Central to the debate over school choice has been the question of how public schools respond to market-based competition. Many choice advocates suggest that competition can spur public schools to become more effective and efficient, but the evidence regarding the effect of competition from charters is comparably sparse and mixed. This article contributes to that literature by examining the relationship between competition, in the form of charter schools, and public school district effectiveness and technical efficiency. The investigation uses stochastic frontier analysis to analyze 6 years of statewide data in Colorado. Results indicate that charter competition appears to spur greater achievement in public schools but not greater efficiency.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdkinsL. C., & MoomawR. L. (2005). Determinants of technical efficiency in Oklahoma schools: A stochastic frontier analysis. Retrieved June 7, 2008, from http://economy.okstate.edu/papers/school3.pdf
2.
AlexanderC. D., BoyerH., BrownsonA. B., ClarkC., JenningsJ., & PatrickE. S. (2000). Resource allocation practices and student achievement: An examination of district expenditures by performance level with interviews from twenty-one districts.Austin: University of Texas, Charles A. Dana Center.
ArmorD. J., & PeiserB. M. (1998). Interdistrict choice in Massachusetts. In PetersonP., & HasselB. (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 57–86). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
5.
BettingerE. (2005). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools.Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 33–47.
6.
BifulcoR., & LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina.Education Finance and Policy, 1, 50–89.
7.
BohteJ. (2004). Examining the impact of charter schools on performance in traditional public schools.Policy Studies Journal, 32(4), 501–520.
8.
BookerK., GilpatricS. M., GronbergT., & JansenD. (2005). The effect of charter schools on traditional public schools.New York: National Center for the Study for the Privatization in Education.
9.
BookerK., GilpatricS. M., GronbergT., & JansenD. (2008). The effect of charter schools on traditional public school students in Texas: Are children who stay behind left behind?Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 23–45.
10.
BrowningM. (2000). A critical analysis of charter schools.Equity & Excellence in Education, 33(2), 6–23.
11.
BrykA. S., SebringP. B., KerbowD., RollowS., & EastonJ. Q. (1998). Charting Chicago school reform.Boulder, CO: Westview.
12.
BuddinR., & ZimmerR. (2005). Student achievement in charter schools: A complex picture.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 35–37.
13.
CarnoyM., JacobsenR., MishelL., & RothsteinR. (2005). The charter school dust-up.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press.
14.
CarpenterD. M. (2010a, May). Exploring the competitive effects of charter schools. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Denver, CO.
15.
CarpenterD. M. (2010b, January). Measuring charter school efficiency in Hawaii: An early appraisal. Paper presented at the Hawaii International Conference on Education, Honolulu, HI.
16.
CarpenterD. M. (2006). Modeling the charter school landscape.Journal of School Choice, 1, 47–82.
17.
CarpenterD. M., & KaferK. (2009). The state of charter schools in Colorado, 2008– 2009.Denver: Colorado Department of Education.
18.
CarpenterD. M., & NollerS. (2010). Measuring charter school efficiency: An early appraisal.Journal of Education Finance, 35(4), 398–416.
19.
CarrM., & RitterG. (2007). Measuring the competitive effect of charter schools on student achievement in Ohio's traditional public schools.New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
20.
CoelliT. J. (1996). Frontier (Version 4) [Computer program].Brisbane, Australia: Centre for Efficiency and Productivity Analysis.
21.
CoelliT. J., RaoD. S. P., O'DonnellC. J., & BatteseG. E. (2005). An introduction to efficiency and productivity analysis (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
22.
CondronD. J., & RoscignoV. J. (2003). Disparities within: Unequal spending and achievement in an urban school district.Sociology of Education, 76, 18–36.
23.
CoonsJ. (1998). On school and school choice.Social Science Quarterly, 79(3), 533–540.
24.
CramptonF. E. (1991). The measurement of efficiency and equity in Oregon school finance: The beginning stages.Journal of Education Finance, 6, 348–359.
ElliotK., & SammonsP. (2004). Exploring the use of effect sizes to evaluate the impact of different influences on child outcomes: Possibilities and limitations. In SchagenI., & ElliotK. (Eds.), But what does it mean? The use of effect sizes in educational research (pp. 6–7). Upton Park, UK: National Foundation for Educational Research.
27.
ElmoreR. F. (1997). The paradox of innovation in education: Cycles of reform and the resilience of teaching. In AltshulerA., & BehnR. (Eds.), Innovation in American government (pp. 246–273). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
28.
FinniganK., AdelmanN., AndersonL., CottonL., DonnellyM. B., & PriceT. (2004). Evaluation of the public charter schools program: Final report.Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
29.
FriedmanM. (1962). Capitalism and freedom.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
30.
GoldsteinA. (2005). America's charter schools.Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
31.
GreeneJ., ForsterG., & WintersM. (2003). Apples to apples: An evaluation of charter schools serving general student populations.New York: Manhattan Institute.
32.
