A Critical Review 1
Running head: A CRITICAL REVIEW OF CHARTER SCHOOLS
Take Home Comprehensive Exam:
A Critical Review of Charter School Literature
Christopher J. Schuster
Lehigh University
April 16, 2012
A Critical Review 2
Introduction
The rise and increasing popularity of charter schools in the United States has created a
new dimension in public education reform over the last 20 years. The Obama administration
along with Congress has linked federal dollars to the support of charter school expansion making
the growth in the number of charter schools likely to continue (Center for Research on
Educational Outcomes [CREDO], 2009a; Dynarski, Hoxby, Loveless, Schneider, Whitehurst, &
Witte, 2010; Finn, Caldwell & Raub, 2006; Frankenberg, Siegel-Hawley & Wang, 2011;
Turnamian, 2011). Currently, there are approximately 5,275 charter schools in The United
States, serving over 1.8 million students (National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, 2012).
Charter schools are publicly funded elementary and secondary schools offered greater autonomy
from laws and regulations compared to traditional public schools (Abdulkadiroglu, Kane,
Angrist, Cohodes, Dynarski, Fullerton, & Pathak, 2009; DeLuca & Hinshaw, 2006; Garrison &
Holifield, 2005; Kuscova & Buckley, 2004). The government gives this independence in
exchange for educational innovation in curricula, pedagogy, and organizational structure
described in a school’s charter (Betts & Tang, 2011; Estes, 2004; Lavertu & Witte, 2009;
Ravitch, 2010).
Founders write school charters with a specific focus in mind, and schools are created with
a range of purposes from helping the most disadvantaged in society to creating specialized
schools for the most advantaged (Charter School Achievement Consensus Panel, 2006). State
approved authorizing organizations, including universities, school boards, non-profits and
businesses, authorize charter schools and hold the power to revoke charters that do not meet
accountability standards (Lavertu & Witte, 2009; Ravitch, 2010). Authorizing organizations
exceed 800 nationwide (Dynarski, et al., 2010). Once founders open a charter school, students
A Critical Review 3
can enroll as an alternative to their local public school. If a charter school is at student capacity, a
random lottery is held to determine which applicants will be admitted (Angrist, Cohodes,
Dynarski, Fullerton, Kane, Pathak, & Walters, 2011; CREDO, 2009a; Hoxby, Murarka, & Kang,
2009). If a charter school is not at capacity, the law requires charter schools to admit all types of
students. This includes Special Education students and English Language Learners (ELL)
(Frankenberg et al., 2011). The tax dollars, or a large portion of them, allotted for that student
transfer from the public school to the charter school with the student (Ravitch, 2010).
This paper will focus on the efficacy of charter schools as a publicly funded addition to
the United States educational system and determine if they are worth the investment. It begins by
framing the debate through a presentation of the pros and cons of charter schools. The paper will
then critically examine empirical research centered on determining how academically successful
charter schools are when compared to their public school counterparts. Further review of the
literature will reveal the effect charter schools have on public schools in regards to competition,
funding and equity. Finally, this paper will offer conclusions and recommendations on the
charter school movement.
Framing the Debate
The argument for charter schools is that they create choices for students and parents
within communities. Pro charter school scholars argue that charter school choice creates
educational benefits in multiple ways. First, charter school students are more likely to succeed
through the innovations produced by the charter schools themselves, and second, public schools
will now have the incentive to improve due to the introduction of competition for funding
(Chubb & Moe, 1990; Frankenberg, et al., 2011; Krop & Zimmer, 2005; Kuscova & Buckley,
2004; Lavertu & Witte, 2009; Ravitch, 2010).
A Critical Review 4
The debate on charter schools begins by questioning charter school student success and
the effect of charter schools on traditional public schools and the communities they serve
Hanushek, Kain, Rivkin, & Branch, 2009). The opposition argues that students who attend
charter schools do not necessarily achieve stronger academic results. They also argue that charter
schools negatively impact public schools by taking their most motivated students, funding, and
resources (Arsen and Ni, 2012; Gleason, Clark, Clark Tuttle, & Dwoyer; 2010; Krop & Zimmer,
2005; Zimmer, Gill, Booker, Lavertu, Sass, & Witte, 2009). Additionally, studies of the charter
school movement show the increased segregation of students (Frankenberg, et al., 2011; Zimmer
et al. 2009) and questionable equity issues pertaining to low income, Special Education and ELL
students, who may be underrepresented in charter schools.
