1. 9/6/2015 Choices for Studying Choice Dev Davis Macke Raymond

2. 2 Study Approach One large multi-location dataset –14 states plus two large districts –Student-level results –2004-2005 through 2007-2008 Two methods –Student fixed effects –Virtual control records Two comparisons –Head-to-head comparison of the methods –Policy analysis

3. 3 Provide List of Potential Match Schools Find Matches Based on Demographic Variables Eliminate Matches Who Attend Charter Schools Match Test Scores Virtual Control Records MATCHING VARIABLES: Race/ethnicity Gender English proficiency Lunch status Special education status Grade level MATCHING VARIABLES: Race/ethnicity Gender English proficiency Lunch status Special education status Grade level MATCHING VARIABLE: Test scores from t 0 MATCHING VARIABLE: Test scores from t 0 Feeder School(s) StudentsCharter School Student Match rate is 86% Virtual Control Record Process

4. Head-to-Head Comparison MathRead FE N=389,961 VCR N=351,616 FE N=428,018 VCR N=381,096 All students -0.07**-0.06**-0.03**-0.02** Black -0.03**-0.04**-0.03**-0.03** Hispanic -0.07**-0.06**-0.03**-0.03** White -0.17**-0.16**-0.09**-0.07** Low income 0.02**0.05**0.02**0.03** English learner 0.11**0.05**0.07**0.04** Special ed 0.06**0.02**0.01*0.02* 4 * Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

5. Policy Analysis National Charter Performance MathRead FE N=19,905,212 VCR N=1,692,236 FE N=19,780,459 VCR N=1,765,464 All students -0.07**-0.02**-0.05**0.01** Black -0.03**0.01**-0.04**0.01** Hispanic -0.06**-0.02**-0.04**0.00 White -0.13**-0.06**-0.09**-0.01** Low income 0.02**0.03**0.02**0.02** English learner 0.05**0.03**0.04**0.03** Special ed 0.01**0.02**0.01 5 * Significant at p ≤ 0.05 ** Significant at p ≤ 0.01

6. 6 Summary of Findings Charter school results vary by student subgroup. –Positive for low income, English learners –Other groups mixed or negative Charter school results vary by location. –Positive for 6 locations in math & reading –Negative for 4 locations in math & reading Charter school results vary by school. –Positive for 19% of schools in math; 19% in reading –Negative for 33% of schools in math; 21% in reading

7. 7 Closure rate comparison –Small businesses:50 percent –Charter schools:15 percent Accountability side of flexibility-for-accountability equation is important for quality. –Authorizing & renewal –Publicly available information & comparisons Other possibilities –School age –Affiliation with charter networks –State charter school policies Policy Implications

8. Thank You 8