<%BANNER%>

Faculty Composition and Student Achievement in Charter Schools

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024757/00001

Material Information

Title: Faculty Composition and Student Achievement in Charter Schools
Physical Description: 1 online resource (131 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Carruthers, Celeste
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: charter, economics, education, experience, mobility, public, quality, school, segregation, teachers
Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Economics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Charter schools are independent public schools, free from many of the regulations facing mainstream public schools. They are competitive entrants in partially deregulated education markets. Charter schools offer students and their families more choice in publicly funded education, and they offer teachers more choice in their careers. Studies examining the effectiveness of charter schools per se are abundant, but less is known about the qualifications and instructional effectiveness of charter teachers. I utilize rich, unique data on North Carolina public schools, students, and teachers to develop an in-depth understanding of the state's charter teachers. First, I determine whether charter schools were drawing good teachers away from traditional public schools. I find nuanced patterns of teacher quality flowing to charter schools. Charters drew highly qualified, certified teachers, but low certification requirements attracted less qualified, uncertified teachers as well. Charters drew effective instructors from the pool of mobile teachers willing to change schools, but they did not skim the very best mainstream teachers. Inexperienced teachers have been cited as a root cause of low student achievement in charter schools. I show that new charter schools in North Carolina had exceptionally high rates of new teachers, but that inexperienced faculties were not responsible for sub-par student achievement. Rather, students had greater math achievement in new charter schools with higher rates of new teachers, relative to charter and mainstream students in schools with more experienced faculties. These findings suggest that inexperienced charter faculties were benign signals of development, not staffing failures. Charter schools can exacerbate racial segregation, which tends to widen racial achievement gaps, and more than half of North Carolina's charter schools were racially imbalanced. But there may have been a silver lining, in that predominantly nonwhite charter schools were largely staffed by nonwhite teachers. I show that high rates of nonwhite teachers marginally raised the math performance of black charter students. Nonetheless, these gains were insufficient to slow the growing black-white achievement gap in charter schools.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Celeste Carruthers.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Figlio, David N.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024757:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024757/00001

Material Information

Title: Faculty Composition and Student Achievement in Charter Schools
Physical Description: 1 online resource (131 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Carruthers, Celeste
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: charter, economics, education, experience, mobility, public, quality, school, segregation, teachers
Economics -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Economics thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Charter schools are independent public schools, free from many of the regulations facing mainstream public schools. They are competitive entrants in partially deregulated education markets. Charter schools offer students and their families more choice in publicly funded education, and they offer teachers more choice in their careers. Studies examining the effectiveness of charter schools per se are abundant, but less is known about the qualifications and instructional effectiveness of charter teachers. I utilize rich, unique data on North Carolina public schools, students, and teachers to develop an in-depth understanding of the state's charter teachers. First, I determine whether charter schools were drawing good teachers away from traditional public schools. I find nuanced patterns of teacher quality flowing to charter schools. Charters drew highly qualified, certified teachers, but low certification requirements attracted less qualified, uncertified teachers as well. Charters drew effective instructors from the pool of mobile teachers willing to change schools, but they did not skim the very best mainstream teachers. Inexperienced teachers have been cited as a root cause of low student achievement in charter schools. I show that new charter schools in North Carolina had exceptionally high rates of new teachers, but that inexperienced faculties were not responsible for sub-par student achievement. Rather, students had greater math achievement in new charter schools with higher rates of new teachers, relative to charter and mainstream students in schools with more experienced faculties. These findings suggest that inexperienced charter faculties were benign signals of development, not staffing failures. Charter schools can exacerbate racial segregation, which tends to widen racial achievement gaps, and more than half of North Carolina's charter schools were racially imbalanced. But there may have been a silver lining, in that predominantly nonwhite charter schools were largely staffed by nonwhite teachers. I show that high rates of nonwhite teachers marginally raised the math performance of black charter students. Nonetheless, these gains were insufficient to slow the growing black-white achievement gap in charter schools.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Celeste Carruthers.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Figlio, David N.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2010-02-28

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0024757:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1

PAGE 2

2

PAGE 3

3

PAGE 4

Manyindividualsandorganizationsmadethisresearchpossible.MysincerestthanksgotoDavidFiglio,LarryKenny,SarahHamersma,andPaulSindelarforadvisingthisdissertationthroughoutitsprogress.IamgratefultotheLockhartandWalter-LanzillottiEndowmentsfortravelandresearchsupport.IamparticularlythankfultotheNorthCarolinaEducationResearchDataCenteratDukeUniversityformaintainingexceptionallyrichpubliceducationdataandfacilitatingprojectslikethese.Andnally,Iamgratefulforhelpfulcommentsandqueriesbyparticipantsatthe2008and2009AmericanEducationFinanceAssociationmeetings,the2008SouthernEconomicAssociationmeetings,the2008AssociationforPublicPolicyAnalysisandManagementmeetings,andseminarsattheUniversityofFlorida,theUniversityofTennessee-Knoxville,theUniversityofNorthCarolina-Greensboro,andtheUniversityofMississippi. 4

PAGE 5

page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................. 4 LISTOFTABLES ..................................... 7 LISTOFFIGURES .................................... 8 ABSTRACT ........................................ 9 CHAPTER 1QUALIFICATIONSANDCLASSROOMPERFORMANCE ........... 11 1.1Introduction ................................... 11 1.2CharterSchoolsinNorthCarolina ....................... 16 1.2.1Background ............................... 16 1.2.2Data ................................... 21 1.3AnalyticMethodsandResults ......................... 23 1.3.1QualicationsofTeachersMovingtoCharterSchools ........ 23 1.3.2ClassroomPerformanceofTeachersMovingtoCharterSchools ... 32 1.3.3VariationinClassroomPerformance .................. 38 1.4Conclusions ................................... 42 2NEWTEACHERSANDSTUDENTACHIEVEMENT .............. 55 2.1Introduction ................................... 55 2.2NorthCarolinaCharterSchools,Students,andTeachers .......... 60 2.2.1NorthCarolinaCharterSchools .................... 60 2.2.2NorthCarolinaPublicSchoolData .................. 62 2.2.3NorthCarolinaCharterTeachers ................... 64 2.3AnalyticMethodsandResults ......................... 66 2.4Conclusions ................................... 77 3TEACHERS,STUDENTS,ANDRACIALIMBALANCE ............ 93 3.1Introduction ................................... 93 3.2RacialImbalanceinNorthCarolinaCharterSchools ............. 96 3.2.1Data ................................... 96 3.2.2DescriptiveFiguresandStatistics ................... 98 3.3AnalyticMethodsandResults ......................... 100 3.3.1Methods ................................. 101 3.3.2Results .................................. 103 3.3.3StudentFixedEectsAnalysis ..................... 108 3.4Conclusions ................................... 111 REFERENCES ....................................... 126 5

PAGE 6

................................ 131 6

PAGE 7

Table page 1-1NorthCarolinacharterschools,students,andteachers,1998-2007 ........ 44 1-2In-samplemobilitypatternsofcharterteachers .................. 46 1-3NorthCarolinapublicschoolteachers:Summarystatistics ............ 47 1-4Regressionresults:Qualicationsofteacherschangingschools .......... 50 1-5NorthCarolinapublicschoolteacherxedeects:Summarystatistics ...... 51 1-6Regressionresults:Classroomperformanceofteacherschangingschools ..... 52 1-7Variationinteacherquality ............................. 53 2-1StudenttransitionsinandoutofNorthCarolinacharterschools ......... 79 2-2NorthCarolinapublicschoolfaculties:Summarystatistics ............ 80 2-3NorthCarolinapublicschoolstudents:Summarystatistics ............ 84 2-4Fixedeectestimates:Theeectofcharterenrollment .............. 86 2-5Laggedachievementestimates:Theeectofcharterenrollment ......... 87 2-6Disaggregatedeectofcharterenrollmentonmathgains ............. 88 2-7Disaggregatedeectofcharterenrollmentonreadinggains ............ 90 3-1Blackfemalepublicschoolstudents:Summarystatistics ............. 113 3-2Blackmalepublicschoolstudents:Summarystatistics .............. 114 3-3Whitefemalepublicschoolstudents:Summarystatistics ............. 115 3-4Whitemalepublicschoolstudents:Summarystatistics .............. 116 3-5Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalance:Blackfemales ...... 120 3-6Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalance:Blackmales ....... 121 3-7Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalance:Whitefemales ...... 122 3-8Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalance:Whitemales ....... 123 3-9Studentmathxedeects,bycharter/mainstreamandracialimbalance ..... 124 3-10Studentreadingxedeects,bycharter/mainstreamandracialimbalance ... 125 7

PAGE 8

Figure page 1-12006Charterenrollmentandpenetration ...................... 45 1-2Densityestimates:Years'experienceofmobileteachers .............. 48 1-3Densityestimates:Meanlicensuretestscoresofmobileteachers ......... 49 1-4Densityestimates:Persistentteacherqualitydistributions ............ 54 2-1Averagerateofnewteachers,byageofschool ................... 81 2-2Averagefacultyturnoverrates,byageofschool .................. 82 2-3MeanreversioninEOGscores ............................ 83 2-4Marginaleectofnewcharterteachers,byageofschool ............. 92 3-1Densityestimates:Percentnonwhitestudentsinschools ............. 117 3-2Densityestimates:Percentnonwhiteteachersinschools .............. 118 3-3Localpolynomialestimates:Percentnonwhiteteachersandstudentsinschools 119 8

PAGE 9

Charterschoolsareindependentpublicschools,freefrommanyoftheregulationsfacingmainstreampublicschools.Theyarecompetitiveentrantsinpartiallyderegulatededucationmarkets.Charterschoolsoerstudentsandtheirfamiliesmorechoiceinpubliclyfundededucation,andtheyoerteachersmorechoiceintheircareers.Studiesexaminingtheeectivenessofcharterschoolsperseareabundant,butlessisknownaboutthequalicationsandinstructionaleectivenessofcharterteachers. Iutilizerich,uniquedataonNorthCarolinapublicschools,students,andteacherstodevelopanin-depthunderstandingofthestate'scharterteachers.First,Ideterminewhethercharterschoolsweredrawinggoodteachersawayfromtraditionalpublicschools.Indnuancedpatternsofteacherqualityowingtocharterschools.Chartersdrewhighlyqualied,certiedteachers,butlowcerticationrequirementsattractedlessqualied,uncertiedteachersaswell.Chartersdreweectiveinstructorsfromthepoolofmobileteacherswillingtochangeschools,buttheydidnotskimtheverybestmainstreamteachers. Inexperiencedteachershavebeencitedasarootcauseoflowstudentachievementincharterschools.IshowthatnewcharterschoolsinNorthCarolinahadexceptionallyhighratesofnewteachers,butthatinexperiencedfacultieswerenotresponsibleforsub-parstudentachievement.Rather,studentshadgreatermathachievementinnewcharterschoolswithhigherratesofnewteachers,relativetocharterandmainstreamstudentsin 9

PAGE 10

Charterschoolscanexacerbateracialsegregation,whichtendstowidenracialachievementgaps,andmorethanhalfofNorthCarolina'scharterschoolswereraciallyimbalanced.Buttheremayhavebeenasilverlining,inthatpredominantlynonwhitecharterschoolswerelargelystaedbynonwhiteteachers.Ishowthathighratesofnonwhiteteachersmarginallyraisedthemathperformanceofblackcharterstudents.Nonetheless,thesegainswereinsucienttoslowthegrowingblack-whiteachievementgapincharterschools. 10

PAGE 11

Docharterschoolsdrawgoodteachersfromtraditional,mainstreampublicschools?Usinga1997-2007panelofallNorthCarolinapublicschoolteachers,Indnuancedpatternsofteacherqualityowingintocharterschools.Highratesofinexperiencedanduncertiedteachersmovedtocharterschools,butamongcertiedteacherschangingschools,theon-paperqualicationsofchartermoverswerebetterornodierentthanthequalicationsofteachersmovingtocomparablemainstreamschools.Iestimatemeasuresofclassroomperformanceforasubsetofgrade3-5teachers,andshowthatchartermoversweremoreeectiveinmathandreadinginstruction,relativetoothermobileteachers.Chartermoverscomparedlessfavorably,however,tonon-mobileteachersandcolleagueswithintheirsendingschools.Thedistributionofclassroomperformanceamongfuturecharterteachers,adjustedforsamplingerror,wassignicantlylowerthanthedistributionforexclusivelymainstreamteachers. 11

PAGE 12

Friedman ( 1955 1997 )proposedvouchersasonewaytostokeschoolcompetition. Dee ( 1998 ), Hoxby ( 2003 ),andmostrecently, Booker,Gilpatric,Gronberg,andJansen ( 2008 )oerempiricalevidencethatmainstreamstudentperformanceimprovesinlightofcompetitionfromchoiceschools.Long-rungainsfromcompetitionwillrequirecharterstobeformidablecompetitors,however,andthejuryisstilloutastowhethertheyactuallyincreasestudentlearningrelativetomainstreamschools.Theemergingconsensusisthatnewchartershaveanegativeimpactonstudentachievementgrowth,andthispenaltyfadesasschoolsandstudentsgainexperience.2 BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 ), Booker,Gilpatric,Gronberg,andJansen ( 2007 ), Hanushek,Kain,Rivkin,andBranch ( 2007 ),and Sass ( 2006 ).3 ( 2005 )and Rocko ( 2004 )ndthataonestandarddeviationincreaseinteacherqualityincreasesstudentachievementbyabouttenpercentofastandarddeviation. 12

PAGE 13

Manuel ( 2007 )).Chartersarenotgenerallyboundbystatepayscales,theycanallocatebudgetsastheyseet,andfeasibly,theycanpayhigherteachersalaries.OneNewYorkCitycharterschoolfamouslyoersteachercompensationpackagesinexcessof$125,000( Gootman ( 2008 )).Nationwide,charterteachersalariesaremorecomparabletomainstreamsalaries,5butinsomestates,charterteachersearnsignicantlylessthanotherpublicschoolteacherswithsimilarqualications( MalloyandWohlstetter ( 2003 )).Evenifcharterschoolscannotoutbidmainstreamschoolsonsalaryalone,schoolleaderscaninuenceteachers'utilityinnon-pecuniaryways,byreducingtheirnon-instructionalduties,encouragingcollegialityamongfaculty,manipulatingclasssizeandcomposition,andgrantingteachersmorecreativelicenseandautonomythantheyareaordedinmainstreamschools.Earlyadvocatesofthechartermodelstressedtheprofessionalizationandempowermentof Clotfelter,Ladd,Vigdor,andDiaz ( 2004 ), Hanushek,Kain,O'Brien,andRivkin ( 2005 ), FalchandStrm ( 2005 ),and Scadi,Sjoquist,andStinebrickner ( 2007 ).5Nationally,charterteachershadanaveragesalaryof$37,000in2004,versus$44,500fortraditionalpublicschoolteachers.Thepaygapcoincidedwithasubstantialexperiencegap:43.4percentofcharterteachershadthreeorfeweryears'experience,comparedtojust17.1percentofmainstreamteachers( NationalCenterforEducationStatistics ( 2006 )). PodgurskyandBallou ( 2001 )and Hoxby ( 2002 )alsofoundcompetitiveteachersalariesincharterschools. 13

PAGE 14

Budde ( 1988 )and Kolderie ( 1990 )).Highteachersatisfactionratesincharterschoolstypicallystemmedfromgreaterautonomy(\freedomtoteachthewayIwant"),like-mindedcolleagues,andinnovativeteachingphilosophies.Teacherswhoweredissatisedincharterschoolscitedlowpay,lackofbenets,highworkload,andinsucientfacilities( MalloyandWohlstetter ( 2003 )). Inpractice,theintangiblebenetsofworkinginacharterschoolmaybetoolowtoosetlowpayandotherresourcelimitations.Commoncharternancemodelsallocateeachschoolaper-pupilrateroughlyequaltothesurroundingdistrict'saverageper-pupilcost,excludingthecostofbuildings.Ifadistrictenjoyssubstantialeconomiesofscaleinvariablecost,itsper-pupilexpenseswillbelessthanacharterschool'saveragecost.Charterswithcompetingusesforlimitedresourcesmaysacricesometeachingtalentinfavorofadministrativeandcapitalimprovementsifdoingsomaximizestheirobjectives(studentachievement,enrollment,andbudgetsizebeinglikelyobjectives).Furthermore,manystatesallowcharterstoemployahighrateofuncertiedteachers.Thispermitscharterstoattractteachersfromoutsidethetraditionalpipeline,butalsoincreasesthesupplyoflow-cost,low-skilledindividualseligibletoworkincharterschools,includinguncertiedmainstreamteachersnearingtheexpirationoftemporarylicenses.Recently,Wisconsinraisedsubject-basedcerticationrequirementsforitscharterteachers,promptingschoolleaderstoarguethattheycouldnotaordtohireteachersmeetingthenewstandard( Borsuk ( 2008 )).Charterlicensurerequirementsvaryacrossstates,andlittleisknownaboutthequalicationsofuncertiedteachersincharterschools,ortheimpactofrelaxedlicensurestandardsonstudentperformanceincharterschools. Muchofthedevelopingresearchoncharterteacherqualityexaminesthequalications,workload,andjobsatisfactionofthestockofcharterteachersnationwideorwithinparticularstates. PodgurskyandBallou ( 2001 )surveyedteachersinsevenstates,andfoundthatcharterteacherswerelesslikelytobecertied,morelikelytobeinexperienced, 14

PAGE 15

Hoxby ( 2002 ),usinga1998nationalsurveyofteachers,showedthatcharterteachershadtypicallytakenmoremathandsciencecoursesincollege,weremorelikelytohavegraduatedfromagoodcollege,andloggedmoreextracurricularhours.Interestingly,charterspaidapremiumforthesequalities,butnotforcerticationormaster'sdegrees. Taylor ( 2005 )alsofailedtondapremiumforadvanceddegreesinTexascharterschools,andshowedthatteachersrealizeda7.5percentpaycutuponmovingtoacharterschool. Whileapictureofteacherqualityincharterschoolsisemerging,littleisknownabouttheowofteachingtalentbetweenmainstreamandcharterschools,ortheclassroomperformanceofindividualcharterteachers.Here,IfullycharacterizetheresumequalicationsofallNorthCarolinapublicschoolteacherswhomovedtothechartersectorbetween1998and2007.Forasubsampleofelementaryteachers,Icharacterizetheirclassroomperformanceaswell.NorthCarolinaisararesettingwherepassivelycollectedadministrativedataincludelongitudinalschoolassignmentsforallcharterandmainstreampersonneloveraperiodexceedingtenyears.Furthermore,thedatalinksometeachersdirectlytotheirstudents,allowingmetoestimatemeasuresofinstructionaleectiveness.Byanalyzingtheowofteachersfromonesectortoanother,Ideterminewhethercharterschoolswere\creamskimming"goodteachersfrommainstreamschools.Ifhighlyqualiedandeectiveteacherswerevotingwiththeirfeetinfavorofcharterschools,theirmigrationisafavorablesignalofthedecentralizedmodel'sappeal,andmainstreamschoolsmayneedtoemulatecharterfeaturestoretainfaculty.Ifchartersweredrawinglessqualiedandlesseectiveteachers,whetherbecauseoflowpay,poororganization,orrelaxedlicensurestandards,thechartermodelisunlikelytofulllitspromiseasarevolutionaryvehiclefortheimprovementofpublicschools. Inthisstudy,IevaluatetheresumequalicationsofNorthCarolinachartermoversagainstthequalicationsofteachersmovingbetweenmainstreamschools,controllingforreceivingschoolproles.Chartermoverswerelessexperiencedthanothermovingteachers 15