GreeneJ. P., PetersonP. E., & DuJ. (1999). Effectiveness of school choice.Education & Urban Society, 3(2), 90–124.
33.
GronbergT., & JansenD. W. (2001). Navigating newly chartered waters: An analysis of Texas charter school performance. Retrieved November 22, 2004, from http://www.tppf.org/education/nncw/toc.html
34.
GrosskopfS., HayesK. J., TaylorL. L., & WeberW. L. (1997). Budget-constrained frontier measures of fiscal equality and efficiency in schooling.Review of Economics and Statistics, 79, 116–124.
35.
HallJ. (2007). Local school finance and productive efficiency: Evidence from Ohio.Atlantic Economic Journal, 35, 289–301.
36.
HanushekE. A. (1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools.Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141–1177.
37.
HasselB. C. (1999). The charter school challenge: Avoiding the pitfalls, fulfilling the promise.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
38.
HessF., MarantoR., & MillimanS. (2001a). Coping with competition: The impact of charter schooling on public school outreach in Arizona.Policy Studies Journal, 29, 388–404.
39.
HessF., MarantoR., & MillimanS. (2001b). Small districts in big trouble: How four Arizona school systems responded to charter competition.Teachers College Record, 103, 102–124.
40.
HolmesG. M., DeSimoneJ., & RuppN. G. (2003). Does school choice increase school quality?Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
41.
HoxbyC. (2003). School choice and school productivity: Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats? In HoxbyC. M. (Ed.), The economics of school choice (pp. 287–34). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
KumbhakarS. C., & LovellC. A. K. (2000). Stochastic frontier analysis.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
LadnerM., & BrouilletteM. J. (2000). The impact of limited school choice on public school districts.Midland, MI: Mackinac Center for Public Policy.
47.
LakeR. J. (2010). Achieving the ripple effect: How can charters prompt district improvement. In LakeR. J. (Ed.), Hopes, fears, and reality: A balanced look at American charter schools in 2009 (pp. 49–58). Bothell, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.
48.
LubienskiC. (2006). Incentives for school diversification: Competition and promotional patterns in local education markets.Journal of School Choice, 1, 1–31.
49.
MarantoR., & GreshamA. (2001). The wild west of education reform. In MarantoR., MillmanS., HessF., & GreshamA. (Eds.), School choice in the real world: Lessons from Arizona charter schools (pp. 99–114). Boulder, CO: Westview.
50.
MarantoR., MillimanS., & HessF. (2001). How traditional public schools respond to competition: The mitigating role of organizational culture.Journal of School Choice, 4(2), 131–136.
51.
MerrifieldJ. (2005). Specialization in a competitive education industry: Areas and impacts.Cato Journal, 25(2), 317–335.
52.
MerrifieldJ. (2006). Charter laws: Disaster, detour, irrelevant, or reform tool?Journal of School Choice, 1, 3–22.
53.
MironG., & HornJ. (2002). Evaluation of Connecticut charter schools and the charter school initiative.Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.
54.
MironG., & NelsonC. (2000). Autonomy in exchange for accountability: An initial study of Pennsylvania charter schools. Retrieved November 22, 2004, from http://wwwwmich.edu/evalctr/charter/pa_reports/
55.
MironG., & NelsonC. (2002). What's public about charter schools: Lessons learned about choice and accountability.Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
56.
MonkD. H. (1981). Toward a multilevel perspective on the allocation of educational resources.Review of Educational Research, 5(2), 215–236.
NiY. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan.Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571–584.
59.
NorquistJ. O. (1998). The wealth of cities: Revitalizing the centers of American life.Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
60.
PalardyJ., & NesbitT. (2007). Traditional public schools versus charter schools: A comparison of technical efficiency.Economics Bulletin, 9(9), 1–10.
61.
RamlerS. (2001). New Zealand's bold move.Independent School, 60(2), 92–97.
62.
RiceJ. K. (2004). Equity and efficiency in school finance reform: Competing or complementary goods?Peabody Journal of Education, 79(2), 34–51.
TeskeP., SchneiderM., BuckleyJ., & ClarkS. (2000a). Does charter school competition improve public schools?New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
70.
TeskeP., SchneiderM., ClarkS., & BuckleyS. P. (2000b, March). Does competition from charter schools leverage change in traditional public school systems? A tale of five cities. Paper presented at the Conference on Charter Schools, Vouchers, and Public Education, Kennedy School of Government, Cambridge, MA.
71.
WellsA. S. (1998a). Beyond the rhetoric of charter school reform: A study of ten California school districts.Los Angeles: University of California.
72.
WellsA. S. (1998b, December). Charter school reform in California.Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 305–313.
73.
WenglinskyH. (1998). Finance equalization and within-school equity: The relationship between education spending and the social distribution of achievement.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 269–283.
74.
WilsonJ. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it.New York: Basic Books.
75.
ZimmerR., & BuddinR. (2009). Is charter school competition in California improving the performance of traditional public schools?Public Administration Review, 69(5), 831–845.
