Reducing Measurement Error to Increase the Statistical Reliability of Academic Performance Measures

As previously noted, the extent of measurable learning loss related to the COVID 19  pandemic is undeniable and requires new strategies, approaches, and thinking. Fortunately, to accelerate progress for the students who have fallen furthest behind—students with special needs and ELLs—Director Schneider of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is advocating for a widescale overhaul of education research, data collection, and analysis. Accountability data that reliably measure school performance is essential for identifying the schools that most need support. However, measurement error impacts the random differences between students’ true abilities and their test scores and thereby can impact a school’s true performance. 

 The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA, 2015) requires states to designate schools with low-performing student subgroups for Targeted Support and Improvement (TSI) or Additional Targeted Support and Improvement (ATSI). Measurement error is more likely and impactful to small districts, schools, or student subgroups, whereby random factors affecting fewer students create an outsized impact on the reported average score. Ensuring the reliability of school performance measures is incumbent upon state and local education agencies that must identify and provide support to the districts, schools, and students that need it.

Bayesian Interpretation of Estimates (BASIE) is an innovative framework for using an evidence-based Bayesian approach to interpret traditional impact estimates (Deke, Finucane, & Thal, 2022). Using the BASIE framework, a study of how the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) identifies its schools for TSI and ATSI used Bayesian stabilization to improve the reliability of subgroup proficiency measures. The Regional Education Laboratory Mid-Atlantic study team (Farrow, Starling, & Gill, 2023) applied two statistical models to subgroup-specific proficiency rates. One model aligned with PDE’s accountability rules for ATSI.  The other model aligned with rules for TSI. To assess whether stabilization increased the statistical reliability, the results of the stabilization models were then compared with the un-stabilized proficiency rates that are currently used in accountability calculations.

 A goal of statistical analysis should be is to reduce measurement error and thereby increase the statistical reliability of academic performance measures.  Therefore, the BASIE framework shows promise.  In the 2023 study, Bayesian stabilization improved statistical reliability, showing similar variation across subgroup sizes, indicating more reliable results by reflecting less measurement error. Therefore, as the Regional Education Laboratory Mid-Atlantic study team concluded, utilization of Bayesian stabilization could allow for inclusion of subgroup sizes under 20 because stabilization showed proficiency rates for subgroups with 10–19 students varied less than un-stabilized proficiency rates for subgroups with 20–29 students.

 The 2023 Regional Education Laboratory Mid-Atlantic study suggests that stabilized data using an evidence-based Bayesian approach to interpret traditional impact estimates meets the current reliability requirements. More studies should further test this hypothesis. Improving the reliability of proficiency rates will absolutely benefit interpretation of subgroup proficiency measures and thereby optimize the identification of schools that most need support.

 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (February 28, 2023). Reducing measurement error to increase the statistical

            reliability of academic performance measures. [Web log post] Retrieved from

            http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

 

References

Anderson, C.J. (July 31, 2021). Generalizing virtual strategies that worked and planning for

accelerated learning. [Web log post] Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

 

Anderson, C.J. (January 31, 2023). Understanding the Needs of Struggling Learners 

            in Relation to Post COVID Accelerated Learning Goals. [Web log post] Retrieved from

            http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

Deke, J., Finucane, M., Thal, D. (2022) The BASIE (BAyeSian Interpretation of Estimates)

            framework for interpreting findings from impact evaluations: A practical guide for

            education researchers. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education

            Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance

 

Farrow, L. Starling, J. & Gill B. (2023). Stabilizing subgroup proficiency results to improve the

             identification of low-performing schools. Regional Education Laboratory (REL)

            Mid-Atlantic study team. Retrieved from

            https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/rel/Products/Publication/106926

 

Will Teacher Accountability Initiatives Improve Student Learning?

