Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts. Updated Edition
Furgeson, Joshua; Gill, Brian; Haimson, Joshua; Killewald, Alexandra; McCullough, Moira; Nichols-Barrer, Ira; Verbitsky-Savitz, Natalya; Teh, Bing-ru; Bowen, Melissa; Demeritt, Allison; Hill, Paul; Lake, Robin (2012). Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED528536
-
examining343,832Students, grades7-12
Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts. Updated Edition
Review Details
Reviewed: August 2012
- Single Study Review (340 KB) (findings for Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs))
- Quasi-Experimental Design
- Meets WWC standards with reservations
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Absence of conflict of interest: This study was conducted by staff from Mathematica Policy Research. Therefore, Mathematica reviewers were not involved in the WWC review of this study.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Post-secondary enrollment (%) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
4 years following first semester of ninth grade |
High school students;
|
42.00 |
29.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
High school graduation (%) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
4 years after beginning ninth grade |
High school students;
|
69.00 |
62.00 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 3 years of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 2 years of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
0.17 |
0.06 |
No |
-- | |
|
Statewide mathematics assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 1 year of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Statewide reading assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 3 years of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Statewide reading assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 2 years of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
0.11 |
0.08 |
No |
-- | |
|
Statewide reading assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 1 year of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Statewide science assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
3 years after intervention |
Middle school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Statewide social studies assessments (z-score) |
Non-Profit Charter School Management Organizations (CMOs) vs. Non-CMO public middle schools |
after 3 years of intervention |
Middle school students;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Rural, Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Midwest, Northeast, South, West
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).