January 2014
Staying or Going?
Comparing Student Attrition Rates at
Charter Schools with Nearby Traditional Public Schools
PDF version available here.
Summary
One of the major issues in the debate over the expansion of charter
schools in New York City has been the question of whether students
transfer out of charter schools at higher rates than at traditional
public schools. Researchers have found that changing schools can
affect achievement and that for minority and disadvantaged students
who change schools frequently it may be a contributor to the
achievement gap.
To assess whether elementary grade students in charter schools leave
their schools any more frequently than students in traditional
public schools, IBO examined a cohort of students who entered
kindergarten in September 2008 and followed them through third
grade. This involved tracking data on 3,043 students in 53 charter
schools and 7,208 students in 116 traditional public schools nearest
to each charter.
We compared the rate at which charter school students in this cohort
left their kindergarten school with the rate at which those in the
same cohort in neighboring traditional public elementary schools
left their schools. In addition to comparing the overall rates for
the schools, we also consider any differences in rates based on such
student characteristics as gender and race/ethnicity as well as
poverty, special education, or English language learner status.
Among our findings:
-
On average, students at charter schools stay at their schools at a higher rate than students at nearby traditional public schools. About 70 percent of students attending charter schools in school year 2008-2009 remained in the same school three years later, compared with 61 percent of students attending nearby traditional public schools three years later.
-
This higher rate of staying at charter schools also is found when students are compared in terms of gender,race/ethnicity, poverty, and English learner status.
-
The one major exception is special education students, who leave charter schools at a much higher rate than either general education students in charter schools or special education students in traditional public schools. Only 20 percent of students classified as requiring special education services who started kindergarten in charter schools remained in the same school after three years.
We also found that for both charter school and traditional public
school students, those who stayed in the same school from
kindergarten through third grade did better on standardized math and
reading tests in third grade than students from the cohort who
switched schools. The achievement gap between stayers and movers was
considerably larger for those who left charter schools and the gap
was larger in math than reading.
How likely are students to leave New York City’s
charter schools? This schools brief compares attrition rates for
students attending charter schools in early elementary grades to
those of students attending nearby traditional public schools. Our
analysis includes all students enrolled at charter schools in
kindergarten in school year 2008-2009, creates a comparison sample
of students attending neighboring traditional public schools, and
follows both groups of students over the next three years. This
allows us to compare the students who move out of charter schools to
students who continue at their original charter schools and to
students in neighboring traditional public schools. In addition to
documenting the overall trends, this brief disaggregates attrition
rates by student characteristics—demographics including gender and
race, special needs status (special education students and English
language learners), and subsequent achievement.
Mobility is an important determinant of student achievement.
Researchers agree that student achievement suffers when children and
families move, and the higher incidence of migration for minority
and disadvantaged students has been suggested as a contributor to
the achievement gaps.1 But evidence on whether charter
school students experience greater mobility than students in
traditional public schools is mixed, with some researchers finding a
higher rate of attrition for charter school students and others
finding no significant difference.2
Over the last 10 years, cities such as New York
City, Boston, Chicago, and Washington DC have encouraged and
supported the growth of charter schools. However, even though
charter schools have become an integral part of New York City’s
changing education landscape, there has been little research about
the mobility of students attending these schools. This brief throws considerable light on the following questions:
1.
What
are the rates of attrition from charter schools in New York City
that serve elementary grades (kindergarten through third?
2.
Of
those students who leave charters, do more transfer to another
charter school in the city, or to a New York City traditional
public school, or leave the city’s public sector schools altogether?
3.
How
do the attrition rates for charter schools compare with those of
students attending neighboring traditional public schools?
4.
How
do these rates compare across the three grades?
5.
How
do these rates differ by student characteristics, including gender
and race of the student, English language learner status and special
education status, and performance on tests of English Language Arts
and mathematics?
6.
Is
there any evidence for selective attrition, particularly with
respect to specific student characteristics or student achievement?
Do the data show that low-achieving students, as measured by future
test scores, are the ones to leave charter schools?
Sample and Data
This brief includes all students attending kindergarten in 2008-2009
in a New York City charter school that served the elementary grades.
Since students can change schools during the year, this brief uses
the start date of classes—September 2, 2008 for the
2008-2009 school year—to assign students to schools. Thus, a charter
school student included in this sample is one who was registered at
a New York City charter school in kindergarten as of September 2,
2008. The same rule is applied to students attending neighboring
traditional public schools in our comparison group.
The comparison group of traditional public school students, against
whom this brief matches up the attrition rates of charter school
students, is defined as follows. Since charter schools enroll a
small part of the city’s K-12 student population and are not
uniformly distributed geographically across the city, this brief
only includes those traditional public schools that are located
close to a charter school. The underlying assumption is that if the
charter school in question had not been established, then children
in the vicinity would most probably have enrolled in the nearby
traditional public school.3 Thus, students attending a
neighboring traditional public school should constitute an
appropriate comparison group for students currently attending a
charter school. This assumption is bolstered because charters often
use a geographic criterion, including geographically limited
lotteries, for admission. Under New York State law, students
residing nearby are given priority—ensuring most students are drawn
from the neighborhood in which the charter school is located.4
For practical implementation, this brief identifies the three
nearest traditional public schools for every charter school;
students attending these traditional public schools make up the
comparison group for charter school students.5
Not all schools offer the same array of grades—this is true for both
charter and traditional public schools—and therefore this brief
restricts the sample to only those which had first grade in
2009-2010, second grade in 2010-2011 and third grade in 2011-2012.
This is to ensure that the mobility patterns which are observed are
not the result of students transferring out due to being in their
school’s terminal grade. This brief also drops the few schools which
had less than 10 students in kindergarten. The final sample for
charter school students has 53 schools and 3,043 students, whereas
the corresponding sample for students in nearby traditional public
schools has 116 schools and 7,208 students.
This
analysis focuses on the mobility behavior of students comparing
charter school students with their counterparts in nearby
traditional public schools. The year 2008-2009 is chosen as the base
year both because of a desire to focus on more recent experience and
because these students can be followed through to 2011-2012. Most
students in this cohort would have attended third grade
in 2011-2012, when they would take the state-mandated standardized
tests for that grade. Moreover, working with 2008-2009 as the base
year helps us have a much larger sample—53 charter schools and more
than 3,000 charter school students—than we would have if this brief
had started with an earlier cohort.6
Most of the data used in this analysis have been
obtained from the New York City Department of Education (DOE). To
assign students to a particular charter or traditional school as of
September 2, 2008, we combed through the most detailed data
available to us, a file of all student registration transactions
including admissions, discharges, and transfers. Next we used the
DOE’s biographic files to add information on demographic and
academic indicators for each student. For years two and three of the
study the same procedure was followed: in each case, students are
assigned to a school based on their enrollment as of the first day
of classes for that year. For the third year, we also used DOE’s
achievement files.
