How charter schools affect school districts

Opponents of charter schools often claim they harm the students left behind in traditional public schools.

But a fair look at the evidence shows competition from charters might actually spur improvements in surrounding schools. Matt Barnum of The 74 examines the research in this fact-check, which is worth reading in full.

Marcus Winters, an assistant professor at the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, has studied charters extensively. In an interview with The Seventy Four, he explained, “My results are really consistent with the literature overall, which is that as competition from charter schools — but also from other parts of school choice — increases, we see small improvements in student performance in traditional public schools.” Emphasis on small, Winters said, and not in line with expectations from some advocates that competition¹ would be a “panacea” for the system as a whole.

Similarly, research in Texas, Florida, North Carolina, New York City, and Arizona shows small benefits with the introduction of charters on nearby traditional public schools, as measured by student test scores.

Sound familiar? Opponents of vouchers and tax credit scholarships level similar charges, but the evidence on private school choice points in the same direction. Competition doesn't hurt student achievement. It can help student achievement — at least a little bit.

This raises two important questions.

1. Competition on its own, whether from charters or private-school choice programs, might not propel student achievement to the heights most education reformers hope for. New Orleans surrounds a choice-heavy, mostly-charter school ecosystem with a structure designed to improve school quality and ensure all students are served. This seems to be getting results. But are there other kinds of systems that can increase the benefits of school choice and competition?
2. The 74 notes a potential caveat: The impact school choice can have on districts' bottom lines. Charters often operate on less money per student, and they can help fast-growing districts save money on facilities. But if they're successful, they'll attract students and state funding, which has prompted some credit-rating agencies to worry about districts' long-term finances. (This is frequently noted in Moody's reports on Florida district credit ratings). What's the best way to manage this financial impact without limiting options for students?

The easy — and unsupported — talking points on school choice stand in the way of addressing these issues.