeed. The traditional approach, in contrast, was having the teacher as the main focus; instruction was only directed toward him/her. Education was not based on the students needs or talents, as with the progressive approach; but instead, it emphasized that education dealt more with the academics within reach. As time progressed, the United States found itself competing with other countries in regards to educational standards. Our nation became the top country with effective schools and educational

Paola Bribiesca standards after World War II. Unfortunately, this reign soon came to an end. As a result, the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act was signed and passed, which focused on disadvantaged students and allocated more money towards the districts and schools this type of students were found in. The federal governments role decreased in dealing with schools and districts, handing the power and discretion to the states.

As time passed, our nation began to experience a decline in test scores, rather than a growth. The United States was no longer the top nation with effective schools and educational standards, seeing that other countries had passed us off the charts based on students test scores. Feelings of distress and pressure escalated within Congress and Legislation. Before long, presidential candidates proposed fresh ideas to patch up our education system. As stated earlier, President Bush signed NCLB after it was passed through the Act of Congress and the House of Representatives and turned into law on January 8, 2002. This reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act outlines the federal governments role in education. It shows less pressure on them and an increased responsibility on the state governments behalf. The primary goal of NCLB is to close the achievement gaps between various demographic groups; and in addition, all states are required to bring all students to state-designed proficiency levels in reading and math by 2014. Most of NCLB continues to dedicate its funding to disadvantaged students, in comparison to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. In contrast, however, NCLB added new accountability mandates which must be met by states in order to continue receiving funds for its programs. The Illinois State Board of Education aligned federal and state initiatives to create these mandates, which are concentrated on the following: annual testing to reach higher student achievement, teacher qualifications in support of a betterprepared teacher workforce, and academic progress (AYP) for stronger public schools.

Paola Bribiesca Taking a closer look at stronger public schools, under Title V, Section B, Subpart 1, the federal government funds some charter schools through grants; nonetheless, all charter schools receive local and state tax funds. Taking a step back, though, one must ask: What exactly is a charter school and what was the original purpose of it? According to the Center for Public Education, a charter school is defined as a non-religious, public school operating under a contract, or charter, that governs its operation all details of school operationits name, organization, management, and curriculumare set by the charter, which also outlines how the school will measure student performance. The original reason for starting charter schools was to provide schools settings for trying out innovative practices; however, the current reason for establishing many charter schools has become to provide school choice for students in highpoverty, mostly inner-city schools. Because charter schools are public schools, they cannot charge tuition. Our nation has experienced a robust escalation in charter schools since 1991. By 2008, the U.S. had a total of 4,618 charter schools. Although this may seem like a large number, it is still not enough to satisfy the demand for quality choice options in some places. A great number of families are currently waiting on lists to be enrolled in one of these charters schools. To meet, the role of educational management organizations (EMOs) plays a great part in pushing the development and growth of charter schools. Currently the growth rate for non-profit EMOs shows a steady increase. However, this growth has limited itself to certain states and large cities within them. Non-profit EMOs are established for the most part in Texas, California, Arizona, and Ohio. All charter schools receive a great amount of their funds from states, but some through a competitive grants program. Recently in 2009, the U.S. Education Departments Charter Schools Program received $216 million from Congress. Charter schools continue to receive funding each year through NCLB in order to operate.

Paola Bribiesca Two common asked questions about charter schools and funding are: Should NCLB continue to fund Charter schools? How do they compare to traditional public schools? Along with the continuous charter school growth, also comes a contentious debate. Supporters argue that charter schools can improve student achievement and attainment, serve as laboratories for innovation, provide choice to families that have few options, and promote healthy competition with traditional public schools (Zimmer, et al). But, critics worry that charter schools give negative results as opposed to traditional public schools and that they harm students left in traditional public schools by taking away financial resources and motivated families (Zimmer, et al). A few studies have been done to compare effectiveness between both types of schools: charter and traditional public. In spite of this, it is important to acknowledge that most studies may not portray accurate information. It is very difficult to analyze charter schools; therefore, most studies are not able to collect and analyze data in more than one state. Regardless, there have been a few studies that have displayed realistic results. One of them is the recent 2009 study from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), which holds the title for the largest charter school study done thus far. This study analyzed charter students reading and math scores in fifteen states and the District of Columbia. This data was then compared to similar traditional public schools, or virtual twins, which were based on student demographics, English language proficiency, and participation in special education or subsidized lunch programs. A total of 2,403 charter schools were examined and those whose math growth surpassed their virtual twin growth, exceeded by a significant amount for 17 percent of the total (Center for Research on Education Outcomes (Credo)). In addition, 37 percent of charter schools had math gains that were significantly below what their students would have seen if they enrolled in traditional public schools. The remaining schools performed about the same as

