Evaluating the Performance of Charter Schools in Connecticut
By Gary Miron, The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University

 PDF version of full report

Executive Summary

This report was commissioned by the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) and focuses specifically on the performance of charter schools in Connecticut. Performance gains made by charter schools on standardized tests relative to gains made by traditional public schools are examined. Also, a brief analysis looks at the extent to which charter schools have met their self-specified goals and objectives.

Connecticut administers two standardized tests to all public schools. The Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is used in grades 4, 6, and 8 and covers reading, writing, and mathematics. The Connecticut Academic Performance Test (CAPT) is administered to 10th graders and covers reading, writing, and mathematics, and science. The attached technical report explains in detail the design and methods used for the study which included both cohort and trend analyses. The key findings are highlighted below:

• Ten of the 14 currently operating charter schools were included in the analysis (two schools were newly opened and had no test data, 1 charter school was not included because it had only one year of test data, and another school was excluded because it had too few test takers for the results to be released).
• Results from the CMT analysis included eight schools and used a cohort analysis. In three of the four cohorts, the charter schools made much larger gains than their comparison groups.
• The results for the CAPT at grade 10 were mixed to negative for the charter schools. This, analysis, however, included only two schools, both with small numbers of test takers, and the students tested had at most one year of instruction in the charter school. Unfortunately, we do not have data relating to prior or subsequent academic performance. Consequently, this analysis used a weaker trend design, and is of limited value in evaluating the performance of charter high schools.

The results spelled out in this report are largely in line with what we found three years ago. Namely, charter school students are gaining more on the state assessment tests than students in surrounding traditional public schools.

The last section of the technical report includes an analysis of the extent to which charter schools were meeting their self-specified goals and objectives. The 2003-04 annual reports were used as a source for the stated objectives and evidence to support whether the objectives were met. Using two annual reports to report on school-specific measurable objectives balances accountability based solely on student performance on state assessment tests. Below the key findings from this analysis are highlighted:

• In total, 179 objectives were set by the schools. Nearly 44 percent of the measurable objectives identified in their annual reports were fully met, another 27 percent were mostly met, and 8 percent were partially met. Twenty-one percent of the objectives were deemed in this study to have not been met, in many cases because the schools did not provide sufficient evidence.
• As with performance on standardized tests, there were considerable differences in the performance of the charter schools when it came to fulfilling their goals and objectives. Two schools fully met more than 70 percent of their measurable objectives, while 2 schools met less than 20 percent of their objectives.
• Connecticut should be seen as a model in terms of how it balances its demands for accountability. More work may be needed, however, to ensure that the charter schools continue to strengthen their accountability frameworks by setting realistic and measurable objectives and by providing relevant and sufficient evidence so that progress can be measured.

Researchers at The Evaluation Center have been involved in conducting evaluations of charter schools in six states. The results
from Connecticut are the most positive and promising for charter schools that we have seen. This said, it is important that generalizations are not made across states.

The positive results in Connecticut are likely due to the unique nature of this reform. Compared with other states, Connecticut exercises more rigor in approving schools to operate and in overseeing charter schools. The closure of a number of struggling charter schools has helped lift the aggregate results of the charter schools. While generalizations cannot be made across states, lessons certainly can be shared from this charter school reform to reforms in other states.