 Educational practices are now very different compared to a generation ago.  During the last decade of the twentieth century the standards-based movement and education reform efforts utilized the diverse research that followed the publication of “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform” (1983) to advance educational reform.  Undoubtedly, accountability now provides the single greatest variable to planning for effective and sustained educational reform efforts.  Depending on its acceptance of the concept of multiple levels of accountability, a struggling school’s staff might willingly utilize data to adjust or remain mired in the inertia of ineffective systemic and personal practices. 
      Ideally, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on results of accountability measures allow data to guide instructional decisions.  However, effective monitoring and analysis of data depends on how well educational leaders are able to guide the process.  The continuous improvement process in education should develop a building-wide culture whereby all systems, processes, strategies, and actions define “how we do things around here”(Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p. 141).  Without a clear and focused mission of learning being guided by strong instructional leadership, the interdependent implementation of all seven of the correlates of Effective Schools Research, progress is adversely impacted.

  As suggested, frequent monitoring, analysis, and adjustment based on disaggregated accountability data should provide the impetus for discussing improvement of instruction as grounded in the seven correlates of Effective Schools:

·         Safe and Orderly Environment

·         Clear and Focused Mission

·         Climate of High Expectations for Success

·         Opportunity to Learn & Student Time on Task

·         Frequent Monitoring of Student Progress

·         Positive Home-School Relations

·         Strong Instructional Leadership

Based on empirical evidence grounded in research and documented best practices, when seeking school improvement it is prudent to implement the correlates for Effective Schools.  Disaggregated data helps “the district, its schools, and its teachers to evaluate their effectiveness” (Davenport & Anderson, 2002, p. 62).  Given the interdependency of the seven correlates, an effective, strong school leader approaches the correlates with the view of implementing them all at once. 

Accountability requirements within legislation such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2002) and IDEA (2004) created the impetus for sustained change efforts of schools.  However, poor communication during the implementation of more stringent accountability requirements often resulted in the fear of failure becoming the single most powerful force of change working within an educational community.  Too often, this fear of failure paralyzed leadership around the trailing indicators for change (assessments) rather than mobilizing them to trust implementation of interdependent leading indicators (correlates of Effective Schools Research).  This situation exacerbates the tail wagging the dog. 

Rather than promoting success of new initiatives through the question, “are we doing the right thing?” fear of failure resulted in ineffective “Learn or Else” approaches that resulted in further implementation of fragmented policies based on the persistent question, “are we doing it right?”  A positive aspect of NCLB and IDEA accountability requirements was the emergence of professional learning communities (PLC), which addressed the need to develop a systemic culture of continuous improvement promoting learning (DuFour, DuFour, & Eaker, 2008).  Marzano and Waters (2009) believe, a PLC “suggests a group of people sharing and critically interrogating their practice in an ongoing, reflective, collaborative, inclusive, learning oriented, growth-promoting way; operating as a collective enterprise” (p. 56). 

Ineffective school leaders disrupt productive PLC processes by failing to invite teacher leaders to become agents of change.  Instead, these ineffective school leaders dwell in the problems by instilling culture fearful of failure.  Schools that spend a lot of time talking about teaching to the test are examples of systems locked into the inertia of problem-driven cultures. 

Staff perception is a very important variable in the success of any initiative.  Depending upon a leader’s selected approach to implementation of accountability measures, the perceived consequences implied within the approach has the power to create either a positive or a negative reaction.  Therefore, the effective leader needs to provide a clear vision that strikes a positive emotional chord with staff (Reason, 2010). 

Lezotte and Snyder (2011) reinforce the most significant feature common to world-class schools “was their continual effort toward becoming “learning organizations with a commitment to continuous problem-solving and a sense of shared responsibility for improvement” (p. 67).  A consistent exhibition of vision toward a clear mission, commitment to learning for all, and shared responsibility for success certainly appears to be minimal requirements to promote an effective school culture.  Development of an inclusive, inviting culture requires an emotionally intelligent leader willing to embrace collaboration rather than reliance upon fear or intimidation as the impetus to change.  An obvious result of an inclusive, inviting, approach is improved organizational culture resulting from greater consistency and reduced staff turnover (Austin & Harkins, 2008).  

