Local Charter schools rate "equal or better" than traditional public schools

Thursday, May 21^st, 2009.
Issue 21, Volume 9.

Students enrolled in Riverside County's dozen charter schools are generally performing on an academic level equal to or better than students in the county's traditional public schools, according to a USC study released today.

The USC Center on Educational Governance's 2009 "Charter School Indicators" report examined the academic progress, financial health and teacher quality standards of nearly all the state's 678 charter schools.

The USC researchers compiled data from each school district and measured the charter schools against public schools within the districts.

A charter school can be an elementary or secondary school and receives public money, but is often exempt under its charter from the same rules and procedural requirements that apply to traditional schools. Charter schools are also typically set up with a specific mission, defined by contract, and are

held accountable by sponsors. Enrollment is limited.

Among other things, the USC study gauged charter school students' performance in English/Language Arts and mathematics during the 2007-08 school year. Test results were compared to non-charter schools' results and scored on a 1-10 scale, with 10 denoting a level of performance that ranked among the highest in the district.

In English/LA tests, three Riverside County charter schools scored 9 or higher -- Temecula Preparatory School, Temecula Valley Charter School and Washington Charter School, in Palm Desert.

Two schools scored Advertisement
9 or above in math -- Washington Charter School and Nuview Bridge Early College High School, in Nuevo.

The charter schools that recorded the lowest English and math scores in their districts, according to the study, were Moreno Valley Community Learning Center and San Jacinto Valley Academy. However, both institutions were ranked near the top for having experienced teaching staffs.

Temecula Valley Charter School and Temecula Preparatory School earned a 10 based on their ratings in the Academic Performance Index, which reflects a school's overall performance on state-mandated standardized tests, covering a range of subjects.

According to the USC researchers, charter schools statewide closely parallel traditional public schools in API results.

All but three of the Riverside County charter schools received high marks for having seasoned faculty. However, half the schools could not be rated on financial strength because researchers apparently lacked meaningful data.

The other six charter schools scored mid to high on solvency and classroom investment.

According to the study, charter schools in California average about 380 students, compared to an average enrollment of 636 in non-charter schools.

Class sizes are also smaller, with an average 21 students per class in charter schools, compared to 25 per class in traditional public schools.

The complete USC report is available on-line athttp://www.usc.edu/cegov.

2 comments for "Local Charter schools rate "equal or better" than traditional public schools"

10:20 am Thu, May 21^st, 2009

1. Sergio Flores says :

The title of the article seems misleading at best. Any person would conclude that charter schools do a better job at educating students than non-charter schools, which the report does not claim. The report does not indicate conclusively that charter schools are equal or better than charter schools in that respect. On the contrary, it states that charter schools' scores in math are lower than traditional pubic schools' scores.
What stands out in this article is the omission of two telling facts: one, that charter schools have less students in the free luch program than public schools do; and that charter schools have more parents with college or better education than parents in public schools.
I am not a journalist, but the report's findings do not support the title, and the details provided in your article do not provide substantive evidence.

Someting that could be a topic for an future article is the relative failure of charter schools. Charter schools were supposed to provide immediate successful alternatives to public schools, but they have become experiments with potential for the future. Rather than providing marginal positive results in some cases, charter schools, despite having less students, with a fewer percentage of them receiving free luch, and with parents who in average show more support for their children's education should have significantly outperformed public schools, but they have not done it.
Maybe, charter schools have in all these years demonstrated that they are not the alternative to improve education their supporters thought it would be. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the current public education system and invest in it. Would the money that billionaires and now the federal and state governments are spending on charter schools would be better spent in improving the current public education system, instead of trying to substitute it with experiments that have not given satisfactory results? Would results be better if we invest in supporting public schools, rather than experimenting with charter schools?

8:32 am Fri, May 22^nd, 2009

2. mom of lots says :

For what it is worth, here is my take on it- schools suck big time, educate your own. Schools are an out and out joke. Wake up.