In every state and territory government system in Australia, thousands of students attend schools that are persistently low performing. Some schools have been struggling for decades.
Numerous policies and programs have tried to improve them, from bringing in new principals and creating community hubs to employing attendance officers and literacy specialists. In only a few cases do these activities lead to large and sustained gains in learning outcomes.
Australia is not alone in this problem. In the US in the 1980s, frustration with the rigidities of public school regulation that prevented improvements in failing schools spurred a movement towards putting them under new management, under a contract or “charter” with the school district.
One of the earliest and strongest supporters of what are now known as charter schools was Albert Shanker, long-time president of the American Federation of Teachers, who called for policies that would allow groups of teachers to run autonomous schools.
Eventually, in 1991, Minnesota enacted the first charter school legislation, under which private organisations could run publicly funded schools. This year, 43 of 50 US states have charter school laws and there are 1.6 million students in more than 6000 charter schools.
Charter schools are public schools that are privately managed. They are funded at a similar level to traditional public schools, cannot charge fees and cannot be selective in their enrolments. Charter school regulations give them greater freedom in employment practices (most charter schools are not unionised), choice of curriculums and complete budget control.
Charter schools can be stand-alone or part of a network. They can be new schools or “conversion” schools developed from existing non-charter ones. They can be run by non-profit organisations or, less commonly, by for-profit companies.
An extensive body of research on US charter schools has accumulated during the past 24 years. A close review of the studies with the strongest methodologies reveals that, on average, charter school students have a small but statistically significant advantage in academic achievement over students in traditional public schools.
This average conceals large variation in charter school impacts and quality; some are mediocre at best while others are outstanding. The strongest impacts of charter school attendance are for low-income, black and Hispanic students. The longer students are enrolled in charter schools, the greater the gains.
The question, therefore, is not whether charter schools are beneficial but, rather, which charter schools are beneficial, for which students, and why?
At the school level, high-impact charter schools tend to have a “no excuses” approach to education. Teaching is explicit and teacher-led, discipline is strong and there is a relentless focus on high achievement in core academic subjects.
Greater freedom in budgeting and hiring allows charter schools to have longer school days and years, and pay more to get the best possible teachers, to attain their achievement goals.
The Knowledge is Power Program is one of the best known charter school networks. KIPP schools serve largely disadvantaged student populations but 82 per cent of KIPP graduates have enrolled in college, compared with US national average college enrolments of 63 per cent for all high school graduates and 45 per cent for low-income students.
Other networks of charter schools run by not-for-profit organisations achieve similar results.
At the policy and governance level, there is a clear message: the terms of the charter matter.
Long-time charter school advocate and analyst Chester E. Finn Jr says too little attention was paid to the mechanism of authorisation and accountability at the beginning of the charter school movement, with the result that failing charters were difficult to close down.
On the other hand, some charters were given too little, and sometimes temporary, freedom from regulatory burdens, hampering their ability to innovate and differentiate.
The most successful charter schools have been established where governance has the correct balance of autonomy and accountability, and where the best interests of students is always paramount.
The importance of getting the charter policy settings right can be seen by comparing the charter school experiences in Ohio and Massachusetts — the states that performed respectively worst and best in charter school studies by Stanford University’s Centre for Research on Education Outcomes.
In Ohio, most charters significantly underperformed compared with traditional public schools, and there have been cases of fraud and mismanagement. The situation in Massachusetts, however, could not be more different. Numerous studies, including those by CREDO, have found that Massachusetts’ charter schools achieve significantly greater academic gains than traditional public schools. Boston’s charter schools are especially successful; 83 per cent of Boston charter schools had significantly greater achievement gains than traditional public schools and none had significantly lower.
In Britain in 1998, Tony Blair’s education adviser, and later schools minister, Andrew Adonis was watching the charter school movement in the US with interest. In his book, Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools, Adonis writes that, at the time, “about half of all comprehensive (schools) were failing, some of them abjectly”.
A new approach was urgently needed. After years of policy development and political negotiations, the first academy — independently managed, government-funded school — opened in 2002. There are now more than 4000 academies (state schools that have converted to academy status) run by not-for-profit organisations.
Conservative schools minister Michael Gove picked up the baton eight years later, overseeing the establishment of “free schools” (new academies), of which there are now more than 250.
Evaluations of academies and free schools show improvements not only for the schools themselves but also positive flow-on effects to surrounding schools.
Like charter schools, academies and free schools can operate individually or in networks. There are about 30 academy chains networks, ranging from three to 66 schools. One of the most successful and well-known is the Ark school network, an education charity that operates 31 academies across England.
The Ark school approach is similar to the “no excuses” model, and 90 per cent of Ark schools with Ofsted ratings have been given “good” or “outstanding” ratings, compared with the national average of 80 per cent for all schools.
