Charter students' math disadvantage is concentrated in the first two growth periods, with performance similar to VCR peers by 2016-2017¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2024: baselines and conditions change
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q2 i? Charter students performed significantly worse in math in the 2014-2015 (about 53 fewer days) and 2015-2016 (about 30 fewer days) growth periods, but similarly in the 2016-2017 period; reading was similar in all periods. → Center for Research on Education Outcomes 2019
Evidence¶
Center for Research on Education Outcomes 2019¶
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2019). Charter School Performance in Pennsylvania. Stanford University. https://credo.stanford.edu/reports/item/charter-school-performance-in-pennsylvania-2/
q2 · i? · causal · r2
Figure 5 analysis of learning gains by growth period (2014-2015 to 2016-2017) against TPS VCR peers. The report finds charter students "perform significantly worse in the first two growth periods" in math, with approximately 53 and 30 fewer days of learning, and similar performance in the final period. No standardized effect size is printed.
"charter school students perform significantly worse in the first two growth periods. In the 2014-2015 growth period, students attending charter schools experienced approximately 53 fewer days of learning in math, while in the 2015-2016 growth period"
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Idaho charter reading advantage appears only in the 2016-2017 growth period, not in 2015-2016 — reports the opposite
- Charter math disadvantage varies across growth periods and narrows over time, with no significant math difference in 2017-18 — reports the opposite
- Pennsylvania charter school students show similar reading growth but weaker math growth (about 30 fewer days of learning) than matched TPS peers — related
- Charter students in poverty show similar reading growth but significantly weaker math growth (about 18 fewer days) than their TPS peers in poverty — related
- South Carolina charter students show similar reading growth but weaker math growth than traditional public school peers, with a math disadvantage of 53 fewer days of learning per year — related
- Charter learning gains in each of the three growth periods do not differ statistically from TPS peers — reports the opposite
- Charter school quality varies greatly, and virtual charters perform significantly worse, while charters often increase segregation and underrepresent students with disabilities — related
- First- and second-year Idaho charter students show growth not statistically different from their TPS VCRs — reports the opposite
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
pa-charter-math-gap-varies-by-growth-period |
title |
Charter students' math disadvantage is concentrated in the first two growth periods, with performance similar to VCR peers by 2016-2017 |
description |
Charter students' math disadvantage is concentrated in the first two growth periods, with performance similar to VCR peers by 2016-2017 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2019 |
recheck_by |
2024 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-08 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — center-for-research-on-education-outcomes-2019 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.