PAGE 16

ThesendingsneitherarmnorrejecttheeectivenesswithwhichNorthCarolina'scurrentchartermodeldrawsgoodteachersfrommainstreamschools.Thesystemattractedhighlyqualied,certied,andeectiveteachers,butlowlicensurerequirementsattracteduncertied,lessqualiedteacherswhomayhavehadfewcareeroptionsinthemainstreamsector. 1.2.1Background 1.2.2 )havebeencollectedoveraneleven-yearperiodforallmainstreamandcharterteachersinthestate.Thesedataallowmetocharacterizetheon-paperqualicationsofeveryteachermovingtothestate'schartersector,andtoestimatethe 16

PAGE 17

TheNorthCarolinalegislatureauthorizedthestate'ssystemofcharterschoolsin1996.Thereareseveralstatedobjectivesofthesystem,includingincreasedlearningopportunitiesforstudentsandnewprofessionalopportunitiesforteachers.7Thestate'srstthirty-fourcharterschoolsopenedforthe1998schoolyear.Table 1-1 documentsthegrowthofNorthCarolina'schartersystemfromthatyearupto2007.8Charterstudentsaccountedfor2.0percentofstatewideenrollmentby2007,andcharterteachersaccountedfor2.1percentofpublicschoolteachers.Figure 1-1 illustratesthewidespreadgeographicrangeandconcentrationofcharterenrollmentin2006.Charterswereactivethroughoutthestate,thoughlesssointheruraleasterncounties.Fourofthestate'slargestcounties{Durham,Forsyth,Mecklenburg,andWake{hadthelargestcharterpresenceintermsof 17

PAGE 18

AdistinctivefeatureofNorthCarolina'scharterschoolsystemisapronouncedracialsegregation.12Justoverhalfofthestate'scharterschoolshadraciallyimbalancedstudentpopulations,meaningthatthepercentofstudentswhoarenonwhitewastwentypercentagepointsaboveorbelowthecounty-widenonwhiterepresentation.Bycomparison,justone-quarterofmainstreamschoolswereraciallyimbalanced.Charterschoolsarerequiredto\reasonablyreecttheracialandethniccompositionofthe ( 2006 )fullyexploredthesegregatingeectsofNorthCarolina'scharterprogram. 18

PAGE 19

Charterschoolsareheldtothesameaccountabilitymodelasmainstreampublicschools,withsomeexceptionsforchartersintheirrstyear.Eachyear,NorthCarolinaschoolsareawardedrecognitionlabelsaccordingtotheirstudents'performanceandgrowthonend-of-gradeandend-of-courseexams.14In2006,53percentofcharterschoolsweregivenoneofthelowestthreerecognitionlabels,comparedto48.1percentofpublicschoolsstatewide( Manuel ( 2007 )).Butcharterswerewell-representedatbothextremesoftheperformancedistribution.In2006,charterswere2.6timesaslikelyasmainstreamschoolstohaveperformancecomposites(reectingthepercentofstudentsatgradelevel)lowerthan50,15and2.3timesaslikelytohaveperformancecompositesabove90.Thewidevarianceinracialcompositionandstudentprociencyamongcharterschools NorthCarolinaStateBoardofEducation ( 2006 ,HSP-CSeries))15Schoolswithsub-50performancecompositesthatfailtomakeexpectedgrowthbenchmarksaregiven\Low-Performing"recognition.Schoolswithrepeatlow-performingstatus,includingcharterschools,mustcollaboratewithevaluationteamsassignedbytheStateBoardofEducationtodevelopcorrectiveactionplans.Charterswithsub-60 19

PAGE 20

Charterschoolsareallowedgreatexibilityintherecruitment,retention,andpayoftheirfaculties.Thestateimposesverylittleregulationonwhocanteachinacharterschool.Atleast75percentofcharterteachersinkindergartenthroughfthgradeclassroomsmustholdteachingcerticates.Thisnumberfallsto50percentforcharterteachersofgradessixthroughtwelve.16Uncertiedteachersaremuchlesscommoninmainstreamschools.Onlycertiedteachersareeligiblefortenureafterfourconsecutiveyearsofteachinginamainstreampublicschool.Tenuredmainstreamteacherswhowishtoteachinacharterschoolaregrantedoneyear'sleave,meaningthattheycanreturntotheiroriginalschoolafterayear,spacepermitting.Chartersarenotrequiredtooertenure,noraretheyrequiredtoparticipateinthestateretirementplan. Lowlicensurerequirementsforcharterfacultieswereputinplacetoattractnew,nontraditionalteachersfromfreshsources-non-teachingvocations,TeachforAmerica,andsoforth.Recentworkby Kane,Rocko,andStaiger ( 2008 )and Boydetal. ( 2006 )suggestthereislittledierencebetweenthequalitydistributionsofcertied,alternativelycertied,orevenuncertiedteachers.17Statesvaryintheirtreatmentofteacherlicensureincharterschools.Ofthefortystateswithactivechartersystemsin2008,fteenrequired performancecompositesforthreeconsecutiveyearsaredenied10-yearrenewal.( NorthCarolinaStateBoardofEducation ( 2006 ,EEO-USeries))16Uncertiedcharterteachersareexpectedtomeetthefederaldenitionof\HighlyQualied."Althoughthisrequirementdoesnotappeartobestrictlyenforced,uncertiedteacherscanmeetthestandardbymajoringorpassingaPraxisIIexamintheirsubjectarea.17Wewouldexpectthistobetruewithinschoolsifadministratorshireequivalentlyskilledcandidatesregardlessoflicensure.Itmaybethecase,however,thatlowlicensurestandardsputdownwardpressureontheacross-schooldistributionofteacherquality. 20

PAGE 21

CenterForEducationReform ( 2008 )) Muschkin,Bonneau,andDodge ( 2008 ). 21

PAGE 22

Table 1-2 describesteachermobilitypatternsbetweencharterandmainstreamschoolsforthe5,346teacherswhowereworkinginacharterschoolatsometimebetween1998and2007.Themajority,55.1percent,wereneverobservedteachingoutsideofthechartersector.Another33.6percenttaughtinamainstreampublicschoolbeforemovingtoacharter.Ofthese,two-thirdsmoveddirectlytoacharterschool,withoutleavingthepanelbetweenschools.Theremainingthirdtaughtinamainstreamschool,leftthepanelforoneormoreyears,andthenre-enteredinacharterschool.Ifocusondirectmovers,whowerecontinuouslyemployedovertheirtransitiontothechartersector.Icomparethequalicationsofdirectchartermoverstothequalicationsofotherteachersmakingdirectmovesbetweenmainstreamschools.19Byevaluatingchartermoversagainstothermobileteachers(asopposedtopublicschoolteachersmoregenerally),Iavoidselectionbiasesfromomittedvariablescontributingtomobilityperse,andIcanjudgewhatsortoftalentcharterschoolsweredrawingfromthepoolofteacherswillingtochangeschools.Aftercontrollingforreceivingschoolcharacteristics,Idetermineifcharterschoolswererecruitingmoreorlessofeachspecicteachercharacteristicthantheirmainstream 1.3.1 and 1.3.2 arequalitativelysimilar,butwithvaryingstatisticalprecision,ifIadoptmoreliberaldenitionsofteachermobility.Thesection 1.3.3 analysisapproximatesthedistributionofpersistentteacherqualityamongallpre-charterteachers,whetherornottheytookbreaksbetweenschools. 22

PAGE 23

1.3.1QualicationsofTeachersMovingtoCharterSchools 1-3 listssummarystatisticsforNorthCarolina'smainstreampublicschoolteachersfrom1997to2007.Teacherswereidentiedasschoolpersonnelwithteachingassignmentsinschoolactivityreports,excludingteachingassistants,facilitators,andDAREocers.Ideterminedthehighestdegreeattainedbyeachteacher:30.8percentofteachersheldapost-baccalaureatedegreeofsomekind.Ateacher'sdegree-grantinginstitutionwas\competitive"ifitwasclassiedassuch(or\competitiveplus,"\verycompetitive,"etc.)bythe1995editionofBarron'sProlesofAmericanColleges.20Justoverthree-quartersofNorthCarolinateachersgraduatedfromacompetitivecollegeoruniversity.NorthCarolinateacherstakeavarietyoflicensureexams,mostofwhichareinthePraxisfamily.Inordertoincludeallavailabletestinformation,Iscaledrawlicensuretestscorestohaveameanofzeroandstandarddeviationofonewithineachtestcodeandtestyear.Icalculatedthemeanstandardizedlicensuretestscoreforeachteacher,equaltotheaverageofallofheruniqueexamsrecords.21RegularlylicensedteachershadcompletedanapprovedteachereducationprogramandpassedthePraxisSeriesofexams,orattainedlicensingbyreciprocalorinterstateagreement.Thecomplementstoregularlylicensedteacherswereuncertiedteachersholdingtemporary,emergency,or 23

PAGE 24

1-3 ,wereearlierintheircareers,onaverage,andlesslikelytohaveagraduatedegreethanteacherswhowerenotchangingschools.24Mobileteachershadlowerlicensuretestscoresthannon-movers,by0.015standarddeviations.Mainstreamteachersmovingtocharterschools,summarizedinthefourthcolumnofTable 1-3 ,weretypicallylessqualiedthanothermovingteachers.Teacherstransitioningtothechartersystemwere4.5percentagepointslesslikelytohavegraduatedfromacompetitivecollegeoruniversity,and9.9percentagepointslesslikelytoberegularlylicensed.25NorthCarolina'spolicyofpermittingmoreuncertiedteachersincharterschoolsmayhavehadtheconsequenceofdrawinguntenuredmainstreamteachers Feller ( 2006 )).Indvirtuallynochangeinteachercerticationratesinthelateryearsofthepanel.23Thisaectedanon-trivialpercentofteacher-yearobservations(6.1),includingteacherswithrovingassignmentsandteacherswhoswitchedschoolsmid-year.24Amobileteacherisdenedthroughoutasoneobservedinschoolainyeartandschoola06=ainyeart+1.25Chartermoverswerealsomorelikelythanmainstreammoverstohavemissinglicensedata(8.1versus4.8percent)ThemainresultsareunaectedifIclassifytheseindividualsasunlicensed.Amoreproblematicdataqualityissueisthehighrateofmissinglicensuretestscoresamongchartermovers(11.8versus7.8percentformainstreammovers).Below,IdiscusswherethiscouldaectresultsandthesensitivitytestsIusedtoevaluatepotentialbiases. 24

PAGE 25

Figure 1-2 illustratescomparativekerneldensitiesfortheteachingexperienceofmobileteachers,bycharter/mainstreamdestination.Clearly,chartermoversweremorelikelytohavejustafewyearsofexperience,relativetomainstreammovers.Theywerealsomorelikelytohavearound30yearsofexperience.InthelowerpanelofFigure 1-2 ,limitedtoregularlylicensedmovers,thebimodalityofcharterteachers'experienceismorepronounced.Thedistributionofchartermovers'licensuretestscoresinFigure 1-3 alsohintsatanoisybimodality,butmoreimportantly,thedistributionoflicensedchartermovers'licensurescores(lowerpanel)appearstobetotherightofmainstreammovers'distribution.Chartermovers,particularlythosewithregularlicensure,weresomewhatmorelikelythantheirmainstreamcounterpartstohavehighlicensuretestscores,0.5-2.0standarddeviationsabovethemean.Thevisualdierenceisnotentirelyduetonoise.Wilcoxonrank-sumtestsindicatethatscoredistributionswerenotsignicantlydierentbetweencharterandmainstreammoversoverall,butthatlicensedchartermovers'scoresweresignicantlygreaterthanthoseoflicensedmainstreammovers. Thenonparametricevaluationofchartermovers'qualications,togetherwiththeparametricanalysestofollow,providearich,descriptivepictureofthevaluethatteacherstookwiththemwhentheymovedtothechartersector.Butthispictureisincompletewithoutanunderstandingoftheschoolstheseteacherweremovingbetween.Ifchartermoverswerehighlyqualiedrelativetoothermobileteachers,butleavinglow-performingschools,thiswouldhaveverydierentpolicyimplicationsthaniflessqualiedteachers 25

PAGE 26

Figures 1-2 and 1-3 oervisualdepictionsoftherangeofexperienceandachievementthatteachersbroughtwiththemwhentheymovedtothechartersystem,butcomparativekerneldensitiesdonotpermittheconclusionthatcharterswereattractingmoreorlessqualiedteachersthansimilarmainstreamschools.Towardthatend,IconductmoreparametricanalysesofcharterandmainstreammoversbyestimatingEquation 1{1 viaordinaryleastsquaresforeachNorthCarolinateacher(j)observedinyeart(1997-2007),schools,andcountyl: Equation 1{1 isareducedformexpressionforqualicationk,wherekindexestheon-paperqualicationssummarizedinTable 1-3 :graduatedegree,competitivecollegeeducation,meanlicensuretestscore,regularlicensure,andthreemeasuresofexperience.26 26Equation 1{1 wasestimatedseparatelyforeachqualicationk.Analternativewouldhavebeentoprojectteachers'mobilityontothespaceoftheirqualicationsandsendingschoolcharacteristicstogetasenseofthefactorsaectingthesupplyofcharterschoolteachers.Iemphasizethereduced-formempiricalstrategytounderscorethedescriptive,non-causalinferencegainedbyexaminingarelativelysmallsetofidiosyncraticlabordecisions.Asarobustnesscheck,Ialsoestimatedamultinomiallogitequationpredicting 26

PAGE 27

Moreexperiencedteachersmayseekgraduatedegreesoradditionalcerticationstoincreasetheirpay,soIcontrolledforteacherexperiencecategories(indicatorsforless thelikelihoodofdierenttypesofschoolchanges.Resultssuggestedthattherelativeriskofmovingtoacharterschoolsignicantlyincreasedforlessexperiencedandunlicensedteachers,andsignicantlydecreasedforteacherswithhigherlicensuretestscores.Thesendingsareinagreementwiththereduced-formresultstofollow.27ResultswerequalitativelysimilarwhenIcontrolledforsendingandreceivingschoolcharacteristics.Specicationswithreceivingschoolcharacteristicsalonearepreferred,astheybetterdepicttherelativeowofteacherqualicationstocharterandmainstreamschoolsofcomparablesizeandstudentcomposition. 27

PAGE 28

1{1 forlicensureandeducationvariables.Sincelicensedandunlicensedteachersmayhavedierentincentivestoconsidercharterschools,IlimitedEquation 1{1 toregularlylicensedmoversandproducedseparate\licensedmover"estimatesofmjtandcjtforallqualicationsexceptlicensureitself. Table 1-4 listsestimatesofcjtandmjtforeachresumequalication.28TherstcolumnofTable 1-4 listscoecientestimatesformjt,thetypicaldierenceinqualicationkbetweenteachersmovingtomainstreamschoolsandnon-movingteachers,controllingforreceivingschoolcharacteristics.Estimatesofmjtserveasthebaselinetowhichcjtestimatesarecompared.Moversweresignicantlydierentthannon-moverswithrespecttoeachqualications,withtheexceptionofgraduatedegrees.Moversweremuchlessexperienced,by3.69yearsonaverage,thantheirnon-movingcounterparts.Theywere13.2percentagepointsmorelikelytohavethreeyears'experienceorless,and10.2percentagepointslesslikelytohaveatleasttwenty-veyears'experience. ThesecondcolumnofTable 1-4 presentsestimatesofcjtfromEquation 1{1 .ColumnIIcoecientsanswerthequestion,\werechartermoversmoreorlessqualiedthanteachersmovingtocomparableschools?"Thequalierisimportant,giventheheterogeneityofcharterschoolworkingenvironments.Withrespecttograduateeducation,licensure,andyearsofexperience,chartermoversweresignicantlylessqualied.Theywere2.7percentagepointslesslikelytoholdagraduatedegree,relativetomainstream 28

PAGE 29

1-2 ColumnIandIIresultsweregeneratedfromanalysesofallpublicschoolteachers,regardlessoftheirlicensurestatus.Fullylicensedteachersmayhavehadmoreoptionsinthemainstreamsectorthanunlicensed,untenuredteachers.Accordingly,licensedteachers'mobilitydecisionsbetterrelectrevealedpreference.ColumnsIIIandIVlistresultsfromthesubsampleoflicensedteachers,whoaccountedfor89.0and79.1percentofmainstreamandchartermovers,respectively.Limitingthesamplehadlittleeectonresultsformainstreammovers;pointestimateswerenoteconomicallydierentbetweencolumnsIandIII.Butexcludingunlicensedteachersfromtheanalysissubstantiallyaectedconclusionsabouttherelativequalicationsofchartermovers.IncontrasttocolumnII,columnIVresultsshowthatlicensedchartermoverswerenotstatisticallydierentthanlicensedmainstreammoverswithrespecttograduatedegreesoryears'experience.Thedierencebetweenthefullandlimitedsampleisparticularlystarkforlicensuretestscores.Thecoecientforlicensedchartermoversinthetestscoreequationispositiveandsignicant.29Teachersmovingtocharterschoolstypicallyhadhighertestscoresthan 29

PAGE 30

Itissensiblethatcharterschoolswouldhavebeenabletoattractteacherswithhigherlicensuretestscores.Conditionalonlicensureitself,testscoresarenotrewardedinthestate'spayscale.Yetateacher'stestscoresaregoodindicatorsofhowwellhisorherstudentswilldoontheirowntests. Goldhaber ( 2007 )and Clotfelter,Ladd,andVigdor ( 2007 )haveshownthatNorthCarolinateacherswithhigherlicensuretestscoreswereassociatedwithhigherstudentachievementonend-of-grademathandreadingexams.Charterschools,perhapsrecognizingteachertestscoresasgoodsignalsofteacherquality,hadmoresuccessrecruitingindividualswithhighertestscoresthancomparablemainstreamschools. Thesendingsraisethepossibilitythatteachersviewedthechartersectorasalow-costjobchangeprecedingretirementorapermanentcareerchange.Sampleattritionwashighamongnewteachers,experiencedteachersnearingretirement,anduncertiedteachers,30andthesearethesamegroupsIobserveddisproportionatelyowinginto wouldbebiasedupwardsfromthetrueaverageofunderlyingknowledge.Ifchartermoverswithmissingtestdatacamefrommuchlowerintheunderlyingdistributionthanmainstreammoverswithmissingdata,theestimateddierencebetweencharterandmainstreammovers'testscoreswouldbebiasedinfavorofthechartermovers.Isimulatesituationslikethistogagethesensitivityofchartermovers'testscoreadvantagetovariouscounterfactualscoresforteacherswithmissingdata.Theresultthatlicensedchartermovershadsignicantlyhighertestscoreswasrobustuptoa0.5standarddeviationpenaltyforchartermoverswithmissingtestdata.Morethana2.0standarddeviationgapwasnecessarytoproducedtheresultthatlicensedchartermovershadsignicantlylowertestscoresthanmainstreammovers.30Therewere89,311uncensoredsampleexitsintheNorthCarolinateachers'panel.Ofthese,28.8percenthadthreeorfeweryears'experience,37.7percenthadatleasttwenty-ve,and30.6percentwereuncertiedorhadmissinglicensedata. 30

PAGE 31

Theresultsdiscussedinthissectionlendsomesupporttotheideathatcharterschoolshadarealizedadvantageinthelabormarketforpublicschoolteachers;amonglicensedteacherschangingschools,charterswerebetterabletoattracthighlyexperiencedteachers,andteacherswithhighlicensuretestscores.31Butalargeminorityofmainstreamteachersmovingtocharterschoolswerenotfullylicensedandattenuatedtheaveragequalicationsofchartermovers.Thiswaslikelyaconsequenceofthestate'slowlicensurerequirementsforcharterschools.Whatremainstobeseenisifthemigrationofuncertiedteacherstothechartersectorwaspredominantlydrivenbythecharters'demandforlow-costlabor,orbyuncertiedteachers'willingnesstosupplyit. Someresumeline-itemslikelicensuretestscoresarerobustsignalsofteacherquality,andcharterschoolswereeectivelycompetingforlicensedteacherswithrelativelyhightestscores.Butwerecharterschoolsdrawingteacherswithhistories,andnotjustsignals, 31

