CREDO (Center on Research for Educational Outcomes) at Stanford University (click here)

There are two different types of analysis presented in this report. (click here)

 

First, picking up where Multiple Choice left off, current outcomes are reported from charter schools in the same 16 states covered in the 2009 report. The update examined how the original cohort of schools has fared since 2009 and how the sector in those states has evolved over time. 

 

The second set of analyses in the report is an expanded examination that includes all 27 partner states and examines student learning gains compared to that of equivalent students in traditional public schools (TPS). In addition to the overall, pooled impacts, subsequent analyses examined the effects by state, by schools and their network affiliations and by student subgroups.

 

I hate to critique Stanford. I think it is a great university, however, their study which is used widely to gauge Charter Schools is flawed. There are more than sixteen states with charter schools. Additionally, the 'per capita' expenditures on students in each setting needs to be factored into the outcomes. 

 

What CREDO does not do is entertain in any way the environmental factors in the different learning environments, including emotional competency and household composition as well as parental time with child for school work. I guess it could be considered, "Quality of Life Determination." If there was a mathematical statistical model to quantify these facts the overall outcomes might be more interesting.

 

If Detroit would take Newark's experience with evaluations it might hold it's own for the necessary funding for their children. 

Newark: Comments on the New Jersey CREDO Report (click here)

November 27, 2012

School Effect = Controllable School Factors + Peer Group & Other Factors

 

In other words, we simply don’t know what component of the effect has to do with school quality issues that might be replicated and what component has to do with clustering kids together in a more advantaged peer group. Yes, the study controls for the students’ individual characteristics, but no, it cannot sort out whether the clustering of students with more or less advantaged peers affects their outcomes (which it certainly does). Lottery-based studies suffer the same problem, when lotteried in and lotteried out students end up in very different peer contexts. Yes, the sorting mechanism is random, but the placement is not. The peer selection effect may be exacerbated by selective attrition (shedding weaker and/or disruptive students over time). And Newark’s highest flying charter schools certainly have some issues with attrition.