During the twelve years of NCLB implementation, diverse stakeholders have critiqued the role of teachers in educational reform.  Regardless of philosophical debates, it has become clear that to some substantial level, teachers are accountable for student results.  With increased accountability comes various schemes intended to optimize results. 

Boulding (1989) identified three kinds of motivating power: stick power, carrot power, and hug power, which are further described whereby stick power is the power derived from threats, carrot power is the power derived from provision of incentives, and hug power is the result of two or more individuals joining together based on a shared vision and values.  Apparently, the joy of good teaching, the opportunity to shape young minds, or helping to change destinies is not enough incentive to promote great teaching. 

The Brazosport case study (Davenport & Anderson, 2002) exemplified “hug power” as an effective form of motivation.  Brazosport achieved "learning for all" and accomplished reform.  A good set of processes joined with the right motivation to create sustained success.  

As cited by Marzano and Waters (2009), a Borman, Hewes, Overman, and Brown study (2003) regarding the implementation of comprehensive school reform (CSR) models, found “the effect size for comprehensive interventions rose over time and suggest that it might take longer than a decade for the effects of a CSR model to stabilize.  CSR models are focused on individual schools” (p. 114).  Marzano and Waters rationalized a similar timeline could be anticipated for district-wide initiatives, including nonnegotiable goals for achievement and instruction.  Perhaps it is time to evaluate whether teachers believe educating children is a sufficiently cherished aspiration and defined as a non-negotiable goal. 

Effective Schools Research proves the mission of learning for all is possible regardless of misguided initiatives and unintended consequences.  Educational leaders and the community must commit to the mission.  However, as accountability increasingly focuses upon teachers in relation to student results, other motivators will be promoted rather than seeking to do the right thing, for the right reason, and doing it in the right way.   

In a February 11, 2011 article, Bybee paraphrased Diane Ravitch's claim that, "President Barack Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have formed an alliance with billionaire 'school reformers' whose agenda is to downgrade U.S. public education and blame its shortcomings on 'bad teachers'" (para 1).  While Ravitch’s description of the pursuit of teacher accountability as an effort to downgrade the US public education system is unsubstantiated, it is true that corporate reformers led by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edith Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family foundation, advocate that merit pay is a vital incentive or reward for better-performing teachers.  However, a Vanderbilt University study (2010) clearly demonstrated merit pay failed to produce higher standardized testing results. 

Nevertheless, pay for performance is becoming a popular concept for the teaching profession.  In Florida, all new teachers are annual contract teachers and forty percent of their salary will be based on student gains in learning.  Whether this carrot approach proves effective will be unknown until analysis of initial accountability data after 2014. 

Improving the quality of teachers has become a pressing issue in educational reform efforts.  The focus to improve the quality of teachers is obvious when considering Race to the Top (RTT) initiatives for supporting funded states that successfully identified and implemented plans for “recruiting, developing, rewarding, and retaining effective teachers and principals, especially where they are needed most” (USDE, 2010).  

As noted by Crowe (2011), teacher education elements of the RTT funding application were favorable to states adopting accountability measures establishing or expanding teacher preparation programs successfully producing effective teachers.  RTT required the funded states to:

·         “Link student achievement and student growth data to the teachers of these students

·         Tie this information to the in-state programs that prepare teachers

·         Publicly report the data on program effectiveness for each preparation program in the state

·         Expand teacher education programs and teacher credentialing options that are successful at producing graduates who are effective teachers” (para. 6).

Obtaining change in the overall quality of teacher education in the United States is behind RTT efforts to combine a carrot-and-stick approach.  Incentives will continue to be offered to programs that embark on serious reform efforts while stronger accountability measures will push the programs toward the desired direction.  However, is an extrinsically or intrinsically motivated teacher the better educator?  If the former, what values will be instilled as part of that teacher’s presentation of the affective domain of learning? 