PAGE 32

Theproctorassociatedwitheachstudent'stestscorewasnotnecessarilyhisorherclassroomteacher.Tominimizethelikelihoodofbadteacher-studentmatches,Ifocusedonteacherswithself-containedclassroomsofstudentsingrades3-5.Self-containedclassroomsembodythetraditionalstructureofelementaryeducation,whereaclassofstudentsspendallorthemajorityofeachdaywithoneteacher.Iassembledgrade3-5studentEOGrecordsformorethan2.8millionstudent-yearsspanning1997to2007.Ateacher-studentmatchwasconsideredinvalidifanyofthefollowingfourconditionsweremet.Inparenthesesarethepercentofstudentsforwhicheachconditionwastrue. 32

PAGE 33

Thestudent'sproctorwasunknownornotfoundintheassembledteacherpanel.33(19.5%) 2. Thestudent'sproctordidnothaveaself-containedclassroomassignment.(21.8%) 3. Thegrade-gstudent'sproctordidnothaveateachingassignmentwithstudentsingradeg.(<1:0%) 4. Thestudent'sexamgroupwaslargerthan30orsmallerthan5.(<1:0%) Theremaining58.3percentofstudentshadaproctorwhowasateacher,andwholedaself-containedclassroomwithstudentsinthesamegradeasareasonablenumberofEOGtest-takerslinkedtothatteacher.Theselimitationslendconsiderablevaliditytoeachallowedteacher-studentmatch.34Ofthe122,064EOGtest-takingclassroomswithaknownteacher,71.3percentwereconsideredvalidmatches.NorthCarolina'send-of-gradeexamsareinterval-scaled,meaningthataone-pointincrementreectsthesamedierenceinlearninganywhereonthescaleofrawscores.Scoresarecomparablewithinandacrossgradeseachyear,andtheminimumprocientscorerisesforeachgrade.Iscaledrawscorestohavemeanzeroandstandarddeviationequaltoonewithineachyear,grade,andschool.Thiscalibratedthedependantvariableofeacheducationproductionfunctiontoaccountforvarianceintherangeofrawscoresovertime,heteroscedasticityinrawscoresacrossgrades,anddistributionalshiftsinstudentperformanceacrossschoolsdueto Tiebout ( 1956 )sorting. 33

PAGE 34

VariablesinAictarestudentcharacteristics,includingrace,gender,parentaleducation,andlearningdisabilityindicators.Aictisavectorofaveragestudentcharacteristicsini'sclassroom(excludingstudenti),andTjctcontrolsfortwomeasuresofteacherinexperience.Xsltcontainsschool-levelvariables,includingquintileindicatorsforstudentbodysizeandcomposition,gradelevels,andadummyvariableequaltoonewhenstudentiisinanewschool.Thecoecientsjandltareteacherxedeectsandcounty-by-yeareects,respectively.35IestimatedEquation 1{2 andsavedestimatedteacherxedeects,^j.CoecientestimatesforEquation 1{2 wereunsurprising.Femalestudentshadlowermathbuthigherreadingscoresthanmales.Nonwhitestudentshadlowerscoresinbothsubjects,asdidstudentswithoutcollege-educatedparents.Learningdisabilitieswerestronglyassociatedwithlowerscores,moresofordisabilitiesdirectlyrelatedtothetestedsubject.Studentswithinexperiencedteachershadlowertestscoresinbothsubjects,especiallyiftheirteacherwasinherrstyearasopposedtohersecondorthird.Thepenaltyfromteacherinexperiencefellabout80percentfollowingateacher'srstyear. Inthissetting,teacherxedeectsareinterpretedaseachindividual'shistoryofclassroomperformancerelativetoexpectations,giventhecompositionofherstudents,intraschoolsorting,andtheteacher'sownexperience.Thisshouldbeimportanttoschoolslookingtohireteacherswitharecordofsuccessinraisingstudenttestscores,butdoesnotnecessarilypermittheinterpretationof^jasatransitiveindexofteachers'inherentqualityorvalueadded.Thelatterviewreliesontwostrongassumptions:(1)^j 34

PAGE 35

CameronandTrivedi ( 2005 )).Althoughteacherxedeectestimatesbenetfrommultiplestudent-levelsignalseachyear,niteclasssizeleadstoconsiderablesamplingerror.Teacherxedeectestimatesarenoisy,andtheirvarianceoverstatesthetruevarianceinteacherquality( Rocko ( 2004 )).Iaddressthisinthefollowingsubsectionbyisolatingthevarianceinpersistentteachervalueadded.Thesecondassumptionisinvalidifthereareunmeasuredstudentvariablesaectingtestscores,likemotivationorinherentintelligence,andifthesevariablessystematicallyaecttheteachertowhomastudentisassigned.Inthatcase,estimatesofjwillbeareectionofteacherqualityandstudentsorting.Positivematching,suchthatbetterstudentswereassignedtobetterteachers,wouldbias^jawayfromzeroandoverstateateacher'seectivenessorineectiveness.Negativematching,whichmaybethecaseifbetterstudentswereassignedtostrugglingteacherstoeasetheirburden,wouldbias^jtowardzero. Clotfelter,Ladd,andVigdor ( 2006 )foundevidenceofteacher-studentmatching,particularlypositivematching,inNorthCarolinaschools.Thebulkofstudentsortingwas Tiebout ( 1956 )sortingbetweenschools,whichIaddressedbycenteringtheEquation 1{2 dependantvariablebyyear,grade,andschool. Nonetheless,Equation 1{2 failstocontrolfornonrandomsortingofstudentswithinschools,suchaswouldbethecaseifparentsweresuccessfullylobbyingschooladministratorstoputtheirchildreninparticularclassrooms.36TwoadaptationstoEquation 1{2 -estimatingstudentgains,orincludinglaggedstudenttestscores-wouldaddresslikelypathwaysbywhichstudentswerenon-randomlymatchedtoteacherswithinschools.Eithermethodwouldeliminate3rdgradeteachersfromtheanalysishere,an Hui ( 2003 ), Crombie ( 2001 ),and Clotfelteretal. ( 2006 )) 35

PAGE 36

Rothstein ( 2008 )),norwillitcircumventtheinherentsamplingerrorofteacherxedeects.Itisimportanttoemphasizethatsortingbiaseswouldonlyhaveaectedtheanalysistothedegreethatchartermoversweredisproportionatelysubjecttonon-randomwithin-schoolstudentsortingpriortotheirmove.Estimatedteacherxedeectsprovideinsighttotherelativeperformanceofteachers'classrooms,whichwouldbeofinteresttopotentialreceivingschools. Iestimatedmorethan28,000teacherxedeectsforbothsubjects.Therewere13,752mobileteachersinthesample,257ofwhichweremovingtoacharterschool.Teacherxedeectsreectteachers'relativeperformancewithintheirschools.Thislimitsthescopeofinterpretationandunderstatesthevarianceinteacherqualityacrossschools,butadequatelyaddressesbetween-school Tiebout ( 1956 )sorting.38Table 1-5 summarizesteacherxedeectsestimates.Teachersmovingtoothermainstreamschoolshadlowerxedeectsthannon-movers,onaverage.Chartermovershadevenlowerxedeectsthanmainstreammovers,by3.7percentofastandarddeviationinmath.Forcontext,thecharter-mainstreammovergapinxedeectsrepresentedabout78.5percentofthe0.047standarddeviationgapbetweenmaleandfemalemathperformance,asestimatedby 1{2 withlaggedstudentachievement.Thisreducedthenumberofchartermoversforwhomxedeectscouldbeestimated,butnonetheless,thendingthatchartermovershadrelativelyhighwithin-schoolmathxedeectswasrobust.Resultsforreadingxedeects,however,werestatisticallyinsignicant.38Averagexedeectswere24-38percentlargerinabsolutevaluewhenstudents'rawscoreswerecalibratedtomeanstatewideperformanceratherthanmeanschool-wideperformance. 36

PAGE 37

1{2 .Socharterschoolswerenotdrawingmainstreamschools'bestteachers,asmeasuredbyteacherxedeects. SummarystatisticsfromTable 1-5 indicatethatteacherswhomovedtocharterschoolswererelativelylowinthedistributionofteacherqualitywithintheirsendingmainstreamschools.Butthesesimplemeansdonotcontrolforthetypeofschoolsteachersweremovingto,andcharterschoolsmayhaveattractedrelativelyhigh-performingteachers,comparedtotheowoflaborgoingtocomparablemainstreamschools.Iregressedteacherxedeectestimatesagainstmobilityindicators,receivingschoolcharacteristics,andreceivingcounty-by-yeareects: ^kj=mjt1(moving)+cjt1(tocharter)+Xrjsl(t+1)r+l(t+1)+"jslt(1{3) Subjects(mathandreading)areindexedbyk,teachersbyj,schoolsbys,countiesbyl,andyearsbyt.Table 1-6 presentsestimatesofmjtandcjt.ColumnIliststheestimateddierenceinxedeectsbetweenmainstreammoversandnon-movers(^mjtinEquation 1{3 ).Mobileteachersmovingbetweenmainstreamschoolstendedtohavelowermathandreadingxedeectsthannon-movingteachers,by1.8and1.4percentofastudent-levelstandarddeviation,respectively.ColumnIIliststheestimateddierenceinclassroomperformancebetweencharterandmainstreammovers.Chartermovers'xedeectswereestimatedtobe4.5percentofastandarddeviationhigherinmathand4.0percenthigherinreading,relativetothoseofteachersmovingtocomparable,albeitmainstreamschools.Equation 1{3 coecientsindicateareverseofthecharter-mainstreammoverperformancegapobservedinthedescriptivestatisticsofTable 1-5 .ColumnsIIIandIVlistanalogousresultsforthesubsampleofregularlylicensedteachers.Pointestimatesforcharterandmainstreammoverswerelargelyunchangedbyexcludingunlicensedteachers.39 39Therateofregularlicensurewasmuchhigheramongelementary-gradeteachers. 37

PAGE 38

38

PAGE 39

1{2 ,omittingteacherxedeects(j). Suppressingnotationforgradeandschool,theerrorsareeijct=j+"ijct.Therearetwocomponentstoeachstudentresidual,eijct:teacherj'spersistentvalue-added(j),andnon-persistentnoise("ijct)encompassingsamplingerrorandtransientshockstoaverageclassroomperformance.Theaveragestudentresidualforeachclasscanbeexpressedlikeso:^ejct=j+1 1{4 maybiasothercoecientsiftheyarecorrelatedwithj;this,inturn,willbiasestimatedresiduals,^eijct.CalibratingthedependantvariablebyschoolinEquation 1{4 limitsbiasesfrombetween-schoolsorting,butwithinschoolteacher-studentmatchingpatternsmaynonethelessaect2estimates.Solongasthecorrelationbetweenjand"jctisnotsystematicallydierentforsubsamplesofinterest,thecalculatedvarianceof 39

PAGE 40

CarrellandWest ( 2008 ),Iestimate2bycomputingtheaveragecovarianceofallclassroomresidualpairsbetweenteacherj'sclasscinyeartandc06=cinyeart06=t: ^2=24JXj=1CjXc=1^ejct^ejc0t035=N(1{5)Jisthenumberofteachers,Cjisthenumberofclassestaughtbyteacherj,andNisthenumberofpairs. Table 1-7 presentsestimatesoftotalandsignalstandarddeviations.40Allstandarderrors(inparenthesesbeloweachstandarddeviationestimate)wereestimatedbybootstrap,withanequalnumberofcharterparticipantsandnon-participantsselectedineachsampling.ThethirdandsixthcolumnsofTable 1-7 listthestandarddeviationofteacherxedeects,bygroup.Asexpected,estimatesofthevariationinpersistentteacherresiduals(signal)weremuchsmallerthanthevariationinteacherxedeects(SD(FE)).Thelattersuggeststhataone-standard-deviationincreaseinteacherqualityimprovedstudentmathperformanceby0.237standarddeviations,threetimesthebonusfromhavinganexperiencedteacherratherthananewone.Butjudgingbythepreferredmeasureofdispersion,aone-standard-deviationincreaseinteacherqualitywouldyieldastill-substantial0.179standarddeviationincreaseinstudentmathperformance,closertothedierencebetweenhavingacollege-educatedparentversusaparentwith\somecollege."Estimatesofsignalvarianceweresomewhatsmallerforreading;aone-standarddeviationincreaseinpersistentteacherqualitywaspredictedtoincrease 1-7 40

PAGE 41

1-7 alsolistssignalstandarddeviationsseparatelyforfuturecharterteachersandteacherswhowereneverobservedinacharterschool.Thevarianceofmathperformancewaswiderforfuturecharterteachers,butthevarianceofreadingperformancewasnarrower.Bothstatisticswerewithintwostandarderrorsofthecorrespondingsignalestimateforexclusivelymainstreamteachers. Following Kaneetal. ( 2008 ),IconstructedasimpleBayesianshrinkageestimatortoaccountforsamplingerrorinclassresidualsattributedtoteacherquality.IusedestimatesofsignalandnoisevariancelistedinTable 1-7 ,alongwiththenumberofclassesobservedforeachteacher(Cj)toscaleaverageclassresiduals(ej): ~j=ejCj Equation 1{6 shrinkseachteacher'saverageresidualtowardszeroaccordingtothetermsinparentheses.Residualsforteacherswithmoreclassesandgroupswithlargersignal-to-noiseratioswerescaledbyless,sincetheirresidualswereexpectedtobelessaectedbysamplingerror. Insection 1.3.1 ,Ishowedthatahighrateofchartermoverswereuncertiedandunder-qualied.Thiswouldnotbeproblematicforcharterschoolsifcertiedanduncertiedteacherswerepartofthesameunderlyingdistributionofteachingquality,solongaschartersdidnotdrawheavilyfromthelowerend.Inthatcase,lowlicensurerequirementsmaybeonewaytoretaineectiveteachersinpubliceducation.Inagreementwith Kaneetal. ( 2008 ),Indlittleobservabledierenceinteacherqualitydistributionsbetweenlicensuregroups,butafairlywide(albeitscaled)variancewithineachgroup.Forbothsubjects,Wilcoxonrank-sumtestsfailedtorejectthehypothesesthatteacherswithregularandtemporarylicensesweredrawnfromthesamedistribution 41

PAGE 42

1-4 plotscomparativedensitiesofteacherqualitybycharterparticipation.Thepersistentqualitydistributionforfuturecharterteacherswassignicantlylowerthanthatforexclusivelymainstreamteachers,especiallyformath.Figure 1-4 providesfurtherevidencethatteachersowingintothechartersectortypicallyhadlowerrelativeclassperformancewithintheirschoolsthanexclusivelymainstreamteachers. Goldhaber ( 2007 )and Kaneetal. ( 2008 )),althoughinNorthCarolinatheyareassociatedwithlowerstudentachievement( Clotfelteretal. ( 2007 )).Indnosignicantdierenceinpersistentteacherqualitybetweenbroadlicensuretypes,butawidevarianceofqualitywithineachtype.Ideally,charterschoolswouldrecruituncertiedteachers 42

PAGE 43

Foralimitedsampleofgrade3-5teachers,Iestimatemeasuresofteacherqualityusingclassroomperformanceonstandardizedend-of-gradeexams.Werecharterschoolscreamskimmingmoreeectiveteachers?Charterswerenotskimmingabove-averageteachersfromthestockofschoolfaculties,althoughaccordingtothemoreparametricclassroomperformanceanalysesofsection 1.3.2 ,chartersmayhavebeendrawinghigher-rankedteachersfromtheowofteacherschangingschools.Thisisnottosaythattheteacherswhomovedtocharterschoolsheldacommondeciencyinclassperformance.Ishowthatthedistributionoffuturecharterteacherquality,evenwhenitspersistentcomponentwasformallydissected,waswideandlargelyoverlappedthequalitydistributionofteacherswhonevertaughtinacharterschool. 43

PAGE 44

NorthCarolinacharterschools,students,andteachers,1998-2007 YearSchools(%)Students(%)Teachers(%) 199834(1.7)4,642(0.4)330(0.5)199957(2.7)8,555(0.7)601(0.8)200076(3.6)12,691(1.0)862(1.1)200190(4.1)15,523(1.2)1,086(1.4)200293(4.2)18,235(1.4)1,292(1.6)200393(4.2)20,420(1.5)1,390(1.7)200493(4.1)21,955(1.6)1,509(1.8)200597(4.3)25,248(1.8)1,669(1.9)200697(4.2)27,441(1.9)1,789(2.0)200792(3.9)27,700(2.0)1,894(2.1) Notes:Eachcountofcharterschools,students,andteachersrepresentstheindicatedpercent(%)ofallpublicschools,students,orteachersinthesample.Teacherandschoolcountsweretabulatedfromtheteachers'panel,describedfullyinsection 1.2.2 .StudentcountsweretabulatedfromNCESCommonCoredata. 44

PAGE 45

2006Charterenrollmentandpenetration.MajorpopulationcentersinCumberland(C),Durham(D),Forsyth(F),Guilford(G),Mecklenburg(M),andWake(W)counties. 45

PAGE 46

In-samplemobilitypatternsofcharterteachers TeacherMobilitypatternPercent Startedandendedinthechartersystem(rightcensored)21.5Startedandendedinthechartersystem(uncensored)33.6Mainstreamtocharter25.1Mainstreamtochartertomainstream8.5Chartertomainstream10.7Otherpatterns<1.0 Notes:n=5,346teachers.Thersttwomobilitypatternsapplytoteacherswhotaughtexclusivelyincharterschools.Rightcensoredcharterteachersenteredthesampleinthechartersystemandwerestillteachingtherein2007,thelastyearofthepanel.Uncensoredteachingspellsendedbefore2007.Thefollowingfourmobilitypatternsapplytoteacherswhotaughtincharterandmainstreamschools.Thepercentofallcharterparticipantswhofollowedeachpatternisindicatedatright. 46

PAGE 47

NorthCarolinapublicschoolteachers:Summarystatistics AllAllMainstreamCharterTeacherqualicationteachersmoversmoversmovers Holdsgraduatedegree(%)30.827.527.525.2(46.2)(44.6)(44.7)(43.4)Attendedcompetitivecollege(%)76.275.075.170.6(42.6)(43.3)(43.3)(45.6)Meanlicensuretestscore0.0300.0150.0150.029(0.857)(0.839)(0.838)(0.905)Regularlylicensed(%)89.588.889.079.1(30.7)(31.6)(31.3)(40.7)Teachingexperience(years)11.938.898.927.45(9.92)(8.72)(8.71)(8.97)Experience3years(%)26.136.336.147.5(43.9)(48.1)(48.0)(50.0)Experience25years(%)14.57.57.58.9(35.2)(26.3)(26.3)(28.5)Nonwhite(%)16.918.117.926.4(37.4)(38.5)(38.3)(44.1)Female(%)79.879.879.879.2(40.1)(40.2)(40.2)(40.6)n(teacher-years)886,34358,62957,4871,142 Notes:Standarddeviationsappearinparenthesesbeloweachmean.Dataformovingteachersareevaluatedintheyearimmediatelyprecedingaschoolchange. 47

PAGE 48

B Densityestimates:Years'experienceofallmobileteachers(A)andoflicensedmobileteachers(B).DensitieswereestimatedusingEpanechnikovkernelfunctionsandhalfwidthsof0.50years. 48

PAGE 49

B Densityestimates:Meanlicensuretestscoresofallmobileteachers(A)andoflicensedmobileteachers(B).DensitieswereestimatedusingEpanechnikovkernelfunctionsandhalfwidthsof0.05standarddeviations. 49

