Unchartered territory

Anastasia De Waal, 25 September 2009

Civitas has been following the progress of US ‘Charter schools’ – state-funded but independently run institutions, akin – in principle at least – to Academies.  Since their establishment Charter schools have been notable for their comparatively higher success in standardised testing.

The latest findings on the Charter movement in New York City, reported in the US media including the New York Times, are important because they appear to dispel the primary reservation sceptics of the programme have had. Namely that it is the nature of the students attending Charter schools, rather than the schools themselves, which is responsible for the performance edge which has been found.

Stanford economist Caroline Hoxby, who is leading a longitudinal study on Charter schools, has demonstrated the impact of the independently-run schools by ‘controlling’ for self-selection. Contrasting Charter school students with those of regular maintained schools who attempted to get into the Charter schools, Hoxby has found test performance to be higher in the Charter schools. (The majority of NYC Charter schools are entry-by-lottery.)

Whilst Hoxby has not focused on what has led to the comparative progress in Charter schools, the common theme which has emerged is that extended hours – before and after school – is a significant contributor.

The results of the Charter school movement are interesting not just in terms of the impact which they are having on deprived Americans, but in terms of the lessons that we can learn in the UK, particularly in relation to Academies. Highly important politically (currently on both sides of the spectrum), Academies are being championed as succeeding at a higher rate than other schools. Certainly the headline exam scores of Academies are on average higher than in their counterpart comprehensives. However, not all are succeeding on this measure, and whether Academies generally are succeeding on other measures still remains to be seen. As with Charter schools there has been some argument as to whether the success of Academies to date is down to their independence – with assertions that it is in fact their powers of selection which are making the difference. In some cases there is indeed selection which is doubtless improving outcomes from the get-go; yet in other cases selection is not at work. There is no doubt however, that we simply don’t know enough about Academies – both in terms of the impact they have in the longer term and in terms of the information we have about their day-to-day activities.