In addition, 71 per cent of students achieved A*-C grades in maths and 72 per cent in English at GCSE level, compared with a national average of 62 per cent.
This is even more impressive in the context that more than 50 per cent of Ark students were eligible for the Pupil Premium (funding for educational disadvantage) compared with a national average of 26 per cent. According to Adonis, academies and free schools are a “means of tackling disadvantage, providing choice and boosting innovation”.
Some Australian education commentators, such as Dean Ashenden writing in The Conversation, are concerned charter schools may increase the concentrations of disadvantage and inequity within the state school system. Yet there is little good evidence of academic gains being obtained at the expense of equity.
Indeed, charter operators often deliberately locate schools in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, seeking to close education gaps. With the right restrictions in place, such as lottery enrolment systems for oversubscribed schools, charter schools need not create another layer of selectivity with school systems.
The potential to close achievement gaps can be seen in New Orleans — one of the most closely watched and dramatic charter school implementations. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the city’s struggling and dysfunctional public school system 10 years ago, 80 per cent of schools reopened as charter schools.
Data from the Louisiana Department of Education show that 62 per cent of New Orleans students achieved at grade level last year, compared with just 25 per cent in 2000.
The achievement gap between low-income students and the state average has almost closed. The graduation rate from New Orleans schools went from 54 per cent before Katrina to 73 per cent last year.
And, contrary to the claims of critics suggesting these results are due to exclusion of challenging students, expulsion rates for New Orleans schools are lower than the state average.
Given the many positive examples, it is not difficult to see why charter schools and free schools appeal to people who despair at the slow progress being made to improve educational outcomes among Australian students.
System-wide transformation is, of course, a laudable goal but it takes a long time, and there are children in schools right now who can’t wait for Leviathan-like education departments to change their ways. Individual schools can transform much more quickly if they have a strong leader who has sufficient autonomy to do what needs to be done.
Because of its robust non-government school sector, Australia is in the fortunate position of already having the governance and accountability frameworks on which to base charter school policies. A wealth of detailed evidence and information exists about what has worked and what has failed in charter school implementation elsewhere, allowing mistakes to be avoided and successes to be more readily replicated. No state government can justify ruling it out.
Dr Jennifer Buckingham is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and the co-author of Free to Choose Charter Schools: How charter and for-profit schools could boost public education
Home > Commentary > Opinion > Charter system could be key to energising underperforming schools
Charter system could be key to energising underperforming schools
In every state and territory government system in Australia, thousands of students attend schools that are persistently low performing. Some schools have been struggling for decades.
Numerous policies and programs have tried to improve them, from bringing in new principals and creating community hubs to employing attendance officers and literacy specialists. In only a few cases do these activities lead to large and sustained gains in learning outcomes.
Australia is not alone in this problem. In the US in the 1980s, frustration with the rigidities of public school regulation that prevented improvements in failing schools spurred a movement towards putting them under new management, under a contract or “charter” with the school district.
One of the earliest and strongest supporters of what are now known as charter schools was Albert Shanker, long-time president of the American Federation of Teachers, who called for policies that would allow groups of teachers to run autonomous schools.
Eventually, in 1991, Minnesota enacted the first charter school legislation, under which private organisations could run publicly funded schools. This year, 43 of 50 US states have charter school laws and there are 1.6 million students in more than 6000 charter schools.
Charter schools are public schools that are privately managed. They are funded at a similar level to traditional public schools, cannot charge fees and cannot be selective in their enrolments. Charter school regulations give them greater freedom in employment practices (most charter schools are not unionised), choice of curriculums and complete budget control.
Charter schools can be stand-alone or part of a network. They can be new schools or “conversion” schools developed from existing non-charter ones. They can be run by non-profit organisations or, less commonly, by for-profit companies.
An extensive body of research on US charter schools has accumulated during the past 24 years. A close review of the studies with the strongest methodologies reveals that, on average, charter school students have a small but statistically significant advantage in academic achievement over students in traditional public schools.
This average conceals large variation in charter school impacts and quality; some are mediocre at best while others are outstanding. The strongest impacts of charter school attendance are for low-income, black and Hispanic students. The longer students are enrolled in charter schools, the greater the gains.
The question, therefore, is not whether charter schools are beneficial but, rather, which charter schools are beneficial, for which students, and why?
At the school level, high-impact charter schools tend to have a “no excuses” approach to education. Teaching is explicit and teacher-led, discipline is strong and there is a relentless focus on high achievement in core academic subjects.
Greater freedom in budgeting and hiring allows charter schools to have longer school days and years, and pay more to get the best possible teachers, to attain their achievement goals.
The Knowledge is Power Program is one of the best known charter school networks. KIPP schools serve largely disadvantaged student populations but 82 per cent of KIPP graduates have enrolled in college, compared with US national average college enrolments of 63 per cent for all high school graduates and 45 per cent for low-income students.