Academic Achievement
The most common form of research determining the extent of charter school success
compares achievement in math and reading standardized test scores between traditional public
school (TPS) and charter school students. Results widely vary on the extent to which charter
schools increase student achievement compared to TPSs. Complications arise when examining
academic achievement literature. One major issue is the lack of uniformity in each state’s
approach to charter school education (Betts & Tang, 2011). Charter school laws vary between
states and dictate the student selection process as well as determine the varying types of
standardized tests that measure student achievement. The varying state approaches make
comparisons at the national level difficult to generalize (Frankenberg, et al., 2011).
In addition, an early body of charter school achievement literature has been largely
discredited due to selection bias and a lack of longitudinal data (Charter School Achievement
Consensus Panel, 2006). Selection bias exists in some studies that fail to account for the fact that
A Critical Review 5
charter school attendees are self-selected and not a random sample of TPS students. Therefore,
sound research comparing academic achievement of charter school students to TPS students is
largely limited to experimental lottery studies and varying non-experimental value-added
models, which attempt to control sample discrepancies (Betts & Tang, 2011). Both of these
methods gather longitudinal data.
Experimental Method: Lottery Studies
Lottery studies use a randomized experimental design to longitudinally compare
standardized math and reading scores for students who attend charter schools as a result of a
lottery with a control group of lottery losers who remain in TPSs. This helps eliminate selection
bias by only comparing students who have been self-selected by their families to enter a charter
school lottery (Betts & Tang, 2011; Loveless, 2009). This design is limited to use with charter
schools at capacity that are required to hold lotteries (Angrist et al., 2011). Furthermore, the
limited sample size may skew the academic achievement results because the most academically
successful charter schools are likely to be the ones popular enough to need a lottery
(Abdulkadiroglu et al. 2009; Clark Tuttle, Teh, Nicholas-Barrer, Gill, & Gleason, 2011).
Gleason et al. (2010) conducted the geographically largest study to date, which used a
lottery experimental design on 36 middle schools across 15 states. Urban, suburban and rural
schools were included in the sample. The study revealed a wide range in the quality of charter
schools examined, and that on average, most charter school students showed no significant
difference in reading and math scores on standardized tests when compared to lottery losers. A
closer examination of the Gleason et al. data reveals some interesting trends. Charter schools
serving the most disadvantaged students and those from the largest urban areas were more
successful in math, a finding of similar lottery studies conducted in Boston and New York City
A Critical Review 6
(NYC) (Abdulkadiroglu et al., 2009; Hoxby, et al., 2009). Methodologically, the Gleason et al.
study took extra steps missing from many other lottery studies by closely observing individual
school lotteries for validity and it also “frequently monitored lottery and waiting list results and
took into account the various ways students entered and exited the lotteries” (p. 77). Gleason et
al. represents the golden standard of lottery-based experimental design, but as with all lottery
studies, its external validity to all charter schools remains low due to the fact that only over
subscribed charter schools are required to hold lotteries (Betts & Tang, 2011).
Abdulkadiroglu et al.’s (2009) study comparing Boston charter schools and pilot schools
to TPSs reports the highest levels of academic achievement for charter school students of any
lottery study. An average of middle school and high school scores in both reading and math
showed significant gains for charter school students. Abdulkadiroglu et al. combined the use of
the internally valid lottery methodology with an observational study open to selection bias in
order to compare the lottery results to all Boston charter schools, even those not using lotteries.
The observational study was an attempt to increase the external validity of the research and make
the findings generalizable to all Boston public schools. Though Abdulkadiroglu et al. stops short
of suggesting all Boston charter schools improve test scores, the combined results of the lottery
and observational study provide consistent positive growth in math and reading.
When expanding from Boston to the entire state of Massachusetts, Angrist et al. (2011)
concludes that aside from middle school English Language Arts (ELA), of which there is no
difference to TPSs, middle and high school charter schools are on average significantly
increasing academic achievement. Angrist et al. also uses an observational study, using a
combination of matching and regression models, to compliment the lottery study results. The
A Critical Review 7
comparison of the lottery and observational data confirms Abdulkadiroglu et al.’s (2009) Boston
charter middle school findings.