PAGE 50

Regressionresults:Qualicationsofteacherschangingschools,bylicensureandcharter/mainstreamdestination IIIIIIIVSampleAllAllLicensedLicensedDestinationMainstreamCharterMainstreamCharter(Equation 1{1 coecient)(^mjt)(^cjt)(^mjt)(^cjt) Graduatedegree0.003-0.0270.007-0.028(1.41)(2.03)(3.06)(1.70)Competitivecollege-0.011-0.016-0.0060.003(5.63)(1.20)(2.88)(0.21)Licensed-0.012-0.074(8.53)(6.15)Meanlicensuretestscore-0.0270.019-0.0230.094(7.00)(0.68)(5.77)(3.33)Experience(years)-3.69-1.07-3.66-0.44(81.75)(3.52)(76.29)(1.21)Experience3years0.1320.0700.1200.049(58.29)(4.58)(51.97)(2.90)Experience25years-0.1020.070-0.1000.059(65.22)(5.86)(60.91)(4.37) Notes:n=886,343teacher-years.ColumnIliststheestimateddierenceinqualicationkbetweenteachersmovingtomainstreamschoolsandnon-movers(mjtinEquation 1{1 ).CellsincolumnIIlisttheestimateddierenceinkbetweencharterandmainstreammovers(cjt).ColumnsIIIandIVpresentthesesamecoecientsforthesubsampleofregularlylicensedteachers.Controlvariablesincludedreceivingschoolcharacteristics(studentracialcomposition,performancecomposite,schoolsize,schoolage,graderangesserved),asetofdummyvariablesformissingdata,andcounty-by-yeareects.Theabsolutevaluesoft-statisticsarereportedinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorswereclusteredwithineachschoolandyear. 50

PAGE 51

NorthCarolinapublicschoolteacherxedeects:Summarystatistics AllAllMainstreamCharterFixedeectestimatesteachersmoversmoversmovers Math-0.016-0.036-0.035-0.072(0.258)(0.262)(0.263)(0.253)Reading-0.013-0.029-0.028-0.057(0.225)(0.227)(0.227)(0.242)n(teacher-years)167,24413,75213,495257 Notes:Cellsrepresentaveragexedeectestimates,bysubjectandmobilitystatus.Standarddeviationsappearinparenthesesbeloweachmean.Dataformovingteacherswereevaluatedintheyearimmediatelyprecedingaschoolchange. 51

PAGE 52

Regressionresults:Classroomperformanceofteacherschangingschools IIIIIIIVSampleAllAllLicensedLicensedDestinationMainstreamCharterMainstreamCharter(Equation 1{3 coecient)(^mjt)(^cjt)(^mjt)(^cjt) Math-0.0180.045-0.0170.044(7.20)(2.64)(6.76)(2.35)Reading-0.0140.040-0.0140.044(6.79)(2.41)(6.36)(2.43) Notes:n=167,244teacher-years.ColumnIliststheestimateddierenceinxedeectsbetweenmainstreammoversandnon-movers(mjtinEquation 1{2 ).ColumnIIliststheestimateddierenceinxedeectsbetweencharterandmainstreammovers(cjt).ColumnsIIIandIVpresentthesesamecoecientsforthesubsampleofregularlylicensedteachers.Unreportedcontrolvariablesincludereceivingschoolcharacteristics(studentracialcomposition,performancecomposite,schoolsize,schoolage,graderangesserved),asetofdummyvariablesformissingdata,andcounty-by-yeareects.Theabsolutevaluesoft-statisticsarereportedinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorswereclusteredwithineachschoolandyear. 52

PAGE 53

Variationinteacherquality SubjectMathMathMathReadingReadingReadingMeasureofvarianceTotalSignalSD(FE)TotalSignalSD(FE) Allteachers0.2910.1790.2370.2630.1370.205(0.009)(0.017)(0.013)(0.008)(0.015)0.012Neveracharterteacher0.2940.1560.2360.2600.1360.205(0.011)(0.019)(0.018)(0.008)(0.016)(0.011)Futurecharterteacher0.3070.1830.2550.2760.1320.232(0.009)(0.015)(0.008)(0.008)(0.014)(0.009) Notes:n=167,244teacher-years.Studentmathandreadingscoreswereregressedagainststudentcharacteristics,teacherexperienceindicators,peercharacteristics,andschool-by-yeareects(Equation 1{4 ).\Total"isthestandarddeviationofstudentresidualsfromEquation 1{4 estimates.\Signal,"calculatedbyEquation 1{5 ,isthestandarddeviationofteachers'persistentvalue-added,bygroup.\SD(FE)"isthestandarddeviationofteacherxedeects,estimatedbyEquation 1{2 .Standarderrors,inparenthesesbeloweachstandarddeviationestimate,wereestimatedbybootstrapwithanequalnumberofcharterparticipantsandnon-participantsselectedineachsampling. 53

PAGE 54

B Densityestimates:Persistentteacherqualityinmath(A)andreading(B)forfuturecharterteachersandexclusivelymainstreamteachers.DensitieswereestimatedusingEpanechnikovkernelfunctionsandhalfwidthsof0.025scaledstandarddeviations. 54

PAGE 55

Charterschools,particularlynewones,arestaedbyhighratesofnewteachers,andthismayhelptoexplainwhytheirstudentsstruggletomeetexpectations.Inexperiencedcharterfacultiesarewidelyacknowledged,buttodate,nostudyhaslinkedteacherexperiencetostudentperformanceincharterschools.IexaminewhetherinexperiencedfacultiesaectedstudentachievementinNorthCarolinacharters,usingatwelve-yearpanelofstudenttestdata.Theshareofnewteachersinthestate'scharterfacultieswasquitehighinnewschools,butfellsharplyastheschoolsaged.Consistentwithearlierresearch,Indsignicantreturnstocharterschoolage,butthismaturationcouldnotbeattributedtodecliningratesofnewteachers.Rather,charterstudentsbenetedfromhigherratesofnewteachersinrecently-newschools,moresoinmaththanreading.Thesendingssuggestthatinexperiencedfacultieswerenotarootcauseoflowstudentachievementinnewcharterschoolsandmayhavebeensymptomaticofdevelopment. NationalCenterforEducationStatistics ( 2004 )and Braun,Jenkins,andGrigg ( 2006 )).Thesestudiesusedcross-sectionalsnapshotsoffourth-gradestudentsin2003,anddespiteextensivecontrolsforobservablestudentcharacteristics,ndingsmayhavebeeninuencedbyselectionbias.Enrolling 55

PAGE 56

( 2007 )showedthatTexasstudentsincurredsignicantpenaltiesinnewcharterschools,butinschoolsolderthantwoyears,studentgainswerenotstatisticallydierentfromthoseofmainstreamstudents. Sass ( 2006 )foundsimilarlyoptimisticresultsforFlorida'scharterschools,whichimprovedtoparwithmainstreamschoolsbytheirfthyearofoperation.Bothstudiescontrolledforheterogeneityinstudentabilitywithlaggedachievementlevels.Analternativestrategyusesstudentxedeectstoparameterizeheterogeneous,unobservedability.Thismethodologywasemployedby BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 )and Bookeretal. ( 2007 )toexaminetheeectivenessofcharterschoolsinNorthCarolinaandTexas,respectively. BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 )showedthatdespiteevidenceofimprovementovertime,theeectofattendingaNorth ( 2008 )provideathoroughreviewoftheresearchonchartereectiveness. 56

PAGE 57

Bookeretal. ( 2007 )decomposedtheeectofcharterenrollmentinTexasbyschoolageandstudenttenure.StudentswhomovedtoacharterschoolinTexasexperiencedaninitialshockbutrecoveredwithinthreeyears.Charterschoolsarepromisingvehiclesforcompetitioninpubliceducationsystems,butlengthymaturationperiodsweakentheirappeal( Carnoy,Jacobson,Mishel,andRothstein ( 2006 )).Whydonewchartersstruggle,andwhatmighthastentheirimprovement? Facultydevelopmentmaybeasubstantialstart-upcostincharterschools.Therelativeinexperienceofcharterfacultiesiswidelyacknowledged.4Largesharesofyoung,inexperiencedteachersareviewedasasignofweaknessandimpracticalityinthechartermodel( Rimer ( 2003 )).Studieshaverepeatedlyshownthatnewteachersarelesseectiveatproducingstudentachievement.Thereturnstoexperiencearesteepandhighlynon-linear,withstatisticallysignicantgainscomingintherstthreetoveyearsofateacher'scareer.5Ifchartersareunabletoattractandretainexperiencedteachers,andifnewteachersfacethesamedicultiesincharterschoolsastheydointraditionalpublicschools,thenitshouldbenosurprisethatcharterstudentsdonotperformaswellasmainstreamstudents.Theconclusionthatnewteacherscontributetothestrugglesofjust-openedcharterswouldbeaneasyonetomake,despiteapaucityofquantitativeevidencelinkingfacultyinexperiencetostudentperformanceincharterschools. Hanusheketal. ( 2007 )foundthatinexperiencedfacultiesmayhavecontributedtotheestimatedpenaltyfromenrollinginanewTexascharterschool,althoughtheirstudentsbenettedfromsmallerclasssizes. Hoxby ( 2002 ), MalloyandWohlstetter ( 2003 ),and PodgurskyandBallou ( 2001 ).5Aselectionofstudiesreachingtheconclusionthatthereturnstoexperiencearesteepestoverateacher'srstfewyearsincludes Clotfelteretal. ( 2007 ), MurnaneandPhillips ( 1981 ),and Rocko ( 2004 ). 57

PAGE 58

Acharterschoolisawhollydierentenvironmentforstudentsandteachers,andweshouldnotbequicktoassumethatnewcharterteacherswillnegativelyaectstudentperformancetothesamedegreeobservedfornewteachersinmainstreamschools.Thereissomeexperimentalevidenceofnon-traditionalnoviceteachersoutperformingtheirtraditionalcounterparts( Glazerman,Mayer,andDecker ( 2006 )).Also,inapostsecondarysetting,studentsbenettedfromhavinglessexperienced,lesseducatedmathandscienceteachers,althoughtheyfailedtoretainthosebenetsinsubsequentfollow-oncourses( CarrellandWest ( 2008 )).Sonontraditionalnewteachersmaybemoreeectivethanthe 58

PAGE 59

Hiringyoungandinexperiencedteacherscouldbeanecientwayforcharterschoolleaderstoallocatetheirlimitedresources.Indoingso,theycandirectmoreoftheirbudgettowardrecruitingandoverheadexpenses.Butthisalternativepersonnelstrategycouldhavelargesocialcostsintheformoflowerstudentachievement.Ifso,charterschoolswithhighlyinexperiencedfacultieswouldnotbefulllingtheirrolesasviableoptionsforpublicschoolstudents.Thereisnoevidence,however,thatstudentsperformbetterorworseincharterschoolsthatrelyheavilyonnewteachers. Inthispaper,IlinkfacultyprolesofNorthCarolina'scharterandmainstreamschoolstoatwelve-yearpanelofstudentmathandreadingtestscores.Thisistherstquantitativeeorttodatethatfullyexploresrelationshipsbetweenfacultyinexperienceandstudentperformanceincharterschools.Idocumenthighratesofnewteachersandteacherturnoverincharterschools,relativetomainstreamschoolsofthesameage.Aschartersaged,however,therateofnewteachersdeclinedsteeply,andonaverage,convergedtothemainstreamlevelbythesixthorseventhyearofoperation.Iincorporatefacultystatistics{mostimportantly,theshareofnewteachers{intocommonmodelsofcharters'valueadded.Consistentwithearlierresearch,Indthatchartersimprovedwithage,butthismaturationwasnotduetodecliningratesofnewteachers.Duringtheirrstvetosixyearsofoperation,charterswithhigherratesofnewteachersproducedhigherstudentmathandreadinglevels,relativetoschoolswithmoreexperiencedfaculties.Thesendingssuggestthatyoungcharterschoolsbenettedfrom{oratleast,werenotharmedby{ratesoffacultychurnthatsignaltroubleinmainstreamschools.Whatislessclearisthemechanismbehindtheempiricalbenetsattributedtoinexperiencedcharterfaculties.WereNorthCarolina'scharterschoolshiringmoreeective,albeitlessexperienced,teachers,ordidlow-costfacultiesallowcharterstoredirectresourcesinwaysthatyieldedgreaterstudentachievement?Ineithercase,highratesofnewteachersincharterschools 59

PAGE 60

2.2.1NorthCarolinaCharterSchools NorthCarolinaisanidealsettingtostudytheeectivenessofcharterschoolsservingascomplementaryalternativestoexisting,fairlystablemainstreampublicschools.10Thestate'schartersystemistenyearsold,servesadiverserangeofstudentsandlocales,andbearsmanyfeaturesincommonwithotherstatechartersystems,particularlyregardingschoolnanceandfacultyrequirements.Eachcharterschoolreceivesaper-pupiltransfer NorthCarolinaStateBoardofEducation ( 2006 )).8Irefertoschoolyearsbytheyearoftheirtraditionalspringconclusion.Forinstance,2002referencesthe2001-2002schoolyear.9Althoughthecapisbinding,newchartershaveopenedeachyearsince2002toreplaceschoolsthatclosed.Also,statewidecharterenrollmentcontinuestogrowasexistingschoolsaddgradesandcampuses.10Charterschoolsassumethisroleinmanystates,butinsometroubledurbanschooldistricts,partoftheirpurposeistoreformchronicallyunderperforming,costlyschoolsystems.Theresultsdiscussedherewillbemoregeneralizabletothecomplementarytypeofchartersystem. 60

PAGE 61

2.2.2 )oncharterandmainstreamstudentperformancehasbeencollectedforsixgradesandtwelveyears,coveringtheentirehistoryofthestate'schartersystem.NorthCarolinahascontributedlargelytothenationaldebateoncharterschools,thanksinparttostudiesby BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 2007 ),whofoundstrongevidenceofsub-parstudentachievementgainsandracialsegregationinthestate'scharterschools.Irevisittheirndingsonstudentachievementinthispaper,withthebenetofveadditionalyearsofdata,andforthersttime,Ianalyzetheeectoffacultyexperienceoncharterstudentachievement. NorthCarolina'schartersystemisatacriticaljuncture.Littlehaschangedsince1996,butthe100-schoolcap,charterschoolfunding,andtheevaluationofindividualschoolsremainpolarizingissuesinstateandlocalpolitics.Oneresearchgrouphasrecommendedthestatemaintainthe100-schoolcap( Manuel ( 2007 )),citingpoorprogressinexistingcharters.Anothergroup,theBlueRibbonCharterSchoolCommission,adviseddoingawaywiththecapbutcrackingdownonlow-performingschoolsbyrevokingthecharterofanyschoolperformingbelowmedianstandardswithoutsignsofimprovement12( Owens ( 2007 )).Thispaperwillinformstateandnationaldebatesontheeectivenessof 61

PAGE 62

2006 2007 )evaluationsofNorthCarolina'scharterschools. Myprimarymeasuresofstudentperformanceareend-of-grade(EOG)testscorerecordsforstudentsingradesthreethrougheight.EOGtestscoverthestate'sStandardCourseofStudyinmathandreading.14Rawscoresareintendedtobeinterval-scaledacrossandwithingrades,meaningthataone-unitincreaserepresentsthesameknowledgegainatallpointsintherangeofscores,whichvariesovertime.Istandardizedrawscorestohavemeanzeroandstandarddeviationonewithineachgradeandyear.StandardizedEOGscores,then,representstudents'placeinthedistributionofscoresfortheircohort,andchangesinstudenttestscoresovertimerepresentmovementwithinthatdistribution.15Eachstudent'stestscoreislinkedtoananonymousidentierthat Muschkinetal. ( 2008 ).14Standardizedtestscoresareincompletemeasuresofstudentlearning,andfailtoassesnon-academicmeritsthatparentsvalue(discipline,forinstance).Thiscouldbeproblematicforthecurrentanalysisifcharterschoolsdierentiallyfocusonnon-academicmerits,andifparentswhosendtheirchildrentocharterschoolsplacelessemphasisontestscores.Nonetheless,EOGscoresandgainsarealargepartofNorthCarolina'sschoolaccountabilitymethodology,andcharterschoolsareheldtothesameaccountabilitystandardsastheirmainstreamcounterparts.15Theresultstofollowaresimilar{butattenuated{ifIstandardizebyyear,thereinpreservingtheverticalscaleacrossgrades.Educationinputsaectstudents'placeintheircohortdistributionsmoresothantheirplaceinthegrade3-8distribution,sopoint 62

PAGE 63

Iassembledapanelofstudentsingradesthreethrougheightbycohort,startingwiththecohortingradethreein1996,upthroughthecohortingradethreein2005.Iexcludedstudentswhorepeatedagradeorhadgapsintheirtimeseries.Changingschoolsisdisruptiveandtendstonegativelyaectastudent'stestscoregrowth( Hanushek,Kain,andRivkin ( 2004 )),soitisnecessarytocontrolforstudentmobilityintypicalstudentachievementproductionfunctions.Iidentiedvemutuallyexclusivetypesofschoolchanges:movementacrosscounties,movementwithinacounty,structuralmoves(usuallyindicatingthetransitionfromelementaryschooltomiddleschool),16movementfromamainstreamschooltoacharterschool,andviceversa. Thedataallowmetotrackmorethan1.7millionuniquestudents,ofwhom31,634attendedacharterschoolatsometime.Forcomputationalconvenience,Irandomlysampledcompletetestinghistoriesfortwentypercentofexclusivelymainstreamstudents,thosewhowereneverobservedinacharterschool.Table 2-1 categorizescharterstudentsbytheirmobility,orlackthereof,betweencharterandmainstreamschools.Nearlyforty-eightpercentofcharterstudentswereobservedinamainstreamschoolbeforemovingtoacharterschool{ofthose,28.2percenttransitionedbacktothemainstreamafteroneormoreyears.Justlessthansixteenpercentofcharterstudentsoriginatedinthechartersectorandthenmovedtoamainstreamschool.Inmodelsofchartervalue estimatestendtobelargerinabsolutevaluewhenEOGscoresarenormalizedbygradeandyearratherthanyearalone.Nonetheless,theconclusionthatinexperiencedcharterfacultieswereassociatedwithhigherstudentachievementwasrobusttoeitherdistributionofachievementlevels,aswellaschangesinthoselevels.16Followingtheliterature,Idenedastructuralmoveasanyschoolchangewhereatleastthirtypercentofthemover'sschool-gradecohortmadethesamemove( Hanusheketal. ( 2007 ), BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 ), Sass ( 2006 ),and Bookeretal. ( 2007 )). 63

PAGE 64

2.3 controlsforinherentstudentabilitywithlaggedtestscoresratherthanstudentxedeects,thereinpermittinganystudentwithatleasttwoyearsoftestrecordstocontributetoresults. MostEOGrecordsindicatestudents'examproctors,whomayhavebeenclassroomteachers.ThisisoneofthemanyvaluablefeaturesoftheNorthCarolinadata,becauseitallowsresearcherstolinkindividualteacherstotheirstudents.Unfortunately,charterteachersarenotwell-representedintheEOGles,soIcannotcondentlylinkindividualcharterteacherstotheirstudents.Charterteachersare,however,comprehensivelylistedinschoolactivityreports,allowingmetolinkfacultyprolestostudenttestrecords.Untilnow,nostudyhasexploitedthisuniquewindowonthetypicallyopaquedatawallsurroundingcharterfaculties. 64

PAGE 65

2-2 summarizescharacteristicsoftheschoolsandfacultieswithEOGtest-takers,bycharterdesignation,overtheyears1996-2007.Charterschoolsenrolledfewerstudentsonaverage,andtheyhadslightlysmallerstudent-teacherratios(15.0versus18.0).But13.6percentofcharterfacultieswerenewteachers,morethantwicetherateinmainstreamfaculties.Chartershadlowersharesoffemaleteachers,byelevenpercentagepoints,andsignicantlyhigherratesofblack,non-Hispanicteachers. Clearly,charterschoolsreliedonnewteacherstoamuchgreaterdegreethanmainstreamschools.Butsimpleaveragesmaskdynamictrendsinfacultyexperience.Figure 2-1 plotstherateofrst-yearteachersinschoolfaculties,byageofschoolandcharterdesignation.Onaverage,nearlythirtypercentofteachersinnewcharterschoolswereintheirrstyearofteaching.Thisisaboutthreetimestherateofnewteachersinjust-openedmainstreamschools.Buttherateofnewcharterteachersshrankdramaticallyastheirschoolsaged,reachingparwithmainstreamschoolsbythesixthtoeighthyearofoperation. Newteachersareatahighriskofleavingtheprofession.Stangaschoolwithalotofnewteachersmaybealow-costpersonnelstrategy,butaprecursortohighturnover. 65

PAGE 66

2-2 ,notethatteacherturnoverwashighinNorthCarolina{19percent,onaverage,meaningthataboutoneinveteachersinaparticularschoolwerenottherethefollowingyear.Butturnoverincharterschoolswasevenhigher,33.6percent,meaningoneinthreecharterteachersdidnotreturn.Butagain,thesimpleaverageismisleading,becauseteacherturnoverfellsharplyascharterschoolsaged.Figure 2-2 illustratesturnoverincharterandmainstreamschoolsintheirrstthroughninthyear.Muchliketherateofnewteachers,thetypicalrateofteacherturnoverincharterschoolswasveryhighinitially(almostfortypercent)butdeclinedsharplyastheschoolsaged.Bytheseventhyearofoperation,averageturnoverincharterschoolswasstatisticallyindistinguishablefromturnoverinmainstreamschools. Theevaluationofcharterschooleectivenesshasrepeatedlypointedtoapatternofdicultearlyyearsfollowedbygradualimprovement. Bookeretal. ( 2007 )attributedpartoftheestimatedpenaltytothefactthatnewcharterschoolsnecessarilyenrollhighratesofschool-changers,whotendtomakelowerachievementgainsuponmovingtoanewschool.Additionalvolatilitymaycomefromhighratesofinexperiencedandexitingteachers.Canweattributethematurationofcharterschoolstofallingratesofnewteachers?Section 2.3 suggeststhatnewteacherswerenotresponsibleforlowstudentachievementinNorthCarolina'scharterschools. 66

PAGE 67

InthemodeldescribedbyEquation 2{1 ,theeectsofinputsfrompriorgradesandyearsdecayaccordingtokgt.Also,theeectsofinputsareallowedtovaryacrossgrades{forinstance,itmaybethecasethatmakinganintra-district,non-structuralmoveismoredisruptiveinhighergrades.Similarly,astudentmayhaveaninherentlygoodmatchwiththefourth-gradecontent,makingi4largerthanherotherxedeects.Unfortunately,thisexibilityrendersthemodelinestimable.Thenumberofparametersequalsthenumberofobservations,anditisthetaskoftheeconometriciantoimposereasonablerestrictionsthatpermitidentifyingvariationinthevariablesofinterest.First,Iassumethatstudentxedeectswereconstantacrossgrades:iG=i8g.Similarly,IassumethattheeectsofinputsabbreviatedbyCigt,Aigt,Migt,andFigtwereconstantacrossgrades.Irestricttheeectofpriorinputstobezeroforthehistoryofgrade-years:gt=08g
PAGE 68

2{2 isamodelofstudentachievementwhereastudent'sinherentpropensitytoproduceachievementisrepresentedbyanunobserved,time-invariantxedeect(ki).Students'gender,race/ethnicity,parentalincome,andsubsidizedlunchstatuswerelargelytime-invariant,soAiGTcanbeomittedsinceitsvariablesarehighlycollinearwithki.Ialsoestimateamodelwithlaggedachievement,insteadofstudentxedeects: Notetheadditionofcountyeects(C)in 2{3 .Studentxedeects,inconjunctionwithcross-countymoveindicators,negatetheneedtocontrolforcountyeectsinEquation 2{2 .Butintheabsenceofstudentxedeects,Cindicatorsarenecessarytocontrolfordierencesintypicalstudentperformanceacrosscounties.Equations 2{2 and 2{3 requireatleasttwocontinuousyearsoftestingdatatoidentifytherelativeeectofcharterenrollment;accordingly,Ilimitthesampletostudentswithatleastoneprioryearofmathandreadingtestscores.Todate,studiesonthequalityofcharterschoolshavetypicallyusedeitheraxedeectsorlaggedachievementmethodology,butnotboth.IpresentresultsfromEquations 2{2 and 2{3 side-by-side,andshowthattheeectivenessofcharterschoolsappearsquitedierentacrossmodels.Thedierencecanbereconciledby(1)thesourceofidentifyingvariationeachmodelrelieson,and(2)theassumptionsthatledtotheirderivationfromEquation 2{1 Equation 2{3 hasconceptualandoperationaladvantagesoverEquation 2{2 .ThexedeectsspecicationrepresentedbyEquation 2{2 makesthestrongassumptionthatprioryears'inputsdonotdecay,whereasEquation 2{3 ismoreexible,allowingktobeestimatedratherthanassumed.Equation 2{3 ,whichcontrolsforinitialprociency,isalsolesssubjecttomeanreversionthanEquation 2{2 .Meanreversion,inthissetting,isproblematicwhenstudentswithbelow-averageinitialscorestendtomakeabove-averageadvancementswithintheircohortdistribution.NorthCarolina'sEOGtestscoregainsaregreatlyaectedbymeanreversion,particularlyinmath.Figure 2-3 plotslocalpolynomial 68

PAGE 69

Additionally,thegainsmodelwithlaggedachievementoersawiderscopeforinference,albeitalesscausalone.Fixedeectmodelsevaluatetheeectivenessofachartereducationbymeasuringastudent'scharterperformanceagainsthermainstreamperformance.Astudent'smainstreamachievementisanintuitivecounterfactualforherperformanceincharterschools.Butthisidenticationstrategyhingesonsector-switchers,whomaybesystematicallydierentthanstudentswhospentfewerthantwoyearsinmainstreamschools.Equation 2{3 isunder-parameterizedbycomparison,andidentifyingvariationincharterenrollmentispredominantlycross-sectional,ratherthanlongitudinal.Accordingly,inferenceregardingtheeectofcharterschoolsorfacultycharacteristicsshouldbeattributedtocross-sectionalvariationinthoseinputs.CoecientestimatesfromEquation 2{3 willreectglobalrelationshipsbetweeninputsandstudentachievement,whereasestimatesfromEquation 2{2 withxedeectswillshowhowstudentachievementreactedtochangesineachinput. TheadvantagesofthelaggedachievementmodelrepresentedbyEquation 2{3 comeatconsiderablecosttotherigoroustreatmentofselection.WithZkiG1T1inthelistofinputs,studentxedeects(i)andtime-invariantstudentcharacteristicslikegender,race/ethnicity,parentaleducation,andexceptionalities(variablesrepresentedbyAiGTinEquation 2{1 )wouldbeendogenous.Thexedeectsmodel,however,willcontrolforanydierentialselectionintocharterschoolsstemmingfromstudents'inherentrateofachievementgrowth.BothmodelsdealwithheterogeneousabilityinawaythatnegatestheneedtocontrolforobservablestudentcharacteristicsinAiGT.Beforemovingon,Iwill 69

PAGE 70

Table 2-3 listssummarystatisticsforindividualstudentcharacteristicscontainedinAiGT,bycharter/mainstreamenrollment.19Charterstudentshadlowermathscoresandgainsthanmainstreamstudents,buthigherreadingscores.Charterstudentswereslightlymorelikelytobewhite,althoughsummarystatisticsforraceandethnicityfailtodemonstratetheextentofracialpolarizationinNorthCarolina'scharterschools.Charterparentsweremoreeducatedonaverage.Amongcharterstudents,32.7percenthadaparentwithafour-yearcollegedegree,comparedtojust21.6percentofmainstreamstudents.Charterparentswerealsomorelikelytoholdpostgraduatedegrees.Thelikelihoodofvariouslearningdisabilitieswassimilarforstudentsinbothsectors,althoughmainstreamstudentswerethreetimesaslikelytobeacademicallygifted.Charterstudentswerealsolesslikelytohavefreeorreduced-pricelunch,by16.9percentagepoints.Judgingbythesesummarystatistics,atypicalcharterstudentcamefromamoreadvantagedbackgroundthanhismainstreampeers,wasrelativelystronginreading,butrelativelyweakinmath. IestimateEquation 2{2 usingthe\within"xedeectsestimator,andIestimateEquation 2{3 usingordinaryleastsquares(OLS).Inbothmodels,Iallowforrobuststandarderrorstobeclusteredbystudentidentifers.SelectedcoecientestimatesfromEquations 2{2 and 2{3 arepresentedinTables 2-4 and 2-5 ,respectively. Turningrsttothexedeectsspecicationswithoutfacultyvariables(Table 2-4 ,columnsIandIII),theeectofachartereducationappearstobenegativeformathandreading.Charterstudentssawadropof0.169standarddeviations(sd)inmathanda 2-3 summarystatisticsarelimitedtostudentswithatleastoneprioryearoftestdata,thesamesampleforwhichEquations 2{2 and 2{3 areestimated.SamplemeansarequalitativelysimilarforbroadergroupsofEOGtest-takers. 70

PAGE 71

ColumnsIIandIVofTable 2-4 listcoecientestimateswhenfacultycharacteristicsareincludedinthexedeectsmodel.Addingfacultycharacteristicschangestheestimatedeectivenessofcharterschools,butnotsignicantly.CondenceintervalsoverlapforcolumnIIandIVpointestimates.Ofparticularinterestforthispaperistheeectofnewteachersonstudentachievement.Atenpercentage-pointincreaseintherateofnewteachersatastudent'sschooldecreasedhisachievementgainsby0.017sdinmathand0.013sdinreading.Giventhis,andtheprevalenceofnewteachersincharterschools,wemightconcludethatcharterschoolswouldhavebeenmoreeective,butfortheirrelianceonnewteachers.Butthisinferenceassumesthatnewteachershavethesameeectinbothsectors,anassumptionIrelaxlateron. AddingfacultycharacteristicstothexedeectsspecicationdoesnotchangetheconclusionthatNorthCarolinawereineectiveatraisingstudentachievement,butswitchingtothelaggedachievementspecicationdoes.CoecientestimatesforthelaggedachievementmodeloftestgainsarelistedforbothsubjectsinTable 2-5 .The 2-4 issimilarto BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 )preferredxedeectsmodelintheirstudyofNorthCarolinacharterschools,althoughtheirdependentvariablewasthechangestandardizedlevelscoresratherthanthelevelitself.Theyfoundthatcharterenrollmentreducedstudentgainsby0.160sdinmathand0.095inreading. 71

PAGE 72

Despitedierentmodesofinference,estimatedeectsoffacultycharacteristicsonstudentachievementweresimilarinxedeectandlaggedachievementmodels.Atenpercentage-pointincreaseintherateofnewteacherssignicantlydecreasedmathandreadinggainsinbothmodels,althoughtheestimatedpenaltytoreadinggainsattributedtonewteachersgrewsignicantlyfrom-0.013sdinthexedeectsmodelto-0.020sdinthelaggedachievementmodel.Fortheremainderofthissection,Iusethelagged 72

PAGE 73

ColumnIofTables 2-6 (math)and 2-7 (reading)replicatesthecolumnsIIandIVspecicationsfromTable 2-5 ,respectively,butbreaksthesingledummyvariableforcharterenrollmentintotenindicatorsrepresentingrstthroughtenth-yearcharters.Resultsshedlightondynamictrendsinchartereectiveness.Themathperformanceofstudentsinrst-yearcharterswas0.081sdlowerthanthatofmainstreamstudents.Studentsinfth-yearandolderchartershadmathscoresthatwerestatisticallyindistinguishableorgreaterthanmainstreamstudentscoresscores.Thepatternofimprovementwasmoredramaticforreadingachievement.First-yearcharterschoolshadanegativeimpactonreadingachievement,second-andthird-yearcharterswereonparwithmainstreamschools,andbeginningwithfourth-yearcharters,readingscoresweresignicantlyhigherincharterschools,byasmuchas0.042sd(about5.7percentoftheblack-whitegapinreading). Whatroledidfacultydevelopmentandexperienceplayintheimprovementofnewcharterschools?Recallthatratesofnewteachersandteacherturnoverwereveryhighfornewcharterschools,butfellquitesharplyovertheyearswhereimprovementinstudenttestscoreswasgreatest.ColumnIIspecicationsinTables 2-6 and 2-7 addtheinteraction,\New(%)xcharter"tothelistofinputs.Thecoecientfor\Newteachers(%)"suggeststhatforevery10-percentage-pointincreaseintherateofnewteachers,mainstreamstudentsrealizedabouta0.024sddropintheirmathscoresanda0.022sddropinreadingscores.Coecientson\New(%)xcharter"measurehowtheeectofnewteacherswasdierentincharterschools,relativetothebaselineeectofnewteachersinmainstreamschools.Iftheshareofnewteachershadasimilarormagniedeectoncharterstudents'testscores(thatis,ifthecoecientontheinteractionisstatisticallyinsignicantornegative),thenfacultydevelopmentandretentionwouldexplainmuchofsub-parachievementinnewcharterschools,andthesubsequent 73

PAGE 74

ColumnIIIspecicationsinTables 2-6 and 2-7 interactcharteragewiththepercentoffacultywhowerenewtounderstandtherelationshipbetweennewteachersandstudentperformanceincharterschoolsofvariousages.22Coecientsforthecharterageindicatorsrepresenttherelationshipbetweencharterenrollment(byageofschool)andstudenttestscores,asidefromwhatwasstatisticallyattributedtonewteachers.Coecientsoncharterenrollmentinteractedwiththepercentofteacherswhowerenewrepresenttheadditionalpenalty(orreductioninthatpenalty)fromacharterschoolhavingatenpercentage-pointincreaseinthepercentofnewteachers,relativetothebaselineeectofnewteachersonmainstreamstudentperformanceestimated. 74

PAGE 75

2-4 ,usingthepointestimateslistedincolumnIIIofTables 2-6 and 2-7 .Thesolidlineineachpanelrepresentsthebaselinepenaltytomainstreamstudenttestscoresfromatenpercentage-pointincreaseinnewteachers,estimatedtobe0.022sdformathand0.024sdforreading.Scatteredpointsarethesumofbaselineeectsandtherelativeeectoftheinteraction,\New(%)xyeartcharter."InthetoppanelofFigure 2-4 ,vemarginaleectsaregreaterthanzero,meaningthatincharterschoolsofparticularvintages,lessexperiencedfacultiesincreasedmathachievement,relativetomoreexperiencedcharterandmainstreamfaculties.Asimilar,butattenuated,patternwasfoundforreadingtestscores.Theseresultsimplythatfresh,inexperiencedfacultieswerenotresponsibleforlowachievementinrecently-newcharterschools.Butstudentsinolderchartersweretypicallybetterowithmoreexperiencedfaculties. 75

PAGE 76

2-6 and 2-7 controlforstudent-teacherratiosinadditiontothelistofinputsincolumnIII.Aswiththeotherschool-levelinputs,Iallowstudent-teacherratiostohaveadistinctimpactinthechartersector.Morestudentsperteacherslightlyincreasedstudentachievementinmainstreamschools,by0.003sdinmathand0.005sdinreading.Thissmallbutcounter-intuitiverelationshipisnotunheardofinnon-experimentalsettings.24Largerclassesincharterschoolsoset(ormorethanoset,inthecaseofmath)baselineeects.Moreimportantly,controllingforclasssizehadlittletonoeectontheestimatedbenetsthatcharterstudentsrealizedfromattendingschoolswithlessexperienced RiceandSchwartz ( 2008 )forareviewofresearchontheeectivenessofclasssizereductions. 76

PAGE 77

2{1 :levelswithstudentxedeects(Equation 2{2 )andlevelswithlaggedachievement(Equation 2{3 ).Someconsistentpatternsemergedacrossmodels.Enrollinginarst-yearcharternegativelyaectedstudents'testscorelevels.Studentswhomovedfromamainstreamschooltoacharterschoolofanyagesawlowergainsimmediatelyfollowingtheirmove.Higherratesofnewteachersdecreasedmainstreamstudents'mathandreadinglevels.Theseconclusionswerereachedwithvaryingstatisticalandeconomicsignicanceinbothmodels,despitedierenttreatmentsofheterogeneous,unobservedstudentability.Theestimatedimpactofattendingacharterschoolonstudentachievementwasconsiderablymoresanguineinthelaggedachievementmodel,highlightingtheimportanceofstatisticalassumptionsandidentifyingvariationinpolicy-relevantanalyses. Idocumentedaclearpatternofimprovementincharterstudentachievementfollowingcharters'rstyearofoperation,whentherateofnewteachersincharterfacultieswasfallingsharply.Buttheweakperformanceofstudentsinnewcharterschoolscouldnotbeattributedtoinexperiencedfaculties.Priortocharterschools'sixthyear,highersharesofnewteacherswereassociatedwithslightlyhigherstudentachievement,particularlyformath.Thisrelationshipwasambiguousbeyondyearsix,suggestingthatinolder,moreestablishedcharters,theeectoffacultyexperiencewasnodierentthanitwasintraditional,mainstreampublicschools. 77

PAGE 78

78

PAGE 79

StudenttransitionsinandoutofNorthCarolinacharterschools PercentofstudentsTypeoftransition(s)observedincharterschools onlyobservedincharterschools35.6movedfrommainstreamtocharter34.3movedfromchartertomainstream15.5movedfrommainstreamtochartertomainstream13.5otherpatternswithatleasttwotransitions1.1 Notes:n=31,634totalindividualsobservedincharterschools. 79

PAGE 80

NorthCarolinapublicschoolfaculties:Summarystatisticsforschoolswithgrade3-8EOGtest-takers. TypeofschoolMainstreamCharterStatisticMeanMeanDierence numberofstudents536.5236.5300.0(237.7)(183.9)numberofteachers31.615.815.8(14.0)(10.7)student-teacherratio18.015.03.0(15.9)(8.0)percentnewteachers6.413.6-7.2(6.5)(16.2)teacherturnover(percentleaving)19.033.6-14.6(14.5)(25.6)percentfemaleteachers88.977.911.0(11.2)(16.8)percentwhiteteachers83.067.815.2(19.0)(34.8)percentblack,non-Hispanicteachers15.027.5-12.5(17.6)(33.7)percentHispanicteachers0.71.7-1.0(2.0)(5.1)percentother,non-Hispanicrace/ethnicity1.33.0-1.7(5.9)(10.3)n(school-years)18,948701 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.indicatesasignicantdierenceat95%condenceormore. 80

PAGE 81

Averagerateofnewteachers,byageofschoolandcharter/mainstreamdesignation.Thinnerlinesrepresentcondenceintervals. 81

PAGE 82

Averagefacultyturnoverrates,byageofschoolandcharter/mainstreamdesignation.Thinnerlinesrepresentcondenceintervals 82

PAGE 83

B Meanreversioninmath(A)andreading(B)EOGtestscores.Testgainswereestimatedasrst-degreelocalpolynomialfunctionsofinitialscores,with0.50standarddeviationhalfwidths.InitialscoredensitieswereestimatedusingEpanechnikovkernelfunctionsand0.50standarddeviationhalfwidths. 83