Other networks of charter schools run by not-for-profit organisations achieve similar results.
At the policy and governance level, there is a clear message: the terms of the charter matter.
Long-time charter school advocate and analyst Chester E. Finn Jr says too little attention was paid to the mechanism of authorisation and accountability at the beginning of the charter school movement, with the result that failing charters were difficult to close down.
On the other hand, some charters were given too little, and sometimes temporary, freedom from regulatory burdens, hampering their ability to innovate and differentiate.
The most successful charter schools have been established where governance has the correct balance of autonomy and accountability, and where the best interests of students is always paramount.
The importance of getting the charter policy settings right can be seen by comparing the charter school experiences in Ohio and Massachusetts — the states that performed respectively worst and best in charter school studies by Stanford University’s Centre for Research on Education Outcomes.
In Ohio, most charters significantly underperformed compared with traditional public schools, and there have been cases of fraud and mismanagement. The situation in Massachusetts, however, could not be more different. Numerous studies, including those by CREDO, have found that Massachusetts’ charter schools achieve significantly greater academic gains than traditional public schools. Boston’s charter schools are especially successful; 83 per cent of Boston charter schools had significantly greater achievement gains than traditional public schools and none had significantly lower.
In Britain in 1998, Tony Blair’s education adviser, and later schools minister, Andrew Adonis was watching the charter school movement in the US with interest. In his book, Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools, Adonis writes that, at the time, “about half of all comprehensive (schools) were failing, some of them abjectly”.
A new approach was urgently needed. After years of policy development and political negotiations, the first academy — independently managed, government-funded school — opened in 2002. There are now more than 4000 academies (state schools that have converted to academy status) run by not-for-profit organisations.
Conservative schools minister Michael Gove picked up the baton eight years later, overseeing the establishment of “free schools” (new academies), of which there are now more than 250.
Evaluations of academies and free schools show improvements not only for the schools themselves but also positive flow-on effects to surrounding schools.
Like charter schools, academies and free schools can operate individually or in networks. There are about 30 academy chains networks, ranging from three to 66 schools. One of the most successful and well-known is the Ark school network, an education charity that operates 31 academies across England.
The Ark school approach is similar to the “no excuses” model, and 90 per cent of Ark schools with Ofsted ratings have been given “good” or “outstanding” ratings, compared with the national average of 80 per cent for all schools.
In addition, 71 per cent of students achieved A*-C grades in maths and 72 per cent in English at GCSE level, compared with a national average of 62 per cent.
This is even more impressive in the context that more than 50 per cent of Ark students were eligible for the Pupil Premium (funding for educational disadvantage) compared with a national average of 26 per cent. According to Adonis, academies and free schools are a “means of tackling disadvantage, providing choice and boosting innovation”.
Some Australian education commentators, such as Dean Ashenden writing in The Conversation, are concerned charter schools may increase the concentrations of disadvantage and inequity within the state school system. Yet there is little good evidence of academic gains being obtained at the expense of equity.
Indeed, charter operators often deliberately locate schools in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage, seeking to close education gaps. With the right restrictions in place, such as lottery enrolment systems for oversubscribed schools, charter schools need not create another layer of selectivity with school systems.
The potential to close achievement gaps can be seen in New Orleans — one of the most closely watched and dramatic charter school implementations. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the city’s struggling and dysfunctional public school system 10 years ago, 80 per cent of schools reopened as charter schools.
Data from the Louisiana Department of Education show that 62 per cent of New Orleans students achieved at grade level last year, compared with just 25 per cent in 2000.
The achievement gap between low-income students and the state average has almost closed. The graduation rate from New Orleans schools went from 54 per cent before Katrina to 73 per cent last year.
And, contrary to the claims of critics suggesting these results are due to exclusion of challenging students, expulsion rates for New Orleans schools are lower than the state average.
Given the many positive examples, it is not difficult to see why charter schools and free schools appeal to people who despair at the slow progress being made to improve educational outcomes among Australian students.
System-wide transformation is, of course, a laudable goal but it takes a long time, and there are children in schools right now who can’t wait for Leviathan-like education departments to change their ways. Individual schools can transform much more quickly if they have a strong leader who has sufficient autonomy to do what needs to be done.
Because of its robust non-government school sector, Australia is in the fortunate position of already having the governance and accountability frameworks on which to base charter school policies. A wealth of detailed evidence and information exists about what has worked and what has failed in charter school implementation elsewhere, allowing mistakes to be avoided and successes to be more readily replicated. No state government can justify ruling it out.
Dr Jennifer Buckingham is a Research Fellow at the Centre for Independent Studies and the co-author of Free to Choose Charter Schools: How charter and for-profit schools could boost public education
• Subscribe
Subscribe now and stay in the loop with our giving appeals, event alerts, newsletters and research updates.
We are always pleased to hear from you. If you have any questions or feedback, please contact us here: