A report card on how well charter schools are performing in Fresno

Happy students and enthusiastic parents support their charter schools in Fresno, but are these public schools the new pathways to student success?

Since the passage of the law authorizing charter schools in 1992, the charter landscape in Fresno has been fluid. There were 37 charter schools operating in Fresno County in 2016-17 when the League of Women Voters of Fresno gathered information for our status report on local charter schools; 17 that we focused on were operating within the boundaries of Fresno Unified. Twelve within the FUSD boundaries had previously closed. At least two more have opened since we finished our data collection, while one more closed. Several of the charter schools have expanded in the form of satellite “resource centers.”

As of 2016-17 (the latest consistent data available) the 17 local schools that we studied enrolled more than 7,000 students and received more than $65 million in state revenue — a large investment of children and resources. Only eight of the 17 schools operating within Fresno Unified are actually authorized and overseen by Fresno Unified. The others are chartered by small outlying districts or the Fresno County Office of Education.

The schools represent a range of structures — two virtual schools (one closed during the course of our study), five independent study schools that have actual physical settings, eight seat-based and two that blend independent study with seat-based programs. Most, but not all, of the schools that serve elementary grades are seat-based; and most of the schools that provide independent study serve high school grade students, many of whom had difficulty in their comprehensive high schools. All of the schools, including the independent study and virtual options, are funded on the same basis as seat-based, full day public schools.

The schools vary considerably in their enrollments and their curricula. On average, their students look like their peers in Fresno Unified — a slightly larger proportion of white students and a smaller percentage each of Asian students, high need students (foster youth, English learners and students of poverty) and special education enrollees; but again, the individual schools vary. Two high achieving charter schools enroll a disproportionately high number of white students and have many fewer high need students — a situation typical of “choice” school programs. Parents more familiar with education options and aggressive in pursuing those options (often white and higher income parents) tend to flock to high achieving schools.

Excluding the two notable high achievement schools, the outcome measures for these schools are not exceptional in the proportion of students reaching proficiency levels in English language or math nor in graduation rates. Achievement levels in math and English language arts are generally lower than in FUSD. Dropout rates are very high, while graduation rates are low among the independent study, independent study/seat-based blends and virtual schools, perhaps expected given the difficulties that lead their students to leave the regular public schools. Yet even in comparison with J.E. Young, Fresno Unified’s independent study alternative school, the independent study charter school graduation rates are low — ranging from 13.3 percent to 63.7 percent, with an average of 34.7 percent compared to J.E. Young’s 66.4 percent.

While students seem to be highly satisfied with their schools, and parents complain bitterly when schools are threatened with closure on the basis of poor outcomes, these schools do not suggest remarkable new pathways to student success. Like other studies of charter school options around the country, our inquiry does not suggest charters as a panacea for the difficulties faced by our nation’s students and schools.

The impetus behind the charter school movement was the prospect that they might be laboratories for innovation, yielding better outcomes that would prompt our non-charter public schools to compete and improve as well. In order to fulfill that ambition, there needs to be more accountability and transparency around these schools. The state needs to improve its regulations and training around authorizing and reauthorizing these schools, and chartering districts need to do a better job of oversight. The state and the schools need to be more transparent about their outcome data and finances, and the independent study schools especially need to strengthen their curricula and work to motivate students to stay in school and graduate.