To cite:

Anderson, C.J. (June 5, 2013) Will teacher accountability initiatives improve student learning?  [Web log post]

                Retrieved from http://www.ucan-cja.blogspot.com/

References:

Bybee, R. (Feb 11, 2011) Race to the bottom: Ravitch says ‘school reformers’ scapecoat

                teachers, ignore poverty.  Retrieved from http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/6939/obama_sides_with_corporate_attack_on_teachers_instead_of_new_war_on_po/

Crowe, E. (March 1, 2011) Race to the top and teacher preparation: Analyzing state strategies for ensuring real 

                 accountability and fostering program innovation. Center for American  Progress. Retrieved from http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2011/03/01/9329/race-to-the-top-and-teacher-preparation/

Davenport, P., & Anderson, G. (2002). Closing the achievement gap: No excuses. Houston, TX:

                APQC

DuFour, R., DuFour, R., & Eaker, R. (2008). Revisiting professional learning communities at

                work: New insights for improving schools. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the

                correlates. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Marzano, R. & Waters, T.(2009).  District leadership that works. Bloomington, IN: Solution

                Tree Press

Reason, C. (2010). Leading a learning organization: The science of working with others.

                Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Implementing Science-based Instruction to Promote Learning for All

Effective Schools Research identifies the following correlates are present in all cases of an effective school:

1.      Clear and focused mission

2.      Climate of high expectations

3.      Instructional leadership

4.      Opportunity to learn/student time on task

5.      Frequently monitoring student progress

6.      Safe and orderly environment

7.    Home-school relations (Lezotte, 1991)

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), reauthorized as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001), requires instructional leaders utilize strategies, approaches, and program initiatives that are scientific or research based and frequent monitoring to close identified achievement gaps.  Prospective teachers and in-service teachers both benefit from understanding the seven correlates of Effective Schools Research, which includes these two variables within an inter-connected system.  Given any system is a "network of interdependent components that work together to accomplish the aim of the system" (Deming (1993), institutes of higher education (IHE) and other teacher preparation programs should increase expectations for knowledge of systems and the ability to think systemically. 

Given the interdependency of the seven correlates of Effective Schools, school leaders must approach them with the view of implementing them all at once.  Thus, a clear and focused mission as well as strong instructional leadership is required to move the other interdependent correlates from being an ideal to effective practice.  Since Effective Schools Research demonstrates that a result of schools ignoring the interdependence among the seven correlates is slow progress, then without strong, respected instructional leadership that can help bring consensus for a clear and focused mission, confusion about how to incorporate all the correlates simultaneously would prevail.

An Effective School’s mission, grounded in the seven correlates for reform, would expect success regardless of socioeconomic status (SES) of its students.  Stakeholders would therefore need to make the interconnected seven correlates more powerful within its mission than the power of the low SES to deny opportunity.  “Effective indicates that a school, teacher, or district is doing the right job.  Based on our definition of an effective school, this term specifies that the school must attend to the twin policy pillars of quality and equity.  Effective schools research has shown that the practices among effective schools have consistently been found to be more alike than different” (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011, p 17).

Frequent monitoring for success is more than testing (Lezotte & Snyder, 2011).  States utilizing large-scale testing to make high-stakes educational decisions must ensure alignment between such tests and the state’s curricula or learning standards.  Alignment provides a fairer measure of student learning.  As states became increasingly reliant on large-scale educational assessments, experts began to explicate scientific–based guidelines for developing and implementing assessment and accountability programs (Baker, 2001).  “Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing" (1999) was jointly published by APA, the American Educational Research Association and the National Council on Measurement in Education.  Guidelines.  Forthcoming is a 2012 revision.  State test developers have since found the following standards useful:

·         Utilize tests only for their validated purpose.

·         Avoid making high-stakes decisions based on the results of only one test.

·         Align tests to the states' curriculum standards, so that teachers can prepare students to succeed.

·         Ensure tests only measure the academic domain of interest, without unwittingly emphasizing extraneous factors.

·         Adjust test sensitivity based on school quality differences.

Educational psychology links the science of psychology with educational practice and provides teachers with evidence-based knowledge to support their day-to-day decision-making in the classroom.  (Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber, 2009).  The science element of educational psychology involves formulating theories and conducting research on those theories.  All teachers should practice action research.  As both consumers of research and practitioners of research, it becomes important for pre-service and in-service teachers to understand guidelines for what constitutes reputable research.

