Largely because of these differences that allow for localized control and the flexibility to create schools that function best in unique communities, charter schools have been shown to be generally more
effective than traditional public schools.
However, I contend here that first, charter schools in general are not more
effective than traditional public schools.
I agree with the arguments that charter schools are not necessarily more
effective than the traditional public schools, and the fact that charter schools hire uncertified and less experienced teachers to teach.
The proposed expansion of school choice in Wisconsin comes at a time when President Barack Obama and Republicans are promoting charter schools and teacher accountability, while skeptics question whether choice programs have proven to be any more
effective than traditional public schools.
One of the few large - scale national studies of magnet schools found that magnet schools were more
effective than traditional public schools, Catholic schools, and secular private schools at raising student achievement in reading and social studies.
Our results suggest that the charter sector was initially characterized by schools whose quality was highly variable and, on average, less
effective than traditional public schools.
[5] At the beginning of the study period in 2001, there was substantial variation in quality across charter schools and, on average, charter schools in Texas were less
effective than traditional public schools.
In short, the takeaway from the charter literature seems to be that they are, on average, more
effective than traditional public schools in urban settings and perhaps should be encouraged there, but that authorizers and policy contexts matter tremendously in determining whether these schools succeed or not.
Not exact matches
Across all 28 states in our study we found that
public charter
school sectors were more cost
effective and / or generated a higher return on investment (ROI)
than traditional public schools.
Recent large - scale research at Stanford University's Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) also finds that KIPP teaching is highly
effective, with individual students learning far more
than their statistical «twins» at
traditional public schools.
How can high - quality charter
schools show they are as
effective, or better,
than traditional public schools if they don't have comparable data to prove it?
The AFT intentionally ignores what 90 percent of the nearly 100 studies of charter
schools have found, that charter
schools are more
effective and efficient
than traditional public schools.
We can conclude from this data that an
effective charter
school operator can better learning outcomes at lower cost
than traditional public schools serving a similar population.
A stream of recent research has shown that on average, charter
schools don't outperform
traditional public schools, though they may be more
effective in some areas
than others.