Data on the names, addresses, and grade spans
both of charter schools and traditional public schools have also
been extracted from files obtained from the DOE. These files contain
information on the exact geographic location of each school
(latitude and longitude, x and y coordinates).7 These
data were used to find traditional public schools closest to each
charter school based on distance—the distances were in radian
units—and we selected the three closest schools to form the
comparison group in the study.
Methodology
The section begins with a detailed discussion of how this brief defines mobility. It then looks at how students in charter schools differ from their counterparts at traditional public schools in order to identify other differences—apart from the two types of schools—that could influence attrition. Note that this brief is concerned with the rates of student exit prior to the end of the range of grades that their school serves.
Defining Mobility.
Students were assigned to schools as of the first day of class
during the respective year, which was September 2 for the 2008-2009
school year; September 9 for the 2009-2010 year; September 8 for the
2010-2011 year; and September 8 for the 2011-2012 year. Thus, a
student is recorded as continuing in the same school in 2009-2010 if
she is attending the same school on September 9, 2009 as on
September 2, 2008; and so on. Conversely, she is deemed to have
transferred to another New York City public school in
2009-2010—either another charter school or a traditional public
school—if the records show her in a different school as of September
9, 2009. The student is considered to have left the city’s public
schools if she does not appear in any public school records as of
the start date of classes in that particular year.
This brief focuses on the cumulative incidence of attrition between kindergarten and the following three years. It analyzes whether a student who was enrolled in a school as of the first day of classes during 2008-2009 (September 2, 2008) leaves that school during the following three years, so that she is not enrolled there on the first day of classes during 2011-2012 (September 8, 2011). However, the brief also reports the annual attrition rates between 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, between 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, and between 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 (see Table 3).
Comparing Students at Charter and
Traditional Public Schools.
Before proceeding to a detailed analysis of attrition rates, it is
useful to briefly compare the kindergarten students who entered
charter schools in 2008-2009 with kindergarteners entering
neighboring traditional public schools that same year (Table 1).
There is little difference in terms of gender composition. However,
charters serve a much higher percentage of black students, while
traditional public schools serve a much higher share of Hispanic
students.8 The share of Asian students in charter schools is very low relative to
the share in neighboring traditional public schools, although the
numbers involved are fairly small. Based on eligibility for free or
reduced-price lunches, the shares of low-income students seem to be
similar in the two types of schools (a little less than
three-quarters). However, a much higher share of students in
traditional public schools are missing these forms or have
incomplete ones—and paying full-prices for lunch because of
that—suggesting perhaps that charter schools do a better job of
enforcing paperwork requirements. Only considering students whose
lunch-eligibility forms are complete, a larger share of students at
nearby traditional public schools come from low-income families.9
|
Table 1. Composition of Students Attending
Kindergarten In 2008-2009
|
||
|
Student
Attributes |
Percentage of Students in Charter Schools |
Percentage of Students in Nearby Traditional
Public Schools |
|
Male |
51.O |
50.4 |
|
Female |
49.0 |
49.6 |
|
White Students |
4.2 |
8.8 |
|
Black Students |
61.1 |
33.3 |
|
Hispanic Students |
26.7 |
47.8 |
|
Asian Students |
1.7 |
7.9 |
|
Other/Not Specified |
6.3 |
2.2 |
|
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price
Lunches, Based On Form |
74.1 |
70.6 |
|
Students Paying Full-Price for Lunch, Based on
Form |
19.5 |
6.8 |
|
Students Paying Full-Price for Lunch, Missing or
Incomplete Form |
6.4 |
22.6 |
|
Special Education Students |
0.8 |
7.0 |
|
English Language
Learner Students |
4.0 |
18.3 |
|
Total Number of Students |
3,043 |
7,208 |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education
data
Independent Budget
Office |
||
The main differences regarding student composition between charters
and traditional public schools lie in the rates of serving special
education students and English language learner (ELL) students.
About 7 percent of kindergarten students in nearby traditional
public schools are special education students; the share in charter
schools is less than 1 percent. The difference in rates of serving
ELL students is similarly large—18 percent in traditional public
schools compared with 4 percent in charter schools. These
differences have been noted in other studies of charter schools in
New York City. The brief revisits the issue of special education
students later in Figure 2 and Tables 6 and 7.
Incidence of Attrition
Kindergarteners in charter schools exhibit
significantly less mobility during the subsequent three years
relative to their peers in neighboring traditional public schools.
Most of the difference is attributable to attrition in the immediate
post-kindergarten year, and almost all is accounted for by
differences in the rate of switching schools within the New York
City public school system. Only a few students repeat grades, in
either charter schools or nearby traditional public schools. In
terms of destination schools, movers from both charter schools and
traditional public schools in higher grades increasingly transfer to
a traditional public school rather than a charter school. When this
brief looks at various student subgroups, there are significant
differences among students in traditional public schools, but
relatively less so among students in charter schools. The exception
is special education students in charter schools, who leave their
schools at much higher rates than others.
Of the 3,043 students who were attending
kindergarten in charter schools in 2008-2009, about 70 percent
remained in the same school in 2011-2012, three years later (see
Figure 1). This number is considerably higher than for students
attending kindergarten in neighboring traditional public schools in
2008-2009—only 61 percent of the latter group remained in their
original schools after three years. The difference is almost
entirely due to the difference in the share transferring to another
school within the system; while 17 percent of kindergarteners in
charter schools switched schools later, 25 percent of
kindergarteners in nearby traditional public schools did so. The
share of students leaving the New York City public school system is
almost identical across the two groups.
