Tag Archives: education data

So Charters Should Offer Pre-K… But Can They?

As Sara wrote yesterday, we recently completed an analysis of state policies that affect charter/pre-k collaboration. In the analysis, we tried to figure out what a charter school would need to do and know in order to access state pre-k funds. So in each state, we ask: Can charter schools offer state-funded pre-k? What’s the process for doing so? How many charter schools serve preschoolers? We used this information to rank states based on how hospitable an environment they offer for charter schools seeking to serve preschoolers.

There are a few states where it’s relatively easy for charters to offer pre-k. Washington, D.C. and Oklahoma top our list, with Wisconsin and Texas close behind. In these states, charter schools are one option in a network of diverse pre-k providers.

But in a majority of states, charter schools face numerous barriers to offering pre-k. Lots of these barriers are common across states, while others are unique to a given state. For example, low pre-k funding (less than 75 percent of what charters receive to serve K-12 students) creates a disincentive to offering pre-k in 22 states (and affects all potential providers, not just charter schools).

Nine states prohibit charters from offering pre-k at all. In some of these states, the charter legislation limits – intentionally or unintentionally – the ages or grades that a charter school can serve. Ohio’s legislation says charter schools can only admit students between the ages of five and twenty-two; Arizona’s says a charter school must provide instruction for “at least a kindergarten program or any grade between grades one and twelve.” In other states, such as North Carolina, the charter and pre-k law aren’t explicit, but the state interprets that to mean charters can’t serve preschoolers.

In many states, different pre-k programs, state offices, or administrations have different rules. Charter schools in Connecticut can’t access funds through the School Readiness Program, the primary state-funded pre-k program, but if their charter includes pre-k, they receive state per-pupil funding for preschoolers just as they do for K-12 students. In Pennsylvania, Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration recently cancelled a charter school’s pre-k program, saying state law prohibits charter schools from offering pre-k and the school was only allowed to offer pre-k due to an “oversight in the chartering process during the previous administration.” In Georgia, the agency that administers the state pre-k program explicitly allows charter schools to apply for pre-k funding, but the state charter office won’t allow it.

Despite these barriers, at least one charter school in most states has “made it work,” figuring out a way to serve preschoolers, even if without state funding. In states like Georgia and Arizona, some charters serve preschoolers through an “affiliated program” – a separate (usually nonprofit) entity that is affiliated with the school. Up until recently, this was the only way charter schools in New York could serve preschoolers. Other charter schools fund pre-k services through philanthropy, tuition, Title I funds, or their general operating revenues. Sometimes the solution creates more problems, however, which is why we believe the best route is to enble charter schools to offer pre-k. Most states have a lot of work to do.


Note: We don’t rank all states – only those with charter laws and state-funded pre-k programs – and we intentionally only look at charter access to state funding for pre-k. Our full methodology is in Appendix A here.

The Definitive Ranking of 2016 Candidates… by Charter Performance

Note: Several candidates are missing from this chart. The states represented by Rand Paul (KY) and Bernie Sanders (VT) do not currently have charter laws. The states represented by Martin O’Malley (MD), Lindsey Graham (SC), Jim Gilmore (VA), Jim Webb (VA), and Scott Walker (WI) were not included in the 2013 CREDO study.

Charter schools are growing. The number of charter students has grown from 1.2 million to 2.9 million in less than a decade. Within two decades, a third of public education’s students – or more – could be educated in charter schools. That’s why the next president’s perspective and record on charters matters.  But what can we tell about the candidates based on how their states do with charter schooling?

Continue reading

Innovation, Technology, and Rural Schools

According to Washington elites, rural schools’ greatest challenge is finding and keeping teachers. Ask the inside-the-beltway crowd for a solution, and, considering all the buzz over blended learning and innovation, they’ll probably shout, “technology!”

One small problem: Rural superintendent don’t consider teacher recruitment and retention among their biggest challenges…and mixing rural schooling and technology is more complicated than you might think.

Hmmm.

Thank goodness for “Technology and Rural Education,” by Bryan C. Hassel and Stephanie Dean of Public Impact, the latest paper from Bellwether’s rural-education project, ROCI.

school_tech_tools

Image from Northfield Community Primary and Elementary School

The report begins as you might expect, arguing that technology holds great promise for rural schooling. “It can give students access to great teachers…enable them to tap into resources they would never find in a school’s media center…help them personalize their learning…open doors to forge networks with other students across the world.”

But unlike many tech-focused reports, it also recognizes the special characteristics of rural schools, especially as they relate to educators.
Continue reading

Let’s Talk about Tests: Four Questions to Ask

If you follow education news, politics, and social media, it’s clear that testing is having a moment. I was surprised it wasn’t listed alongside Taylor Swift as a nominee for Time magazine’s 2014 Person of the Year. Everyone–policymakers, unions, state leaders, local administrators, teachers, parents, you name it–seems to agree that the amount of testing and its role in America’s schools and classrooms merit reconsideration. But the momentum of this “over-testing” meme has overshadowed the fact that testing policy is complicated. And when the field talks about “over-testing,” it’s often not talking about the same kinds of tests or the same set of issues.

To help clarify and elevate our over-testing conversation (because it’s here to stay), here are four questions to ask, with considerations to weigh, when deciding whether testing is indeed out of control–and evaluating the possible options to change it. Continue reading

In Defense of Standardized Testing

According to a Gallup poll last fall, one in eight teachers thinks that the worst thing about the Common Core is testing. On the surface, that’s hardly newsworthy. We know states are changing their tests to align to the new standards, and those changes have inevitably bred uncertainty, anxiety, and even hostility, especially when results could carry high stakes someday. But educators surveyed didn’t say they were upset that the tests were changing, or that there could be consequences tied to the results. Rather, they were upset that the tests exist. Specifically, 12 percent of U.S. public school teachers “don’t believe in standardized testing.” Much like the debate over global warming, these non-believers refuse to validate an unassailable fact: standardized testing does have positive– and predictive–value in education and in life, just as the Earth is, indeed, getting warmer.

More specifically, this righteous conviction—“I don’t believe in testing”—is at odds with most policy analysis. Regardless of political or ideological bent, most will admit that NCLB got one thing right: exposing achievement gaps through the disaggregation of student data. Where did that data come from? Standardized tests. Instead of ignoring longstanding disparities in schooling, NCLB’s testing regimen forced states and districts to quantify them, examine them, and most importantly, try to improve them. It gave policymakers, administrators, and educators a common language to talk about student achievement and progress, and evaluate what was working based on evidence, not perception. Sure, standardized testing needed to be refined over the last decade to enhance quality and reduce unintended consequences—and could still use upgrades and be open to further innovation. But the value of standardized testing in terms of better understanding and improving a public education system as vast and fragmented as ours is undeniable, right? Continue reading