differences autonomy included “efficiency” outcomes better generate

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Endnotes 1. New legislation has expanded this authority to the UW System and certain Technical Colleges. 2. For some examples, see Grosskopf, Shawna, Kathy Hayes and Lori Taylor. 2009. “The Relative Efficiency of Charter Schools.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80: 67-87, and Wolf, Patrick J., Albert Cheng, Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay May and Sheree Speakman. 2014 “The Productivity of Public Charter Schools.” School Choice Demonstration Project. 3. The 2014-15 WKCE in 4th, 8th, and 10th grade Science and 2015 Badger Exam in 4th and 8th grade Math (See page 12 for limitations on these tests). 4. Revenues and Expenditures for Public Elementary and Secondary School Districts: School Year 2011-12. National Center for Education Statistics. 5. Previous research by WILL indicates that charter schools perform better than traditional public schools when appropriate controls are included: Leuken, Marty and CJ Szafir. 2015. “Apples to Oranges? When comparisons are made between MPCP and MPS Schools.” Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty Policy Brief Vol. 2. 6. Grosskopf, Shawna, Kathy Hayes and Lori Taylor. 2009. “The Relative Efficiency of Charter Schools.” Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80: 67-87 7. Gronberg, Timothy, Dennis Jansen and Lori Taylor. 2012. “The Relative Efficiency of Charter Schools: A cost frontier approach.” Economics of Education Review 31: 302-317 8. These efficiency differences dissipate when comparisons are made to the average non-charter campus. 9. Wolf, Patrick J., Albert Cheng, Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay May and Sheree Speakman. 2014 “The Productivity of Public Charter Schools.” School Choice Demonstration Project. 10. Much of the information here comes from publicharters.org 11. When federal, state, local and other sources are taken into account, MPS receives more than $14,000 per member. Because we cannot completely account for these sources for charter schools, we use a more conservative estimate of MPS funding. This decreases the likelihood of finding significant differences between MPS and charter schools. 12. https://apps4.dpi.wi.gov/sfsdw/Agency_Financial_profile.aspx 13. The details of this calculation can be found in the “methodology” section of this manuscript. 14. Budde, Ray. 1974. “Education by Charter: Restructuring School Districts.” Unpublished manuscript. 15. Budde, Ray. 1996. “The Evolution of the Charter School Concept.” Phi Delta Kappan. 16. Badger Exam results are not available for 10th grade, meaning High Schools are not included in our Badger analyses. 17. Note that data from a small number of schools was not available online and is thus missing from this analysis. A full list of the included schools and their efficiency scores is found in appendix B and C of this manuscript. 18. It would be possible to average scores at the grade level. This analysis produces very similar results. 19. The 80% cutoff was chosen because it approximately represents schools at or above the mean free-and-reduced lunch in our sample, 81.3%. 20. Leuken, Marty and CJ Szafir. 2015. “Apples to Oranges? When comparisons are made between MPCP and MPS Schools.” Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty Policy Brief Vol. 2. Bang for the Buck 17
Note: Below is a list of all schools in our sample in descending order of their efficiency score. Non-MPS schools have their charter school type in parentheses. Appendix A. Efficiency Scores: All Schools WKCE School name Efficiency Badger Exam School name Efficiency DOWNTOWN MONTESSORRI (Indp) 0.402581 DOWNTOWN MONTESSORRI (Indp) 0.333347 WOODLANDS (Indp) 0.378849 WOODLANDS (Indp) 0.32309 MIL. COLLEGE PREP -36TH ST (Indp) 0.348164 ROCKETSHIP S. COMM. PREP (Indp) 0.275704 HIGHLAND COMMUNITY (Non-Instr) 0.335793 MIL. GERMAN IMMERSION 0.273134 CARMEN HS CAMPUS (Non-Instr) 0.330105 SEEDS OF HEALTH ELEMENTARY (Indp) 0.270492 MARYLAND MONTESSORRI 0.327987 BRUCE GUADALUPE (Indp) 0.270173 BRUCE GUADALUPE (Indp) 0.327146 MARYLAND MONTESSORRI 0.265533 VERITAS HS (Indp) 0.319887 MEIR 0.260628 MIL. GERMAN IMMERSION 0.315451 MIL. SPANISH IMMERSION 0.259884 21ST CENTURY PREPATORY (Indp) 0.314315 WHITMAN ELEMENTARY 0.259884 MEIR 0.313533 CENTRAL CITY CYBER (Indp) 0.259209 SEEDS OF HEALTH ELEMENTARY (Indp) 0.310309 HAPA-AMERICAN PEACE ACAD. (Non-Instr) 0.253931 HAPA-AMERICAN PEACE ACAD. (Non-Instr) 0.301613 WHITTIER ELEMENTARY (Instr) 0.251335 HONEY CREEK ELEMENTARY (Instr) 0.298725 MIL. COLLEGE PREPATORY -36TH ST (Indp) 0.248899 WHITTIER ELEMENTARY (Instr) 0.297498 HONEY CREEK ELEMENTARY (Instr) 0.242647 KING INTERNATIONAL 0.296689 CURTIN ELEMENTARY 0.236363 BURDICK ELEMENTARY 0.296282 COOPER ELEMENTARY 0.22732 MIL. FRENCH IMMERSION 0.295415 ACAD. OF ACCELERATED LEARNING 0.225368 ROCKETSHIP SOUTHSIDE COMMUNITY PREP (Indp) 0.29485 HUMBOLDT PARK ELEMENTARY 0.224421 CENTRAL CITY CYBER (Indp) 0.293941 MIL. COLLEGE PREP -38TH ST (Non-Instr) 0.219764 FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY 0.292991 LOWELL ELEMENTARY 0.219277 MIL. SPANISH IMMERSION 0.292369 WEDGEWOOD PARK 0.213762 CLEMENT AVENUE ELEMENTARY 0.292369 FAIRVIEW ELEMENTARY 0.208498 COOPER ELEMENTARY 0.289933 FERNWOOD MONTESSORI 0.208219
Page 2 and 3: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background: Not a
Page 4 and 5: 2. The most inefficient schools wit
Page 6 and 7: I. Introduction Although the public
Page 8 and 9: All charter schools in Milwaukee ar
Page 10 and 11: schools. These coefficient estimate
Page 12 and 13: These results are supportive of our
Page 14 and 15: Table 4. Effect of School Type and
Page 16 and 17: IV. Limitations A few limitations o
Page 20 and 21: TENOR HS (Indp) 0.287191 IDEAL (Ins
Page 22 and 23: BUSINESS AND ECON ACAD OF MIL. (Non
Page 24 and 25: WHS INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 0.167557
Page 26 and 27: VIEAU ELEMENTARY 0.24841 MIL. ACADE
Page 28: METCALF ELEMENTARY 0.192206 TOWSEND

differences autonomy included “efficiency” outcomes better generate

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?