It is
instructive to look at the grade distribution of 2008-2009
kindergarteners who remained in either the city’s traditional public
schools or charter schools in 2011-2012 (table 2). Not surprisingly,
the overwhelming majority were attending grade 3, as they would have
if they progressed at the usual rate. About 10 percent of both
charter and traditional public school students were attending grade
2 due to repeating a grade earlier. In addition, there were a few
2008-2009 kindergarteners who skipped a grade and were attending
grade 4 in 2011-2012. Although it was more common for charter school
students to skip a grade, the number of students who did so was too
small to draw any substantive conclusions.
|
Table 2. Grade
Distribution of 2008-2009 Kindergarteners After Three Years,
in 2011-2012 |
||||
|
|
Students Starting Out In Charter Schools |
Students Starting Out In Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
||
|
Number |
Percentage |
Number |
Percentage |
|
|
Grade 1 |
4 |
0.1 |
21 |
0.3 |
|
Grade 2 |
297 |
9.8 |
771 |
10.7 |
|
Grade 3 |
2,323 |
76.3 |
5,424 |
75.2 |
|
Grade 4 |
43 |
1.4 |
8 |
0.1 |
|
Total Students Matched in
2011-2012 |
2,667 |
87.6 |
6,224 |
86.3 |
|
Left New York City Public Schools |
376 |
12.4 |
984 |
13.7 |
|
Total Students Starting Kindergarten in 2008-2009 |
3,043 |
100 |
7,208 |
100 |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
NOTE: The sample includes only those students who could be
matched in 2011-2012 as enrolled in New York City Public
Schools (either charter or traditional public) as of the
first day of classes (September 8, 2011). Those who left New
York City public schools are not included.
Independent Budget
Office |
||||
Attrition During Intervening Years. Of students who were attending kindergarten in charter schools in 2008-2009, about 85 percent remained in the same school the next year (2009-2010). This is shown in Table 3, which reports a more detailed picture of attrition throughout the three intervening years, disaggregating students’ mobility status as of the first day of classes during each intervening year (September 9, 2009; September 8, 2010; and September 8, 2011). This figure is 9 percentage points higher than the corresponding figure for students who were attending kindergarten in neighboring traditional public schools. The difference comes both from the rate of transferring to another school within the school system (9 percent for kindergarteners in charter schools versus 14 percent for kindergarteners in traditional public schools) and from the rate of leaving the city’s public schools (6 percent versus 9 percent)
Over a two-year horizon, students originally in
charter schools again have less attrition: 77 percent continue in
their original school, compared with only 67 percent of students who
started out at nearby traditional public schools. However, the
differences seem to have stabilized after the first year, and remain
roughly the same when looking at a three-year horizon. In the next
table (Table 4) this is analyzed further. Students who continued at
their schools are subdivided into those who progressed to the next
grade and those who were repeating the same grade. Students who left
their original schools are disaggregated into those who transferred
to another New York City public school and those who left the
system.
|
Table 3. Mobility Rates as of First Day of Classes,
2009-2010, |
|||
|
|
Percentage as of |
||
|
September 9, 2009 |
September 8, 2010 |
September 8, 2011 |
|
|
Students in
Charter Schools |
|
|
|
|
Same School |
85 |
77 |
70 |
|
Different NYC
Public School |
9 |
14 |
17 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
6 |
10 |
12 |
|
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
|
|
|
|
Same School |
76 |
67 |
61 |
|
Different NYC
Public School |
14 |
20 |
25 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
9 |
12 |
14 |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget
Office |
|||
Attrition Disaggregated by Grade
Repetition and Destination. A slightly higher share of
the charter school cohort is repeating kindergarten in 2009-2010 as
compared with the traditional public school cohort, though the share
is small in both groups (Table 4). Among movers from charter
schools, about the same share transfers to another charter school,
compared with movers from nearby traditional public schools. Across
the years, these same patterns prevail—in higher grades, however,
movers from both charter schools and traditional public schools
increasingly transfer to a traditional public school rather than a
charter school. The increased incidence of transfer to a traditional
public school, instead of a charter school, might be due to the fact
that many charters limit admissions to traditional starting points
(such as kindergarten for elementary schools).
|
Table 4. Attrition Status of Students Attending Kindergarten in
2008-2009, Followed Over the Next Three Years |
||||
|
Attrition Status in Various Years |
Students in Charter Schools |
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
||
|
Number |
Percentage |
Number |
Percentage |
|
|
Students in Grade Kindergarten |
3,043 |
100 |
7,208 |
100 |
|
Status as of September 9, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
Same School |
2,584 |
85 |
5,491 |
76 |
|
Progressed to Next Grade |
2,500 |
82 |
5,379 |
75 |
|
Repeating Same Grade |
84 |
3 |
112 |
2 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
272 |
9 |
1,043 |
14 |
|
Traditional Public School |
194 |
6 |
785 |
11 |
|
Charter School |
78 |
3 |
258 |
4 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
187 |
6 |
674 |
9 |
|
Status as of September 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
Same School |
2,340 |
77 |
4,846 |
67 |
|
Progressed to Next Grade |
2,257 |
74 |
4,585 |
64 |
|
Repeating Same Grade |
83 |
3 |
261 |
4 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
411 |
14 |
1,474 |
20 |
|
Traditional Public School |
312 |
10 |
1,159 |
16 |
|
Charter School |
99 |
3 |
315 |
4 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
292 |
10 |
888 |
12 |
|
Status as of September 8, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
Same School |
2,131 |
70 |
4,414 |
61 |
|
Progressed to Next Grade |
2,040 |
67 |
4,257 |
59 |
|
Repeating Same Grade |
91 |
3 |
157 |
2 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
525 |
17 |
1,810 |
25 |
|
Traditional Public School |
397 |
13 |
1,457 |
20 |
|
Charter School |
128 |
4 |
353 |
5 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
387 |
13 |
984 |
14 |
|
SOURCE:
IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget Office |
||||
Attrition and DemographicsThere
is little difference in attrition rates by student subgroups among
students in charter schools, except for special education students.
This is in contrast to the results for their peers in neighboring
traditional schools, for whom significant differences are evident.
The following subgroups are compared: male students, female
students, white students, black students, Hispanic students,
students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (based on
completed form), students paying full price for lunch (based on
completed form), special education students, and English language
learner students. The
results are reported as per the original three-way classification of
turnover—distinguishing between those who continued in their current
schools, those who transferred to another New York City public
school and those who quit the New York City public schools. The
detailed results are presented in Table 5.
Among students in the charter school cohort, the
rates of attrition are often very similar across most subgroups. For
example, male students, female students, black students, Hispanic
students, students eligible for free or reduced-price lunches and
ELL students—each of these subgroups all had about the same 70
percent probability of continuing in their original (charter) school
after three years. The exception is special education students.