·      Avoid using newspaper and magazine articles, as they are not research articles.

·       Avoid Internet searches using search engines, because they may not yield credible sources.

·     Find and utilize peer-reviewed articles in scholarly journals at a local university library.

·      Find and utilize peer-reviewed articles in databases such as ERIC and PSYINFO.

·      Bookmark websites of professional associations and monitor them for links to new education research.

·         American Educational Research Association (AERA)

·         American Psychological Association (APA)

·         Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) (Bohlin, Durwin, & Reese-Weber, 2009)

Since 2006, the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development (ASCD) has been actively advocating for educators, policymakers, business leaders, families, and community members to work together on a whole child approach to education.  The whole child approach to learning, teaching, and community engagement has been grounded in the belief that “each child, in each school, in each of our communities deserves to be healthy, safe, engaged, supported, and challenged” (ASCD, 2010).  These fundamental tenets have long been seen as essential for ensuring students become college-, career-, and citizenship-ready, a desired outcome of the Effective Schools Movement.

In order to effectively lead a school using a whole child approach to education, a principal needs to be “visionary; effective instructional leaders; active learners; and influencers within their staff and the community” (ASCD, 2010).  As can be expected, the Whole Child Approach to education promotes policies and practices aligned to support the whole child.  This requires a change in how adults currently work together to educate children.  Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) have emerged as perhaps the best, most agreed upon means of continual improvement in instruction and student performance.  PLCs are evidenced in a single school or online.  Models include study groups, action research teams, communities of practice, or conversation circles.  The essential focus of any PLC is for educators to work together, with a shared focus on learning and accountability to help all students learn at high levels.

Just as public schools needed to establish metrics for accountability of their teaching and learning mission, so too would institutes of higher education (IHE) and teacher preparation programs need to establish better metrics for measuring the competencies of their graduates, including knowledge of systems and ability to think systemically.  To address this, IHE and other teacher preparation programs must recognize the aim for graduating “instruments of systems change” rather than merely preparing individuals to administer curriculum.  Basile and Nathenson-Mejía (2003) suggests the process for problem-based learning creates a healthy environment for reflection, discussion, and problem solving.  Their study illustrates how teacher candidates move from micro-reflection to self-reflection to macro-reflection resulting from a year-long engagement in a teacher education program within a professional development school.  Implications from their study suggest that problem-based learning is a valid process for the enculturation of teacher candidates to schools and to the profession of teaching.

References:

Bohlin, L., Durwin, C., & Reese-Weber, M. (2009). Ed Psych: Modules. NY: McGraw-Hill.

Lezotte, L. W. (1991) Correlates of Effective Schools: The First and Second Generation.

            http://www.effectiveschools.com/images/stories/escorrelates.pdf

Lezotte, L. W., & Snyder, K. M. (2011). What effective schools do: Re-envisioning the correlates. 

            Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.

Schmoker, J, (1999) The Key to Continuous School Improvement (2nd edition) ASCD

Time to Prioritize: Educational Values Compared to Unlimited Texting and 57 TV Channels

In an age of questionable priorities should anyone be amazed that Colorado school districts excessing 20% of its teaching staff does not result in public outrage?  Massachusetts experienced similar cuts in teaching staffs during the 1990-91 economic recession.  Given such layoffs, would anyone question the exacerbation of the opportunity gap created by school budgets reliant on property taxes?

Related to educational values, should there be more outrage over what is happening in your district?  If you are satisfied with the level of layoffs in teaching and support staff, does the outrage then need to center on having too many staff for too long?  By contrast, do layoffs to teaching and support staff cause you to question how your school district will implement effective instruction?  In either case, should there by outrage focused upon forcing children's education to be victimized by politics?  Perception in the debate means a great deal.  This is why core educational values need to be reinforced and held accountable by measurable goals.  

