The Chicago Tribune reports that privately run charter schools in Chicago have a higher rate of expulsion than do Chicago public schools. Significantly higher.
In the 2012-2013 academic year privately run charter schools expelled 307 students, out of 50,000. Traditional public schools expelled 182 out of 353,000. That kind of disparity should raise eyebrows. However, there are a few things that could be at play and must be brought into consideration.
The first is that the statistic is for privately run charter schools. I would like to see similar stats comparing private charters and public charters - as the charter presence expands and spreads to new cities, this information should be increasingly easy to find. It would be valuable to know how public charters compare to private charters and traditional public schools in terms of expulsion rates.
The second thing that should be noted, and is mentioned in the Tribune article, is that some private charters have lower rates of expulsion than public schools. This indicates that some private charters are doing better than public schools at addressing acute behavioral issues and keeping students in schools. Those private charters at the low end of the range may well be able to teach publics a thing or two about how to handle discipline issues. The charter advocate in me would point out that these successes are exactly why charters are so important - innovating is key to improving education.
This leads to the possible objection that some private charters are expelling more students, which might be a sign that the school is not doing well. One problem is that this criticism is often extended to the point of saying that charters shouldn't exist. The obvious weakness in this argument is that it doesn't hold traditional publics to the same standard. Many traditional public schools are horrible, but that doesn't mean all public schools should be eliminated.
Another weakness in this argument is that it does not account for the difference in the student populations of each school. Charter enrollment is predominantly students who have struggled with their previous school. The "cream skimming" theory has proven to be false. While this theory did initially seem to be plausible, it is equally logical that happy, successful students do not want to leave their school, which has been the case. With this in mind, one might expect a charter to have a higher rate of expulsion - a school that tends to draw struggling students might expect to have more behavioral issues. This is not to say that high rates of expulsion are to be excused, merely to say that these rates in and of themselves may not be sufficient grounds for condemnation or closure.
Lastly, these numbers do not get at qualitative issues. What does a school do with a dangerous or disruptive student? A school could lower its expulsion rate by putting struggling students in a room and setting extremely low standards for social and academic progress. This might look great on the stat sheet, but doesn't help the individual student very much, if at all. Conversely, a school with a high rate of expulsions might have a highly effective program for helping troubled children, but is overwhelmed by the number in need of help and must expel some. Or a school might have an excellent program, but if they attract those children who are the hardest to help the expulsion rate could still be quite high.
I do not mean to say that private charters should get a pass. The Tribune did well to publicize these stats. The figures should lead to further investigation. What I do mean to say is that these numbers do not make an iron clad argument against private charters. There is much more that needs to be known.
In the 2012-2013 academic year privately run charter schools expelled 307 students, out of 50,000. Traditional public schools expelled 182 out of 353,000. That kind of disparity should raise eyebrows. However, there are a few things that could be at play and must be brought into consideration.
The first is that the statistic is for privately run charter schools. I would like to see similar stats comparing private charters and public charters - as the charter presence expands and spreads to new cities, this information should be increasingly easy to find. It would be valuable to know how public charters compare to private charters and traditional public schools in terms of expulsion rates.
The second thing that should be noted, and is mentioned in the Tribune article, is that some private charters have lower rates of expulsion than public schools. This indicates that some private charters are doing better than public schools at addressing acute behavioral issues and keeping students in schools. Those private charters at the low end of the range may well be able to teach publics a thing or two about how to handle discipline issues. The charter advocate in me would point out that these successes are exactly why charters are so important - innovating is key to improving education.
This leads to the possible objection that some private charters are expelling more students, which might be a sign that the school is not doing well. One problem is that this criticism is often extended to the point of saying that charters shouldn't exist. The obvious weakness in this argument is that it doesn't hold traditional publics to the same standard. Many traditional public schools are horrible, but that doesn't mean all public schools should be eliminated.
Another weakness in this argument is that it does not account for the difference in the student populations of each school. Charter enrollment is predominantly students who have struggled with their previous school. The "cream skimming" theory has proven to be false. While this theory did initially seem to be plausible, it is equally logical that happy, successful students do not want to leave their school, which has been the case. With this in mind, one might expect a charter to have a higher rate of expulsion - a school that tends to draw struggling students might expect to have more behavioral issues. This is not to say that high rates of expulsion are to be excused, merely to say that these rates in and of themselves may not be sufficient grounds for condemnation or closure.
Lastly, these numbers do not get at qualitative issues. What does a school do with a dangerous or disruptive student? A school could lower its expulsion rate by putting struggling students in a room and setting extremely low standards for social and academic progress. This might look great on the stat sheet, but doesn't help the individual student very much, if at all. Conversely, a school with a high rate of expulsions might have a highly effective program for helping troubled children, but is overwhelmed by the number in need of help and must expel some. Or a school might have an excellent program, but if they attract those children who are the hardest to help the expulsion rate could still be quite high.
I do not mean to say that private charters should get a pass. The Tribune did well to publicize these stats. The figures should lead to further investigation. What I do mean to say is that these numbers do not make an iron clad argument against private charters. There is much more that needs to be known.