There is more divergence within the traditional public school
cohort, particularly when disaggregated by race/ethnicity—for
example, 73 percent of white students remained at the same school
after three years, compared with 63 percent of Hispanics and only 53
percent of blacks.
|
Table 5. Attrition Status of Various Subgroups of Students |
||||
|
Attrition Status in Various Years |
Students in Charter Schools |
Students in Nearby Traditional Public schools |
||
|
Male Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
1,551 |
3,632 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
69 |
61 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
18 |
26 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
13 |
13 |
||
|
Female Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
1,492 |
3,576 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
71 |
62 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
17 |
24 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
12 |
14 |
||
|
White Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
127 |
631 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
75 |
73 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
15 |
15 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
10 |
13 |
||
|
Black Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
1,860 |
2,397 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
70 |
53 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
16 |
32 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
13 |
15 |
||
|
Hispanic Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
811 |
3,449 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
68 |
63 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
20 |
24 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
12 |
13 |
||
|
Students Eligible for Free or Reduced-Price Lunch, Based on
Completed Form |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
2,255 |
5,092 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
70 |
58 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
18 |
29 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
12 |
13 |
||
|
Students Paying Full-Price for Lunch, Based on Completed
Form |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (Sep 2, 2008) |
594 |
490 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
76 |
66 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
13 |
20 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
12 |
14 |
||
|
Special Education Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
25 |
503 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
20 |
50 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
72 |
36 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
8 |
14 |
||
|
English Language Learner Students |
|
|
||
|
Students in Kindergarten (September 2, 2008) |
123 |
1,316 |
||
|
Same School (%) |
72 |
67 |
||
|
Different NYC Public School (%) |
16 |
21 |
||
|
Left NYC Public Schools (%) |
11 |
12 |
||
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget Office |
||||
A Closer Look at Students with Special Needs. The issue
of serving an adequate number of special education students often
crops up in discussions about charter schools. In kindergarten, the
incidence of special needs in charter schools was about one-seventh
of that in traditional public schools. There is a big jump in
classification rates during the first grade, particularly in charter
schools. After first grade, however, the rates of classification
come down—both in charter schools and in nearby traditional public
schools. By third grade, the incidence of special needs is 13
percent for students starting out in charters and 19 percent for
students starting out in nearby traditional public schools,
irrespective of the type of (New York City public) school the
individual student attended that year. The attrition rates are
higher for special education students who start kindergarten in
charter schools than for special education students who start in
neighboring traditional public schools.
Only 20 percent of students classified as requiring special
education who started kindergarten in charter schools remained in
the same school after three years, with the vast majority
transferring to another New York City public school (see Table 5).
The corresponding persistence rate for students in nearby
traditional public schools is 50 percent.
To capture differences in attrition of special
education students across charters and traditional public schools,
this brief follows these students over time, as they progress
through school from kindergarten to third grade. After three years,
out of the 2,656 students who started in charter schools in
September 2008 and are still attending the city’s public sector
schools—either the same charter school (2,131) or another New York
City public school (525)—344 students overall, or 13 percent, had
been classified as special education students. 11,12 Of
those continuing in the same charter school, 10 percent were
identified as special education students by the third year, and of
those transferring out to another charter school, 16 percent were
special education students (see Figure 2). But of those transferring
out to another traditional public school, fully 27 percent were
classified as special education students.
|
Table 6. Classification of Students in Special Education as They
Progress Through School, Kindergarten Through Third Grade |
||||||||
|
Attrition Status in Various Years |
Students in Charter Schools |
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
||||||
|
Total Students |
Percentage |
Students in Special Education |
Percentage |
Total Students |
Percentage |
Students in Special Education |
Percentage |
|
|
Students in Kindergarten |
3,043 |
100 |
25 |
1 |
7,208 |
100 |
505 |
7 |
|
Status as of September 9, 2009 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same
School |
2,584 |
85 |
22 |
1 |
5,491 |
76 |
408 |
7 |
|
Progressed to Next Grade |
2,500 |
82 |
21 |
1 |
5,379 |
75 |
383 |
7 |
|
Repeating Same Grade |
84 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
112 |
2 |
25 |
22 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
272 |
9 |
25 |
9 |
1,043 |
14 |
153 |
15 |
|
Traditional Public School |
194 |
6 |
25 |
13 |
785 |
11 |
151 |
19 |
|
Another
Charter School |
78 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
258 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
Left
NYC Public Schools |
187 |
6 |
---- |
---- |
674 |
9 |
---- |
---- |
|
Status as of September 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same
School |
2,340 |
77 |
244 |
10 |
4,846 |
67 |
691 |
14 |
|
Progressed to Next Grade |
2,257 |
74 |
213 |
9 |
4,585 |
64 |
624 |
14 |
|
Repeating Same Grade |
83 |
3 |
31 |
37 |
261 |
4 |
67 |
26 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
411 |
14 |
95 |
23 |
1,474 |
20 |
382 |
26 |
|
Traditional Public School |
312 |
10 |
84 |
27 |
1,159 |
16 |
341 |
29 |
|
Another
Charter School |
99 |
3 |
11 |
11 |
315 |
4 |
41 |
13 |
|
Left
NYC Public Schools |
292 |
10 |
---- |
---- |
888 |
12 |
---- |
---- |
|
Status as of September 8, 2011 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Same
School |
2,131 |
70 |
218 |
10 |
4,414 |
61 |
667 |
15 |
|
Progressed to Next Grade |
2,040 |
67 |
183 |
9 |
4,257 |
59 |
624 |
15 |
|
Repeating Same Grade |
91 |
3 |
35 |
38 |
157 |
2 |
43 |
27 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
525 |
17 |
126 |
24 |
1,810 |
25 |
493 |
27 |
|
Traditional Public School |
397 |
13 |
106 |
27 |
1,457 |
20 |
439 |
30 |
|
Another
Charter School |
128 |
4 |
20 |
16 |
353 |
5 |
54 |
15 |
|
Left
NYC Public Schools |
387 |
13 |
---- |
---- |
984 |
14 |
---- |
---- |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget Office |
||||||||
In comparison, out of the 6,224 students who
started out in kindergarten in neighboring traditional public
schools and were still attending the city’s public schools after
three years—4,414 in the same traditional public school and 1,810 in
another New York City public school—1,160 students overall, about 19
percent, had been identified as special education students by the
third year. This is higher than the corresponding share (13 percent)
for students who started out in charter schools. Breaking down the
cohort by attrition status, of those continuing in the same
traditional public school, 15 percent had been identified as needing
special education services. Of those transferring out to another New
York City public school, 30 percent were receiving special education
services—but of those transferring out to a charter school only 15
percent were special education students. This is in line with
results noted above for the charter school cohort and suggests that
special education students, at least once they have been classified
as such, are more likely to attend traditional public schools.