Paola Bribiesca traditional public schools. Furthermore, the effectiveness of charter schools seemed to vary widely throughout each state. The states with charter schools that performed significantly higher than traditional public schools were: Arkansas, Colorado, Illinois, Louisiana, and Missouri. The states with charter schools that performed significantly lower than traditional public schools were: Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, New Mexico, Ohio, and Texas. Finally, only four states had charter schools with either mixed or similar results to traditional public schools. These were: California, District of Columbia, Georgia, and North Carolina. The study concluded that success was found generally in reading at the elementary level and in the reading and math areas at the middle school level (Center for Public Education). This same study was reviewed by What Works Clearinghouse, whose conclusion had a more negative approach. The review concluded that the study found charter school students to have a reading and math test score growth slightly lower than the test score growth of similar students in traditional public schools. These were very small differences, equivalent to moving a student from the 50th to the 49th percentile in math and less than that in reading ("What Works Clearinghouse"). The study also found a large inconsistency in charter school performance. Students in nearly twenty percent of the charter schools had higher test scores than students in traditional schools. In addition, nearly thirty-three percent of the charter schools students had lower test scores than students in traditional schools. The review also mentioned that although the study had virtual twins for each charter school, it matched charter school students to traditional public school students based on only demographic characteristics and test scores. These characteristics may have led to biased results because it is possible that there were other differences between the two groups that were not accounted for in the analysis. Hence, these differences could have influenced achievement growth.

Paola Bribiesca Another evaluation on a study performed on fifteen middle charter schools gave more detailed data based on student performance. A factor that has shown significant differences in test scores has to do with students socioeconomic status. Study charter schools serving more low income or low achieving students had statistically significant positive effects on math test scores, while charter schools serving more advantaged studentsthose with higher income and prior achievementhad significant negative effects on math test scores (Gleason, et al.). Another study was published in 2009 which covered eight states; however, this study is often omitted (Miron). This study found great differences among charter schools, but in the end results were similar to traditional public schools. However, it also looked at schools in Florida and Chicago realizing that charter school students are more likely to go to college than traditional public school students. Taking this data into consideration, one must look at the various solutions given by experts. The primary solution offered in the Obama blueprint and by others, as well, is to continue to fund charter schools; nevertheless, schools would be held more accountable. In addition, the following is enforced: low-performing charter schools are not given grants and are preferably closed. Another solution given by knowledgeable individuals is that charter schools should be forgotten and more support should be given to all low-performing schools. However, I disagree with this suggestion. NCLB should continue to fund charter schools because our nation needs innovative ideas to positively progress. I agree with Obamas solution because charter schools will be motivated to prove themselves as to how effective they can really be. In addition, there should be more information available to families, which lets them know that they have a choice in regards to the school their children attend. According to a recent article published in Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings, oftentimes parents are unaware of the option

Paola Bribiesca to take their children out of traditional schools and transfer them to charter schools. The article mentioned a study showing that half of all districts required to offer school choice due to low performance did not notify parents of their right to choose a new school until after the school year had already started, and many used language that was too complicated for parents to understand (Dynarski, et al.). In addition, districts oftentimes have unreliable data which is necessary for parents to analyze their childs current schools performance and helpful in leading them to a decision of whether or not charter schools are best for their children. Under current federal law, school districts are required to produce school report cards, but the information they include is incomplete and sometimes misleading (Dynarski, et al.). I definitely think that it is vital for schools to create programs for parents with presentations that teach them about their choices. The program should be made simple for all parents to understand and translators should be available for Spanish-speaking parents, as well. I strongly believe that charter schools have been making a positive difference in our education system. With a few enforcements on funding and holding them accountable for performance, charter schools can definitely improve our nations performance through innovative teaching and motivated students.

Paola Bribiesca Works Cited "Charter schools: Finding out the facts." Center for Public Education. Center for Public Education, 03 Mar 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2011. <http://www.centerforpubliceducation.org/>. Dynarski, Susan, Caroline Hoxby, Tom Loveless, Mark Schneider, Grover Whitehurst, and John Witte. "Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education." Brookings. Brown Center of Education Policy at Brookings, 16 Dec 2010. Web. 16 Mar 2011. <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/reports/2010/1216_charter_schools/1216_charter_s chools.pdf>. Gleason, P, M Clark, C.C. Tuttle, and E Dwoyer. "The Evaluation of Charter School Impacts: Final Report." Institute of Educational Sciences. U.S. Department of Education, Jun 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2011. <http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104029/pdf/20104029.pdf>. Miron, Gary. "Review of Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education." Great Lakes Center. National Education Policy Center, Jan 2011. Web. 23 Feb 2011. <http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Miron_FedCharters.pdf>. "Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states." Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). Stanford University, Jun 2009. Web. 23 Feb 2011. <http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/multiple_choice_credo_pdf>. "WWC Quick Review of the Report "Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States"." What Works Clearinghouse. USDE Institute of Education Sciences, 2010. Web. 23 Feb 2011. <http://www.eric.ed.go/PDFS/ED508366.pdf>. Zimmer, Ron, Brian Gill, Kevin Booker, Stephane Lavertu, Tim R. Sass, and John Witte. "Charter Schools in Eight States." RAND. RAND Corporation, 2009. Web. 23 Feb 2011. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2009/RAND_MG869.pdf>.