We're talking about the high-stakes tests, right? Charters give them too. There seems to be a different standard of accountability with the results though:
http://www.educationjustice.org/newsletters/nlej_iss21_art5_detail_CharterSchoolAchievement.htm
[div class="excerpt"}
Charter Schools Nationwide Not Better, Maybe Worse, than Public Schools *
Research on charter schools paints a mixed picture. A number of recent national studies have reached the same conclusion: charter schools do not, on average, show greater levels of student achievement, typically measured by standardized test scores, than public schools, and may even perform worse.
The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University found in a 2009 report that 17% of charter schools outperformed their public school equivalents, while 37% of charter schools performed worse than regular local schools, and the rest were about the same. A 2010 study by Mathematica Policy Research found that, on average, charter middle schools that held lotteries were neither more nor less successful than regular middle schools in improving student achievement, behavior, or school progress. Among the charter schools considered in the study, more had statistically significant negative effects on student achievement than statistically significant positive effects. These findings are echoed in a number of other studies.
Variations in Charter School Performance
While research tends to show that charters do not, on average, outperform public schools, these studies have found wide variation in charter quality.
Charter school performance may vary geographically. Studies by Caroline Hoxby and by the authors of the CREDO report both found that charter schools in the New York City tended to outperform public schools in the city, for example, while a 2009 study by the RAND Corporation found that charter middle schools appeared to be falling short of public middle schools in Chicago (in reading) and in Texas (in both reading and math).
Charter school research has also found variation based on student demographics and subject matter. A literature review of studies of charter schools concluded that they frequently produced higher test scores in elementary school reading and middle school math compared to public schools, although the effect sizes were small in the latter case, but that they often scored significantly lower in tests of high school reading and math. The Mathematica study found that charter schools serving the largest proportions of low income or low achieving students had positive effects on students' test scores, particularly in math; conversely, charter schools serving more advantaged or higher-achieving students had negative effects.
Despite all of this, the media is not calling for a crusade against charter schools or blaming unions for "failing" schools. The whole article is interesting, by the way. I actually don't like to use tests as a yardstick for "success", but since that is the metric we're using, it is compelling to ask why one system that is doing less well is allowed to go on like it is.
= new reply since forum marked as read