At the start of kindergarten, out of the 3,043
students starting out in charter schools in kindergarten, only 1
percent were labeled as needing special education services—even
after one year, less than 1 percent of students continuing in the
same charter school were labeled as special education (see Table 6).
For students who begin in charter schools, the big jump in special
education status comes between first and second grades—10 percent of
students continuing in the same school were classified as requiring
special education services by the start of second grade.13
To compare the rates at which students are
classified into special education as they progress through school,
this brief follows separately the 3,043 students who started out
kindergarten in charter schools and the 7,208 students who started
out kindergarten in neighboring traditional public schools (Table
7). Initially, there were only 25 special education kindergarteners
in charter schools, as compared with 505 special education
kindergarteners in nearby traditional public schools. After one
year, at the beginning of 2008-2009, among those from the original
charter school cohort of 3,043 students who were still attending the
same charter school, 22 had been classified as special education
students, most of them being newly classified as such during the
previous year (2008-2009).
|
Table 7. Students in Special Education by Attrition and
Classification Status, Kindergarten Through Third Grade |
||
|
|
Students in Charter Schools |
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
|
Special
Education Students in Kindergarten (as of September 2, 2008)
|
25 |
505 |
|
Status as of September 9, 2009 |
|
|
|
Same School |
22 |
408 |
|
Previously Classified (%) |
18 |
76 |
|
Newly Classified (%) |
82 |
24 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
25 |
153 |
|
Previously Classified (%) |
64 |
75 |
|
Newly Classified (%) |
36 |
25 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
---- |
---- |
|
Status as of September 8, 2010 |
|
|
|
Same School |
244 |
691 |
|
Previously Classified (%) |
5 |
48 |
|
Newly Classified (%) |
95 |
52 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
95 |
382 |
|
Previously Classified (%) |
41 |
46 |
|
Newly Classified (%) |
59 |
54 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
---- |
---- |
|
Status as of September 8, 2011 |
|
|
|
Same School |
218 |
667 |
|
Previously Classified (%) |
89 |
85 |
|
Newly Classified (%) |
11 |
15 |
|
Different NYC Public School |
126 |
493 |
|
Previously Classified (%) |
88 |
76 |
|
Newly Classified (%) |
12 |
24 |
|
Left NYC Public Schools |
---- |
---- |
|
SOURCE:
IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget Office |
||
Over the same time period, among those from the
original traditional public school cohort of 7,208 students who were
still attending the same traditional public school, 408 had been
classified as special education students—here, however, relatively
few were newly classified. There is a big jump in classification
rates during the first grade, particularly in charter schools—the
number of students from the original cohort who were still attending
the same school as of the beginning of 2010-2011 and are classified
as special education students jumps from 25 to 244. After this year,
however, the rates of classification come down—both in charter
schools and in traditional public schools.
To summarize, starting in in kindergarten only 1
percent of students in charter schools were classified as requiring
special education, compared with 7 percent of students in
neighboring traditional public schools. By third grade, the
incidence of students with special needs increased to 13 percent for
students starting out in charters and to 19 percent for students
starting out in traditional public schools. By grade 3, 63 percent
of the 344 special education kids from the charter sample were in
the same school as they started, 6 percent were in another charter,
and 31 percent were in traditional public schools. From the sample
of students who started out in nearby traditional public schools, 57
percent of the 1,160 special education students were in the same
school, 38 percent were in another traditional public school, and 5
percent were in a charter school.
Third Grade Attrition and Test Scores. Students in New York State enrolled in grades 3 through 8 take standardized tests in English language arts and mathematics. Since there is a large literature detailing the deleterious effects of mobility on student performance, holding other things constant, it is instructive to compare the academic performance of students who changed schools (movers) to those of students who remained at their original schools (stayers). These comparisons are given in Table 8 and Figures 3 and 4. Results are shown from the third grade state reading and mathematics tests—in most cases this brief reports results using two measures of achievement: average scale score and whether a student met or exceeded the proficiency standard.14
Note first that in the absence of test score
data on students who left New York City public schools, the
comparison is only between those who stay and those who move to
other city public schools. Second, the tests are given in the spring
of the third year, so most students in our sample would have taken
them in spring 2012. Third, in order to see how students who move
from traditional public schools to charters perform relative to
those who stay or move to a different traditional school, this brief
defines a separate category of students—those among the traditional
public school students who switch to a charter school.
The results are revealing. Among students in
charter schools, those who remained in their kindergarten schools
through third grade had higher average scale scores in both reading
(English Language Arts) and mathematics in third grade compared with
those who had left for another New York City public school (Figure
3). This basic pattern is repeated when looking at the whether
students met or exceeded the proficiency standard (Figure
4)—however, here the gap between stayers and movers is much wider
for mathematics than for reading. Students in traditional public
schools exhibit similar trends to those in charters—a modest but
consistent positive gap in favor of students who are continuing
irrespective of the subject and the particular measure this brief
uses.
One important difference between the two types of schools, particularly manifest when the percentage of students meeting or exceeding proficiency standard is used as the metric, is that the gap between the stayers and movers was significantly larger in charters compared with those in traditional public schools. Also, this gap is larger in mathematics compared with reading. While in reading the gap between stayers and movers is 15 percentage points in charter schools versus 10 percentage points in nearby traditional public schools, the corresponding gap in math is 25 percentage points in charters versus 11 percentage points in nearby traditional public schools (Figure 4 and Table 8).
