The What Makes Schools Work Project

Marisa Cannata, Ellen Goldring, Xiu Cravens, Roberto Penaloza, Vanderbilt University

Mark Berends, University of Notre DameMarc Stein, Johns Hopkins University

These papers are supported by the National Center on School Choice, which is funded by a grant from the U.S.

Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES) (R305A040043). All opinions expressed

in this paper represent those of the authors and not necessarily the institutions with which they are affiliated or the U.S. Department of Education. All errors in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors. For more information, please visit the Center website at

www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/.

June 2010

Conceptual Model

2

Examples of Research Questions• How do leadership practices vary among school

types?• How much do organizational settings and

teaching structures moderate the effects of school type on teacher professional community?

• Does the promotion of in-school organizational conditions and improved teacher press for learning in charter schools relate to student achievement?

• How do instructional practices differ between charter and traditional public school teachers?

• Who teaches in charter schools and why?3

School Sampling Frame for 2007-08 Schools tested by Northwest Evaluation

Association (NWEA) Fall-Spring student achievement data

320 schools of choice 221 charter public schools 67 magnet public schools 32 private

5,864 traditional public schools 337 after applying matching criteria

4

Matching Criteria for Choice & TPS School zip codes used to identify list of public schools Same state Geographic proximity Grade level configuration Percentage of students tested School-level demographic data

Common Core of Data (CCD) (2005-06) Private School Survey (PSS) Free and reduced price lunch Race/ethnicity

Allowed many-to-many matches

5

School Participation & Response Rates

284 schools agreed to participate Participation rate: 51% Charter, 49% Magnet, 53%

Private, 34% TPS

Survey response rate for principals was 78%

for teachers was 74%

6

Charter

Magnet

Private TPS Total

Participating schools 116 33 17 118 284

Participating schools with principal response

106 22 17 103 248

Number of teachers 2108 987 208 2872 6175

Methodological Concerns

• What do we mean by a high quality match?– Difficulties in matching process

• Need for replacement schools• Always of lower match quality

– Explored match quality through final sample and two subsamples

• Matched pairs within 20 miles• CS matched to TPS within 20 miles with closest propensity

score

• Diversity within the charter sector– Affiliations with management organizations

7

Match QualityWMSW Sample

Distance within 20 miles

Charter

TPS Charter

All TPS TPS w/min prop. score

diff.

Elementary grades .72 .61* .66 .66 .83

Middle grades .65 .31* .64 .27* .13*

High school grades .30 .15* .34 .12* .13*

White 49.4 64.5* 50.6 61.4* 61.9

Black 34.6 17.5* 31.2 18.2* 17.2*

Hispanic 12.2 12.7 13.3 15.5 16.5

Asian/Pacific Islander

2.9 3.3 3.6 3.5 3.2

Am. Indian/Alaskan 1.0 2.0 1.3 1.7 1.3

FRL .52 36.4* .48 .48 .39

School size 391.6 560.5* 372.5 498.6* 323.9

Students per grade 51.6 124.3* 50.3 111.8* 53.6

N 116 118 59 59 23

Charter AffiliationWMSW Distance within

20 miles

N % N %

No affiliation 59 50.8 43 72.9

Best Academy 35 30.2 11 18.6

Special Needs Academy

9 7.8 0 0

Other affiliations 13 11.2 5 8.5

9

Who Teaches in Charter Schools and Why?

• Teachers are most important resource for schools

• School choice theory predicts charter schools will use their flexibility to recruit different types of teachers

Research Questions:• How do teacher qualifications and characteristics

differ between charter and TPS?• How do teacher preferences for where to work

vary by school type?10

College Selectivity by Charter Affiliation

WMSW sample

Distance within 20 miles

Min propensity score diff

TPS 3.14 3.18 3.14

All charters 3.00* 3.07* 3.07

No affiliation 3.26* 3.21 3.21

Best Academy 2.84* 2.81* 2.81

Special Needs Academy

2.17* n/a n/a

Other affiliations 3.06 3.09 3.09

11

Teacher Job PreferencesFinal sample Pairs within 20 miles

CharterAll

TPSChart

er All TPSMin prop. score

diff.Principal support 0.404 0.458* 0.392 0.465* 0.502*Agreeing with the school's mission

0.349 0.185* 0.330 0.205* 0.144*

Like-minded educators 0.341 0.356 0.364 0.362 0.399Autonomy over teaching

0.260 0.229* 0.290 0.236* 0.202*

Positive reputation 0.242 0.380* 0.240 0.305* 0.292At-risk students 0.190 0.122* 0.188 0.149 0.144Innovative instruction 0.173 0.159 0.177 0.153 0.169Job security 0.164 0.194* 0.116 0.230* 0.202*Close to home 0.157 0.295* 0.157 0.276* 0.350*Opportunities for advancement

0.131 0.102* 0.105 0.100 0.058*

Small school 0.114 0.088* 0.127 0.092* 0.152N 1214 1872 645 791 243

Preference for Job Security

WMSW sample

Distance within 20

miles

Min. propensity score difference

TPS 19.4% 23.0% 20.2%

All charters 16.4* 11.6* 11.6*

No affiliation 9.7* 9.2* 9.2*

Best Academy 24.3* 19.4 19.4

Special Needs Academy

34.3* n/a n/a

Other affiliations 12.0* 6.5* 6.5*

13

Predicting Preference for Job Security

WMSW sample

Distance w/in 20 miles

Min. prop. score

difference

Distance w/in 20 miles

No affiliation -0.860*** -1.204*** -0.975** -1.093**

Best Academy -0.675 -1.688* -1.400 -1.540*

Special Needs Academy

0.707 n/a n/a n/a

Other affiliations

0.199 -0.287 -0.104 -0.131

Pscore -0.209

N 3086 1436 888 1436

Note: Other dependent variables include teacher qualifications and characteristics.

14

ConclusionsMatch quality does not matter Match quality matters

Affiliation does not matter

•CS teachers are less experienced, less certified, fewer advanced degrees

•CS teachers have a greater preference for agreeing with the school’s mission and less preference for working close to home

As sample is restricted:•TPS have fewer black teachers (and fewer than CS)

•TPS preference for school with positive reputation goes down (and more similar to CS)

Affiliation matters

•Non-affiliated CS teachers have a greater preference for autonomy and less preference for principal support or job security

•Other affiliated CS teachers have less preference for principal support

•College selectivity, midcareer, gender, percent Hispanic teachers

•Preferences for at-risk students, innovative instruction, small school, like-minded educators, opportunities to advance

www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice

National Center on School Choice

16