View all Articles
Commentary By Marcus A. Winters

Why Charters Serve Fewer English Learners

Education, Cities, Culture Pre K-12, New York City, Race

ELL students aren't encouraged to leave, but fewer of them apply

As charter schools continue their expansion, the most important question still facing New York City is whether the independently-run, lottery-admission public schools offer sufficiently welcoming environments to all students.

Public schools, traditional and charter alike, are legally and morally required to serve everyone, regardless of the challenges different students may pose.

Some charter school opponents contend that charters subtly or not-so-subtly encourage English Language Learners to leave, and that's one of the factors behind the often sterling academic record of charters.

Such critics correctly note that a smaller proportion of students in charters are, on average, classified as ELLs than in traditional public schools, while pointing to incidents of various charters pushing such difficult-to-educate students out the door.

The ELL gap varies by grade level, but is always substantial. For instance, in 2012 about 21% of students in traditional public schools were classified as ELL, compared with only about 8% of kindergarteners in charters.

If the current ELL enrollment gap between the city's charter and traditional public schools is to be narrowed, one must first establish whether charter schools' alleged hostility to ELL students is to blame.

A closer look at the data holds the answer. If charter schools were indeed systematically removing ELL students, one would expect these students to be more likely to leave for other schools than their counterparts in traditional public schools.

This is not the case. My analysis of student-level records over a four-year period finds that ELL students are substantially less likely to exit charters than to exit traditional public schools. Among those classified as ELL by kindergarten in 2008-09, for example, 82% who started in a charter school were enrolled in that same school four years later, compared with 70% who started in a traditional public school.

What then explains the ELL enrollment gap?

Charter advocates observe that students in charters tend to jettison their ELL label more quickly than those in traditional public schools. (To do so, students must demonstrate proficiency in English on a standardized state exam conducted each spring.)

While it is true that charter students do discharge their ELL labels more quickly, my research indicates that this is not a major determinant of the ELL gap, either.

In reality, the vast majority of the difference in student populations is explained by the fact that ELL students are far less likely to apply to attend charter schools in kindergarten (or the other “gateway” grades where students typically switch schools) than are non-ELL students.

Charters, in other words, are not failing to serve ELL students who choose to enroll. But they are failing to attract sufficient numbers of ELL students to enroll in the first place.

Why fewer ELL students are applying to charters is an open question. Children with immigrant parents may be less aware of charter-school options. Some parents may be under the incorrect impression that applying to charters is difficult.

And obviously, language barriers could be a problem.

Regardless, charter schools can clearly do more to recruit ELL students. (Recognizing the problem, some are already intensifying their efforts to boost enrollment among ELL students.)

The empirical fact that the current ELL enrollment gap is the product of application decisions, not exit decisions, has important implications: Policies focused on stopping charters from pressuring ELL students to leave will not meaningfully impact ELL enrollment rates.

New York's charter schools offer a better educational alternative for kids trapped in failing public schools of the traditional variety. It is up to charters now to make clear to parents that their doors are open and inviting to all children.

This piece originally appeared in New York Daily News

This piece originally appeared in New York Daily News