|
Table 8. Third Grade Test Performance by Students, Disaggregated
by Mobility Status
|
|||
|
|
Students Who Continued at School |
Students Who Transferred to Another NYC Public School |
Students Who Transferred To a Charter School from a
Traditional Public School |
|
Average Scale Scores |
|
|
|
|
English Language Arts |
|
|
|
|
Students in Charter Schools |
667 |
660 |
---- |
|
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
663 |
658 |
663 |
|
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
Students in Charter Schools |
694 |
682 |
---- |
|
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
687 |
683 |
689 |
|
Students Meeting or Exceeding |
|
|
|
|
English Language Arts |
|
|
|
|
Students in Charter Schools |
64% |
49% |
---- |
|
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
51% |
41% |
51% |
|
Mathematics |
|
|
|
|
Students in Charter Schools |
74% |
49% |
---- |
|
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
58% |
47% |
63% |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget Office |
|||
|
Table 9a. Attrition Status by Reading Achievement
|
||||
|
Students in Kindergarten As of September 2, 2008 |
Students in Charter Schools |
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
||
|
Transferred to Another NYC Public School |
Continued at School |
Transferred to Another NYC Public School |
Continued at School |
|
|
Average Proficiency Rating |
2.84 |
3.07 |
2.76 |
2.92 |
|
Average Scale Score |
660 |
667 |
658 |
663 |
|
Distribution of |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent Below Standard |
16% |
5% |
19% |
14% |
|
Percent Meets
|
36% |
31% |
40% |
35% |
|
Percent Meets |
45% |
60% |
38% |
45% |
|
Percent Exceeds |
4% |
4% |
3% |
6% |
|
Number of Students |
416 |
1,848 |
1,415 |
3,893 |
|
Table 9b. Attrition Status by Mathematics Achievement
|
||||
|
Students in Kindergarten As of September 2, 2008 |
Students in Charter Schools |
Students in Nearby Traditional Public Schools |
||
|
Transferred to Another NYC Public School |
Continued at School |
Transferred to Another NYC Public School |
Continued at School |
|
|
Average Proficiency Rating |
2.94 |
3.36 |
2.96 |
3.1 |
|
Average Scale Score |
682 |
694 |
683 |
687 |
|
Distribution of |
|
|
|
|
|
Percent Below Standard |
15% |
3% |
14% |
9% |
|
Percent Meets
|
36% |
23% |
39% |
33% |
|
Percent Meets |
44% |
57% |
38% |
46% |
|
Percent Exceeds |
5% |
17% |
9% |
12% |
|
Number of Students |
419 |
1,848 |
1,419 |
3,895 |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
Independent Budget Office |
||||
There are also intriguing patterns for students who started kindergarten in traditional public schools but then switched to charter schools at some point, so that by the beginning of third grade they were attending a charter school. Generally speaking, those who transferred to a charter school from a traditional public school later performed at a
·
higher
rate compared with their peers from these same traditional public
schools who transferred out (all movers from nearby traditional
public schools)
·
similar, or slightly higher rate, compared with their peers from the
same traditional public schools who stayed in the same school
(stayers in traditional public schools)
·
lower rate compared with the students in charter schools who stayed
in the same school (stayers in charter schools)
·
higher
rate compared with those who transferred out from charter schools,
the difference being small for reading (ELA) but relatively large
for mathematics.
Note, however, that we do not know the applicant
pools for the charter schools, and which students they decide to
admit, in their non-entry grades (after kindergarten). So the above
comparison is purely descriptive, in terms of noting the performance
of students who started kindergarten in neighboring traditional
public schools in 2008-2009 (and are included in our study as such)
but had then transferred to a charter school before the third grade.
The fact that leavers from charter schools have
lower test scores than the stayers suggests that such attrition
serves to increase the overall academic performance of these schools
and might make them more attractive. This might be important if
parents considering where to send their child look more to the
achievement level at the school (particularly average test scores)
than to the degree of improvement in student performance. But, there
are several caveats. First, test scores of those who join a charter
school in non-entry grades, transferring from a traditional public
school in the city, are actually lower than those of the stayers in
charter schools (average scale score of 664 compared with 667)
though higher than the leavers. Thus, if the charters had decided
not to fill up the seats left vacant by transferring-out students,
their average performance would be even higher. Second, the way the
city’s Department of Education assigns letter grades to schools puts
more emphasis on student improvement or progress, rather than on the
absolute levels of performance, it is not obvious that such
selective attrition helps charters attain a better letter grade.
Improving a high-performing student’s test scores is often more
difficult than similar improvements elsewhere, and the Department of
Education gives extra credit for improving student performance at
the lower end of the scale.
Regression Analysis
The comparisons control for different
demographic characteristics of the students, including gender,
poverty, and race/ethnicity, as well as for the number of days the
student was absent. The brief also adjusts for whether a student had
been classified as a special education student, and whether he had
been classified as an English language learner. Recall that for each
charter school in the sample, the comparison group consists of the
three traditional public schools which were located nearest to it.
This ensures that all the schools in one group —consisting of one
charter school and its three nearest traditional public
schools—belong to the same neighborhood or community. As a check on
the robustness of the results, in one specification this brief
controls for neighborhood-specific factors to test whether the
results are biased by one type of schools being located in specific
communities. The results, however, remain very similar.
Since the dependent variable is a 0-1 dummy
variable, we run linear probability models as well as logistic
regressions. Since the findings are very similar, only the results
from the latter analysis are reported. Also, for ease of exposition,
the odds ratios are reported instead of the actual coefficients. The
odds ratio corresponding to a particular independent variable shows
the effect of that variable on the relative probability that the
outcome (dependent) variable will happen, controlling for other
factors. An odds ratio of less than 1 suggests that students with
that characteristic had a lower probability of leaving their
schools. Conversely, characteristics with an odds ratio greater than
1 imply that students with that characteristic had a higher
probability of leaving. For example, the fact that the odds ratio on
the charter dummy is 0.68 in column 1 in Table 10 means that
compared with a student in a nearby traditional public school, a
student in a charter school was only 68 percent as likely—or
equivalently, 32 percent less likely—to leave his or her
kindergarten school.
Regression Results. Students in charter
schools had a significantly smaller probability of leaving their
schools within three years of starting kindergarten, relative to
their peers in traditional public schools. Most of the demographic
factors are associated with mobility in expected ways, with black
students, students from low-income families, and special education
students leaving at higher rates.
