MAY 2008 HOT TOPIC
Charter Schools in Chicago: What Effects Are They Having?
Charter schools are growing rapidly, but their growth raises questions. First, which kinds of students are attracted to charter schools—do charter schools “skim the cream,” serving students with above-average achievement? Second, are such schools producing achievement gains relative to district-run schools? And third, are charter schools affecting longer-term attainment outcomes—for example, students’ likelihood of graduating, their scores on college admission exams, and their probability of enrolling in college, again relative to district-run schools?
A RAND Corporation study answers these questions for Chicago using student-level data provided by Chicago Public Schools (CPS). RAND researchers found that charter schools in Chicago are not having major effects on the sorting of students by race, ethnicity, or achievement. As for achievement gains, the study found that the overall performance of Chicago’s charter schools in raising student test scores is approximately on par with that of CPS.
Finally, the researchers found that the charter schools do produce positive effects on long-term attainment outcomes of graduation and college attendance. However, these positive effects are solidly evident only in the charter high schools that also included middle school grades, which raises questions about whether the positive effects are attributable to charter status or to the unconventional grade configurations that eliminate the change of schools between eighth and ninth grade.
Are Parents Taking Advantage of NCLB Options?
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) mandates two options for parents whose children attend schools identified as needing improvement: (1) transfer their children to another school in their district that has not been identified for improvement, with transportation provided by the district, or (2) enroll their children in free supplemental educational services, such as tutoring or summer school, provided in addition to instruction during the school day and year.
Researchers from RAND and two other institutions examined the implementation of these two options through 2004–2005 and found that most districts sought to offer both options. Nevertheless, student participation rates were very low, perhaps because of communication glitches with parents or because, in some districts—such as those with only one high school or middle school—there were no schools to which students could transfer.
Given these findings, it is not yet clear whether states, districts, and providers will meet the NCLB goal of providing a range of educational options to parents whose children attend persistently low-performing Title I schools.
What Do We Know About Current-Generation Youth Programs?
Policymakers nationwide must decide how to best invest in education and related opportunities, such as out-of-school-time programs, for their youth populations. A RAND study reviews the costs, benefits, and cost and benefits relative to one another for one type of investment: youth programs offered when students are not in school.
The study found that there is enough evidence to suggest that some carefully crafted and implemented youth programs can improve important youth academic and behavioral outcomes—such as reducing drug and alcohol use, violence, crime, and teen pregnancy and births and improving high school graduation rates and enrollment in postsecondary schools—and that the evidence is strongest for programs that are costlier and provide more-intense resources to youth. However, the evidence is based on at-risk groups, which means that there is a lack of evidence that such programs will benefit youth who are not at risk or who are less at risk, with the result that weaker, if any, effects would be expected for average youth. There is also a lack of evidence that less expensive, less resource-intensive programs, such as after-school programs, benefit youth.
Policymakers should recognize that moving forward requires advancing the youth-programming field and learning what does and does not work. The field will benefit primarily from rigorous and well-done evaluations of large-scale (e.g., statewide) initiatives.
What Does a Rigorous Evaluation of One After-School Program Show?
The Spirituality for Kids (SFK) after-school program—a nonreligious program that seeks to build resilience in children by teaching them to access inner resources and build positive connections with others—is unlike most after-school programs, both in its focus on spiritual development and in its emphasis on outcomes related to resilience. RAND researchers rigorously evaluated SFK and found that the program had beneficial effects on adaptive skills, behavioral problems, overexternalization of problems, and school problems. Notably, program effects exceeded the average effect sizes found for other programs with like goals, suggesting that SFK is a successful program model and providing the first causal link between spiritual development and behavioral outcomes in children.
|
RESEARCHER PROFILE
Jennifer Sloan McCombs
Jennifer Sloan McCombs is a Policy Researcher in the Washington D.C. office. Her education research has focused on policies aimed at improving outcomes for at-risk students including improving adolescent literacy, out-of-school programs, teacher education and professional development, high-poverty schools, instructional practices, and accountability measures. Currently, she is co-leading a project examining the implementation and outcomes of Florida’s literacy coach program at the middle school level and a project that examines systemic effort to improve out-of-school time provision. She holds a Ph.D. in Public Policy from George Washington University.
Read more work by Dr. McCombs »
|
RAND CONGRESSIONAL RESOURCES STAFF
Lindsey Kozberg
Vice President, Office of External Affairs
Shirley Ruhe
Director, Office of Congressional Relations
Carmen Ferro
Education Legislative Analyst
RAND Office of Congressional Relations
(703) 413-1100 x5395
|
SUBSCRIPTIONS
To unsubscribe, please write to ocr@rand.org or call (703) 413-1100 x5395.
Members of Congress and staff may receive a free copy by writing to ocr@rand.org, or calling (703) 413-1100 x5395.
RAND can also provide briefings, research assistance, testimony, and other services to Congressional offices.
|
|