PAGE 84

NorthCarolinapublicschoolstudents:Summarystatisticsforgrade3-8EOGtest-takers TypeofschoolMainstreamCharterStatisticMeanMeanDierence Mathscore0.1100.0320.078(0.967)(0.988)Readingscore0.1050.142-0.036(0.951)(0.966)Female0.5090.513-0.005(0.500)(0.500)White,non-Hispanic0.6180.633-0.015(0.486)(0.482)Black,non-Hispanic0.2830.292-0.008(0.451)(0.454)Hispanic0.0460.0220.023(0.209)(0.148)other,non-Hispanic0.0530.0530.001(0.224)(0.223)Missingrace/ethnicity0.0010.0020.000(0.035)(0.042)Highschoolorless0.4310.2330.198(0.495)(0.423)Lessthan4yearsofcollege0.1960.1920.004(0.397)(0.394)Four-yearcollegegraduate0.2180.337-0.119(0.413)(0.473)Postgraduatedegree0.0490.075-0.025(0.217)(0.263)Missingparentaleducation0.1060.163-0.057(0.307)(0.369)Learningdisabled-math0.0190.023-0.004(0.137)(0.150)Learningdisabled-reading0.0410.0410.000(0.198)(0.198)Learningdisabled-writing0.0420.044-0.001(0.202)(0.205)Learningdisabled-language0.0070.009-0.002(0.086)(0.095)Otherlearningdisability0.0020.002-0.001(0.040)(0.048)n(student-years)741,73657,480 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.denotessignicantdierencesatthe5%condencelevel. 84

PAGE 85

TypeofschoolMainstreamCharterStatisticMeanMeanDierence Academicallygifted0.1740.0540.120(0.379)(0.227)Subsidizedlunch0.3320.1680.164(0.471)(0.374)Missingsubsidizedlunchstatus0.1630.182-0.019(0.370)(0.386)n(student-years)741,73657,480 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.denotessignicantdierencesatthe5%condencelevel. 85

PAGE 86

Fixedeectestimates:Theeectofcharterenrollmentontestscoregains IIIIIIIVSubjectMathMathReadingReading Charter-0.169-0.156-0.085-0.081(31.20)(28.56)(15.93)(14.98)Movedtocharter-0.013-4.86e-3-2.71e-31.79e-3(2.58)(0.96)(0.51)(0.33)Movedfromcharter-0.039-0.0413.53e-32.49e-3(7.34)(7.58)(0.61)(0.43)Structuralchange4.59e-37.43e-32.23e-31.77e-3(3.67)(5.49)(1.64)(1.20)Schoolchange-0.015-0.014-8.79e-3-8.51e-3(7.72)(7.13)(4.11)(3.96)Countychange-0.016-0.017-5.37e-3-5.44e-3(4.69)(4.87)(1.41)(1.42)Newteachers(%)-0.017-0.013(16.86)(12.60)Nonwhiteteachers(%)-0.011-2.60e-4(16.85)(0.38)Femaleteachers(%)-1.72e-3-2.05e-3(2.84)(3.36) Notes:n=799,216student-years.Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers. 86

PAGE 87

Laggedachievementestimates:Theeectofcharterenrollmentontestscoregains IIIIIIIVSubjectMathMathReadingReading Charter-0.006775.45e-30.0150.027(2.92)(2.34)(6.00)(10.75)Movedtocharter-0.171-0.153-0.104-0.087(32.78)(29.29)(18.60)(15.57)Movedfromcharter0.1150.1210.0620.06819.0220.01(9.68)(10.64)Structuralchange5.90e-45.67e-31.72e-35.06e-3(0.35)(3.29)(0.95)(2.72)Schoolchange-0.057-0.051-0.057-0.051(26.96)(23.67)(24.61)(21.80)Countychange-0.052-0.051-0.043-0.042(14.71)(14.42)(11.19)(10.91)Newteachers(%)-0.020-0.020(21.01)(19.40)Nonwhiteteachers(%)-0.021-0.021(52.14)(47.81)Femaleteachers(%)-2.25e-3-4.07e-3(4.66)(7.93) Notes:n=799,216student-years.Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers. 87

PAGE 88

Theeectofcharterenrollmentonmathachievementgains,disaggregatedbyschoolage SpecicationIIIIIIIV Year1charter-0.081-0.139-0.184-0.119(6.17)(9.88)(8.78)(4.94)Year2charter-2.22e-3-0.038-0.0190.041(0.26)(4.16)(1.66)(2.67)Year3charter-3.78e-3-0.031-0.0480.013(0.52)(4.04)(4.48)(0.86)Year4charter-0.019-0.045-0.0574.65e-3(2.85)(6.43)(5.52)(0.29)Year5charter0.0282.41e-3-0.0290.031(4.50)(0.36)(3.24)(2.22)Year6charter-2.23e-3-0.025-0.0170.042(0.36)(3.83)(1.79)(2.81)Year7charter0.0277.57e-30.0360.095(4.30)(1.16)(3.96)(6.59)Year8charter-0.012-0.032-0.0110.048(1.65)(4.36)(1.05)(3.25)Year9charter-7.27e-3-0.0247.00e-40.060(0.88)(2.80)(0.07)(4.02)Year10charter0.0164.80e-4-0.0170.039(1.28)(0.04)(0.95)(1.89)Newteachers(%)-0.018-0.024-0.024-0.024(17.04)(20.57)(20.58)(20.00)Newxcharter0.026(10.72)Newxyear1charter0.0410.040(7.06)(6.87)Newxyear2charter0.0140.014(3.07)(2.97)Newxyear3charter0.0400.038(6.13)(5.93)Newxyear4charter0.0360.033(5.19)(4.80)Newxyear5charter0.0540.052(9.16)(8.81)Newxyear6charter0.0180.017(2.45)(2.28) Notes:n=799,216student-years.CoecientswereestimatedbyEquation 2{3 .Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers. 88

PAGE 89

SpecicationIIIIV New(%)xyear7charter-9.39e-3-0.011(1.10)(1.30)Newxyear8charter9.70e-4-3.90e-4(0.10)(0.04)Newxyear9charter-0.013-0.016(1.32)(1.62)Newxyear10charter0.0490.045(2.37)(2.17)Student-teacherratio3.18e-3(9.30)Student-ratioxcharter-3.66e-3(5.33) Notes:n=799,216student-years.CoecientswereestimatedbyEquation 2{3 .Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers. 89

PAGE 90

Theeectofcharterenrollmentonreadingachievementgains,disaggregatedbyschoolage SpecicationIIIIIIIV Year1charter-0.033-0.059-0.081-0.016(2.46)(4.08)(3.90)(0.67)Year2charter0.014-0.002490.0230.087(1.56)(0.26)(1.96)(5.28)Year3charter-1.34e-3-0.014-0.0300.033(0.17)(1.68)(2.54)(1.97)Year4charter0.0260.014-0.0050.056(3.51)(1.75)(0.46)(3.17)Year5charter0.0240.012-0.0120.050(3.36)(1.62)(1.22)(3.21)Year6charter0.0330.0230.0220.080(4.95)(3.25)(2.14)(4.85)Year7charter0.0390.0300.0610.120(5.66)(4.22)(6.06)(7.45)Year8charter0.0330.0240.0380.098(4.40)(3.12)(3.52)(6.19)Year9charter0.0220.0140.0110.072(2.38)(1.55)(0.91)(4.37)Year10charter0.0420.0350.0470.103(3.08)(2.55)(2.30)(4.33)Newteachers(%)-0.019-0.022-0.022-0.021(16.67)(16.96)(16.92)(16.20)Newxcharter0.012(4.49)Newxyear1charter0.0200.019(3.40)(3.21)Newxyear2charter-3.65e-3-5.30e-3(0.74)(1.06)Newxyear3charter0.0250.023(3.26)(3.03)Newxyear4charter0.0280.026(3.51)(3.21)Newxyear5charter0.0340.030(4.84)(4.35)Newxyear6charter0.0130.014(1.66)(1.72) Notes:n=799,216student-years.CoecientswereestimatedbyEquation 2{3 .Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers. 90

PAGE 91

SpecicationIIIIV New(%)xyear7charter-0.027-0.028(2.75)(2.90)Newxyear8charter-5.10e-3-8.70e-3(0.50)(0.86)Newxyear9charter0.0180.014(1.63)(1.30)Newxyear10charter-6.62e-3-0.010(0.29)(0.45)Student-teacherratio4.72e-3(12.75)Student-ratioxcharter-3.69e-3(4.90) Notes:n=799,216student-years.CoecientswereestimatedbyEquation 2{3 .Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers. 91

PAGE 92

B Marginaleectsofaten-percentage-pointincreaseinnewteachersoncharterstudents'math(A)andreading(B)levels,byageofschool 92

PAGE 93

Anunintendedconsequenceofdecentralizedcharterschoolsystemsisthattheycanexacerbateracialsegregationacrossschools.Racialisolationincharterschoolshasbeenshowntoreducetheachievementgainsofblackstudentsandwidentheblack-whiteachievementgap.Buttheremaybeasilverlining:NorthCarolinacharterswithpredominantlynonwhitestudentpopulationswerestaedbyrelativelyhighratesofnonwhiteteachers,whomayhavebeenmoreeectiveinstructorsofnonwhitestudents.Ishowthatdisproportionatelynonwhitefacultiesmarginallyraisedthemathperformanceofblackstudentsincharterschools.Butthesegainswereinsucienttoslowthegrowinggapbetweenstudentsinpredominantlywhiteandpredominantlynonwhitecharterschools. Colemanetal. ( 1966 ))haveshownthatstudentachievementissignicantlylowerinschoolswithhigherratesofnonwhitestudents.Thiscorrelationisdriveninpartbycausalpeerexposureeects,andinpartbythewayfamiliesandteacherssortacrossneighborhoodsandschools.Familypreferencesforschoolandneighborhoodqualityleadtoself-segregationalongthosedimensions( Bayer,Ferreira,andMcMillan ( 2007 )),andconsequently,heterogeneousdemographicprolesinneighborhoodschools.Avarietyofstudieshavetriedtocircumventtheeectofsortingtounderstandthecausaleectofsegregationonstudentoutcomes. Guryan ( 2004 )usedintertemporalandgeographicvarianceinthetimingofcourt-ordereddesegregationplanstoshowthatlargegainsinwhiteexposureindices(thefractionofstudentswhowerewhiteinatypicalblackstudent'sschool)yieldedmodestreductionsinblackdropoutrates. CutlerandGlaeser ( 1997 )reliedonaggregatecity-leveldata(presumablylessaectedbysortingthanschool-orstudent-leveldata)toshowthatmoresegregatedcitieshadsignicantlylarger 93

PAGE 94

CardandRothstein ( 2007 )extendedthisconsiderably,showingthattheblack-whitegapinSATscoreswaspositivelycorrelatedwithcities'degreeofsegregation,andthatneighborhoodsegregationappearedtobemoreofafactorthanwithin-schoolsegregation. Despiteintegrationeortsacrossthecountry(court-orderedandvoluntary),racial,ethnic,andeconomicsegregationpersistsinmanypublicschooldistricts.Thesocioeconomictopologyofurbanandsuburbanareasandthewidevarianceofeconomicprosperitywithindemographicgroupshindereventhemostambitiousschoolassignmentmechanismsfrommaintainingracialoreconomicbalanceacrossschools.1Somehavehopedthatschoolchoicewouldamelioratesegregationpatternsbygivingdisadvantaged,urbanfamiliestheoptiontosendtheirchildrentomoreauent,outlyingschools(see,e.g., Rabinovitz ( 1997 )and Schneider,Teske,andMarschall ( 2000 )).Butinpractice,manyelementsofschoolchoice{includingcharterschools,privateschoolvouchers,andopenenrollment{haveincreasedracialisolationindices.2 BifulcoandLadd ( 2007 )exploredtheeectsofracialimbalanceinNorthCarolinacharterschoolsonstudenttestoutcomesandtheblack-whiteachievementgap.Blackstudentswhomadeasegregatingmovetoacharterschooltendedtoseelowermathgainsasa Silberman ( 2006 )).InSanFrancisco'spublicschoolsystem,economicintegrationeortsmayhaveactuallyintensiedracialandethnicsegregation( GlaterandFinder ( 2007 )).2See,forexample, BifulcoandLadd ( 2007 ), Frankenberg,Lee,andOreld ( 2003 ), InstituteonRaceandPoverty ( 2008 ),and Levin ( 1998 ). Hoxby ( 2003 )notedthatnegativepeereectsarisingfromschoolchoiceandstudentsortingcouldbemorethanosetbyproductivitygainsinderegulatededucationmarkets. 94

PAGE 95

Nonetheless,theremaybeanintrinsic{ifnotcompletelyosetting{benettocharterschools'polarizedstudentcompositions.Raciallyimbalancedstudentpopulationsinchoiceschoolsaregenerallycoincidentwithraciallyimbalancedfaculties.IshowthatthiswasthecaseforthersttenyearsofNorthCarolina'schartersystem{charterschoolsweremuchmorelikelythanmainstreamschoolstohavedisproportionatelyhighratesofnonwhiteteachers.Researchfromnon-choiceandexperimentalsettingshaveshownthatassignmenttoademographicallysimilarteachercanbebenecial.Soevenifblackstudentachievementwassub-parinlargelyblackschools,studentsmayhavederivedsomebenetfromexposuretomoreblackteachers. Ehrenbergetal. ( 1995 ),usingthe1988and1990wavesoftheNationalEducationalLongitudinalStudy(NELS),showedthatassignmenttoanown-raceorown-genderteachertypicallyhadnoeectonsubjecttestgains,butdidyieldhighersubjectiveevaluationsbyteachers.Awealthofstudiesineducation,sociologic,andmulti-disciplinaryliteraturesprovideevidencethatstudentsbenetfrombeingpairedwithateacherofthesamerace{however,themagnitudeofthisbenetandthecausalmechanismsresponsibleforitareunclear( Ferguson ( 1998 )). Themostcompellingevidenceonstudent-teachermatchingbyracecomesfrom Dee ( 2004 2005 ).Intheearlierstudy,DeeexploitedtherandomassignmentofstudentstoclassroomsinTennessee'sProjectSTARexperimenttoshowthatassignmenttoanown-raceteachersignicantlyincreasedmathandreadingscoresby3-5percentagepoints(10-18percentofastandarddeviation). Dee ( 2005 )revisitedtheNELSdata,employedamatched-pairsmethodologytocontrolforstudentheterogeneity,andexaminedhowtwodierentsubjectteachersevaluatedthesamestudentatthesametime.Resultssuggested 95

PAGE 96

Theliteratureonstudent-teacherracialpairinghasyettoexaminethegainorlossfromdemographicallysimilarcharterteachers,likelybecauseofdataavailabilityandendogeneousstudentandteachersortingintotheseschools.Butifstudentsandteachersaresortingintocharterschoolsonthebasisofrace,eectivelyre-segregatingafractionofpublicschools,policystakeholdersshoulddevelopacloseanalysisofthebenetsandcoststherein.Idocumentconsiderableracialimbalanceincharterfaculties(whichappearstohavebeenmoresevereinschoolswithveryhighsharesofnonwhitestudents),anddeterminewhetherstudentsbenetted{empirically,atleast{fromattendingacharterschoolwithmoreteacherswhosharedtheirraceorgender.Iincorporatefacultyracialprolesintocommonmodelsofchartereectiveness,estimateanaverageeectofcharterenrollmentonachievementgainsforfourrace/gendercategories,andexaminehowthateectvariedwithchangesinfacultyraceandgenderproles.Indthatblackstudentshadmarginallygreatermathperformanceincharterswithdisproportionateratesofnonwhiteteachers,relativetoblackstudentsinmorerepresentativeschools.Butthiseectwassmallcomparedtotheeectofracialimbalanceincharterstudentpopulations,whichwidenedtheperformancegapbetweenlargelywhiteandlargelynonwhiteschools. 3.2.1Data Muschkinetal. ( 2008 ). 96

PAGE 97

Iconstructedcampus-by-yearfacultyprolesfromaggregatedschoolactivityreports.Activityreportsdocumenteachschool-relatedactivitywherepersonnelhavedirectcontactwithstudents{classroominstruction,lunch,eldtrips,etc.Iidentiedteacherstobeindividualswithteachingassignmentslistedintheactivityreports,excludingteachingassistants,facilitators,andDAREocers.Thereportshaveverylittleinformationaboutteacherqualications,buttheydolistteachers'race/ethnicity,gender,andstatusasarst-yearteacher.Iusedthesedatatoconstructfacultyprolesforcharterandmainstreamschoolsoveryears1996-2007.Iaggregatedrace,gender,andexperienceindicatorstotheschoollevel,andcalculatedthepercentofteacherswhowerewhite,nonwhite(black,Hispanic,orothernon-Caucasion),female,andnewtopubliceducation.Theseproleswerethenlinkedtostudenttestrecords.Ilimitedtheanalysistoblackandwhitepublicschoolstudents.Longitudinalmicrodataarenotavailableforprivateschoolstudents.Hispanicandothernon-black,non-Caucasianstudentsaccountedfor 97

PAGE 98

3-1 through 3-4 andillustratedinFigures 3-1 3-2 ,and 3-3 Tables 3-1 through 3-4 presentcomparativesummarystatisticsforcharterandmainstreamstudents,byraceandgender.Blackcharterstudentshadsignicantlylowermathandreadinglevelscoresthanblackmainstreamstudents,andsignicantlylowergainsinmath.Whitecharterstudentshadlowermathlevelscoresandgainsthantheirwhitemainstreamcounterparts,buthigherreadinglevelsalongsidelowerreadinggains.Malestypicallyperformedbetterinmath,andfemalesperformedbetterinreading.Theblack-whiteachievementgapwasabout0.098standarddeviationswiderinthechartersectorforfemales,and0.115standarddeviationswiderformales. Tables 3-1 through 3-4 alsoidentifythelikelihoodofbeingenrolledinaraciallyimbalancedschool.Throughoutthepaper,Idenearaciallyimbalancedstudentpopulationtobeonewhoseshareofnonwhitestudentswastwentypercentagepoints 98

PAGE 99

BifulcoandLadd ( 2007 ).Forty-eightpercentofblackcharterstudentswereenrolledinaschoolwitharaciallyimbalanced(i.e.,disproportionatelylarge)nonwhitestudentpopulation,comparedtoabout29percentofblackmainstreamstudents.Blackcharterstudentswerealsomorelikelytobeenrolledinadisproportionatelywhiteschool.Whitecharterstudentswere3.5timesmorelikelythanwhitemainstreamstudentstobeinawhite-imbalancedschool,andwererarelyfoundinanonwhite-imbalancedschool.Raciallyimbalancedfacultiesweremorecommonincharterschools,particularlytheschoolsblackstudentsattended.Charterstudentsofbothracesweremorelikelytobeinaschoolwithanimbalancedstudentpopulationandandanimbalancedfaculty,thoughthiswasmuchmoreprevalentforblackcharterstudents.Fortypercentofblackcharterstudentswereindoublyimbalancedschoolslikethis,morethanthreetimestherateofblackmainstreamstudents.7ThesesamplemeanssuggestalackofstudentdiversityNorthCarolina'scharterschools,andalackoffacultydiversityincharterswithrelativelylargesharesofblackstudents.Figures 3-1 3-2 ,and 3-3 conrmandelaboratethesepatterns. 99

PAGE 100

3-1 plotskerneldensityestimatesofthecampus-levelpercentofstudentswhowerenonwhite,bycharter/mainstreamdesignationandweightedbyenrollment.Thedistributionforcharterschoolswasstarklybimodal;chartersweremuchmorelikelythanmainstreamschoolstohavefewerthan20percentormorethan90percentnonwhitestudents.Facultycompositionmaybeafactorinhowstudentsandtheirfamiliessortintocharterschools.Figure 3-2 plotsweightedkerneldensityestimatesofthecampus-levelpercentofteacherswhowerenonwhite,bycharter/mainstreamdesignation.Chartersweresomewhatlesslikelythanmainstreamschoolstohaveverylowratesofnonwhiteteachers,butmorelikelytohaveveryhighrates,intherangeof60-100percent.Figure 3-3 illustratesthenonparametricrelationshipbetweenstudentandfacultycompositionsincharterandmainstreamschools.Theshareofnonwhiteteachersinschoolstendedtoincreasewiththeshareofnonwhitestudents,buttherelationshipwasmuchsteeperforcharterswhereatleast60percentofstudentswerenonwhite. BifulcoandLadd ( 2007 )showedthatthesegregatingeectsofthestate'scharterschoolsincreasedracialisolationindicesandwidenedtheblack-whiteachievementgap.However,thereisevidencefromothersettingswherestudentsperformedbetter,orwereperceivedbetter,byteachersoflikerace.Wemightexpecttoseesignicantgainsresultfromstudent-facultyracialdynamicsinthechartersector,wherestudentandteachersortingisnotdrivenbycentralizedassignment.Itseemsreasonablethatstudentswhoenrolledinacharterschoolwithadisproportionateshareofown-raceteachersarestudentswhoseparentsbelievedtheywouldbenetfromthematch.Thatistosay,ifthereisasignicantgain(tosomestudents)fromraciallyimbalancedfaculties,weshouldseeevidenceofthisincharter 100