Hoxby et al.’s (2009) examination of 42 oversubscribed charter schools in NYC
constitutes the largest lottery study to date. Hoxby et al. concluded that for NYC charter school
students a positive correlation exists between length of enrollment and academic achievement.
An additional positive correlation exists between charter high school attendance and New York
State Regents exams scores and earning a Regents diploma. Unlike other lottery studies, Hoxby
et al. has strong external validity for NYC charter schools because 94% of charter school
students in NYC go through the lottery process. However, these results are not generalizable
outside of NYC.
Non-Experimental Methods
Non-experimental methods regarded highly by charter school researchers include
matching and fixed-effect models. (Betts & Tang, 2011; Charter School Achievement Consensus
Panel, 2006). As in the observational portions of Abdulkadiroglu et al. (2009) and Angrist et al.
(2011), matching studies compare charter school students with students in TPSs and track their
academic growth on standardized tests over time. Student fixed-effect models look at individual
students and their academic growth before and after they enter a charter school. Neither type of
study has the internal validity of the lottery studies, but these methods allow for greater external
validity when studying large sample sizes.
CREDO (2009a) is by far the largest national charter school study to date comparing
students in all grade levels from 2,403 charter schools and TPS students across 14 states and the
District of Columbia. These data showed 37% of the charter school students scoring below TPS
students, 46% showing no impact, and only 17% scoring higher on math and reading tests. The
A Critical Review 8
data also reveals that elementary and middle school charter schools are nationally more
academically successful than high school charters. Additionally, charter school students in their
first year at a charter school are likely to score lower than their TPS counterparts as compared to
their second and third year of enrollment, when they are likely to outperform TPS students. The
fact that students appear to be more successful in charter schools the longer they attend them
reinforces Hoxby et al.’s (2009) findings in NYC.
CREDO (2009a) used a matching method scholars have been quick to criticize. Due to a
lack of data, many charter school students in the CREDO study are matched with TPS peers
using characteristics and standardized test scores after they have already enrolled in a charter
school which biases results (Betts & Tang, 2011). Hoxby (2009) wrote a methodological
criticism of the CREDO report in which she argued that charter school students are not being
matched to TPS students, but rather a group of TPS students with similar characteristics allowing
for a smaller measurement error for the group averages than the individual charter school
students. Hoxby claimed this could negatively skew the results against charter schools. CREDO
issued a rebuttal defending its methodology (CREDO, 2009b). More recently, studies in
Pennsylvania (CREDO, 2011b), Indiana (CREDO, 2011a), and NYC (CREDO, 2010) using the
same methodology have revealed different trends. Indiana and NYC both showed charter school
students on average outperforming their peers in TPS in reading and math, while Pennsylvania
showed charter school students on average underperforming in reading and math.
Clark Tuttle et al. (2010) used a matching methodology to examine 22 Knowledge is
Power Program (KIPP) middle schools across nine states and the District of Columbia. KIPP
charter schools serve over 33,000 students in 109 schools (About KIPP, 2012) and "on average
KIPP middle schools have student bodies characterized by higher concentrations of poverty and
A Critical Review 9
racial minorities” (Clark Tuttle et al., 2010, p. xii). Results indicate significant average growth in
reading and highly significant growth in math when compared to TPS students. The larger
growth in math over reading is a common finding among charter school academic achievement
studies (Abdulkadiroglu et al., 2009; Angrist, et al., 2010; Hoxby et al., 2009; Witte et al., 2007).
Zimmer et al. (2009) used a fixed-effect method comparing individual students’ test
scores before and after entering a charter school. This large study collected data from 231
charter schools in seven states and revealed that on average, no substantial difference exists
between the academic achievement of charter school students and TPS students. In two
locations, Chicago and Texas, charter school student achievement was substantially worse than
local TPS student achievement. These results rely on student baseline data before entering a
charter school, so primary school charter students are difficult to study using this methodology
because these younger students have not taken standardized tests. Zimmer et al. recognizes this
external validity weakness at the elementary level and controls for it by removing much of the
elementary data before determining the results.