It is a fact that we live in an age in which Consumer Reports identifies the average family paying $1800 annually for cell phone service and CNN reports many families spending $1200 per year for cable television.  Yet, people complain about property taxes being too high despite property taxes being the most common source of revenue for public education.  Is it ethical for local political leaders to focus constituent outrage on property taxes without focusing on how school funding is reliant upon this revenue stream?

We are spending hundreds of millions of dollars nationally to assess student progress, or lack thereof.  Given the wide disparity in average state expenditure per pupil, there is room for accountability in the debate referenced above.  For instance, in the 2003-04 school year, state's per-student expenditures ranged from a high of $13,338 in New Jersey to a low of $4,991 in Utah.  If New Jersey students were rated in the middle of the pack on NAEP testing would New Jersey residents have a legitimate complaint about the use of their taxes for school revenues?  By contrast, if Utah residents saw their students' NAEP scores merely average compared to other states on the NAEP list of scores, would anyone be surprised?  Unfortunately, the latter is more consistently true than the former, which should be supportive data for proponents of increasing public revenues for public education. 

Where does accountability fit into the funding debate considering ethical public education is evidenced by equity in quality (Ravitch, 2011)?  Lips (2006) suggests "we won't see widespread improvements in American education until we as taxpayers begin to recognize the costs of the current American education system and demand something better" (para. 12).  Do you believe it is important for all educational institutions to have measurable systemic and educational goals that are based on a "learning for all" mission grounded in a clear vision illiminated by solid ethics?  Will explication of the seven correlates for Effective Schools help all Americans become more willing to pay for a world-class public education?  Is this the next level of communication necessary to hold each other accountable for educational results beyond AYP test scores?    

Appropriate Disaggregation of Student Performance Data Increases Learning for All

The use of data for school reform is well explicated in Effective Schools research.  Researching this correlate, Bambrick-Santoyo (2008) found given “the proper interplay among interim assessments, analysis, action and data-driven culture, schools can be transformed, and a new standard can be set for student learning” (p. 46).  As a result of using data-driven instruction teacher buy-in is actually created. 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requirements advanced the use of disaggregated data as a powerful motivator for change and school improvement.  In a 2008 press release, then USDE Secretary Spellings noted, disaggregation data is especially important for closing the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their peers.  Spellings contended, “the more information consumers have, the better equipped they are to demand, and achieve, lasting school improvement. And the more information teachers have, the better able they are to customize and improve instruction” (April 2008).

While the NCLB included benefits to students with disabilities (SWD) it also created some barriers that might prevent students with disabilities from enjoying all of the opportunities in the law.  While NCLB requires schools, school districts, and states disaggregate test results for several subgroups of students in an effort to increase the accountability of at-risk groups of students and thereby close the achievement gap.  Students with disabilities are one of the subgroups that must be disaggregated.  NCLB allows states to set a minimum number of students that each subgroup must contain before the data for that particular subgroup can be used for purposes of determining achievement.  Cortiella (2010) notes “the minimum number of students in each subgroup is to be based on what would be sufficient to yield statistically reliable information as well as to make sure that disclosing the results for a particular small subgroup would not, in fact, result in revealing the identity of the students in that subgroup” (para 9). 

A possible unintended consequence of allowing flexibility in SWD subgroup size is that public reporting of any subgroup’s performance is intended to highlight achievement gaps and thereby motivate schools to improve when necessary.  However, schools can escape scrutiny because of subgroup size that may not focus the same level of effort on students whose results aren't reported on the school or district level due to subgroup size.  These schools and districts can avoid a "needs improvement" rating under NCLB if the SWD subgroup size doesn't meet the state minimum.  Therefore, Cortiella (2010) finds “this provision could result in schools attempting to limit the number of students with learning difficulties it qualifies for special education services” (para 10).  For this reason, as an ethical and moral imperative, the appropriate use of disaggregated data must be required and ensured to truly promote learning for all.