PAGE 101

Inputsincludeanindicatorforenrollmentinacharterschool(CiT),facultycharacteristics(FsT,someofwhichareallowedtohaveadistinctimpactincharterschoolsviaCiTfsT),andstudentmobilityindicators(MiT).Observableendowmentssuchasparentaleducationandincome,aswellasunobservableendowmentslikestudents'inherentability,areabsorbedinthelaggedlevelscore,ZiG1T1.ThecoecientkCTrepresentscounty-yearxedeects,andkGrepresentscommongrade-leveleects.Therateofproportionaldepreciationintheeectofprioryearinputsisgivenbyk,andisassumedtobeconstantacrossgradesandtime.IestimateEquation 3{1 byordinaryleastsquares(OLS).Robuststandarderrorsallowforclusteringbystudentidentiers.Clusteringwillmodifystandarderrorsforanystudent-speciccorrelationinresiduals,butwillnotparameterizethatcorrelationlikexedeects.Ialsoestimatehowtheseinputsaectastudent'sgaininstandardizedmathandreadingscores: ZkiGT=(1k)ZkiG1T1+CiTkC+FsTkF+(CiTfsT)kf+MiTkM+kG+kCT+"kiGT(3{2) Following Hanusheketal. ( 2007 )and Sass ( 2006 ),IinstrumentforZiG1T1inEquation 3{2 usingtwicelaggedlevelscores,ZiG2T2.AsinEquation 3{1 ,Iallowforrobust 101

PAGE 102

3{1 and 3{2 separatelyforblackfemales,blackmales,whitefemales,andwhitemales.Thelevelsspecicationrequiresatleasttwoyearsofcontinuoustestdata,whereasthegainsspecicationrequiresthree.Toensurethatresultsfrombothmodelsreecttheachievementofthesamesetofstudents,Ilimitthelevelsanalysistostudentswithatleasttwoprioryearsoftestdata.Consequently,theresultstofollowdescribetheeectofcharterenrollmentandracialcompositionsontheachievementofgradevethrougheightstudents. ThevectorFsTcontainsschool-widefacultystatisticsattimeT:thepercentofteacherswhowerenew,thepercentwhosharedi'sgender,andfourindicatorsofracialimbalanceinstudentandfacultycompositions.Changingschoolstendstohaveanegativeeectonstudentgains( Hanusheketal. ( 2004 )),particularlyifastudentismovingtoacharterschoolfromthemainstreamsector(see,e.g., BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 ), Bookeretal. ( 2007 ), Hanusheketal. ( 2007 ),and Sass ( 2006 )).Accordingly,MiTisavectorofmutuallyexclusivemobilityindicatorsforstudentswhomovedwithintheircounty,acrosscounties,toacharterschool,fromacharterschool,andforstudentsmakingstructuralschoolchanges.Followingtheliterature,Idenedastructuralchangeasanymovesharedbyatleastthirtypercentofastudent'scohort.8 102

PAGE 103

Thesemodelsdrawfromseveralrecentstudiesontheeectivenessofcharterschools. BifulcoandLadd ( 2006 )identiedtherelativeeectivenessofcharterenrollmentforNorthCarolinastudentswithexperienceincharterandmainstreamschools,andshowedthatthesesector-switchersperformedsignicantlyworseintheformer. Bookeretal. ( 2007 )brokedowntheeectofachartereducationbyschoolageandstudenttenure,demonstratingsignicantreturnstoboth.Bothstudiesusedstudentxedeectstoparameterizeheterogeneityinunobservedability.Bycontrast, Sass ( 2006 )and Hanusheketal. ( 2007 )usedlaggedachievementmodelssimilartothelevelsandgainsspecicationsemployedheretoestimatetheaverageeectivenessofcharterschoolsbyschoolage.Inallofthesestudies,themoveryearexperienceforastudenttransitioningfromamainstreamschooltoacharterschoolwassignicantlynegative,intermsoftestperformance.Studentsmovingintheotherdirection,however,madeupformuchofthislossintheirrstmainstreamyear. 3-5 through 3-8 presentcoecientestimatesfromthelevelsandgainsequations,whichwereestimatedseparatelyforblackfemales(Table 3-5 ),blackmales(Table 3-6 ),whitefemales(Table 3-7 ),andwhitemales(Table 3-8 ).Iproceedthroughtheseresultsbyrstoutliningsomecommonthemesacrossrace/gendercells(regardingtheeectofmovingtoorfromacharterschoolandtheeectofmoremaleteachersin 103

PAGE 104

Consistentwiththeliteratureontheeectivenessofcharterschools,Indthatmovingtoacharterschoolresultedinsignicantpenaltiestomathandreadingachievement.Thesepenaltieswerelargecomparedtotheeectofothertypesof(unreported)schoolchanges.Themajorcostofstratifyingthesampleinthiswayislossofprecision,butdegreesoffreedomappeartobelargeenoughtodrawinference,eveninthesmallestrace/gendercells.TheprimarybenetofstraticationisthatIcanallowcoecientstovarybyraceandgender.Forinstance,whitestudentsincurredalargeraveragepenaltyuponmovingtoacharterschoolthanblackstudents,althoughcondenceintervalsoverlapped.Femalecharterstudentsofbothracessawsignicantlylargerlevelsandgainsinbothsubjects,relativetomainstreamfemales,whereastheeectofcharterenrollmentonmales'testoutcomeswaseithernegativeorinsignicant.Achartereducationwaspredictedtoincreasethemathlevelscoresofblackfemalesby0.221standarddeviations(sd),relativetotoblackmainstreamfemales.Thisaccountsforabout30percentoftheblack-whitegapinmathlevels. NorthCarolina'scharterschoolshadhigherratesofmaleteachers:22percent,versus11percentinmainstreamschools.Malesarehistoricallyunder-representedinpublicteaching,and Dee ( 2007 )showedthatmalestudentsintheNELSsurveyperformedsignicantlybetterwhenassignedtoamaleteacher.IndthatinNorthCarolina,therewasgenerallyanegativecorrelationbetweenstudentperformanceandthefractionoffacultiesthatweremale,exceptforwhitemalestudentsincharterschools.Coecientestimatesfor\%maleteachers"inTable 3-8 reporttheeectofatenpercentage-pointincreaseinmalefacultyonmainstreamtestoutcomesforwhitemales.Theeectwasnegativeandsignicantformathandreadingoutcomes(byasmuchas0.015sdforreadinglevels),meaningthatmainstreamwhitemalesperformedworseinschoolswithmoremaleteachers.Coecientsontheinteraction,\charterx%maleteachers"represent 104

PAGE 105

3-8 ,andlargerinabsolutevaluethanbaselineeects.Sothemarginaleectofmoremalecharterteacherswaspositive:higherratesofmaleteachersincharterschoolswereassociatedwithgreatermathandreadingperformanceforwhitemalecharter.Forblackmalesandfemalesofbothraces,theeectofhighermalerepresentationinschoolfacultiestendedtobenegative,butlesssoincharterschools. Tables 3-5 through 3-8 includeestimatesoftheimpactofstudentandfacultyracialimbalanceincharterandmainstreamschools.Schoolswereidentiedashavingimbalancednonwhite(white)studentpopulationsiftheshareofnonwhitestudentswastwentypercentagepointsabove(below)thecounty-wideshare.Racialimbalanceinfacultiesweresimilarlydened,butforblackstudents,Iincludedtwodegreesofnonwhitefacultyimbalance.Inmoderatelyimbalancednonwhitefaculties,theshareofnonwhiteteacherswas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountymean,andinseverelyimbalancednonwhitefaculties,thesharewasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountymean.Baselineimbalancecoecientsrepresenttheestimatedeectofaparticularracialimbalanceonstudentachievement,relativetostudentachievementinbalancedschools.Interactioncoecientsshowhowtheeectofthatimbalancewasdierentincharterschools.InTable 3-5 ,forexample,coecientestimatesfor\nonwhitestudentimbalance"showthatblackfemalestendedtosee0.014sdlowermathlevelsand0.016sdlowerreadinglevelsinschoolswithdisproportionatelylargesharesofnonwhitestudents,relativetotheircounterpartsinbalancedschools(theomittedcategory).Butthepenaltyattributedtoimbalancedratesofnonwhitestudentswasevenlargerincharterschools,by0.038-0.043sd.Sointotal,ablackfemaleinalargelynonwhitecharterschoolwasexpectedtoscore0.054-0.057sdlowerthanablackfemaleinaraciallybalancedmainstreamschool.Blackfemalesinschoolswithdisproportionatelylargewhitestudent 105

PAGE 106

ThelastfourrowsofTable 3-5 describehowracialimbalanceamongblackfemales'teachersaectedtestperformance.Blackfemalessawsignicantlylowermathlevelsandgainsinschoolswithmoderateorseverenonwhitefacultyimbalances.Iftherewereosettingeectsofnonwhitefacultyincharterschoolsonmathlevels,theywerenotstatisticallysignicantatconventionallevels.Mathgains,however,increasedby0.40sdinschoolswithseverenonwhitefacultyimbalances,relativetoblackfemalecharterstudentswithbalancedfaculties.Relativetoallstudents,charterorotherwise,enrollinginacharterschoolwithaseverelyimbalancedandlargelynonwhitefacultyincreasedblackfemales'mathgainsby0.017sd(-.023+0.040).Thisaccountsformorethan40percentoftheblack-whitegapinmathgainsformainstreamfemales.9Butblackfemalesbenettedmuchmorebyenrollingincharterswithwhite-imbalancedfacultiesinallmeasuresofachievementexceptreadinggains.InTable 3-6 ,weseethatblackmalesalsobenettedfromwhite-imbalancedcharterfaculties,byasmuchas0.199sdinmathlevels(about28percentoftheblack-whitegapamongmainstreammales).Blackcharterstudentswereaboutsixpercentagepointsmorelikelythanblackmainstreamstudentstobeinaschoolwithanimbalancedshareofwhiteteachers,relativetothesurroundingcountry.Thereweremorethan350blackstudentsincharterslikethis(withmorethan1100student-yearsoftestingdata),andofthese,81.2percentwereobservedinmainstreamschoolsbeforemovingtothechartersystem.SoIcanobservethetypeofschoolstheyoptedoutof.Evenifthechartersystemasawholewasraciallypolarized,nontrivialnumbersofminoritystudentsmayhavebeentakingadvantage 3-1 and 3-3 ,averagemathgainswere0.286sdforblackfemales,and0.327sdforwhitefemales.The0.017sdbonusfromseverelyimbalancedfacultiesrepresents41.5percentofthe0.041sdgap. 106

PAGE 107

InTable 3-6 (reportingresultsforblackmales),coecientestimatesfor\charterxmoderatenonwhitefacultyimbalance"showthattherewasnostatisticallysignicantbonusfrommoderatelyimbalancedfaculties.Butseverelyimbalancednonwhitecharterfacultiesincreasedthemathlevelsandgainsofblackmalesby0.047and0.043sd,respectively,relativetoblackmalesincharterswithbalancedfaculties.Theseeectswerelargerinabsolutevaluethanthebaselineeectsofseverelynonwhite-imbalancedfaculties(-0.027sdandastatisticallyinsignicant-0.013sd,respectively).Judgingbycoecientestimatesalone,themarginaleectofseverelyimbalancedsharesofnonwhitecharterteacherswassmallbutpositiveforblackmales'mathperformance,increasingmathlevelsbyanestimated0.020sd.Thisisaneconomicallymodestboost,representingjust2.8percentoftheblack-whitegapinmathlevelsformales.Also,notethatamongblackmalesincharterschools,nonwhitefacultyimbalanceswerehighlycoincidentwithnonwhitestudentimbalances.Soanybenetfromnonwhitefacultywouldlikelyhavebeenpairedwithnegativepeereectsarisingfromlargesharesofnonwhitestudents,whichareestimatedtohavedecreasedblackmales'mathlevelsby0.017sd. Tables 3-7 and 3-8 reportresultsforwhitefemalesandwhitemales,respectively.Whitefemaleshadsignicantlyhighermathlevelsandgainsinschoolswithwhite-imbalancedstudentpopulations.Thebonusfromthisown-raceimbalancewasjust0.016sdformathlevelsand0.009sdformathgains,butincharterschoolsitwasconsiderablylarger,by0.052and0.050sd,respectively.Soadisproportionateshareofwhitepeerswasassociatedwithatotalincreaseincharterfemales'mathlevelsby0.068sd,andan 107

PAGE 108

Theresultsoutlinedabovesuggestthatracialimbalanceincharterstudentpopulationsincreasedperformancegapsbetweenwhite-imbalancedandnonwhite-imbalancedschools,particularlywithrespecttomathachievement.Blackstudentsachievedsignicantlylowermathandreadinglevelsinschoolswithdisproportionateratesofnonwhitestudents,andforblackfemales,thispenaltywasevenlargerincharterschoolswithnonwhitestudentimbalances.Whitestudentsrealizedgreatermathlevelsandgainsincharterswithimbalancedratesofwhitestudents,relativetowhitesinraciallybalancedmainstreamandcharterschools.Together,thesepatternssuggestthatwhilelargelywhitecharterschoolswerepullingaway,largelyblackcharterswerefallingbehind.Iinvestigatedwhethertherewasasilverliningtothisnormativelyundesirablepattern,inthatblackcharterstudentsmayhavederivedsomebenetfrompredominantlynonwhitefaculties.Blackstudentsdidinfacthavesomewhathighermathachievementincharterswithhighratesofnonwhiteteachers,relativetotheircounterpartsinschoolswithraciallybalancedfaculties.Insection 3.3.3 ,Idiscusshowthispremiummayhavebeenaectedbythewaystudentssortedintoraciallyimbalancedschools. 108

PAGE 109

3{2 : ZkiGT=MiTkM+FsTkF+GT+ki+"kiGT(3{3) AsinEquation 3{2 ,Equation 3{3 includescontrolsforstudentmobility(MiT)andfacultycharacteristics(FsT).Students'inherentgrowthisrepresentedbyaxedeect(ki),ratherthanlaggedachievement.Notethatinorderforfuturecharterstudentstohavevalidxedeectsestimates,theymusthavehadatleastfourcontinuousyearsoftestingdata(veyearsisthemaximumlengthofastudent'stimeseries),includingatleastthreeyearsinmainstreamschools.Igeneratedxedeectsestimatesfor10,160futurecharterstudents,representing24.9percentofcharterstudentsfromsection 3.3.2 .Thevastmajorityofthesestudents(94percent)ultimatelysortedintobalancedornonwhite-imbalancedcharterschools. Tables 3-9 and 3-10 summarizeaveragestudentxedeectsonmathandreadingexams,respectively,forstudentsinschoolswithraciallybalancedfaculties(^kbal),andaveragexedeectforstudentswithmoderatelyorseverelynonwhite-imbalancedfaculties(^kmod;^ksev).ThethirdcolumnofTable 3-9 liststhecharter-mainstreamdierenceinaveragemathxedeectsforeachfacultycompositioncategory.Amongallstudentsinseverelyraciallyimbalancedschools,charterstudentshad0.026sdlowermathxed 109

PAGE 110

3-10 ,amongallstudentsinschoolswithraciallybalancedfaculties,charterstudentshad0.031sdlowerreadingxedeectsthanmainstreamstudents.Otherwise,charterstudentswerenotstatisticallydierentfrommainstreamstudentsinsimilarlystaedschools.ThefourthrowofTables 3-9 and 3-10 liststhebalanced-moderateimbalancedierenceinaveragexedeects(^kbal^kmod),foreachpubliceducationsector.Studentsinbalancedschoolsoutperformedstudentsinmoderatelyimbalancedschoolsinmath,butnotreading.Thefthrowofeachtableliststhebalanced-severeimbalancedierence(^kbal^ksev),bysector.Again,studentsinbalancedschoolshadhighermathxedeects,byasmuchas0.049sdinthechartersector,butsignicantlylowerreadingxedeects.Sostudentswhosortedintobalancedcharterschoolstendedtohavehigherinherentmathgains,butlowerreadinggains,thanstudentswhosortedintoimbalancedcharters.Butthesamecouldbesaidformainstreamstudents;mainstreamstudents'mathxedeectswerehigherinschoolswithraciallybalancedfaculties,butreadingxedeectswerehigherinschoolswithnonwhite-imbalancedfaculties. Charterstudents'electivesortingwouldnothavebiasedresultsagainstnonwhitecharterfacultiesunlessthebalanced-imbalancedgapwaswiderinthechartersectorthaninthemainstreamsector.Thatis,theestimatedbenettoblackcharterstudentachievementthatIattributedtolargelynonwhitefacultieswouldhaveunderstatedthetruebenetifstudentswhosortedintotheseschoolshadlowerrelativegrowthratesthanmainstreamstudentswithnonwhite-imbalancedfaculties.TheintersectionsofdierencerowsandcolumnsinTables 3-9 and 3-10 showthecross-sectordierenceinbalanced-imbalancedgaps,calculatedaccordingtothefollowingexpression: [^kbal^kj]charter[^kbal^kj]mainstreamj=mod;sev(3{4) Themathachievementgapbetweenbalancedandseverelynonwhite-imbalancedschoolswas0.020sdwiderinthechartersector,andthisdierencewasmarginallysignicant 110

PAGE 111

3-5 through 3-8 )mayhaveoverstatedthetrueeect. Thisrobustnesscheckwaslimitedbythefactthat75percentofcharterstudentshadinsucientexperienceinmainstreamschoolstoassesstheirinherentgrowthpriortoenrollinginacharterschool.Nonetheless,theanalysisprovidesevidencethatthecorrelationbetweendisproportionateratesofnonwhiteteachersandhighermathperformanceamongblackmalesmayhavebeenunder-estimated. 111

PAGE 112

Racialsegregation(orre-segregation)isanincreasinglycommonoutcomeofpublicschoolchoiceplans.Thebestavailableevidencesuggeststhatsegregationattributabletoschoolchoiceincreasestheachievementgapsbetweenwhiteandblackstudents,orbetweenhigh-SESandlow-SESstudents(see,e.g., BifulcoandLadd ( 2007 )and Hastingsetal. ( 2008 )),andmyndingsreiteratethispoint.Charterschoolshaveconsiderableexibilitytorecruitnontraditionalteachers.NorthCarolina'schartersystem,likemanystatesystems,hasrelaxedlicensureandpaystandardsforcharterfaculties.Thisexibilitymayhaveallowedthestate'scharterschoolstorecruitmoremalesandnonwhiteteachers,twounder-representedgroupsintraditional,mainstreampublicschools.Ishowthatwhilesomeblackstudentsbenettedfromaninuxofnonwhiteteachersincharterschools,theirgainswereinsucienttoslowthegrowinggapbetweenstudentsinpredominantlywhiteversuspredominantlynonwhiteschools. 112