Booker et al. (2007) found in a similar fixed-effect study of 179 Texas charter schools
that on average students experienced a dip in academic performance during their first year of
charter school attendance, but then recovered to TPS academic levels in subsequent years. The
overall result of the study was that no academic difference exists between charter school and
TPS students. Similarly, Hanushek et al. (2007) studied 248 Texas charter schools using a fixedeffect model and found a negative impact on academic achievement in the first and second year
of charter school attendance before reaching TPS achievement levels. Bifulco and Ladd (2006)
found an average negative academic achievement impact on charter school students in a fixed-
A Critical Review 10
effect study of 79 charter schools in North Carolina as did Sass (2006) in a fixed effect study of
190 charter schools in Florida.
The exception to the no impact or negative academic impact findings of charter schools
using fixed-effect methods is a study by Witte et al. (2007) examining 130 Wisconsin charter
schools. Witte et al. concluded that charter school students were performing better than TPS
students in most grades. This was especially true for white and Hispanic students. Lavertu and
Witte (2009) conducted a similar fixed-effect study on Milwaukee charter schools and reaffirmed
a positive impact on charter school student performance in math, but not in reading. However,
the longer a student remains in the Milwaukee charter school system, the more likely they are to
level off to TPS achievement levels.
A summary of the academic achievement literature of experimental lottery studies and
non-experimental matching and fixed-effect studies reveals no conclusive answer to the question
of charter school success. Some charter schools consistently outperform TPSs in academic
achievement on standardized tests, but many charter schools show no statistical difference or
show a negative impact on student achievement when compared to TPSs. Betts & Tang (2011)
conclude in their meta-analysis of achievement literature that there is a wide range of variation in
charter school quality.
A theoretical issue in relying solely on academic achievement is the varying purposes of
charter schools and the failure of academic achievement literature focusing primarily on reading
and math scores to recognize these differences. If students attending a performing arts charter
high school score statistically similar to TPS students, but are much more likely to attend a
performing arts college, can one argue that the charter school is no better than a TPS? Studies
reveal higher graduation levels (Booker et al., 2007; Hoxby et al., 2009; Sass, 2006; Zimmer et
A Critical Review 11
al., 2009) and higher student and parent satisfaction (Gleason et al. 2010) for charter school
students. Surely, these and other factors should be considered when examining the overall
success of charter schools.
Effect on Public Schools
Importantly, few studies reveal the increased level of competition has in any way
academically improved TPS. Booker et al. (2007), Lavertu and Witte (2009) and Sass (2006)
outright deny the competition argument. Zimmer et al. (2009) concludes that, except for a small
increase in Texas TPS academic achievement, there is neither a positive nor a negative academic
achievement effect of charter school competition near TPSs.
Charter school proponents suggest charter school populations serve the hardest to educate
students, while critics of charter schools argue TPSs lose their most motivated students to charter
schools. Buckley and Schneider (2005) conclude in their study of Washington DC charter
schools that they serve nearly the same populations. Dee & Fu (2004) conclude that White and
Hispanic students in Arizona are leaving TPS for charter schools.
Arsen and Ni (2012) used a fixed-effect method to look specifically at the redistribution
of Michigan TPS funding based on the introduction of charter competition. Results suggest that
in highly competitive situations, TPSs are clearly under fiscal stress due to the introduction of
charter schools. Ni and Arsen (2011) revealed that the most financial stress occurs in TPSs that
serve the greatest numbers of low-income students. In summary, charter schools tend to have a
negative financial effect on the poorest TPSs in areas with a high volume of charter schools.
Equity Issues
Frankenberg et al. (2011) conducted a descriptive analysis of charter school enrollment
across 40 states and metropolitan areas in 2007-2008. Findings conclude that charter schools
A Critical Review 12
segregate students by race and class across the nation. Frankenberg et al. data reveals that despite
the ability of charter schools to enroll students across district boundaries and help reduce
geographic racial segregation, charter schools are contributing more to racial isolation. In
existing segregated areas, charter schools often further segregate students; especially Black
students (Bifulco & Ladd, 2006; Gulosino & d’Entremont, 2011). Frankenberg et al. calls for
greater transparency and government oversight to prevent segregation. Zimmer et al. (2009)
agrees that government charter policies should promote racial integration for the positive
academic and social benefits associated with a diverse learning experience
The United Federation of Teachers (2010) presented descriptive statistical data that NYC
charter schools enroll fewer economically disadvantaged students, special education students and
ELL students than NYC TPS. Buckley & Schneider (2005) conclude that Washington, DC
charter schools enroll special education students proportionally to TPSs. Strangely, the National
Alliance for Public Charter Schools (2012) offers no recent national or state data on special
education enrollments in charter schools.