References:

Bambrick-Santoyo, P. (2007). Data in the driver's seat. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 43-46.
Cortiella, C. (2010)  No Child Left Behind and Students With Learning Disabilities:
            Opportunities and Obstacles
Spelling. M, (2008) U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings Announces Department Will
Move to a Uniform Graduation Rate, Require Disaggregation of Data. 

What Are Charter Schools?

President Obama has called upon states to encourage the expansion of charter schools. The Obama administration believes a network of innovative and high-achieving charter schools can be an important part of a state's school reform effort. The consideration of each state's application for federal "Race to the Top" funds is clearly linked to that state's acceptance and promotion of charter schools. Therefore, as the Department of Education begins accepting state applications for the federal government's largest one-time investment in K-12 public school reform, a better understanding of charter schools is apropos. By the end of the year, the department will be distributing grants from the $4.35 billion Race to the Top Fund. Additionally, $1.5 billion in Title I School Improvement Program funds will be made available to improve teaching and learning for all children.
Charter schools are part of the public education system. They are not allowed to charge tuition. They provide an alternative to other public schools. When enrollment in a charter school is over subscribed, admission is frequently allocated by lottery-based admissions. Charter schools can be primary or secondary schools and receive public money. Charter school funding is dictated by the state. In many states, charter schools are funded by transferring per-pupil state aid from the school district where the charter school student resides. The Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Part B, Sections 502–511 also authorize funding grants for charter schools. Additionally, charter schools, like other public schools, may receive funding from private donors or foundations. A charter school funding study (2008) in all 40 charter states and the District of Columbia found that charter students are funded on average at 61 cents compared to every dollar for their district peers, with charter funding averaging $6,585 per pupil compared to $10,771 per pupil at conventional district public schools. While some proponents believe this funding difference is mitigated through efficient budgeting and accountability, lower teacher and administrative salaries at charter schools compared to conventional district public schools are usually evident.
In exchange for additional accountability for producing academic results, as established by each school's charter, a charter school is not subject to some of the rules, regulations, and statutes that apply to other public schools. Two principles guide charter schools:
First, through waivers from many of the procedural requirements of district public schools, a charter school will operate as autonomous public schools. Autonomy can be critically important for creating a school culture that maximizes student motivation by emphasizing high expectations, academic rigor, discipline, and relationships with caring adults.
Second, charter schools must be accountable for student achievement. To date, of the over 5000 charter schools founded in the United States, 12.5% have closed due to academic, financial, managerial problems, consolidation, or district interference.
The rules and structure of charter schools depend on each state's authorizing legislation and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter. The school's charter is a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and explicates how success is measured. The length of time whereby charters are granted may vary by state but most are granted for 3–5 years. Charter schools are held accountable to their "sponsor." A sponsor may be either a local school board, state education agency, university, corporation, or other entity. The accountability is intended to produce and prove positive academic results while adhering to the charter (contract).
While stronger accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, initial research by the United States Department of Education (1997) suggests that, in practice, charter schools were not held to higher standards of accountability compared to traditional public schools. However, by comparison, "underperforming public schools" closed due to students' poor academic results are much less compared to charter schools and are often allowed to remain open, perhaps with new leadership or restructuring, or perhaps with no change at all. Proponents of charter schools assert that charter schools are not given the opportunities to restructure often and are simply closed down when students perform poorly on academic assessments.
On June 8, 2010; U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan emphasized the need for additional effective education entrepreneurs to join the work of reforming America's lowest performing public schools, noting states must be open to charter schools. Each state's pursuit of federal "Race to the Top" funds are clearly linked to its openess toward charter schools. The stakes are too high for states financially and for students academically to restrict choice and innovation.

"States that do not have public charter laws or put artificial caps on the
growth of charter schools will jeopardize their applications under the Race
to the Top Fund... To be clear, this administration is not looking to open
unregulated and unaccountable schools. We want real autonomy for charters
combined with a rigorous authorization process and high performance
standards...I am advocating for using whatever models work for students, and
particularly where improvements have stagnated for years... We cannot
continue to do that same thing and expect different results. We cannot let
another generation of children be deprived of their civil right to a quality
education." (Duncan, 2010)