Compared with her peer in a neighboring
traditional public school, a kindergartener in a charter school left
her original school at a rate that is about one-third lower (see
Table 10, column 1). When different background variables,
classification statuses, and rates of absenteeism are included the
difference gets narrowed—but still students in charter schools are
23 percent to 29 percent less likely than their peers in traditional
public schools to leave their schools. Note, however, that there may
be differences between students attending charters and those
attending nearby traditional public schools that this brief has not
been able to capture, and part of the gap in observed attrition
patterns across these schools might be due to those factors rather
than to attending a particular type of school. Note also
that because this brief is looking at mobility patterns of students
starting out as kindergarteners and following them over the next
three years, we do not have any data on academic performance of
these students that predate the mobility patterns which are
analyzed.15 Our analysis does not additionally control
for student achievement in the regression analysis.
|
Table 10:
Following Kindergarteners in 2008-2009 Through the Next
Three Years, Logistic Regressions, With Odds Ratios
Dependent variable: Whether left one’s original
(kindergarten, 2008-2009) school within three years
|
||||
|
|
(1) |
(2) |
(3) |
(4) |
|
Charter |
0.68*** |
0.60*** |
0.77*** |
0.71*** |
|
Female |
|
0.92** |
0.96 |
0.96 |
|
Lunch-eligible |
|
1.23*** |
1.14** |
1.10* |
|
White |
|
0.58*** |
0.59*** |
0.61*** |
|
Black |
|
1.03 |
0.99 |
0.99 |
|
Hispanic |
|
0.79** |
0.79** |
0.76** |
|
Asian |
|
0.61*** |
0.67*** |
0.71** |
|
English Language |
|
|
0.83*** |
0.84** |
|
Special Education Student |
|
|
1.61*** |
1.61*** |
|
Number of
Days Absent |
|
|
1.03*** |
1.03*** |
|
Observations |
10,251 |
10,251 |
10,251 |
10,251 |
|
Neighborhood
Fixed Effects |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
NOTE: One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at
the 10 percent level, two asterisks denote statistical
significance at the 5 percent level, and three asterisks
denote statistical significance at the 1 percent level.
Independent Budget
Office |
||||
Student Demographics and Mobility. Most of
the demographic factors are associated with mobility in expected
ways. Female students in the study cohort were no more likely than
their male counterparts to leave their schools. But students from
low-income backgrounds, proxied by eligibility for free or
reduced-price lunches, had higher rates of leaving. White students,
and to a lesser extent Asians and Hispanics, were less likely to
leave their schools than black students. The incidence of leaving
was strikingly high for special education students—they left at
close to twice the rate for general education students. In contrast,
ELL students changed schools at a significantly lower rate. As one
would expect, the number of days that a student was absent is a
significant predictor of subsequent attrition.
We also tested to see whether demographic
factors affected the mobility of students in charter schools
differently. For brevity, these results are not shown, but they are
along expected lines. One interesting result is that differences in
the rate at which low-income students and students at other income
levels leave their schools are much smaller in charter than in
traditional public schools: low-income students in charter schools
leave school at almost the same rate as
students at other income levels. We also find that
absenteeism is an even greater predictor of turnover for students in
charter schools, compared with its predictive power for students in
nearby traditional public schools and, not surprisingly, find that
special education students in charter schools leave at very high
rates.
What factors predict student transfer to another
New York City public school? Are these the same factors that are
associated with leaving the city’s public schools?
When students leave a New York City public school, they can either go to
another city public school, or they can leave the city’s public
schools altogether. Students in charter schools transferred to
another New York City public school at much lower rates compared
with students in nearby traditional public schools. However, the
differences are smaller for the probability of leaving the New York
City public school system. The effects of various demographic
variables and student classification statuses also vary according to
whether one is looking at the incidence of transferring to another
DOE school or whether one is studying attrition out of the city’s
public schools. This brief employs multinomial regression models to
analyze this question.
Students in charter schools transferred to another of the city’s
public schools at much lower rates—they were 40 percent less likely
to transfer out as compared with students in nearby traditional
public schools. However, they were only 19 percent less likely to
leave the system (see Table 11, columns 1 and 2).
|
Table 11: Following Kindergarteners in 2008-2009 Through the
Next Three Years, Multinomial Logit Regressions,
Baseline Status is “Remain in
same school”; Status = 2 is “Transfer to another NYC Public
School”; Status = 3 is “Left NYC Public Schools |
||||||||
|
|
Status=2 |
Status=3 |
Status=2 |
Status=3 |
Status=2 |
Status=3 |
Status=2 |
Status=3 |
|
Charter |
0.60*** |
0.81*** |
0.52*** |
0.74*** |
0.69*** |
0.91 |
0.61*** |
0.89 |
|
Female |
|
|
0.90** |
0.96 |
0.95 |
0.98 |
0.95 |
0.98 |
|
Lunch-eligible |
|
|
1.61*** |
0.84*** |
1.49*** |
0.78*** |
1.41*** |
0.79*** |
|
White |
|
|
0.61*** |
0.56*** |
0.61*** |
0.57*** |
0.66** |
0.56*** |
|
Black |
|
|
1.11 |
0.93 |
1.06 |
0.89 |
1.04 |
0.91 |
|
Hispanic |
|
|
0.82 |
0.75* |
0.83 |
0.74* |
0.79* |
0.73* |
|
Asian |
|
|
0.66** |
0.55*** |
0.74* |
0.59*** |
0.86 |
0.56*** |
|
English Languauge Learner Student |
|
|
|
|
0.81*** |
0.87 |
0.81*** |
0.9 |
|
Special Education |
|
|
|
|
1.86*** |
1.17 |
1.89*** |
1.16 |
|
Days Absent |
|
|
|
|
1.03*** |
1.02*** |
1.03*** |
1.02*** |
|
Observations |
10,251 |
10,251 |
10,251 |
10,251 |
||||
|
Neighborhood Fixed Effects |
No |
No |
No |
Yes |
||||
|
SOURCE: IBO analysis of Department of Education data
NOTE: One asterisk (*) denotes statistical significance at
the 10 percent level, two asterisks denote statistical
significance at the 5 percent level, and three asterisks
denote statistical significance at the 1 percent level.
Independent Budget Office |
||||||||
Free
or reduced-price lunch eligible students have a significantly higher
likelihood of transferring to another New York City public school,
but are not more likely to leave the city’s public schools. The
overall higher mobility of students from low-income families stems
from transferring to other New York City public schools; these
students are actually significantly less likely to leave the system
compared with students from middle- and upper-income families.
Similarly, special education students are more likely to transfer
within New York City’s public school system than to leave the
system. An ELL student has a lower probability of transferring out
as well as of quitting the system, although the effects are
statistically significant only in the former case.
The one variable which has consistent power for predicting attrition
is the number of days a student had been absent.
Conclusion
The results—consistent across both simple
cross-tabulations and a more sophisticated regression analysis—can
be summarized as follows. First, on average, students in charter
schools leave their schools at a lower rate than students at nearby
traditional public schools.
Second, this is the case even when this brief disaggregates the overall student population into various subgroups, based on gender, race, poverty status, and English language learner status. For most subgroups, students in charter schools leave their schools at a lower rate.
