WWC review of this study

Charter-school management organizations: Diverse strategies and diverse student impacts.

Furgeson, J., Gill, B., Haimson, J., Killewald, A., McCullough, M., Nichols-Barrer, I., . . . Lake, R. (2012). Report prepared by Mathematica Policy Research and the University of Washington’s Center on Reinventing Public Education. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED528536

  • Quasi-Experimental Design
     examining 
    343,832
     Students
    , grades
    7-12

Reviewed: August 2012

No statistically significant positive
findings
Meets WWC standards with reservations
Access and enrollment outcomes—Substantively important positive effects found
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;
28,010 students

42.00

29.00

No

--
Completing school outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
35,961 students

69.00

62.00

No

--
General Mathematics Achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
126,797 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

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;
250,924 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;
339,902 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Reading achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
168,076 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
More Outcomes

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;
256,620 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;
343,832 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Science achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
75,924 students

N/A

N/A

No

--
Social studies achievement outcomes—Indeterminate effects found
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;
73,280 students

N/A

N/A

No

--

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
    • x
    • w
    • y

    Midwest, Northeast, South, West
 

Your export should download shortly as a zip archive.

This download will include data files for study and findings review data and a data dictionary.

Connect With the WWC

loading
back to top