PAGE 113

Blackfemalepublicschoolstudents:Achievementandracialimbalancesummarystatistics CharterMainstreamDierence Mathlevelscore-0.143-0.008-0.135(0.805)(0.748)Mathgain0.2540.286-0.032(0.470)(0.446)Readinglevelscore0.0300.069-0.039(0.786)(0.749)Readinggain0.2940.301-0.007(0.511)(0.499)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentimbalance0.4680.2810.187(0.499)(0.449)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentimbalance0.0700.0480.022(0.255)(0.213)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitefacultyimbalance0.4520.1800.272(0.498)(0.384)Attendsschoolwithwhitefacultyimbalance0.0910.0250.066(0.288)(0.156)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentand0.3950.1300.265facultyimbalances(0.489)(0.336)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentand0.0240.0110.013facultyimbalances(0.153)(0.105)n(studentyears)6,83583,473 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.denotesastatisticallysignicantdierenceat95%condence.Forcomputationalconvenience,Isampled20%ofstudentswhowereneverobservedinacharterschool.nincludesallsampledstudents(including100%ofallstudentswhowereeverobservedinacharterschool)withatleastthreeyearsofmathandreadingtestdata,byrace/gender. 113

PAGE 114

Blackmalepublicschoolstudents:Achievementandracialimbalancesummarystatistics CharterMainstreamDierence Mathlevelscore-0.203-0.070-0.133(0.776)(0.774)Mathgain0.2470.271-0.025(0.486)(0.468)Readinglevelscore-0.146-0.080-0.066(0.803)(0.798)Readinggain0.2980.301-0.003(0.556)(0.546)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentimbalance0.4960.2910.205(0.500)(0.454)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentimbalance0.0670.0500.017(0.250)(0.219)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitefacultyimbalance0.4860.1890.297(0.500)(0.391)Attendsschoolwithwhitefacultyimbalance0.0840.0250.058(0.277)(0.157)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentand0.4280.1370.291facultyimbalances(0.495)(0.344)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentand0.0210.0120.009facultyimbalances(0.143)(0.108)n(studentyears)6,01773,096 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.denotesastatisticallysignicantdierenceat95%condence.Forcomputationalconvenience,Isampled20%ofstudentswhowereneverobservedinacharterschool.nincludesallsampledstudents(including100%ofallstudentswhowereeverobservedinacharterschool)withatleastthreeyearsofmathandreadingtestdata,byrace/gender. 114

PAGE 115

Whitemalepublicschoolstudents:Achievementandracialimbalancesummarystatistics CharterMainstreamDierence Mathlevelscore0.5740.611-0.037(0.857)(0.843)Mathgain0.2840.327-0.043(0.461)(0.437)Readinglevelscore0.7100.6510.059(0.751)(0.759)Readinggain0.2750.296-0.022(0.479)(0.474)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentimbalance0.0160.051-0.035(0.126)(0.220)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentimbalance0.4480.1210.327(0.497)(0.326)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitefacultyimbalance0.0180.022-0.004(0.134)(0.146)Attendsschoolwithwhitefacultyimbalance0.1220.0240.098(0.328)(0.154)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentand0.0060.009-0.003facultyimbalances(0.078)(0.094)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentand0.1160.0180.098facultyimbalances(0.320)(0.133)n(studentyears)14,303172,325 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.denotesastatisticallysignicantdierenceat95%condence.Forcomputationalconvenience,Isampled20%ofstudentswhowereneverobservedinacharterschool.nincludesallsampledstudents(including100%ofallstudentswhowereeverobservedinacharterschool)withatleastthreeyearsofmathandreadingtestdata,byrace/gender. 115

PAGE 116

Whitefemalepublicschoolstudents:Achievementandracialimbalancesummarystatistics CharterMainstreamDierence Mathlevelscore0.6230.641-0.017(0.877)(0.877)Mathgain0.2830.323-0.040(0.472)(0.456)Readinglevelscore0.6070.5600.047(0.782)(0.796)Readinggain0.2720.298-0.026(0.509)(0.502)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentimbalance0.0220.054-0.032(0.146)(0.225)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentimbalance0.4190.1230.296(0.493)(0.329)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitefacultyimbalance0.0220.024-0.002(0.147)(0.153)Attendsschoolwithwhitefacultyimbalance0.1120.0250.087(0.316)(0.158)Attendsschoolwithnonwhitestudentand0.0070.009-0.003facultyimbalances(0.082)(0.097)Attendsschoolwithwhitestudentand0.1060.0190.086facultyimbalances(0.307)(0.138)n(studentyears)13,585171,626 Notes:Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean.denotesastatisticallysignicantdierenceat95%condence.Forcomputationalconvenience,Isampled20%ofstudentswhowereneverobservedinacharterschool.nincludesallsampledstudents(including100%ofallstudentswhowereeverobservedinacharterschool)withatleastthreeyearsofmathandreadingtestdata,byrace/gender. 116

PAGE 117

Densityestimates:Percentofschools'studentswhowerenonwhite,bycharter/mainstreamdesignation 117

PAGE 118

Percentofschools'teacherswhowerenonwhite,bycharter/mainstreamdesignation 118

PAGE 119

Localpolynomial(degreezero,meansmoothing)estimates:Nonparametricrelationshipbetweennonwhiteteachersandnonwhitestudentsinschools. 119

PAGE 120

Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalanceonblackfemaleachievement EconometricmodelLevelsLevelsGainsGainsSubjectMathReadingMathReading Enrolledincharter0.2220.1090.1850.034(6.42)(3.06)(5.34)(0.93)Movedtocharter-0.116-0.055-0.124-0.050(9.81)(4.31)(10.04)(3.61)Movedfromcharter0.0470.0200.0930.055(4.14)(1.72)(7.91)(4.31)Femaleteachers(%)0.0270.0190.0250.016(13.23)(8.82)(12.01)(7.42)Charterx%femaleteachers-0.029-0.011-0.023-2.4e-3(6.72)(2.36)(5.32)(0.52)Nonwhitestudentimbal.-0.014-0.016-1.8e-32.3e-3(3.50)(3.71)(0.46)(0.54)Charterxnonwhitestudentimbal.-0.043-0.038-0.0173.5e-4(2.64)(2.20)(1.04)(0.02)Whitestudentimbal.0.0310.0190.0194.3e-3(4.30)(2.62)(2.75)(0.61)Charterxwhitestudentimbal.-0.0210.013-0.0270.011(0.95)(0.53)(1.25)(0.46)Moderatenonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.020-0.011-0.017-3.8e-3(3.98)(1.91)(3.29)(0.68)Charterxmoderatenonwhitefacultyimbal.0.0120.0170.0200.020(0.60)(0.77)(0.93)(0.85)Severenonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.031-7.1e-3-0.0231.2e-4(3.83)(0.79)(2.78)(0.01)Charterxseverenonwhitefacultyimbal.0.035-5.5e-30.0408.9e-3(1.87)(0.28)(2.17)(0.44)Whitefacultyimbal.-0.012-2.4e-3-0.0084.6e-3(1.18)(0.23)(0.80)(0.41)Charterxwhitefacultyimbal.0.1850.1030.1280.049(7.45)(3.97)(5.37)(1.84) Notes:n=90,308student-years.CoecientsestimatesforEquation 3{1 (Levels)andEquation 3{2 (Gains),limitedtoblackfemales.Continuousfacultycharacteristicswerescaledsothatestimatedcoecientsaretheeectofa10percentage-pointincrease.Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Cluster-robuststandarderrorsallowforstudent-levelcorrelationinresiduals.Inschoolswitha\moderatenonwhitefacultyimbalance,"thepercentoffacultywhowerenonwhitewas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountymean.A\severenonwhitefacultyimbalance"indicatesthesharewasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountymean. 120

PAGE 121

Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalanceonblackmaleachievement EconometricmodelLevelsLevelsGainsGainsSubjectMathReadingMathReading Enrolledincharter-0.0440.022-0.0250.025(3.22)(1.38)(1.83)(1.57)Movedtocharter-0.102-0.059-0.112-0.068(7.76)(4.14)(8.09)(4.35)Movedfromcharter0.0320.0380.0800.083(2.55)(2.84)(6.14)(5.62)Maleteachers(%)-0.024-0.021-0.021-0.017(10.71)(8.44)(9.42)(6.88)Charterx%maleteachers0.0148.9e-30.0105.6e-3(3.07)(1.72)(2.10)(1.05)Nonwhitestudentimbal.-0.017-0.013-7.4e-34.3e-3(3.96)(2.63)(1.76)(0.89)Charterxnonwhitestudentimbal.-0.027-0.0246.1e-30.027(1.47)(1.16)(0.34)(1.30)Whitestudentimbal.0.0150.0154.0e-36.5e-3(1.86)(1.81)(0.54)(0.80)Charterxwhitestudentimbal.-0.013-0.065-0.011-0.068(0.51)(2.35)(0.44)(2.52)Moderatenonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.034-0.026-0.028-0.020(5.85)(4.12)(4.89)(3.02)Charterxmoderatenonwhitefacultyimbal.0.0290.0180.0230.018(1.30)(0.68)(1.00)(0.66)Severenonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.027-0.013-0.0134.1e-4(3.03)(1.35)(1.47)(0.04)Charterxseverenonwhitefacultyimbal.0.047-0.0230.043-0.031(2.27)(0.98)(2.03)(1.33)Whitefacultyimbal.5.3e-3-1.1e-38.0e-31.5e-3(0.48)(0.09)(0.74)(0.12)Charterxwhitefacultyimbal.0.1990.1560.1330.102(6.41)(4.88)(4.43)(3.26) Notes:n=79,113student-years.CoecientsestimatesforEquation 3{1 (Levels)andEquation 3{2 (Gains),limitedtoblackmales.Continuousfacultycharacteristicswerescaledsothatestimatedcoecientsaretheeectofa10percentage-pointincrease.Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Cluster-robuststandarderrorsallowforstudent-levelcorrelationinresiduals.Inschoolswitha\moderatenonwhitefacultyimbalance,"thepercentoffacultywhowerenonwhitewas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountymean.A\severenonwhitefacultyimbalance"indicatesthesharewasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountymean. 121

PAGE 122

Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalanceonwhitefemaleachievement EconometricmodelLevelsLevelsGainsGainsSubjectMathReadingMathReading Enrolledincharter0.0750.1900.0530.117(2.99)(7.13)(2.14)(4.59)Movedtocharter-0.135-0.082-0.149-0.091(14.82)(8.69)(15.96)(8.96)Movedfromcharter0.1340.0760.1730.106(11.46)(6.79)(14.72)(8.66)Femaleteachers(%)0.0160.0150.0150.015(11.96)(10.76)(11.26)(10.07)Charterx%femaleteachers-0.015-0.023-0.009-0.013(4.70)(6.93)(2.99)(4.07)Nonwhitestudentimbal.-0.020-0.011-0.0090.002(4.31)(2.37)(2.26)(0.34)Charterxnonwhitestudentimbal.-0.0430.025-0.0330.037(1.42)(0.76)(1.04)(1.09)Whitestudentimbal.0.016-0.0010.009-0.004(4.57)(0.37)(2.73)(1.30)Charterxwhitestudentimbal.0.0520.0070.0500.010(6.51)(0.89)(6.61)(1.26)Nonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.049-0.032-0.028-0.003(6.94)(4.14)(4.01)(0.37)Charterxnonwhitefacultyimbal.0.027-0.0630.038-0.059(0.91)(1.97)(1.25)(1.72)Whitefacultyimbal.0.032-0.0010.0310.001(4.08)(0.15)(3.97)(0.16)Charterxwhitefacultyimbal.-0.0230.014-0.032-0.001(1.55)(0.94)(2.15)(0.04) Notes:n=186,628student-years.CoecientsestimatesforEquation 3{1 (Levels)andEquation 3{2 (Gains),limitedtowhitefemales.Continuousfacultycharacteristicswerescaledsothatestimatedcoecientsaretheeectofa10percentage-pointincrease.Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Cluster-robuststandarderrorsallowforstudent-levelcorrelationinresiduals.Inschoolswitha\moderatenonwhitefacultyimbalance,"thepercentoffacultywhowerenonwhitewas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountymean.A\severenonwhitefacultyimbalance"indicatesthesharewasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountymean. 122

PAGE 123

Theeectsofcharterenrollmentandracialimbalanceonwhitemaleachievement EconometricmodelLevelsLevelsGainsGainsSubjectMathReadingMathReading Enrolledincharter-0.075-0.047-0.038-0.017(8.33)(4.83)(4.39)(1.77)Movedtocharter-0.137-0.066-0.151-0.077(14.53)(6.78)(15.56)(7.19)Movedfromcharter0.1410.0990.1770.134(11.90)(8.43)(14.67)(10.53)Maleteachers(%)-0.014-0.015-0.012-0.014(9.59)(10.03)(8.74)(8.83)Charterx%maleteachers0.0210.0240.0140.016(6.21)(6.80)(4.23)(4.56)Nonwhitestudentimbal.-0.017-0.002-0.0080.008(3.68)(0.43)(1.77)(1.75)Charterxnonwhitestudentimbal.-0.011-0.005-0.005-0.003(0.39)(0.18)(0.18)(0.08)Whitestudentimbal.0.0120.0040.006-0.001(3.23)(1.04)(1.84)(0.17)Charterxwhitestudentimbal.0.044-0.0150.037-0.018(5.17)(1.77)(4.58)(2.18)Nonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.053-0.029-0.034-0.003(7.15)(3.58)(4.79)(0.41)Charterxnonwhitefacultyimbal.-0.020-0.0140.0050.016(0.74)(0.48)(0.18)(0.56)Whitefacultyimbal.0.0440.0100.0440.015(5.47)(1.15)(5.40)(1.67)Charterxwhitefacultyimbal.-0.0030.019-0.0100.001(0.17)(1.17)(0.68)(0.08) Notes:n=185,211student-years.CoecientsestimatesforEquation 3{1 (Levels)andEquation 3{2 (Gains),limitedtowhitemales.Continuousfacultycharacteristicswerescaledsothatestimatedcoecientsaretheeectofa10percentage-pointincrease.Absolutevaluesoft-statisticsareinparenthesesbeloweachcoecient.Cluster-robuststandarderrorsallowforstudent-levelcorrelationinresiduals.Inschoolswitha\moderatenonwhitefacultyimbalance,"thepercentoffacultywhowerenonwhitewas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountymean.A\severenonwhitefacultyimbalance"indicatesthesharewasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountymean. 123

PAGE 124

Averagestudentxedeectsonmathexams,bycharter/mainstreamdesignationandracialimbalance TypeofschoolCharterMainstreamDierence Raciallybalancedfaulty9.1e-30.014-5.2e-3(0.384)(0.219)(0.004)Moderatenonwhite-imbalancedfaculty0.014-0.0190.033(0.383)(0.229)(0.017)Severenonwhite-imbalancedfaculty-0.040-0.014-0.026(0.337)(0.231)(0.010)Dierence-5.3e-30.033-0.038(balanced-moderate)(0.017)(0.001)(0.017)[0.31][23.70][2.22]Dierence0.0490.0290.020(balanced-severe)(0.011)(0.003)(0.011)[4.60][11.01][1.86]n(student-years)10,160500,520 Notes:Studentxedeectswereestimatedformathandreadinggains,describedbyEquation 2{2 .Thetablegivestheaveragestudentmathxedeectsforthreetypesofschoolsineachsector:schoolswithraciallybalancedfaculties,schoolswithmoderatenonwhite-imbalancedfaculties(wherethepercentofnonwhiteteacherswas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountyaverage),andschoolswithseverenonwhite-imbalancedfaculties(wherethepercentofnonwhiteteacherswasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountyaverage).Charterstudentxedeectswereproxiedbythexedeectsestimatedforfuturecharterstudents,whowereobservedinmainstreamschoolsbeforemovingtothechartersector.Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean,standarderrorsareinparenthesesbeloweachdierenceinmeans,andt-statisticsareinbracketsbeloweachdierenceinmeans. 124

PAGE 125

Averagestudentxedeectsonreadingexams,bycharter/mainstreamdesignationandracialimbalance TypeofschoolCharterMainstreamDierence Raciallybalancedfaulty-0.034-3.4e-3-0.031(0.459)(0.231)(0.005)Moderatenonwhite-imbalancedfaculty0.0164.9e-30.012(0.463)(0.239)(0.020)Severenonwhite-imbalancedfaculty0.0310.0150.015(0.435)(0.258)(0.013)Dierence(balanced-moderate)-0.051-8.3e-3-0.042(0.014)(0.003)(0.015)[3.52][3.07][2.89]Dierence(balanced-severe)-0.065-0.019-0.046(0.014)(0.003)(0.014)[4.76][6.46][3.31]n(student-years)10,160500,520 Notes:Studentxedeectswereestimatedformathandreadinggains,describedbyEquation 2{2 .Thetablegivestheaveragestudentreadingxedeectsforthreetypesofschoolsineachsector:schoolswithraciallybalancedfaculties,schoolswithmoderatenonwhite-imbalancedfaculties(wherethepercentofnonwhiteteacherswas20-40percentagepointsabovethecountyaverage),andschoolswithseverenonwhite-imbalancedfaculties(wherethepercentofnonwhiteteacherswasmorethan40percentagepointsabovethecountyaverage).Charterstudentxedeectswereproxiedbythexedeectsestimatedforfuturecharterstudents,whowereobservedinmainstreamschoolsbeforemovingtothechartersector.Standarddeviationsareinparenthesesbeloweachmean,standarderrorsareinparenthesesbeloweachdierenceinmeans,andt-statisticsareinbracketsbeloweachdierenceinmeans. 125

PAGE 126

|||(2007):\SchoolChoice,RacialSegregation,andTest-ScoreGaps:EvidencefromNorthCarolina'sCharterSchoolProgram,"JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement,26,31{56. |||(2008):\TheEectsofCharterSchoolsonTraditionalPublicSchoolStudentsinTexas:AreStudentsWhoStayBehindLeftBehind?"JournalofUrbanEconomics,64,123{145. http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/29423774.html 126

PAGE 127

|||(2007):\TeacherCredentialsandStudentAchievement:LongitudinalAnalysiswithStudentFixedEetcs,"EconomicsofEducationReview,26,673{682. |||(2004):\Teachers,Race,andStudentAchievement:EvidencefromaRandomizedExperiment,"TheReviewofEconomicsandStatistics,86,195{210. |||(2005):\ATeacherLikeMe:DoesRace,Ethnicity,orGenderMatter?"AmericanEconomicReview,95,158{165. |||(2007):\TeachersandtheGenerGapsinStudentAchievement,"JournalofHumanResources,42,528{554. 127

PAGE 128

|||(1997):\PublicSchools:MakeThemPrivate,"EducationEconomics,5,341{345. http://aida.econ.yale.edu/~jh529/HKS Combined 200806.pdf 128

PAGE 129

http://pubpol.duke.edu/centers/child/ep/nceddatacenter/ |||(2006):SchoolsandStangSurvey,2003-2004,Washington,DC:U.S.DepartmentofEducation,OceofEducationalResearch. http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/2042877 129

PAGE 130

http://econweb.tamu.edu/workshops/PERC%20Applied%20Microeconomics/ Lori%20L.%20Taylor.pdf 130

PAGE 131

CelesteK.CarrutherswasborninGarner,NorthCarolina.Herparents,BarbaraandBillCarruthers,spentmostoftheircareersaseducatorsandspecialistsintheWakeCountyPublicSchoolSystem.CelestegraduatedmagnacumlaudefromAppalachianStateUniversityin2004,withmajorsinaccountingandeconomics.In2005,sheearnedaMasterofArtsdegree(economics)fromtheUniversityofNewHampshireandbeganfurthergraduatestudiesattheUniversityofFlorida.Herresearchinterestsincludepubliceconomics(withemphasisontheeconomicsofeducation),antitrusteconomics,andregulatoryeconomics.InAugust2009,shewilljointheDepartmentofEconomicsfacultyattheUniversityofTennessee,Knoxville. 131