Estes (2004) conducted six interviews with charter school administrators from six
different Texas charter schools. Estes (2004) cites school officials’ lack of expertise in special
education law and limited funding as reasons why special education students are not attending
charter schools. Garcy (2011) and Lacireno-Paquet (2004) go a step further suggesting charter
schools focusing on an academic mission can use legal loopholes to avoid enrolling special
education students. Garcy concludes that the more expensive and severe a disability is, the less
likely a special education student is going to attend a charter school in Arizona. Finn et al. (2006)
used an open-ended structured interview to determine why parents of seven special education
students chose to enroll their children in a Midwest charter school. Parents cited small class
A Critical Review 13
sizes, high academic standards, strong staff and good communication as positive reasons for their
choice.
Conclusion
As this paper demonstrates, charter school research in virtually every area remains
contradictory due to the heterogeneity of charter schools and the communities they serve. As
such, research suggests charter schools have been a mediocre investment to date. A mix of sound
experimental and non-experimental methods reveal some charter schools academically
outperform TPSs, some charters perform relatively similarly and some underperform. The
argument that introducing competition into the public school marketplace will increase TPS
achievement appears largely unfounded at this point in time. The funding of charter schools puts
financial strain on the poorest schools in large volume charter areas. Unfortunately, the increased
autonomy of charter schools makes data difficult to obtain from them. Racial segregation has
also resulted from the charter school movement.
Therefore, legislative recommendations include: making a uniform admissions process to
avoid discrimination in all its forms, reforming the funding structure to protect financially
strained TPSs, and requiring greater transparency. Additionally, failing charter schools need to
be closed and resources should be returned to the TPSs to be used to create their own forms of
innovation. Additional research needs to focus on more than simply test scores. Research should
consistently include graduation rates, college enrollment, and vocational career paths as evidence
of success. Qualitative studies should continue to explore the individual traits of charter schools
to determine additional factors that will determine how valuable they are to the families they
serve. It is only through continued research and policy reform that the long-term investment in
charter schools can prove truly profitable to the taxpayers.
A Critical Review 14
References
Abdulkadiroglu, A., Kane, T., Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., et al. (2009).
Informing the debate: Comparing Boston's charter, pilot and traditional schools. Boston:
The Boston Foundation. Retrieved March, 15, 2012 from
http://www.gse.harvard.edu/~pfpie/pdf/InformingTheDebate_Final.pdf
About KIPP. (2012). Retrieved March 25, 2012, from http://www.kipp.org/about-kipp
Angrist, J., Cohodes, S., Dynarski, S., Fullerton, J., Kane, T., Pathak, P., et al. (2011). Student
achievement in Massachusetts' charter schools. Cambridge, MA: Center for Educational
Policy Research Harvard University.
Arsen, D., & Ni, Y. (2012). The effects of charter school competition on school district resource
allocation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48(1), 3-38.
Betts, J. R., & Tang, Y. E. (2011). The effect of charter schools on student achievement: A metaanalysis of the literature. Seattle, WA: National Charter School Research Project.
Bifulco, R., & Ladd, H. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement:
Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1 Winter 2006), 50-90.
Booker, K., Gilpatric, S. M., Gronberg, T., & Jansen, D. (2007). The impact of charter school
attendance on student performance. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 849-876.
Buckley, J., & Schneider, M. (2005). Are charter school students harder to educate? Evidence
from Washington, D.C. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27(4), pp. 365-380.
Charter School Achievement Consensus Panel. (2006). Key issues in studying charter schools
and achievement: A review and suggestions for national guidelines. Seattle, WA: Center on
Reinventing Public Education University of Washington.
Chubb, J. E. (1990). Politics, markets and America's schools. Washington DC: The Brookings
Institution.
A Critical Review 15
Clark Tuttle, C., Teh, B., Nichols-Barrer, I., Gill, B., & Gleason, P. (2010). Student
characteristics and achievement in 22 KIPP middle schools. Washington, DC: Mathematica
Policy Research Inc.