Third,
the big exception is special education students, who leave charter
schools at a much higher rate than either general education students
in charters or special education students in traditional public
schools. Charter schools enroll a disproportionately lower share of
students classified in special education compared with nearby
traditional public schools, although among charter school students
there is a big jump in classification rates in first grade.
Fourth, among students in both charter schools
and nearby traditional public schools, those who remained in their
kindergarten schools through third grade had higher test scores and
proficiency ratings in third grade for both reading and mathematics.
However, the achievement gap between stayers and movers was
considerably larger in charters compared with traditional public
schools and was much larger for mathematics than for reading.
Finally, looking at the third grade performance of students who started kindergarten in traditional public schools but later switched to charter schools, they had lower test scores compared with the stayers in charter schools, but higher test scores than those who transferred out from charter schools.
These results are likely caused by many factors. While there may be
causal effects of attending charter schools, it is possible that
other factors such as unobserved differences in student
characteristics contribute to some of the gaps in mobility patterns.
Also, charter schools in New York City are still in the process of
evolving and maturing. With the recent opening of many new schools
during the Bloomberg Administration, traditional public schools have
also seen considerable change in recent years. How these changes
play out will affect student migration patterns in the future.
This report prepared by Joydeep Roy
Endnotes
1See, for example, Hanushek, Kain, and Rivkin, “Disruption versus
Tiebout Improvement: The Costs and Benefits of Switching Schools,”
Journal of Public Economics, Volume 88/9-10, 2004; and Roy, Maynard,
and Weiss, “The Hidden Costs of the Housing Crisis: The Long-term
Impact of Housing Affordability and Quality on Young Children’s Odds
of Success,” written for the Partnership for America’s Economic
Success, 2008,
www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=47132
2Bifulco and Ladd, “The Impact of Charter Schools on Student
Achievement: Evidence from North Carolina,” Education Finance and
Polcy, 1(1), Winter 2006; and
Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, and Branch, “Charter School Quality
and Parental Decision-Making with School Choice,” Journal of Public
Economics, Volume 91 (5-6) June 2007; find charter shcool students
to have a higher rate of attirion than their counterparts in
traditional public schools, but a study of middle school students
did not find any significant difference (see Nichols-Barrar, Tuttle,
Gill, and Gleason, Student Selection, Attrition, and Replacement in
KIPP Middle Schools, Mathematica Policy Research, 2011).
3This is particularly likely to be the case for elementary school
students, as literature documents that families of such students are
unwilling to have them travel long distances from home for school.
Note, however, that some of New York City’s students also attend
parochial schools and—to a lesser extent—independent private
schools, and some charter schools also draw their students from
these schools.
4New York’s charter law requires charter schools in New York City to
give preference to students who reside in the local Community School
District in which the charter school is located, see New York State
Education Law § 2854 2. (b).
5The traditional public schools that belong to a charter school’s
comparison group are generally unique. However, 21 traditional
public schools belong to the comparison group for two separate
charter schools, and 6 traditional public schools each belong to the
comparison groups for three charter schools.
6The second half of the 2000s was a period of rapid growth of
charter schools in New York City. For example, 18 charter schools
started operating during 2007-2008, and more expanded their grade
spans. By contrast, there were only 17 charter schools overall
operating in New York City when Mayor Michael Bloomberg took office
in 2002 (see Winters,“Measuring the Effect of Charter Schools on
Public School Student Achievement in an Urban Environment: Evidence
from New York City,” Economics of Education Review, Volume 31, Issue
2, April 2012).
7For the small number of schools with missing x and y coordinates
the NYCgbat program was used to transform the street address into x
and y coordinates.
8Note that this difference in racial composition is unlikely to stem
from differences in composition of the respective neighborhoods, as
this brief only compares charter schools with their three
geographically closest traditional public schools.
9Though students who do not return valid forms
regarding their family’s income level are classified as “full price”
by the New York City DOE, our data allow us to identify those
students who actually submitted a valid form indicating their
ineligibility for the free/reduced-price lunch program and it is
these data that this brief uses. Note that full price
means that the family has reported income above the 185
percent of poverty level threshold for meal subsidy.
10See the reports by the New York City Charter School Center (2013)
and Winter’s (2013) for the Center on Reinventing Public Education.
11We restrict our attention to the 2,656 students still continuing in
the city’s public schools after three years, rather than the full
population of 3,043 students, since there are no data on special
education status for those 387 students who had left New York City
public schools.
12See the reports by the New York City Charter School Center
(Students with Special Learning Needs and NYC Charter Schools,
2012-2013,
www.nyccharterschools.org/sites/default/files/resources/SpecialNeedsFactSheetApril2013.pdf) and Winters for the Center on Reinventing Public Education
(Special Education and New York City Charter Schools,
www.crpe.org/publications/why-gap-special-education-and-new-york-charter-schools).
13The share of special education students is very high among those
repeating a grade.
14The measures of student achievement that this brief uses come from
the results of standardized tests administered by New York State—it
focuses on test results from grade 3 in 2011-2012. Student
performance on the test is translated into an overall scale
score—scale scores ranged from 644 to 780 for English Language Arts
and 662 to 770 for mathematics in 2011-2012 (see
https://reportcards.nysed.gov/statewide/2012statewideRC.pdf). Performance is also assessed in terms of performance level
descriptors as follows. For more details see The New York State
Report Card for NYC Chancellor’s Office (2011-2012), available at
https://reportcards.nysed.gov/files/2011-12/RC-2012-300000010000.pdf:
English
Language Arts
Level 1:
Below Standard
Student
performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the English
language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level.
Level 2:
Meets Basic Standard
Student
performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the English
language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level.
Level 3:
Meets Proficiency Standard
Student
performance demonstrates an understanding of the English language
arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level.
Level 4:
Exceeds Proficiency Standard
Student
performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the English
language arts knowledge and skills expected at this grade level.
Mathematics
Level 1:
Below Standard
Student
performance does not demonstrate an understanding of the mathematics
content expected at this grade level.
Level 2:
Meets Basic Standard
Student
performance demonstrates a partial understanding of the mathematics
content expected at this grade level.
Level 3:
Meets Proficiency Standard
Student
performance demonstrates an understanding of the mathematics content
expected at this grade level.
Level 4:
Exceeds Proficiency Standard
Student
performance demonstrates a thorough understanding of the mathematics
content expected at this grade level.
15The first time these students are observed taking the New York
State tests is when they are in grade 3 in 2011-2012 (spring 2012).
PDF version available here.
Receive notification of free reports by e-mail