CREDO. (2011a). Charter school performance in Indiana. Stanford, CA: Center for Research
on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
CREDO. (2011b). Charter school performance in Pennsylvania. Stanford, CA: Center for
Research on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
CREDO. (2010). Charter school performance in New York City. Stanford, CA: Center for
Research on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
CREDO. (2009a). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA:
Center for Research on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
CREDO. (2009b). CREDO finale to Hoxby's revised memorandum. Stanford, CA: Center for
Research on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March, 30, 2012, from
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
De Luca, B. M., & Hinshaw, S. (2006). Comparing academic achievement in charter schools and
public schools: The role of money. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6(1),
67-90.
Dee, T. S., & Fu, H. (2004). Do charter schools skim students or drain resources? Economics of
Education Review, 23(3), 259-271.
A Critical Review 16
Dynarski, S., Hoxby, C. M., Loveless, T., Schneider, M., Whitehurst, G., & Witte, J. (2010).
Charter schools: A report on rethinking the federal role in education. Washington DC: The
Brookings Institution.
Estes, M. B. (2004). Choice for all? Charter schools and students with special needs. Journal of
Special Education, 37(4), 257-267.
Finn, J., Caldwell, K., & Raub, T. (2006). Why parents choose charter schools for their children
with disabilities. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 6(2), 91-110.
Frankenberg, E., Siegel-Hawley, G., & Wang, J. (2011). Choice without equity: Charter school
segregation. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(1)
Garcy, A. M. (2011). High expense: Disability severity and charter school attendance in Arizona.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(6)
Garrison, L. F., & Holifield, M. (2005). Are charter schools effective? Planning and Changing,
36(1), 90-103.
Gleason, P., Clark, M., Clark Tuttle, C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school
impacts: Final report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Gulosino, C., & d'Entremont, C. (2011). Circles of influence: An analysis of charter school
location and racial patterns at varying geographic scales. Education Policy Analysis
Archives, 19(8), 1-25.
Hanushek, E. A., Kain, J. F., Rivkin, S. G., & Branch, G. F. (2007). Charter school quality and
parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91(5–6), 823848.
A Critical Review 17
Hoxby, C. (2009). A statistical mistake in the CREDO study of charter schools. Stanford,
California: Stanford University. Retrieved March, 30, 2012, from
http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html
Hoxby, C. M., Kang, J., & Murarka, S. (2009). How New York City's charter schools affect
achievement. Cambridge, MA: The New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.
Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/documents/092209_newsitem.pdf
Krop, C., & Zimmer, R. (2005). Charter school type matters when examining funding and
facilities: Evidence from California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(50), 1-27.
Kuscova, S., & Buckley, J. (2004). The effect of charter school legislation on market share.
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(66)
Lacireno-Paquet, N. (2004). Do EMO-operated charter schools serve disadvantaged students?
The influence of state policies. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(26)
Lavertu, S., & Witte, J. (2009). The impact of Milwaukee charter schools on student
achievement. Issues in Governance Studies, 23, 1-10. Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://www.brookings.edu/papers/2009/03_charter_lavertu_witte.aspx
Loveless, T. (2009). The 2009 Brown Center report on American education: How well are
American students learning?. Washington DC: The Brookings Institution. Retrieved March,
15, 2012, from http://www.brookings.edu/reports/2010/0317_education_loveless.aspx
National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. (2011). Public charter school dashboard.
Retrieved March, 23, 2012, from
http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/schools/page/overview/year/2011
A Critical Review 18
Ni, Y., & Arsen, D. (2011). School choice participation rates: Which districts are pressured?
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 19(29), 1-26.
Ravitch, D. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and
choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.
Sass, T. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education Finance and
Policy, 1(1 Winter 2006), 91-122.
Turnamian, P. (2011). What I've learned about charter schools after ten years on the front lines.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(4), 162-165.
United Federation of Teachers. (2010). Seperate and unequal: The falilure of New York City
charter schools to serve the city's neediest students. New York: United Federation of
Teachers.
Witte, J., Weimer, D., Shober, A., & Schlomer, P. (2007). The performance of charter schools in
Wisconsin. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(3), 557-573.
Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Booker, K., Lavertu, S., Sass, T., & Witte, J. Charter schools in eight
states: Effects on achievement, attainment, intergration and competition. Washington, DC:
RAND Corporation.